# Victims' Families Want To Air New 9/11 Truth Ad



## Mr. Jones

Spread the word and research what the real issues are with the NIST investigation and the problems the families of the victims of 9-11 and many others have with the explanation that was told to the country.


----------



## Terral

Hi Mr. Jones:



Mr. Jones said:


> Spread the word and research what the real issues are with the NIST investigation and the problems the families of the victims of 9-11 and many others have with the explanation that was told to the country.


The entire US Federal, State and Local Govts are corrupt to the core and nobody cares. We have an illegal alien in the White House for God sakes who like Bush and Clinton and Bush let illegal aliens run around everywhere doing whatever they please. The fake 911Movement is running in place and nobody is ever brought to 911Justice and that is never going to change in this pathetic and corrupt nation of liars, murderers and thieves. America is simply not America anymore and the sheeple need to get accustomed to living in a third-world country where police state brutality is commonplace and the average subject can barely afford to pay for food. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6K3Up3bEGQ]Christopher Sees Chaos Coming Too[/ame]

The time to get 9/11 right has already gone and the entire system is ready to collapse under the weight of DEBT and lawlessness.


----------



## Obamerican

Mr. Jones said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHo5hNCvLb4&feature=player_embedded
> 
> Spread the word and research what the real issues are with the NIST investigation and the problems the families of the victims of 9-11 and many others have with the explanation that was told to the country.


How many people died in the collapse of WTC7?


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHo5hNCvLb4&feature=player_embedded
> 
> Spread the word and research what the real issues are with the NIST investigation and the problems the families of the victims of 9-11 and many others have with the explanation that was told to the country.



Question for you Mr. Jones. On that site you are promoting, there is a quote from Chandler towards the bottom. Here is that quote:



			
				Chandle said:
			
		

> The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures.  All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.



Now, take a look at this part of his quote that I will hilite for you so you can see it.


			
				Chandler said:
			
		

> *All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second,*



Now I ask you. Every video I have seen shows the east penthouse collapsing into the building which means the support columns failed. Then it proceeded to the west. Then the facade fell.

Can you please explain to me how Chandler can make a quote such as that when CLEARLY all 24 columns and all 58 perimeter columns did not, REPEAT DID NOT, fail at the same time as he claims should have happened?

This is great stuff. He actually debunks himself.


----------



## Gamolon

Here's another quote from Chandler. One that makes you and evryone else looklike idiots, INCLUDING eots.



			
				Chandler said:
			
		

> What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall.  Acceleration doesnt build up gradually.  The graph [measuring the buildings descent] simply turns a corner.  The building went from full support to zero support instantly.



Hmmm.

Totally missed the .8 seconds of non free fall didn't he. Yeah. That's instantly.


----------



## Gamolon

No answers Mr. Jones?

Don't want to talk about how your man Chandler screwed up?

Didn't think so.


----------



## KissMy

No Explosives Gravity Collapse​
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o"]Many No Explosive Collapses[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIsE8CkZI6U&feature=related"]Progressive Collapse Proven[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYnVWQhAeH4"]Progressive Collapse Intiated on 3 Buildings [/ame]


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Now I ask you. Every video I have seen shows the east penthouse collapsing into the building which means the support columns failed. Then it proceeded to the west.


How exactly do you suppose these support columns failed in a building with low temp and sporadic fires?
And how do you explain the fact that IF even one of these low temp hydrocarbon fires, magically did cause the "thermal expansion", that the part of the building that was not on fire, therefore NOT weakened, didn't resist coming down... and instead came down at the same time as the weakened or "expanded"part?? Did it just want to cooperate and go along with the plan, and forgo laws of physics..namely resistance?
You're a joke 





> Then the facade fell.


 No moron..then the whole 47 story building came down in uniformity. What are you fucking blind,stupid or both?



> Can you please explain to me how Chandler can make a quote such as that when CLEARLY all 24 columns and all 58 perimeter columns did not, REPEAT DID NOT, fail at the same time as he claims should have happened?


 How do you know they did not? Oh wait....8 tenths of a second 
Have you tried using a stopwatch and stopping at .8 secs.? Insignificant retarded dribble..


> This is great stuff. He actually debunks himself.


 No this is great stuff..you make yourself look like an ignorant blind idiot.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> No answers Mr. Jones?
> 
> Don't want to talk about how your man Chandler screwed up?
> 
> Didn't think so.


 Sure...He screwed up so bad that he all by himself made NIST look like stupid liars when his calculations made them admit freefall..for 2.25 seconds! You are a damned fool! 
Oh but wait .8 tenths of a second!! LOL..


----------



## eots

Gamolon said:


> Here's another quote from Chandler. One that makes you and evryone else looklike idiots, INCLUDING eots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chandler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall.  Acceleration doesnt build up gradually.  The graph [measuring the buildings descent] simply turns a corner.  The building went from full support to zero support instantly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.
> 
> Totally missed the .8 seconds of non free fall didn't he. Yeah. That's instantly.
Click to expand...

 less than 1` sec lol...ya that explains everything I guess that means any controlled demolition with a point of a sec delay is actually a fire induced collapse


----------



## Mr. Jones

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another quote from Chandler. One that makes you and evryone else looklike idiots, INCLUDING eots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chandler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall.  Acceleration doesnt build up gradually.  The graph [measuring the buildings descent] simply turns a corner.  The building went from full support to zero support instantly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.
> 
> Totally missed the .8 seconds of non free fall didn't he. Yeah. That's instantly.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> less than 1` sec lol...ya that explains everything I guess that means any controlled demolition with a point of a sec delay is actually a fire induced collapse
Click to expand...


That seems to be what this fuck ball is implying..


----------



## Patriot911

Ahhhh, truthtard losers being suckered out of their money by a bunch of liars who milk them for all they are worth.    Couldn't happen to a nicer group of fucked up liars.  Think a commercial changes the truth?  Nope.  Just like Mr. Jones' videos with "clear explosions" of non-explosives going off proves the non-explosives.    Truthtard paranoia and delusions are getting worse I see.


----------



## KissMy

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ptw3pODh2Ig&NR=1"]Building Falls[/ame]


----------



## Mr. Jones

Patriot911 said:


> Ahhhh, truthtard losers being suckered out of their money by a bunch of liars who milk them for all they are worth.    Couldn't happen to a nicer group of fucked up liars.  Think a commercial changes the truth?  Nope.  Just like Mr. Jones' videos with "clear explosions" of non-explosives going off proves the non-explosives.    Truthtard paranoia and delusions are getting worse I see.


 Alright smartass perhaps you can share you knowledge by explaining away these facts about NIST's report? Why did NIST leave these important facts out?

No mention of eye witness accounts of personnel that were inside the structure reporting both hearing and feeling the effects of explosions, including a very credible witness, Mr. Barry Jennings, (along with Mr. Hess), who were trapped inside. (However NCSTAR 1A Section 3.4.1, Page 24 - third line and in other areas of the study, NIST does allow eyewitness accounts and personal interviews for other evidence; but not for the numerous accounts of blasts by eyewitnesses.)

No discussion of eyewitness, Michael Hess, NYC Corporation Council (actually INSIDE the building) stating: Another gentleman and I walked down to the 8th floor, where there was an explosion, and weve been trapped with all smoke around us for an hour and a half.

No mention of all the explosions reported that day by the firefighters and contained in the City of N.Y. Oral Histories.

No mention of the many many explosions reported by news anchors at the scene that day.  Recommend NIST reviews the following video on youtube:

Why weren't reports from emergency workers-addressed including-  We were watching the building actually cause is was on fire . . . and . . . we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder . . . turned around  we were shocked to see that the building was ah well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out . . . about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that.

And from Peter DeMarco, a New York Daily News Reporter-  At 5:30 p.m. there was a rumble. The buildings top row of windows popped out.  Then all the windows on the thirty ninth floor popped out. Then the thirty eighth floor.  Pop! Pop! Pop! was all you heard until the building sunk into a rising cloud of grey.

No mention of the eutectic steel found on the site, FEMA reported: The severe corrosion of and subsequent erosion of (steel) samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. A detailed study of the mechanism of this phenomenon is needed.  And the deep mystery of sulfur found on the steel quoted from *WPI Transformations Spring 2002: *The New York Times called these findings "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." The significance of the work on a sample from Building 7 and a structural column from one of the twin towers becomes apparent only when one sees these heavy chunks of damaged metal.  A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes. A eutectic compound is a mixture of two or more substances that melts at the lowest temperature of any mixture of its components. Blacksmiths took advantage of this property by welding over fires of sulfur-rich charcoal, which lowers the melting point of iron. In the World Trade Center fire, the presence of oxygen, sulfur and heat caused iron oxide and iron sulfide to form at the surface of structural steel members. This liquid slag corroded through intergranular channels into the body of the metal, causing severe erosion and a loss of structural integrity. 


An office fire will not cause a eutectic state for the steel found by FEMA.  Sulfur, from a thermite reaction, could very well cause this eutectic state. 

The peer reviewed air quality analysis that found at that the air in the area indicated the use of explosives, found at this site:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/fulltext.pdf

The dust samples with molten spheroids indicating the use of explosives-
9-11 Research: Aluminothermic Residues

The symmetrical collapse pattern of WTC 7 indicating the use of explosives, and the fact that is very difficult to make a building fall in such a way even using explosives, but has never fallen in such a way by gravity or fire induced forces alone-
FEMA WTC Performance Study reports-- Demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint requires such a skill that only a handful of demolition companies will attempt it. 
So, If its that difficult to create a perfectly symmetrical collapse with pre-planted charges, then its virtually impossible to make a structure fall this way due to an office fire and gravity alone, especially one that was partially weakened on its south west face due to impacts.

 They don't mention that the straight down, fall of the roof line, indicating simultaneous disconnection of all 58 perimeter columns at virtually the same time.  The NIST buckling simulation on one side would make the roof line tip, yet the roof fell parallel to the horizon.

The analysis by Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko, indicates that it was clearly a controlled demolition.

The small debris field that did little damage to the adjacent structures, indicative of a controlled demolition.

No one has even explained the many reports of red hot or molten steel in the debris, that simply cannot be made molten by an office fire.

No mention of FEMA Report 403, Appendix C that recommends further study of evidence of liquid steel that could be related to the cause of the collapse and should be studied further.

No mention of the count down by officials heard over the radio of the demolition reported by eye witnesses.

No mention as to why Mayor Giuliani decided not to use his state-of-the-art reinforced command center that day inside WTC 7 specifically designed for such an event.  

No mention of how Captain Michael Currid, President of the Uniformed Fire Officers Association, knew ahead of time that the building was coming down.
Someone from the citys Office of Emergency Management told him that WTC 7 was basically a lost cause and we should not loose anyone else trying to save it.  And Firefighter Vincent Massa said: We hung out for hours waiting for 7 to come down.

No mention of how the Mayor knew of impending building collapses when he said--
  I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the Head of Emergency Management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us.

No mention of the BBC footage with Jane Stanley, a BBC Reporter, live on the scene at around 5:00 p.m. announcing the collapse of the Solomon Brothers Building over 20 minutes before it actually collapsed. CNN had foreknowledge of the imminent collapse too,
We are getting information now that one of other buildings, building 7, in the world trade center complex is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing. I. You to be honest can see these pictures just a little bit more clearly than I, but Building number 7 one of the other buildings in this very large complex of buildings that is the Trade Center . . . there were -- there were -- and that is the right way to put it -- there were the two towers, but then there are a number of support buildings around it -- retail spaces, restaurants, office space, garages, the trains come in from New Jersey bringing commuters taking commuters back, come into the complex that is the World Trade Center, and now we are told there is a fire there and that building may collapse as well, as you can see. 

If no steel structure has ever collapsed due to fire and the fires inside WTC 7 were really not that extensive or hot, and firemen routinely enter and put out fires such as those in WTC 7, then how did they know that the building/s would come down?  On the other hand, if someone knew that the building was rigged with explosives,  it would explain all known evidence very easily.

All of this is clear proof that NIST has participated in a cover up, intentionally overlooked, or intentionally ignored. A CD explains the collapses better then the BS NIST has come up with.


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> How do you know they did not?



How do I know? Because the damn penthouse collapsed FIRST you fucking idiot. What the hell do you think was supporting the penthouse? Toothpicks? The columns below the penthouse clearly failed for it to collapse into the building BEFORE the perimeter facade came down. That means that the interior columns DID not fail/get removed at the same time as the facade columns. Chandler is an idiot.

Jesus H. Christ are you a moron. The lengths you go to to TRY and look intelligent on this subject is just beyond words.


----------



## eots

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know they did not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do I know? Because the damn penthouse collapsed FIRST you fucking idiot. What the hell do you think was supporting the penthouse? Toothpicks? The columns below the penthouse clearly failed for it to collapse into the building BEFORE the perimeter facade came down. That means that the interior columns DID not fail/get removed at the same time as the facade columns. Chandler is an idiot.
> 
> Jesus H. Christ are you a moron. The lengths you go to to TRY and look intelligent on this subject is just beyond words.
Click to expand...


so you are saying the building consisted of only columns supporting the penthouse and all others were "facaded columns"


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know they did not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do I know? Because the damn penthouse collapsed FIRST you fucking idiot. What the hell do you think was supporting the penthouse? Toothpicks? The columns below the penthouse clearly failed for it to collapse into the building BEFORE the perimeter facade came down. That means that the interior columns DID not fail/get removed at the same time as the facade columns. Chandler is an idiot.
> 
> Jesus H. Christ are you a moron. The lengths you go to to TRY and look intelligent on this subject is just beyond words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you are saying the building consisted of only columns supporting the penthouse and all others were "facaded columns"
Click to expand...


No.

There were 24 columns in the center of the building and 58 perimeter columns (facade) as shown here.





If column 79 failed, what happened to the loads that column 79 supported in that area? How many trusses and girders do you see attached to column 79 in the above diagram. Now multiply that by how many floors. Where did all that weight go when column 79 failed?


----------



## KissMy

mr. Jones said:


> no mention of the eutectic steel found on the site, fema reported: the severe corrosion of and subsequent erosion of (steel) samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. A detailed study of the mechanism of this phenomenon is needed.  and the deep mystery of sulfur found on the steel quoted from *wpi transformations spring 2002: *the new york times called these findings "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." the significance of the work on a sample from building 7 and a structural column from one of the twin towers becomes apparent only when one sees these heavy chunks of damaged metal.  A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes. A eutectic compound is a mixture of two or more substances that melts at the lowest temperature of any mixture of its components. Blacksmiths took advantage of this property by welding over fires of sulfur-rich charcoal, which lowers the melting point of iron. In the world trade center fire, the presence of oxygen, sulfur and heat caused iron oxide and iron sulfide to form at the surface of structural steel members. This liquid slag corroded through intergranular channels into the body of the metal, causing severe erosion and a loss of structural integrity.
> 
> an office fire will not cause a eutectic state for the steel found by fema.  Sulfur, from a thermite reaction, could very well cause this eutectic state.



The sulfur at WTC came from the rooms full of UPS batteries. Each of these UPS batteries weigh about 200 lbs. They are 6.6 times larger than a car battery. There were over 240 of these per UPS system times 6.6 equals 1,584 car batteries. Now that is a hell of a lot of destructive force. *Each of these batteries are full of highly corrosive sulfuric acid that will erode steel beams.* These batteries must be vented because they give off hydrogen & oxygen which are rocket fuel & highly explosive. Lots of people have had car batteries explode due to these gasses building up in the battery. Each of these battery explosions would be seven times more powerful. Packed tightly in racks many would go off at the same time. When heated or smashed they are more volatile.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do I know? Because the damn penthouse collapsed FIRST you fucking idiot. What the hell do you think was supporting the penthouse? Toothpicks? The columns below the penthouse clearly failed for it to collapse into the building BEFORE the perimeter facade came down. That means that the interior columns DID not fail/get removed at the same time as the facade columns. Chandler is an idiot.
> 
> Jesus H. Christ are you a moron. The lengths you go to to TRY and look intelligent on this subject is just beyond words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you are saying the building consisted of only columns supporting the penthouse and all others were "facaded columns"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> There were 24 columns in the center of the building and 58 perimeter columns (facade) as shown here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If column 79 failed, what happened to the loads that column 79 supported in that area? How many trusses and girders do you see attached to column 79 in the above diagram. Now multiply that by how many floors. Where did all that weight go when column 79 failed?
Click to expand...


Thermal expansion of floor beams breaking its beam seat connection and then causing a global collapse has never happened before, and very highly unlikely.  Structural engineers do not design connections for lateral forces from thermal expansion because it is so rare.  No structure before or after 9/11 has ever globally failed due to thermal expansion and its very doubtful if it was the cause of the collapse of WTC 7. 
 Thermal expansion for a 53 foot beam with a delta T of 654 F (752  body temp) is less then *2.7 inches*. 
If column 79 did distort due to the thermal expansion, we go back to what caused it, there is no solid proof that the fires were hot enough to cause this "house of card from the inside" collapse.
They are asking you to believe something that never ever happened before, all due to one column? Do you even take into account the safety factor that building was designed with, considering the multi million dollar security center upgrades?
You are more of a fool to believe such outrageous claims, the cartoonish computer model that looks nothing like the real collapse included.
People like you don't fathom the enormity and strength of the components used in these buildings, nor the fact that the damage was mostly localized, therefore the building should not have come down in a straight manner.














COMMAND CENTER





WTC 7 SQUIBS



All those attached beams and columns, and no sign of resistance-"There were 24 columns in the center of the building and 58 perimeter columns"-the outer facade-yet no sign of perimeter distortion, despite the columns being connected to them?

But you'll continue to say it didn't fall straight down and babble on about the penthouse, while failing to realize that the penthouse was attached to the roof, and we did NOT see the roofline distort to one side or the other, as the localized damage would have done, as the rigid part of the rest of the building would resist coming down.

When you add all the strange anomalies of that day, it's bad enough and highly suspicious, then throw in the absurdity of the 3 buildings coming down with all the characteristics of CD..well, it is simply too outrageous to believe.


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you are saying the building consisted of only columns supporting the penthouse and all others were "facaded columns"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> There were 24 columns in the center of the building and 58 perimeter columns (facade) as shown here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If column 79 failed, what happened to the loads that column 79 supported in that area? How many trusses and girders do you see attached to column 79 in the above diagram. Now multiply that by how many floors. Where did all that weight go when column 79 failed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thermal expansion of floor beams breaking its beam seat connection and then causing a global collapse has never happened before, and very highly unlikely.  Structural engineers do not design connections for lateral forces from thermal expansion because it is so rare.  No structure before or after 9/11 has ever globally failed due to thermal expansion and its very doubtful if it was the cause of the collapse of WTC 7.
> Thermal expansion for a 53 foot beam with a delta T of 654 F (752  body temp) is less then *2.7 inches*.
> If column 79 did distort due to the thermal expansion, we go back to what caused it, there is no solid proof that the fires were hot enough to cause this "house of card from the inside" collapse.
> They are asking you to believe something that never ever happened before, all due to one column? Do you even take into account the safety factor that building was designed with, considering the multi million dollar security center upgrades?
> You are more of a fool to believe such outrageous claims, the cartoonish computer model that looks nothing like the real collapse included.
> People like you don't fathom the enormity and strength of the components used in these buildings, nor the fact that the damage was mostly localized, therefore the building should not have come down in a straight manner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> COMMAND CENTER
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTC 7 SQUIBS
> 
> 
> 
> All those attached beams and columns, and no sign of resistance-"There were 24 columns in the center of the building and 58 perimeter columns"-the outer facade-yet no sign of perimeter distortion, despite the columns being connected to them?
> 
> But you'll continue to say it didn't fall straight down and babble on about the penthouse, while failing to realize that the penthouse was attached to the roof, and we did NOT see the roofline distort to one side or the other, as the localized damage would have done, as the rigid part of the rest of the building would resist coming down.
> 
> When you add all the strange anomalies of that day, it's bad enough and highly suspicious, then throw in the absurdity of the 3 buildings coming down with all the characteristics of CD..well, it is simply too outrageous to believe.
Click to expand...


And yet you ask everyone to just believe you, even though you have no evidence your bullshit is true and a building being rigged for CD in secret has never happened before.    You fucking hypocritical loser!  The irony is that you are so ignorant that you can't even see your own hypocricy!


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> WTC 7 SQUIBS



Wait... I thought you said everything was done with thermitic cutting charges.  Get your story straight, moron!  Thermitic cutting charges aren't high explosives and wouldn't cause squibs!  When are you going to start to realize you're contradicting yourself to the point you are completely irrelevant!


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTC 7 SQUIBS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait... I thought you said everything was done with thermitic cutting charges.  Get your story straight, moron!  Thermitic cutting charges aren't high explosives and wouldn't cause squibs!  When are you going to start to realize you're contradicting yourself to the point you are completely irrelevant!
Click to expand...


when are you going to stop pretending you understand explosives ?


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTC 7 SQUIBS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait... I thought you said everything was done with thermitic cutting charges.  Get your story straight, moron!  Thermitic cutting charges aren't high explosives and wouldn't cause squibs!  When are you going to start to realize you're contradicting yourself to the point you are completely irrelevant!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> when are you going to stop pretending you understand explosives ?
Click to expand...


  Thermitic cutting charges work through heat to melt through beams using gravity.  They don't move sideways and they're NOT high explosives.  The supposed squibs are caused by overpressure from the high explosives blowing them out.  Thermitic compounds don't do that.  Learn a fucking thing or two before you expose your ignorance to the world if you want to have any credibility!

Oops!  Too late!


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you are saying the building consisted of only columns supporting the penthouse and all others were "facaded columns"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> There were 24 columns in the center of the building and 58 perimeter columns (facade) as shown here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If column 79 failed, what happened to the loads that column 79 supported in that area? How many trusses and girders do you see attached to column 79 in the above diagram. Now multiply that by how many floors. Where did all that weight go when column 79 failed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thermal expansion of floor beams breaking its beam seat connection and then causing a global collapse has never happened before, and very highly unlikely.  Structural engineers do not design connections for lateral forces from thermal expansion because it is so rare.  No structure before or after 9/11 has ever globally failed due to thermal expansion and its very doubtful if it was the cause of the collapse of WTC 7.
> Thermal expansion for a 53 foot beam with a delta T of 654 F (752  body temp) is less then *2.7 inches*.
Click to expand...


Another dishonest post? Why do you continue to try and make it look like you are the one posting this stuff when in fact all you are doing is copy and pasting it from other sources? Trying to make it look like you know what you are talking about? Again, this sounded TOO intelligent to be you so I looked up another sentence and found where you got this.
RE: WTC7: Comments by Jonathan Cole

Here is the whole quote.


> *Comment:*  Thermal expansion of floor beams breaking its beam seat connection and then causing a global collapse has never happened before, and very highly unlikely.  Structural engineers do not design connections for lateral forces from thermal expansion because it is so rare.  No structure before or after 9/11 has ever globally failed due to thermal expansion and its very doubtful if it was the cause of the collapse of WTC 7.
> 
> *Reason for Comment*: Structural engineers do not design connections for lateral forces for thermal expansion because it is so rare.  Thermal expansion for a 53 foot beam with a delta T of 654 F (752  body temp) is less then 2.7 inches.



You even removed the "Comment" and "No comment" fields you dishonest fuck.


----------



## Gamolon

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait... I thought you said everything was done with thermitic cutting charges.  Get your story straight, moron!  Thermitic cutting charges aren't high explosives and wouldn't cause squibs!  When are you going to start to realize you're contradicting yourself to the point you are completely irrelevant!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when are you going to stop pretending you understand explosives ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thermitic cutting charges work through heat to melt through beams using gravity.  They don't move sideways and they're NOT high explosives.  The supposed squibs are caused by overpressure from the high explosives blowing them out.  Thermitic compounds don't do that.  Learn a fucking thing or two before you expose your ignorance to the world if you want to have any credibility!
> 
> Oops!  Too late!
Click to expand...


Hey Mr. Jones/eots? I thought they blew out 8 floors near the bottom? What purpose would blowing out top facade columns have to do with this claim? You guys are truly morons. You contradict yourselves at every turn.


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know they did not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do I know? Because the damn penthouse collapsed FIRST you fucking idiot. What the hell do you think was supporting the penthouse? Toothpicks? The columns below the penthouse clearly failed for it to collapse into the building BEFORE the perimeter facade came down. That means that the interior columns DID not fail/get removed at the same time as the facade columns. Chandler is an idiot.
> 
> Jesus H. Christ are you a moron. The lengths you go to to TRY and look intelligent on this subject is just beyond words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you are saying the building consisted of only columns supporting the penthouse and all others were "facaded columns"
Click to expand...


Hey eots. What have you got to say now. One of your one kind has posted information that shows you to be a complete ass. Remember when you said structural engineers design for thermal expansion due to fires? 



Mr. Jones said:


> Structural engineers do not design connections for lateral forces from thermal expansion because it is so rare.



Better set your bitch straight and get on the same page.

D-bags.


----------



## PhysicsExist

AE911Truth.org
Military Officers for 9/11 Truth
Scientists for 9/11 Truth
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
Fire Fighters For 9-11 Truth » FF 911 Truth
Lawyers for 9/11 Truth
Pilots For 9/11 Truth
Scholars For 9/11 Truth


----------



## Patriot911

PhysicsExist said:


> AE911Truth.org
> Military Officers for 9/11 Truth
> Scientists for 9/11 Truth
> www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
> Fire Fighters For 9-11 Truth » FF 911 Truth
> Lawyers for 9/11 Truth
> Pilots For 9/11 Truth
> Scholars For 9/11 Truth



I see PE is still incapable of anything other than cut and paste.    I guess he got all the argument bitch slapped out of him.


----------



## PhysicsExist

Patriot911 said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> 
> AE911Truth.org
> Military Officers for 9/11 Truth
> Scientists for 9/11 Truth
> www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
> Fire Fighters For 9-11 Truth » FF 911 Truth
> Lawyers for 9/11 Truth
> Pilots For 9/11 Truth
> Scholars For 9/11 Truth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see PE is still incapable of anything other than cut and paste.    I guess he got all the argument bitch slapped out of him.
Click to expand...


I haven't posted anything in here yet.  What argument?  At least follow Cass sunstein rules more covertly... 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHo5hNCvLb4&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Help put this TV Ad on the Air -- Go to RememberBuilding7.org[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related]YouTube - WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)[/ame]


----------



## eots

patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wait... I thought you said everything was done with thermitic cutting charges.  Get your story straight, moron!  Thermitic cutting charges aren't high explosives and wouldn't cause squibs!  When are you going to start to realize you're contradicting yourself to the point you are completely irrelevant!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when are you going to stop pretending you understand explosives ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thermitic cutting charges work through heat to melt through beams using gravity.  They don't move sideways and they're not high explosives.  The supposed squibs are caused by overpressure from the high explosives blowing them out.  Thermitic compounds don't do that.  Learn a fucking thing or two before you expose your ignorance to the world if you want to have any credibility!
> 
> Oops!  Too late!
Click to expand...


your information is inaccurate and incomplete as always


----------



## JiggsCasey

LIHOP > MIHOP

Certainly in terms of court-admissible evidence. Just the fact that the money trail was never followed is a reality that makes coincitards' head explode.


----------



## PhysicsExist

PhysicsExist said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> 
> AE911Truth.org
> Military Officers for 9/11 Truth
> Scientists for 9/11 Truth
> www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
> Fire Fighters For 9-11 Truth » FF 911 Truth
> Lawyers for 9/11 Truth
> Pilots For 9/11 Truth
> Scholars For 9/11 Truth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see PE is still incapable of anything other than cut and paste.    I guess he got all the argument bitch slapped out of him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't posted anything in here yet.  What argument?  At least follow Cass sunstein rules more covertly...
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHo5hNCvLb4&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Help put this TV Ad on the Air -- Go to RememberBuilding7.org[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related]YouTube - WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)[/ame]
Click to expand...


YouTube - ae911truth&#39;s Channel


----------



## Gamolon

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do I know? Because the damn penthouse collapsed FIRST you fucking idiot. What the hell do you think was supporting the penthouse? Toothpicks? The columns below the penthouse clearly failed for it to collapse into the building BEFORE the perimeter facade came down. That means that the interior columns DID not fail/get removed at the same time as the facade columns. Chandler is an idiot.
> 
> Jesus H. Christ are you a moron. The lengths you go to to TRY and look intelligent on this subject is just beyond words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you are saying the building consisted of only columns supporting the penthouse and all others were "facaded columns"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey eots. What have you got to say now. One of your one kind has posted information that shows you to be a complete ass. Remember when you said structural engineers design for thermal expansion due to fires?
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Structural engineers do not design connections for lateral forces from thermal expansion because it is so rare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better set your bitch straight and get on the same page.
> 
> D-bags.
Click to expand...


No comments eots you witless goon?

I thought you said that structural engineers design and calculate allowances for thermal expansion due to office fires????

Seems you were just guessing at this point eh? Which is why you refused to provide a link or source for your claim. Typical truther underhanded tactics. 

They don't design for thermal expansion from office fires. It's a RIGID support system designed to support loads you asshole.


----------



## SFC Ollie

They really haven't a clue. They want it to be a conspiracy soooo bad that they cannot see the facts and their own contradictions.

It's true, just ask any of them, they'll tell you.....

They blew out the bottom of Bldg 7 and caused the squibs at the top with silent explosions but they used super secret nano something and there was a count down that only sounded like it might have been a countdown and there was no plane in Shanksville except that it was shot down and flight77 flew over the top of the pentagon and turned invisible because no one saw it fly away.........

It's so confusing to be a truther......


----------



## eots

sfc ollie said:


> they really haven't a clue. They want it to be a conspiracy soooo bad that they cannot see the facts and their own contradictions.
> 
> It's true, just ask any of them, they'll tell you.....
> 
> They blew out the bottom of bldg 7 and caused the squibs at the top with silent explosions but they used super secret nano something and there was a count down that only sounded like it might have been a countdown and there was no plane in shanksville except that it was shot down and flight77 flew over the top of the pentagon and turned invisible because no one saw it fly away.........
> 
> It's so confusing to be a truther......



looks like you went from a elf to garden gnome in yer old age


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> they really haven't a clue. They want it to be a conspiracy soooo bad that they cannot see the facts and their own contradictions.
> 
> It's true, just ask any of them, they'll tell you.....
> 
> They blew out the bottom of bldg 7 and caused the squibs at the top with silent explosions but they used super secret nano something and there was a count down that only sounded like it might have been a countdown and there was no plane in shanksville except that it was shot down and flight77 flew over the top of the pentagon and turned invisible because no one saw it fly away.........
> 
> It's so confusing to be a truther......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> looks like you went from a elf to garden gnome in yer old age
Click to expand...


Yet he could still piss all over you....    Snakes in the grass never amount to much.

Isn't it fun bashing other people instead of addressing the topic at hand, eots?  The difference is I can address the topic.  You can try, but your claims always end up smelling like shit and looking worse.


----------



## eots

patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> they really haven't a clue. They want it to be a conspiracy soooo bad that they cannot see the facts and their own contradictions.
> 
> It's true, just ask any of them, they'll tell you.....
> 
> They blew out the bottom of bldg 7 and caused the squibs at the top with silent explosions but they used super secret nano something and there was a count down that only sounded like it might have been a countdown and there was no plane in shanksville except that it was shot down and flight77 flew over the top of the pentagon and turned invisible because no one saw it fly away.........
> *
> it's so confusing to be a truther..*....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> looks like you went from a elf to garden gnome in yer old age
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yet he could still piss all over you....    Snakes in the grass never amount to much.
> 
> Isn't it fun bashing other people instead of addressing the topic at hand, eots?  The difference is i can address the topic.  You can try, but your claims always end up smelling like shit and looking worse.
Click to expand...


you say nothing of relevance ever


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> looks like you went from a elf to garden gnome in yer old age
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yet he could still piss all over you....    Snakes in the grass never amount to much.
> 
> Isn't it fun bashing other people instead of addressing the topic at hand, eots?  The difference is i can address the topic.  You can try, but your claims always end up smelling like shit and looking worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you say nothing of relevance ever
Click to expand...

See?  Another bullshit one liner from eots that bears no resemblance to the truth!    You are very consistantly dishonest, eots.  Still doesn't change the fact Ollie could piss all over a snake like you even if he were a garden gnome.


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yet he could still piss all over you....    Snakes in the grass never amount to much.
> 
> Isn't it fun bashing other people instead of addressing the topic at hand, eots?  The difference is i can address the topic.  You can try, but your claims always end up smelling like shit and looking worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you say nothing of relevance ever
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See?  Another bullshit one liner from eots that bears no resemblance to the truth!    You are very consistantly dishonest, eots.  Still doesn't change the fact Ollie could piss all over a snake like you even if he were a garden gnome.
Click to expand...


what ? did you say something ?


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> you say nothing of relevance ever
> 
> 
> 
> See?  Another bullshit one liner from eots that bears no resemblance to the truth!    You are very consistantly dishonest, eots.  Still doesn't change the fact Ollie could piss all over a snake like you even if he were a garden gnome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what ? did you say something ?
Click to expand...


Yeah.  As usual it went over your head.    Happens all the time to snakes in the grass.  Must be why you're so woefully uninformed.


----------



## SFC Ollie

The photo was taken yesterday, yes the age is showing in the grey facial hair and the extra 20 pounds. Age does things like that. But I can still do everything I could do 30 years ago. Which would include handling any little physical problems that might pop up.

Now that we have that out of the way, any actual evidence yet?





Didn't think so....


----------



## whitehall

If it wasn't the jihad who done it? We know that the jihad hijackers were going to flight school in the US during the Clinton administration so the conspiracy has to go back that far. If Clinton wasn't involved and  Bush was only in office for about seven months dealing with Clinton appointees ....who did it...the IRA?


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> The photo was taken yesterday, yes the age is showing in the grey facial hair and the extra 20 pounds. Age does things like that. But I can still do everything I could do 30 years ago. Which would include handling any little physical problems that might pop up.
> 
> Now that we have that out of the way, any actual evidence yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't think so....



 yer lookin good buddy... pay me no mind


----------



## whitehall

Victims families don't want to hear from conspiracy nuts. I'm tired of this shit. If Clinton didn't do it who do the conspiracy fanatics think did the inside job? I'm serious, who do you conspiracy people think had the skill and the timing to coordinate with crazy jihadists to blow up the WTC from the inside? The IRA? The Skull and Crossbones frat club?


----------



## eots

whitehall said:


> victims families don't want to hear from conspiracy nuts. I'm tired of this shit. If clinton didn't do it who do the conspiracy fanatics think did the inside job? I'm serious, who do you conspiracy people think had the skill and the timing to coordinate with crazy jihadists to blow up the wtc from the inside? The ira? The skull and crossbones frat club?



the same people that preform the other covert operations within the government..they possess a lot more resources and power than any muslim student could ever dream of....and yes indeed skull and bones...only 500 living members yet two of them are your only choices for president in the land of the free where anyone could be president


----------



## eots

*9/11 Survivors and Family Members 
Question the 9/11 Commission Report*

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## Gamolon

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> There were 24 columns in the center of the building and 58 perimeter columns (facade) as shown here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If column 79 failed, what happened to the loads that column 79 supported in that area? How many trusses and girders do you see attached to column 79 in the above diagram. Now multiply that by how many floors. Where did all that weight go when column 79 failed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thermal expansion of floor beams breaking its beam seat connection and then causing a global collapse has never happened before, and very highly unlikely.  Structural engineers do not design connections for lateral forces from thermal expansion because it is so rare.  No structure before or after 9/11 has ever globally failed due to thermal expansion and its very doubtful if it was the cause of the collapse of WTC 7.
> Thermal expansion for a 53 foot beam with a delta T of 654 F (752  body temp) is less then *2.7 inches*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another dishonest post? Why do you continue to try and make it look like you are the one posting this stuff when in fact all you are doing is copy and pasting it from other sources? Trying to make it look like you know what you are talking about? Again, this sounded TOO intelligent to be you so I looked up another sentence and found where you got this.
> RE: WTC7: Comments by Jonathan Cole
> 
> Here is the whole quote.
> 
> 
> 
> *Comment:*  Thermal expansion of floor beams breaking its beam seat connection and then causing a global collapse has never happened before, and very highly unlikely.  Structural engineers do not design connections for lateral forces from thermal expansion because it is so rare.  No structure before or after 9/11 has ever globally failed due to thermal expansion and its very doubtful if it was the cause of the collapse of WTC 7.
> 
> *Reason for Comment*: Structural engineers do not design connections for lateral forces for thermal expansion because it is so rare.  Thermal expansion for a 53 foot beam with a delta T of 654 F (752  body temp) is less then 2.7 inches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You even removed the "Comment" and "No comment" fields you dishonest fuck.
Click to expand...


What's the matter Mr. Jones? Get caught being a dishonest asshole and then can't show your face to admit it?


----------



## Gamolon

Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you are saying the building consisted of only columns supporting the penthouse and all others were "facaded columns"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey eots. What have you got to say now. One of your one kind has posted information that shows you to be a complete ass. Remember when you said structural engineers design for thermal expansion due to fires?
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Structural engineers do not design connections for lateral forces from thermal expansion because it is so rare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better set your bitch straight and get on the same page.
> 
> D-bags.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No comments eots you witless goon?
> 
> I thought you said that structural engineers design and calculate allowances for thermal expansion due to office fires????
> 
> Seems you were just guessing at this point eh? Which is why you refused to provide a link or source for your claim. Typical truther underhanded tactics.
> 
> They don't design for thermal expansion from office fires. It's a RIGID support system designed to support loads you asshole.
Click to expand...


No comment eots? I thought engineers designed for thermal expansion due to office fires?


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thermal expansion of floor beams breaking its beam seat connection and then causing a global collapse has never happened before, and very highly unlikely.  Structural engineers do not design connections for lateral forces from thermal expansion because it is so rare.  No structure before or after 9/11 has ever globally failed due to thermal expansion and its very doubtful if it was the cause of the collapse of WTC 7.
> Thermal expansion for a 53 foot beam with a delta T of 654 F (752  body temp) is less then *2.7 inches*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another dishonest post? Why do you continue to try and make it look like you are the one posting this stuff when in fact all you are doing is copy and pasting it from other sources? Trying to make it look like you know what you are talking about? Again, this sounded TOO intelligent to be you so I looked up another sentence and found where you got this.
> RE: WTC7: Comments by Jonathan Cole
> 
> Here is the whole quote.
> 
> 
> 
> *Comment:*  Thermal expansion of floor beams breaking its beam seat connection and then causing a global collapse has never happened before, and very highly unlikely.  Structural engineers do not design connections for lateral forces from thermal expansion because it is so rare.  No structure before or after 9/11 has ever globally failed due to thermal expansion and its very doubtful if it was the cause of the collapse of WTC 7.
> 
> *Reason for Comment*: Structural engineers do not design connections for lateral forces for thermal expansion because it is so rare.  Thermal expansion for a 53 foot beam with a delta T of 654 F (752  body temp) is less then 2.7 inches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You even removed the "Comment" and "No comment" fields you dishonest fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the matter Mr. Jones? Get caught being a dishonest asshole and then can't show your face to admit it?
Click to expand...


Dishonesty is your forte asswipe, I've explained this to you already. but you obviously have absolutely nothing to back up your crazy assumptions that 
the building did not fall  straight down, 
or that CD technology could not possibly been used to assist the collapse of WTC 7,
 or that displaced damage to a building  will make it collapse in a uniform fashion
, or that the rigid part of a structure will not try to resist collapsing.
You haven't proved any of your assertions, and because of this you have to resort to sidetracking the discussion  like the worthless troll that you are.
Here try to explain these other fires that have not caused the buildings to collapse, with 2.25 secs. of freefall.You haven't even tried to address the 1975 fire in the N tower, and explained to us why the tower didn't collapse even partially!!
Or why didn't the Empire State building collapse or even partially collapse when it was hit in 1945?
Here's the link fuckwad have at it.
9-11 Research: Other Skyscraper Fires


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another dishonest post? Why do you continue to try and make it look like you are the one posting this stuff when in fact all you are doing is copy and pasting it from other sources? Trying to make it look like you know what you are talking about? Again, this sounded TOO intelligent to be you so I looked up another sentence and found where you got this.
> RE: WTC7: Comments by Jonathan Cole
> 
> Here is the whole quote.
> 
> 
> You even removed the "Comment" and "No comment" fields you dishonest fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the matter Mr. Jones? Get caught being a dishonest asshole and then can't show your face to admit it?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dishonesty is your forte asswipe, I've explained this to you already. but you obviously have absolutely nothing to back up your crazy assumptions that
> the building did not fall  straight down,
> or that CD technology could not possibly been used to assist the collapse of WTC 7,
> or that displaced damage to a building  will make it collapse in a uniform fashion
> , or that the rigid part of a structure will not try to resist collapsing.
> You haven't proved any of your assertions, and because of this you have to resort to sidetracking the discussion  like the worthless troll that you are.
> Here try to explain these other fires that have not caused the buildings to collapse, with 2.25 secs. of freefall.You haven't even tried to address the 1975 fire in the N tower, and explained to us why the tower didn't collapse even partially!!
> Or why didn't the Empire State building collapse or even partially collapse when it was hit in 1945?
> Here's the link fuckwad have at it.
> 9-11 Research: Other Skyscraper Fires
Click to expand...


ask the asswipe troll how come all protocals were violated that day,evidence was destroyed and removed and not one person lost their job for their alleged incompetence at NORAD or nobody arrested for the illegal destruction of evidence.thats why all these 9/11 discussions are all for nothing,the case is closed that it was an inside job.these shills and Brainwashed Bush dupes cant get around that fact which is why all these 9/11 discussions are mute. The Minnesota senator asked those questions to congress and was removed from office shortly after that.anytime people in government question the official version they get removed from office.why waste time with trolls like him when they cant get around these facts?


----------



## eots

gamolon said:


> gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey eots. What have you got to say now. One of your one kind has posted information that shows you to be a complete ass. Remember when you said structural engineers design for thermal expansion due to fires?
> 
> 
> 
> Better set your bitch straight and get on the same page.
> 
> D-bags.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no comments eots you witless goon?
> 
> I thought you said that structural engineers design and calculate allowances for thermal expansion due to office fires????
> 
> Seems you were just guessing at this point eh? Which is why you refused to provide a link or source for your claim. Typical truther underhanded tactics.
> 
> They don't design for thermal expansion from office fires. It's a rigid support system designed to support loads you asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no comment eots? I thought engineers designed for thermal expansion due to office fires?
Click to expand...


i said that engineers are well  of the effects of fire on a steel framed hi-rise and take it in to consideration in the design are you  actually trying to say they are not aware of the effects of fire and do not consider it in the design


----------



## PhysicsExist

Explosive Residues
Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site.  In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:_

&#8220;[T]he 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.&#8221;

REFERENCES

 Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, &#8220;Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,&#8221; Bentham Open Access, 2009.  http://rememberbuilding7.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf

Building 7 was a 47-story skyscraper and was part of the World Trade Center complex. Built in 1984, it would have been the tallest high-rise in 33 states in the United States. It collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, 2001. It was not hit by an airplane and suffered minimal damage compared to other buildings much closer to the Twin Towers.

7 FACTS ABOUT BUILDING 7

1) If fire caused Building 7 to collapse, it would be the first ever fire-induced collapse of a steel-frame high-rise.

2) Building 7&#8217;s collapse was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.

3) According to a Zogby poll in 2006, 43% of Americans did not know about Building 7.

4) It took the federal government seven years to conduct an investigation and issue a report for Building 7.

5) 1,400+ architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for a new investigation that would include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives for the collapse of Building 7.

6) Numerous witnesses say the possibility of demolishing Building 7 was widely discussed by emergency personnel at the scene and advocated by the building&#8217;s owner.

7) Building 7 housed several intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and the NYC Office of Emergency Management&#8217;s Emergency Operations Center, more commonly known as &#8220;Giuliani&#8217;s Bunker&#8221;._


----------



## SFC Ollie

7 FACTS ABOUT BUILDING 7

1) If fire caused Building 7 to collapse, it would be the first ever fire-induced collapse of a steel-frame high-rise.
There is a first time for everything. 

2) Building 7s collapse was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.
It was not the purpose of the 911CR to explain the physics of the collapses but to show who did what to cause it all to happen.
3) According to a Zogby poll in 2006, 43% of Americans did not know about Building 7.
Because it is just another building of about 10 that were destroyed because of this attack. Some we had to demolish later.
4) It took the federal government seven years to conduct an investigation and issue a report for Building 7.
Must have been a pretty thorough report.

5) 1,400+ architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for a new investigation that would include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives for the collapse of Building 7.
1400 = about 0.01% of those in the United States, and that would be on the high side.

6) Numerous witnesses say the possibility of demolishing Building 7 was widely discussed by emergency personnel at the scene and advocated by the buildings owner.
AND?

7) Building 7 housed several intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and the NYC Office of Emergency Managements Emergency Operations Center, more commonly known as Giulianis Bunker.
A good reason not to destroy the building.


DUH!


----------



## PhysicsExist

SFC Ollie said:


> 7 FACTS ABOUT BUILDING 7
> 
> 1) If fire caused Building 7 to collapse, it would be the first ever fire-induced collapse of a steel-frame high-rise.
> There is a first time for everything.
> 
> 2) Building 7&#8217;s collapse was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.
> It was not the purpose of the 911CR to explain the physics of the collapses but to show who did what to cause it all to happen.
> 3) According to a Zogby poll in 2006, 43% of Americans did not know about Building 7.
> Because it is just another building of about 10 that were destroyed because of this attack. Some we had to demolish later.
> 4) It took the federal government seven years to conduct an investigation and issue a report for Building 7.
> Must have been a pretty thorough report.
> 
> 5) 1,400+ architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for a new investigation that would include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives for the collapse of Building 7.
> 1400 = about 0.01% of those in the United States, and that would be on the high side.
> 
> 6) Numerous witnesses say the possibility of demolishing Building 7 was widely discussed by emergency personnel at the scene and advocated by the building&#8217;s owner.
> AND?
> 
> 7) Building 7 housed several intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and the NYC Office of Emergency Management&#8217;s Emergency Operations Center, more commonly known as &#8220;Giuliani&#8217;s Bunker&#8221;.
> A good reason not to destroy the building.
> 
> 
> DUH!



Remember Building 7 | Stand with the 9-11 families demanding a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ?

Military Officers for 9/11 Truth
*As officers in the U.S. military, we took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Regardless of our current status -- active duty, reserves, retired, or civilian -- that oath remains in force.*

Therefore it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, how much we have to suffer, or where it leads us. We owe this to those who have gone before us who executed that same oath, and we owe it to those who are following that same oath today in Iraq and Afghanistan. We believe the official account of 9/11 as defined in the 9/11 Commission Report is grossly inaccurate and fatally flawed. It is imperative that we have an accurate understanding of 9/11 so that those responsible can be identified and brought to justice in order that they and similarly-minded people never again commit such heinous crimes. It is also imperative that we have an accurate understanding of 9/11 so that governmental policies resulting from 9/11 are based on truth rather than deception.

_We join with other organizations of professionals, such as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, and Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, and millions of individual citizens in demanding a thorough, impartial, open and transparent reinvestigation of the terrorist acts of 9/11._


----------



## SFC Ollie

PhysicsExist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 7 FACTS ABOUT BUILDING 7
> 
> 1) If fire caused Building 7 to collapse, it would be the first ever fire-induced collapse of a steel-frame high-rise.
> There is a first time for everything.
> 
> 2) Building 7s collapse was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.
> It was not the purpose of the 911CR to explain the physics of the collapses but to show who did what to cause it all to happen.
> 3) According to a Zogby poll in 2006, 43% of Americans did not know about Building 7.
> Because it is just another building of about 10 that were destroyed because of this attack. Some we had to demolish later.
> 4) It took the federal government seven years to conduct an investigation and issue a report for Building 7.
> Must have been a pretty thorough report.
> 
> 5) 1,400+ architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for a new investigation that would include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives for the collapse of Building 7.
> 1400 = about 0.01% of those in the United States, and that would be on the high side.
> 
> 6) Numerous witnesses say the possibility of demolishing Building 7 was widely discussed by emergency personnel at the scene and advocated by the buildings owner.
> AND?
> 
> 7) Building 7 housed several intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and the NYC Office of Emergency Managements Emergency Operations Center, more commonly known as Giulianis Bunker.
> A good reason not to destroy the building.
> 
> 
> DUH!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember Building 7 | Stand with the 9-11 families demanding a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ?
> 
> Military Officers for 9/11 Truth
> *As officers in the U.S. military, we took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Regardless of our current status -- active duty, reserves, retired, or civilian -- that oath remains in force.*
> 
> Therefore it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, how much we have to suffer, or where it leads us. We owe this to those who have gone before us who executed that same oath, and we owe it to those who are following that same oath today in Iraq and Afghanistan. We believe the official account of 9/11 as defined in the 9/11 Commission Report is grossly inaccurate and fatally flawed. It is imperative that we have an accurate understanding of 9/11 so that those responsible can be identified and brought to justice in order that they and similarly-minded people never again commit such heinous crimes. It is also imperative that we have an accurate understanding of 9/11 so that governmental policies resulting from 9/11 are based on truth rather than deception.
> 
> _We join with other organizations of professionals, such as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, and Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, and millions of individual citizens in demanding a thorough, impartial, open and transparent reinvestigation of the terrorist acts of 9/11._
Click to expand...


Child you have been owned again.... LOL


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 7 FACTS ABOUT BUILDING 7
> 
> 1) If fire caused Building 7 to collapse, it would be the first ever fire-induced collapse of a steel-frame high-rise.
> There is a first time for everything.
> 
> 2) Building 7s collapse was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.
> It was not the purpose of the 911CR to explain the physics of the collapses but to show who did what to cause it all to happen.
> 3) According to a Zogby poll in 2006, 43% of Americans did not know about Building 7.
> Because it is just another building of about 10 that were destroyed because of this attack. Some we had to demolish later.
> 4) It took the federal government seven years to conduct an investigation and issue a report for Building 7.
> Must have been a pretty thorough report.
> 
> 5) 1,400+ architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for a new investigation that would include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives for the collapse of Building 7.
> 1400 = about 0.01% of those in the United States, and that would be on the high side.
> 
> 6) Numerous witnesses say the possibility of demolishing Building 7 was widely discussed by emergency personnel at the scene and advocated by the buildings owner.
> AND?
> 
> 7) Building 7 housed several intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and the NYC Office of Emergency Managements Emergency Operations Center, more commonly known as Giulianis Bunker.
> A good reason not to destroy the building.
> 
> 
> DUH!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember Building 7 | Stand with the 9-11 families demanding a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ?
> 
> Military Officers for 9/11 Truth
> *As officers in the U.S. military, we took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Regardless of our current status -- active duty, reserves, retired, or civilian -- that oath remains in force.*
> 
> Therefore it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, how much we have to suffer, or where it leads us. We owe this to those who have gone before us who executed that same oath, and we owe it to those who are following that same oath today in Iraq and Afghanistan. We believe the official account of 9/11 as defined in the 9/11 Commission Report is grossly inaccurate and fatally flawed. It is imperative that we have an accurate understanding of 9/11 so that those responsible can be identified and brought to justice in order that they and similarly-minded people never again commit such heinous crimes. It is also imperative that we have an accurate understanding of 9/11 so that governmental policies resulting from 9/11 are based on truth rather than deception.
> 
> _We join with other organizations of professionals, such as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, and Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, and millions of individual citizens in demanding a thorough, impartial, open and transparent reinvestigation of the terrorist acts of 9/11._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Child you have been owned again.... LOL
Click to expand...


how ? by whom ?....try again  olie..you are starting to sound like cornyhole


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another dishonest post? Why do you continue to try and make it look like you are the one posting this stuff when in fact all you are doing is copy and pasting it from other sources? Trying to make it look like you know what you are talking about? Again, this sounded TOO intelligent to be you so I looked up another sentence and found where you got this.
> RE: WTC7: Comments by Jonathan Cole
> 
> Here is the whole quote.
> 
> 
> You even removed the "Comment" and "No comment" fields you dishonest fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the matter Mr. Jones? Get caught being a dishonest asshole and then can't show your face to admit it?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dishonesty is your forte asswipe, I've explained this to you already. but you obviously have absolutely nothing to back up your crazy assumptions that
> the building did not fall  straight down,
> or that CD technology could not possibly been used to assist the collapse of WTC 7,
> or that displaced damage to a building  will make it collapse in a uniform fashion
> , or that the rigid part of a structure will not try to resist collapsing.
> You haven't proved any of your assertions, and because of this you have to resort to sidetracking the discussion  like the worthless troll that you are.
> Here try to explain these other fires that have not caused the buildings to collapse, with 2.25 secs. of freefall.You haven't even tried to address the 1975 fire in the N tower, and explained to us why the tower didn't collapse even partially!!
> Or why didn't the Empire State building collapse or even partially collapse when it was hit in 1945?
> Here's the link fuckwad have at it.
> 9-11 Research: Other Skyscraper Fires
Click to expand...


Hey stupid.

I have asked this of you and your ilk before and nobody has an answer. Please show me which of those buildings you are comparing have the same characteristics as the twin towers and/or WTC7...

Twin towers.
1. Hit by a jet in the upper third, damaging support steel
2. Fires then ensuing after impact
3. The same tube in tube, all steel design

WTC7.
1. Same design as WTC7
2. Unfought fires because of no sprinkler system

Point out which buildings you have as a comparison that match those characteristics. If you can;t then you have NO COMPARISONS in which to prove me wrong.

I'll wait right here.


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> no comments eots you witless goon?
> 
> I thought you said that structural engineers design and calculate allowances for thermal expansion due to office fires????
> 
> Seems you were just guessing at this point eh? Which is why you refused to provide a link or source for your claim. Typical truther underhanded tactics.
> 
> They don't design for thermal expansion from office fires. It's a rigid support system designed to support loads you asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no comment eots? I thought engineers designed for thermal expansion due to office fires?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i said that engineers are well  of the effects of fire on a steel framed hi-rise and take it in to consideration in the design are you  actually trying to say they are not aware of the effects of fire and do not consider it in the design
Click to expand...


And I asked you many times, yet you keep ignoring the question. If you are so sure that they design for thermal expansion due to fires, then how do they do it?

I just provided you with a quote that they DO NOT DESIGN for thermal expansion due to fires.

What's YOUR proof that they do jackass.

I guess I'll have to do your work for you and get quotes from real structural engineers to prove your ass wrong yet again.


----------



## SFC Ollie

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember Building 7 | Stand with the 9-11 families demanding a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ?
> 
> Military Officers for 9/11 Truth
> *As officers in the U.S. military, we took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Regardless of our current status -- active duty, reserves, retired, or civilian -- that oath remains in force.*
> 
> Therefore it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, how much we have to suffer, or where it leads us. We owe this to those who have gone before us who executed that same oath, and we owe it to those who are following that same oath today in Iraq and Afghanistan. We believe the official account of 9/11 as defined in the 9/11 Commission Report is grossly inaccurate and fatally flawed. It is imperative that we have an accurate understanding of 9/11 so that those responsible can be identified and brought to justice in order that they and similarly-minded people never again commit such heinous crimes. It is also imperative that we have an accurate understanding of 9/11 so that governmental policies resulting from 9/11 are based on truth rather than deception.
> 
> _We join with other organizations of professionals, such as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, and Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, and millions of individual citizens in demanding a thorough, impartial, open and transparent reinvestigation of the terrorist acts of 9/11._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Child you have been owned again.... LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how ? by whom ?....try again  olie..you are starting to sound like cornyhole
Click to expand...


How? When someone take your arguments and counters them, and you reply with something that has nothing to do with the arguments you have been owned.

By whom? Me of course. This kid thinks he can teach me about my oath, that I took about a half dozen times. That still hangs on my wall. He knows nothing about it. Address the facts, He can't do that. He cannot walk in my shoes, and cannot understand why...


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> no comments eots you witless goon?
> 
> I thought you said that structural engineers design and calculate allowances for thermal expansion due to office fires????
> 
> Seems you were just guessing at this point eh? Which is why you refused to provide a link or source for your claim. Typical truther underhanded tactics.
> 
> They don't design for thermal expansion from office fires. It's a rigid support system designed to support loads you asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no comment eots? I thought engineers designed for thermal expansion due to office fires?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i said that engineers are well  of the effects of fire on a steel framed hi-rise and take it in to consideration in the design are you  actually trying to say they are not aware of the effects of fire and do not consider it in the design
Click to expand...


Here you go fuckstick. Proof positive that you are speaking out of your ass.

Taken from this PDF document. I'll provide more proof since I like making you look like a complete asshole.
http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/irc/doc/pubs/nrcc50830/nrcc50830.pdf

Here are just a couple of quotes from the document.



> One of the most important systemic phenomena,* barely considered previously in the design of building structures exposed to fire*, is the effect of thermal expansion on the behaviour of structures in fire [1].





> Thermal expansion is not a new term in structural engineering, as it has been *considered in the design of bridge structures* for many years at ambient temperature. However, such *consideration has not been extended to the design of building structures exposed to fire*.





> This result reveals the fact that currently, *there is a clear lack of knowledge and design methodology relating to the effects of thermal expansion on performance of structures in fire.*



THAT is why I asked you if you got this information from a structural engineer or other source to which you blatantly ignored. So I guess you WERE just assuming this claim?


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Twin towers.
> 1. Hit by a jet in the upper third, damaging support steel
> 2. Fires then ensuing after impact
> 3. The same tube in tube, all steel design
> 
> WTC7.
> 1. Same design as WTC7
> 2. Unfought fires because of no sprinkler system
> 
> Point out which buildings you have as a comparison that match those characteristics. If you can;t then you have NO COMPARISONS in which to prove me wrong.
> 
> I'll wait right here.


 NIST says the cause of collapse at WTC 7 was fire, so that is what I am addressing. All modern hirise buildings are constructed of steel/concrete, including the ones I noted for you. 
They like WTC 7 were not struck by any planes, so I ask you again, why, in your opinion, did the WTC7 collapse from fire, 
and with such uniformity, while the others did not?.
Also why in your opinion, did the N tower not exhibit any sign of steel beam or column failure in the 1975 fire? There were no sprinkler systems in place at the time.
And BTW the empire state building was struck by a plane in 1945, a fire ensued and people were killed, yet it did not exhibit any sign of collapsing.


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Twin towers.
> 1. Hit by a jet in the upper third, damaging support steel
> 2. Fires then ensuing after impact
> 3. The same tube in tube, all steel design
> 
> WTC7.
> 1. Same design as WTC7
> 2. Unfought fires because of no sprinkler system
> 
> Point out which buildings you have as a comparison that match those characteristics. If you can;t then you have NO COMPARISONS in which to prove me wrong.
> 
> I'll wait right here.
> 
> 
> 
> NIST says the cause of collapse at WTC 7 was fire, so that is what I am addressing. All modern hirise buildings are constructed of steel/concrete, including the ones I noted for you.
> They like WTC 7 were not struck by any planes, so I ask you again, why, in your opinion, did the WTC7 collapse from fire,
> and with such uniformity, while the others did not?.
> Also why in your opinion, did the N tower not exhibit any sign of steel beam or column failure in the 1975 fire? There were no sprinkler systems in place at the time.
> And BTW the empire state building was struck by a plane in 1945, a fire ensued and people were killed, yet it did not exhibit any sign of collapsing.
Click to expand...


Ah. Once again you underline and emphasize the utterly retarded truthtard tactic of pretending every building should react the same regardless of construction, material, or circumstances. Only a truthtard would be so ignorant as to think an extremely complex structure such as a building should behave exactly like a completely unrelated structure under completely unrelated circumstances.  You fuckers sure are good for a laugh. Other than that you aren't worth shit. 

Did the other buildings have the exact same construction as WTC 7 including the unique structures designed for the Edison substation?

Did the other buildings have the exact same circumstances as WTC 7 in that the fires burned completely uncontested for such a long period of time?

No?

Then shut the fuck up you stupid moron!  Trying to compare apples to rocks while pretending you're intelligent only emphasizes your ignorance.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Twin towers.
> 1. Hit by a jet in the upper third, damaging support steel
> 2. Fires then ensuing after impact
> 3. The same tube in tube, all steel design
> 
> WTC7.
> 1. Same design as WTC7
> 2. Unfought fires because of no sprinkler system
> 
> Point out which buildings you have as a comparison that match those characteristics. If you can;t then you have NO COMPARISONS in which to prove me wrong.
> 
> I'll wait right here.
> 
> 
> 
> NIST says the cause of collapse at WTC 7 was fire, so that is what I am addressing. All modern hirise buildings are constructed of steel/concrete, including the ones I noted for you.
> They like WTC 7 were not struck by any planes, so I ask you again, why, in your opinion, did the WTC7 collapse from fire,
> and with such uniformity, while the others did not?.
> Also why in your opinion, did the N tower not exhibit any sign of steel beam or column failure in the 1975 fire? There were no sprinkler systems in place at the time.
> And BTW the empire state building was struck by a plane in 1945, a fire ensued and people were killed, yet it did not exhibit any sign of collapsing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah. Once again you underline and emphasize the utterly retarded truthtard tactic of pretending every building should react the same regardless of construction, material, or circumstances. Only a truthtard would be so ignorant as to think an extremely complex structure such as a building should behave exactly like a completely unrelated structure under completely unrelated circumstances.  You fuckers sure are good for a laugh. Other than that you aren't worth shit.
> 
> Did the other buildings have the exact same construction as WTC 7 including the unique structures designed for the Edison substation?
> 
> Did the other buildings have the exact same circumstances as WTC 7 in that the fires burned completely uncontested for such a long period of time?
> 
> No?
> 
> Then shut the fuck up you stupid moron!  Trying to compare apples to rocks while pretending you're intelligent only emphasizes your ignorance.
Click to expand...


They were ALL made of steel/concrete, and the steel in those other buildings, DID NOT exhibit any of the "thermal expansion" nonsense that NIST proposes happened to building 7.
You people put up pictures of railroad tracks and compare them to the design of the WTC buildings?? WTF?
 I'm comparing steel structures to steel structures, hardly comparing apples to oranges like you fucks, don't try to deflect the point answer the question as to why the steel performs differently in Manhattan compared to the rest of the world? 

You can't, so I'll await another childish tirade, followed by another sidetracking post.


And yes some of them did burn out of control, haven't you bothered to look this up? You've been burned before because of your laziness.


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> NIST says the cause of collapse at WTC 7 was fire, so that is what I am addressing. All modern hirise buildings are constructed of steel/concrete, including the ones I noted for you.
> They like WTC 7 were not struck by any planes, so I ask you again, why, in your opinion, did the WTC7 collapse from fire,
> and with such uniformity, while the others did not?.
> Also why in your opinion, did the N tower not exhibit any sign of steel beam or column failure in the 1975 fire? There were no sprinkler systems in place at the time.
> And BTW the empire state building was struck by a plane in 1945, a fire ensued and people were killed, yet it did not exhibit any sign of collapsing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah. Once again you underline and emphasize the utterly retarded truthtard tactic of pretending every building should react the same regardless of construction, material, or circumstances. Only a truthtard would be so ignorant as to think an extremely complex structure such as a building should behave exactly like a completely unrelated structure under completely unrelated circumstances.  You fuckers sure are good for a laugh. Other than that you aren't worth shit.
> 
> Did the other buildings have the exact same construction as WTC 7 including the unique structures designed for the Edison substation?
> 
> Did the other buildings have the exact same circumstances as WTC 7 in that the fires burned completely uncontested for such a long period of time?
> 
> No?
> 
> Then shut the fuck up you stupid moron!  Trying to compare apples to rocks while pretending you're intelligent only emphasizes your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were ALL made of steel/concrete, and the steel in those other buildings, DID NOT exhibit any of the "thermal expansion" nonsense that NIST proposes happened to building 7.
> You people put up pictures of railroad tracks and compare them to the design of the WTC buildings?? WTF?
> I'm comparing steel structures to steel structures, hardly comparing apples to oranges like you fucks, don't try to deflect the point answer the question as to why the steel performs differently in Manhattan compared to the rest of the world?
> 
> You can't, so I'll await another childish tirade, followed by another sidetracking post.
> 
> 
> And yes some of them did burn out of control, haven't you bothered to look this up? You've been burned before because of your laziness.
Click to expand...


Completely wrong.

The pictures of the railroad tracks were in direct refutation of your claim that there was a temperature threshold at which thermal expansion starts. 

My point to you was that if railroad tracks can thermally expand on a hot day to a point that it bends the steel tracks, what do you think would happen to steel in an office fire that is WAY more hotter than just a "hot day".

For you to claim that I compared the railroad tracks to that of the structural design of the buildings is idiotic.

Yes you are comparing steel structures to steel structures, BUT they are NOT THE SAME DESIGN. You're being quite stupid in assuming that ALL STRUCTURAL STEEL BUILDINGS WILL REACT THE EXACT SAME WAY REGARDLESS OF DESIGN.

Is that what you are claiming?

Yes or no?


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah. Once again you underline and emphasize the utterly retarded truthtard tactic of pretending every building should react the same regardless of construction, material, or circumstances. Only a truthtard would be so ignorant as to think an extremely complex structure such as a building should behave exactly like a completely unrelated structure under completely unrelated circumstances.  You fuckers sure are good for a laugh. Other than that you aren't worth shit.
> 
> Did the other buildings have the exact same construction as WTC 7 including the unique structures designed for the Edison substation?
> 
> Did the other buildings have the exact same circumstances as WTC 7 in that the fires burned completely uncontested for such a long period of time?
> 
> No?
> 
> Then shut the fuck up you stupid moron!  Trying to compare apples to rocks while pretending you're intelligent only emphasizes your ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were ALL made of steel/concrete, and the steel in those other buildings, DID NOT exhibit any of the "thermal expansion" nonsense that NIST proposes happened to building 7.
> You people put up pictures of railroad tracks and compare them to the design of the WTC buildings?? WTF?
> I'm comparing steel structures to steel structures, hardly comparing apples to oranges like you fucks, don't try to deflect the point answer the question as to why the steel performs differently in Manhattan compared to the rest of the world?
> 
> You can't, so I'll await another childish tirade, followed by another sidetracking post.
> 
> 
> And yes some of them did burn out of control, haven't you bothered to look this up? You've been burned before because of your laziness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Completely wrong.
> 
> The pictures of the railroad tracks were in direct refutation of your claim that there was a temperature threshold at which thermal expansion starts.
> 
> My point to you was that if railroad tracks can thermally expand on a hot day to a point that it bends the steel tracks, what do you think would happen to steel in an office fire that is WAY more hotter than just a "hot day".
> 
> For you to claim that I compared the railroad tracks to that of the structural design of the buildings is idiotic.
> 
> Yes you are comparing steel structures to steel structures, BUT they are NOT THE SAME DESIGN. You're being quite stupid in assuming that ALL STRUCTURAL STEEL BUILDINGS WILL REACT THE EXACT SAME WAY REGARDLESS OF DESIGN.
> 
> Is that what you are claiming?
> 
> Yes or no?
Click to expand...


Are you saying that the steel used in these other buildings was somehow different then that used in the WTC 7 building? Or that they had a different temp threshold so we should expect no "expansion" in the steel?
 Are you aware of the fire safety tests in Britain?


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were ALL made of steel/concrete, and the steel in those other buildings, DID NOT exhibit any of the "thermal expansion" nonsense that NIST proposes happened to building 7.
> You people put up pictures of railroad tracks and compare them to the design of the WTC buildings?? WTF?
> I'm comparing steel structures to steel structures, hardly comparing apples to oranges like you fucks, don't try to deflect the point answer the question as to why the steel performs differently in Manhattan compared to the rest of the world?
> 
> You can't, so I'll await another childish tirade, followed by another sidetracking post.
> 
> 
> And yes some of them did burn out of control, haven't you bothered to look this up? You've been burned before because of your laziness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Completely wrong.
> 
> The pictures of the railroad tracks were in direct refutation of your claim that there was a temperature threshold at which thermal expansion starts.
> 
> My point to you was that if railroad tracks can thermally expand on a hot day to a point that it bends the steel tracks, what do you think would happen to steel in an office fire that is WAY more hotter than just a "hot day".
> 
> For you to claim that I compared the railroad tracks to that of the structural design of the buildings is idiotic.
> 
> Yes you are comparing steel structures to steel structures, BUT they are NOT THE SAME DESIGN. You're being quite stupid in assuming that ALL STRUCTURAL STEEL BUILDINGS WILL REACT THE EXACT SAME WAY REGARDLESS OF DESIGN.
> 
> Is that what you are claiming?
> 
> Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the steel used in these other buildings was somehow different then that used in the WTC 7 building? Or that they had a different temp threshold so we should expect no "expansion" in the steel?
> Are you aware of the fire safety tests in Britain?
Click to expand...


Answer this for me.

Let's take two of the same columns, secure them to the ground vertically. Put a 10,000 lb weight on top of one of them and then subject them to fire.

Are you saying that both columns will have exactly the same deformation characteristics when compared?


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Completely wrong.
> 
> The pictures of the railroad tracks were in direct refutation of your claim that there was a temperature threshold at which thermal expansion starts.
> 
> My point to you was that if railroad tracks can thermally expand on a hot day to a point that it bends the steel tracks, what do you think would happen to steel in an office fire that is WAY more hotter than just a "hot day".
> 
> For you to claim that I compared the railroad tracks to that of the structural design of the buildings is idiotic.
> 
> Yes you are comparing steel structures to steel structures, BUT they are NOT THE SAME DESIGN. You're being quite stupid in assuming that ALL STRUCTURAL STEEL BUILDINGS WILL REACT THE EXACT SAME WAY REGARDLESS OF DESIGN.
> 
> Is that what you are claiming?
> 
> Yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the steel used in these other buildings was somehow different then that used in the WTC 7 building? Or that they had a different temp threshold so we should expect no "expansion" in the steel?
> Are you aware of the fire safety tests in Britain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer this for me.
> 
> Let's take two of the same columns, secure them to the ground vertically. Put a 10,000 lb weight on top of one of them and then subject them to fire.
> 
> Are you saying that both columns will have exactly the same deformation characteristics when compared?
Click to expand...


Why can you not answer or refuse to answer a straight forward line of questioning? You are desperately trying to deflect, and muddy what is a simple question..do you know why, or not?


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the steel used in these other buildings was somehow different then that used in the WTC 7 building? Or that they had a different temp threshold so we should expect no "expansion" in the steel?
> Are you aware of the fire safety tests in Britain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer this for me.
> 
> Let's take two of the same columns, secure them to the ground vertically. Put a 10,000 lb weight on top of one of them and then subject them to fire.
> 
> Are you saying that both columns will have exactly the same deformation characteristics when compared?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can you not answer or refuse to answer a straight forward line of questioning? You are desperately trying to deflect, and muddy what is a simple question..do you know why, or not?
Click to expand...


I am answering your question. I am trying to get you to understand.

The reason buildings react differently is because the design is different. Loads are distributed differently. Fires will affect them differently.

The fact that you are comparing buildings that have different designs and are expecting them to behave the same way in a fire is evidence that you do not understand.

Now answer the question please. Will the two columns described above react the same exact way in a fire?

Yes or no?


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer this for me.
> 
> Let's take two of the same columns, secure them to the ground vertically. Put a 10,000 lb weight on top of one of them and then subject them to fire.
> 
> Are you saying that both columns will have exactly the same deformation characteristics when compared?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why can you not answer or refuse to answer a straight forward line of questioning? You are desperately trying to deflect, and muddy what is a simple question..do you know why, or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am answering your question. I am trying to get you to understand.
> 
> The reason buildings react differently is because the design is different. Loads are distributed differently. Fires will affect them differently.
> 
> The fact that you are comparing buildings that have different designs and are expecting them to behave the same way in a fire is evidence that you do not understand.
> 
> Now answer the question please. Will the two columns described above react the same exact way in a fire?
> 
> Yes or no?
Click to expand...


I give up, I ask a simple question to see if you know something or not, and you just avoid answering it. I am left to assume you do not know if the steel in the other burning buildings was somehow different then in WTC7. I will just try to look this up myself.
 I am not asking about building design and loads, I am asking about the steel used in the hi rise construction of these buildings, and what difference between the 7 building steel and the others are.
I have made this as clear as possible to you.
I will try to find an answer elsewhere.


----------



## Gamolon

Types of steel used.
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05157.pdf


----------



## PhysicsExist

Gamolon said:


> Types of steel used.
> http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05157.pdf



How do you remove all the core columns and support beams for the full length and width of WTC 7 ?  

Explosives.


----------



## candycorn

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can you not answer or refuse to answer a straight forward line of questioning? You are desperately trying to deflect, and muddy what is a simple question..do you know why, or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am answering your question. I am trying to get you to understand.
> 
> The reason buildings react differently is because the design is different. Loads are distributed differently. Fires will affect them differently.
> 
> The fact that you are comparing buildings that have different designs and are expecting them to behave the same way in a fire is evidence that you do not understand.
> 
> Now answer the question please. Will the two columns described above react the same exact way in a fire?
> 
> Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I give up, I ask a simple question to see if you know something or not, and you just avoid answering it. I am left to assume you do not know if the steel in the other burning buildings was somehow different then in WTC7. I will just try to look this up myself.
> I am not asking about building design and loads, I am asking about the steel used in the hi rise construction of these buildings, and what difference between the 7 building steel and the others are.
> I have made this as clear as possible to you.
> I will try to find an answer elsewhere.
Click to expand...


Don't leave mad...
Just leave.


----------



## SFC Ollie

PhysicsExist said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Types of steel used.
> http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05157.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you remove all the core columns and support beams for the full length and width of WTC 7 ?
> 
> Explosives.
Click to expand...


Where is the evidence of explosives?


----------



## TakingTheRedPil

I had to create an account just to post on this forum. It is absolutely unthinkable that there are actually people who are _still_ trying to convince others the official story is correct and those three buildings collapsed due to planes and fires after all the evidence the points to the contrary.

It's ridiculous!

Buildings do not collapse in perfect symmetry, simultaneously all the way down _without _ controlled demolition. Period. Not on planet Earth. It is an unnatural event.

In my opinion all of you doing this and ridiculing those bringing data backed up by evidence and facts are all guilty of obstruction of justice. And you're only convincing yourselves anyway. Most people that take a look at the evidence brought forth by respected organizations such as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth cannot deny the facts these buildings could not have been collapsed by fire and no longer believe a word you people say or the Official Investigation by NIST.


----------



## KissMy

*The chief engineer Leslie Robertson who designed & built the WTC says the WTC buildings could not stand without the floor trusses.* The floor trusses in these buildings were longer than any other buildings. These 60'ft steel truss spans are more susceptible to fire than the typical 15'ft span of steel reinforced concrete beam. Ask any fireman & they will tell you *"never trust the truss"* Then factor in the floors below the impact must now support the weight of several floors above & their contents that had been knocked down onto them from the airliner impact plus the additional weight of the 100,000-lb aircraft. *Chief design engineer Leslie Robertson who built the WTC* agrees that the WTC buildings would have collapsed as they did, due to floor truss damage from plane impact & fire damage.


----------



## eots

kissmy said:


> the 3 wtc buildings could not stand without the floor trusses. The floor trusses in these buildings were longer than any other buildings. These 60'ft steel truss spans are more susceptible to fire than the typical 15'ft span of steel reinforced concrete beam. Ask any fireman & they will tell you *"never trust the truss"*



*the 3 buildings ?...really.. would that be the tri-towers ?  and by more susceptible you mean pulverized to dust and collapsing in secs ?*


----------



## KissMy




----------



## eots

by.. affected.. do you mean smashed into pieces and collapsing in seconds ?


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> They were ALL made of steel/concrete, and the steel in those other buildings, DID NOT exhibit any of the "thermal expansion" nonsense that NIST proposes happened to building 7.


Really?  You know that for a fact?    You fucking liar. 

What would you call what happened to the steel in this example?








			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> You people put up pictures of railroad tracks and compare them to the design of the WTC buildings?? WTF?





			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> I'm comparing steel structures to steel structures, hardly comparing apples to oranges like you fucks, don't try to deflect the point answer the question as to why the steel performs differently in Manhattan compared to the rest of the world?


Wrong yet again you lying little fuck.  You think the only thing that matters is that the structures are made out of steel?  I guess I should have called you an ignorant little fuck as well.   



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> You can't, so I'll await another childish tirade, followed by another sidetracking post.


Yes, we're all well aware you can't handle the fact you've been exposed yet again.  Keep trying to pretend all buildings should behave the exact same way as long as they contain steel regardless of construction, materials and circumstances.    I love it when truthtards just INSIST their ignorance is somehow justified. 



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> And yes some of them did burn out of control, haven't you bothered to look this up? You've been burned before because of your laziness.


Yes.  The building above was allowed to burn out of control.  It suffered a partial collapse.  Where?  Only in the steel framed section of the building.  OH NOES!!!!    I am sure you will dismiss that FACT as immaterial.


----------



## SFC Ollie

TakingTheRedPil said:


> I had to create an account just to post on this forum. It is absolutely unthinkable that there are actually people who are _still_ trying to convince others the official story is correct and those three buildings collapsed due to planes and fires after all the evidence the points to the contrary.
> 
> It's ridiculous!
> 
> Buildings do not collapse in perfect symmetry, simultaneously all the way down _without _ controlled demolition. Period. Not on planet Earth. It is an unnatural event.
> 
> In my opinion all of you doing this and ridiculing those bringing data backed up by evidence and facts are all guilty of obstruction of justice. And you're only convincing yourselves anyway. Most people that take a look at the evidence brought forth by respected organizations such as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth cannot deny the facts these buildings could not have been collapsed by fire and no longer believe a word you people say or the Official Investigation by NIST.



Awe, look, another sock.

There is no evidence only opinion. And opinion is not evidence.


----------



## Gamolon

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> no comment eots? I thought engineers designed for thermal expansion due to office fires?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i said that engineers are well  of the effects of fire on a steel framed hi-rise and take it in to consideration in the design are you  actually trying to say they are not aware of the effects of fire and do not consider it in the design
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you go fuckstick. Proof positive that you are speaking out of your ass.
> 
> Taken from this PDF document. I'll provide more proof since I like making you look like a complete asshole.
> http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/irc/doc/pubs/nrcc50830/nrcc50830.pdf
> 
> Here are just a couple of quotes from the document.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thermal expansion is not a new term in structural engineering, as it has been *considered in the design of bridge structures* for many years at ambient temperature. However, such *consideration has not been extended to the design of building structures exposed to fire*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This result reveals the fact that currently, *there is a clear lack of knowledge and design methodology relating to the effects of thermal expansion on performance of structures in fire.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THAT is why I asked you if you got this information from a structural engineer or other source to which you blatantly ignored. So I guess you WERE just assuming this claim?
Click to expand...


No comment eots?

You were proven wrong yet again and were just guessing all this time. And you supposedly fight for the truth? What a joke. Nice to know your "knowledge" is nothing more than assumptions.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were ALL made of steel/concrete, and the steel in those other buildings, DID NOT exhibit any of the "thermal expansion" nonsense that NIST proposes happened to building 7.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You know that for a fact?    You fucking liar.
> 
> What would you call what happened to the steel in this example?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You people put up pictures of railroad tracks and compare them to the design of the WTC buildings?? WTF?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong yet again you lying little fuck.  You think the only thing that matters is that the structures are made out of steel?  I guess I should have called you an ignorant little fuck as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't, so I'll await another childish tirade, followed by another sidetracking post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we're all well aware you can't handle the fact you've been exposed yet again.  Keep trying to pretend all buildings should behave the exact same way as long as they contain steel regardless of construction, materials and circumstances.    I love it when truthtards just INSIST their ignorance is somehow justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yes some of them did burn out of control, haven't you bothered to look this up? You've been burned before because of your laziness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  The building above was allowed to burn out of control.  It suffered a partial collapse.  Where?  Only in the steel framed section of the building.  OH NOES!!!!    I am sure you will dismiss that FACT as immaterial.
Click to expand...


Lol..you still see the building standing, and it suffered no total complete global collapse!! No free fall, ...you got no logical explanation for why these infernos did not globally collapse 
You lose troll!


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> Lol..you still see the building standing, and it suffered no total complete global collapse!! No free fall, ...you got no logical explanation for why these infernos did not globally collapse
> You lose troll!



Unlike a fucking retard like you, I understand that different construction and circumstances will result in different outcomes.  Unlike a fucking retard like you, I understand the difference between a concrete frame and a steel frame.  Notice the steel framed section completely collapsed while the concrete section remained standing.  A child can understand such simple concepts, yet it it completely beyond your grasp.  It is no small wonder a piece of shit asshole like you can survive in this world with your complete lack of understanding of how things work in the real world.  "Jones fantasy land" is not reality by any stretch of the imagination!


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were ALL made of steel/concrete, and the steel in those other buildings, DID NOT exhibit any of the "thermal expansion" nonsense that NIST proposes happened to building 7.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You know that for a fact?    You fucking liar.
> 
> What would you call what happened to the steel in this example?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong yet again you lying little fuck.  You think the only thing that matters is that the structures are made out of steel?  I guess I should have called you an ignorant little fuck as well.
> 
> 
> Yes, we're all well aware you can't handle the fact you've been exposed yet again.  Keep trying to pretend all buildings should behave the exact same way as long as they contain steel regardless of construction, materials and circumstances.    I love it when truthtards just INSIST their ignorance is somehow justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yes some of them did burn out of control, haven't you bothered to look this up? You've been burned before because of your laziness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  The building above was allowed to burn out of control.  It suffered a partial collapse.  Where?  Only in the steel framed section of the building.  OH NOES!!!!    I am sure you will dismiss that FACT as immaterial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol..you still see the building standing, and it suffered no total complete global collapse!! No free fall, ...you got no logical explanation for why these infernos did not globally collapse
> You lose troll!
Click to expand...


How did the steel part collapse?


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You know that for a fact?    You fucking liar.
> 
> What would you call what happened to the steel in this example?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong yet again you lying little fuck.  You think the only thing that matters is that the structures are made out of steel?  I guess I should have called you an ignorant little fuck as well.
> 
> 
> Yes, we're all well aware you can't handle the fact you've been exposed yet again.  Keep trying to pretend all buildings should behave the exact same way as long as they contain steel regardless of construction, materials and circumstances.    I love it when truthtards just INSIST their ignorance is somehow justified.
> 
> 
> Yes.  The building above was allowed to burn out of control.  It suffered a partial collapse.  Where?  Only in the steel framed section of the building.  OH NOES!!!!    I am sure you will dismiss that FACT as immaterial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol..you still see the building standing, and it suffered no total complete global collapse!! No free fall, ...you got no logical explanation for why these infernos did not globally collapse
> You lose troll!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did the steel part collapse?
Click to expand...


Can't say truthfully, but it still did not collapse globally, at amazing velocity did it??
 now using your tactic..It isn't the WTC isn't it?
So how come at the ACTUAL WTC N tower..in 1975 we see no inkling of a collapse?? Answer this finally..


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol..you still see the building standing, and it suffered no total complete global collapse!! No free fall, ...you got no logical explanation for why these infernos did not globally collapse
> You lose troll!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did the steel part collapse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't say truthfully, but it still did not collapse globally, at amazing velocity did it??
> now using your tactic..It isn't the WTC isn't it?
> So how come at the ACTUAL WTC N tower..in 1975 we see no inkling of a collapse?? Answer this finally..
Click to expand...


You're saying that office fires can't effect steel enough to collapse. 

So how did the steel part collapse?


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> So how come at the ACTUAL WTC N tower..in 1975 we see no inkling of a collapse?? Answer this finally..



And here, even though you are too stupid to realize it, you have proven my point about the design of a building making a difference as far as how it reacts to fires.

The steel of one building partially collapsed due to fire, yet there is "no inkling" of collapse in the other.

I thought you said steel performed the same in ALL FIRES?



How are these two different results possible? Should I just repeat your previous quote?


Mr. Jones said:


> Can't say truthfully,...


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were ALL made of steel/concrete, and the steel in those other buildings, DID NOT exhibit any of the "thermal expansion" nonsense that NIST proposes happened to building 7.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You know that for a fact?    You fucking liar.
> 
> What would you call what happened to the steel in this example?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong yet again you lying little fuck.  You think the only thing that matters is that the structures are made out of steel?  I guess I should have called you an ignorant little fuck as well.
> 
> 
> Yes, we're all well aware you can't handle the fact you've been exposed yet again.  Keep trying to pretend all buildings should behave the exact same way as long as they contain steel regardless of construction, materials and circumstances.    I love it when truthtards just INSIST their ignorance is somehow justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yes some of them did burn out of control, haven't you bothered to look this up? You've been burned before because of your laziness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  The building above was allowed to burn out of control.  It suffered a partial collapse.  Where?  Only in the steel framed section of the building.  OH NOES!!!!    I am sure you will dismiss that FACT as immaterial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol..you still see the building standing, and it suffered no total complete global collapse!! No free fall, ...you got no logical explanation for why these infernos did not globally collapse
> You lose troll!
Click to expand...


So basically you are admitting that office fires can affect steel enough to cause a partial collapse, but not a global collapse?

Is that correct? Or are you going to be a chickenshit and not answer because you see you've painted yourself into a corner?


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You know that for a fact?    You fucking liar.
> 
> What would you call what happened to the steel in this example?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong yet again you lying little fuck.  You think the only thing that matters is that the structures are made out of steel?  I guess I should have called you an ignorant little fuck as well.
> 
> 
> Yes, we're all well aware you can't handle the fact you've been exposed yet again.  Keep trying to pretend all buildings should behave the exact same way as long as they contain steel regardless of construction, materials and circumstances.    I love it when truthtards just INSIST their ignorance is somehow justified.
> 
> 
> Yes.  The building above was allowed to burn out of control.  It suffered a partial collapse.  Where?  Only in the steel framed section of the building.  OH NOES!!!!    I am sure you will dismiss that FACT as immaterial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol..you still see the building standing, and it suffered no total complete global collapse!! No free fall, ...you got no logical explanation for why these infernos did not globally collapse
> You lose troll!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically you are admitting that office fires can affect steel enough to cause a partial collapse, but not a global collapse?
> 
> Is that correct? Or are you going to be a chickenshit and not answer because you see you've painted yourself into a corner?
Click to expand...


You are the chickenshit asswipe!! How many times must I ask and you avoid answering
 Why the N tower didn't even experience a partial collapse in the 1975 fire??? Answer that you chickenshit..
Why didn't any of the other buildings that were more severely burned
not suffer the same collapses?? They are all made of steel components...what was different about the steel in the other buildings????
What was different about the steel in the WTC N tower in '75???

Until you answer these questions that I posed to you FIRST, you are nothing but a chicken shit, liar and avoiding a response to the questions..You lose troll.. for all to witness too 

NIST admits free fall

http://www.911speakout.org/Freefall.pdf


Some examples of fires in high rise buildings far worse than the fires in the World Trade Center towers:

Fire Has Never Caused A Steel Frame Building To Collapse « Stevex09

No global collapses, no 2.25 secs. of free fall!!!

Why not?? Is steel different in Manhattan chickenshit troll??


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol..you still see the building standing, and it suffered no total complete global collapse!! No free fall, ...you got no logical explanation for why these infernos did not globally collapse
> You lose troll!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So basically you are admitting that office fires can affect steel enough to cause a partial collapse, but not a global collapse?
> 
> Is that correct? Or are you going to be a chickenshit and not answer because you see you've painted yourself into a corner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the chickenshit asswipe!! How many times must I ask and you avoid answering
> Why the N tower didn't even experience a partial collapse in the 1975 fire??? Answer that you chickenshit..
> Why didn't any of the other buildings that were more severely burned
> not suffer the same collapses?? They are all made of steel components...what was different about the steel in the other buildings????
> What was different about the steel in the WTC N tower in '75???
> 
> Until you answer these questions that I posed to you FIRST, you are nothing but a chicken shit, liar and avoiding a response to the questions..You lose troll.. for all to witness too
> 
> NIST admits free fall
> 
> http://www.911speakout.org/Freefall.pdf
> 
> 
> Some examples of fires in high rise buildings far worse than the fires in the World Trade Center towers:
> 
> Fire Has Never Caused A Steel Frame Building To Collapse « Stevex09
> 
> No global collapses, no 2.25 secs. of free fall!!!
> 
> Why not?? Is steel different in Manhattan chickenshit troll??
Click to expand...


So you are admitting that office fires can cause partial collapse, but not global collapse.

Got it.

I thought you claimed that office fires could not affect steel?


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how come at the ACTUAL WTC N tower..in 1975 we see no inkling of a collapse?? Answer this finally..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here, even though you are too stupid to realize it, you have proven my point about the design of a building making a difference as far as how it reacts to fires.
> 
> The steel of one building partially collapsed due to fire, yet there is "no inkling" of collapse in the other.
> 
> I thought you said steel performed the same in ALL FIRES?
> 
> 
> 
> How are these two different results possible? Should I just repeat your previous quote?
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't say truthfully,...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Where did I ever say "steel performs the same in ALL FIRES"?

You are once again lying, I asked YOU many times what is the difference in the steel in the other buildings compared to the WTC buildings?? And why didn't the N tower even partially collapse in "75 and YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER and instead dance around the subject lying about something I did not say!!!
You are a lying, chicken shit pussy...it is all right here for all to see what a disingenuous troll you really are 

Was the WTC steel made out of the same steel those "railroad tracks" were made out of..you pathetic OCT pole swallower??


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol..you still see the building standing, and it suffered no total complete global collapse!! No free fall, ...you got no logical explanation for why these infernos did not globally collapse
> You lose troll!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So basically you are admitting that office fires can affect steel enough to cause a partial collapse, but not a global collapse?
> 
> Is that correct? Or are you going to be a chickenshit and not answer because you see you've painted yourself into a corner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the chickenshit asswipe!! How many times must I ask and you avoid answering
> Why the N tower didn't even experience a partial collapse in the 1975 fire??? Answer that you chickenshit..
> Why didn't any of the other buildings that were more severely burned
> not suffer the same collapses?? They are all made of steel components...what was different about the steel in the other buildings????
> What was different about the steel in the WTC N tower in '75???
> 
> Until you answer these questions that I posed to you FIRST, you are nothing but a chicken shit, liar and avoiding a response to the questions..You lose troll.. for all to witness too
> 
> NIST admits free fall
> 
> http://www.911speakout.org/Freefall.pdf
> 
> 
> Some examples of fires in high rise buildings far worse than the fires in the World Trade Center towers:
> 
> Fire Has Never Caused A Steel Frame Building To Collapse « Stevex09
> 
> No global collapses, no 2.25 secs. of free fall!!!
> 
> Why not?? Is steel different in Manhattan chickenshit troll??
Click to expand...


The funny thing is, you're too stupid to to realize that you posted the answer to your question and it's the same answer I keep giving you.

You claim that all buildings should react the same in an office fire yet post two buildings, one that partially collapsed due to fire and one that doesn't show an "inkling" of collapse, that directly refute this claim!

Then turn around and complain that I never answer your questions!

What a fucking idiot!


----------



## Mr. Jones

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol..you still see the building standing, and it suffered no total complete global collapse!! No free fall, ...you got no logical explanation for why these infernos did not globally collapse
> You lose troll!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike a fucking retard like you, I understand that different construction and circumstances will result in different outcomes.  Unlike a fucking retard like you, I understand the difference between a concrete frame and a steel frame.  Notice the steel framed section completely collapsed while the concrete section remained standing.  A child can understand such simple concepts, yet it it completely beyond your grasp.  It is no small wonder a piece of shit asshole like you can survive in this world with your complete lack of understanding of how things work in the real world.  "Jones fantasy land" is not reality by any stretch of the imagination!
Click to expand...


Your opinions mean nothing pussy parrot, they are just that..opinions and theories that have been destroyed by credible people and real Patriots, you can't explain why the N tower fire in 1975 didn't collapse...even partially.
You have no reasonable answer for why no other infernos globally collapsed resulting in 2.25 secs. of free fall. EVER!
You are just another stooge planted here to parrot the OCT, and you do a shitty job of it. You have opinions and theories that are less persuasive then the CD theory, you lose again "coincitard" 

You are a treasonous piece of shit, that doesn't give a shit about all the lies and BS that credible people, even on the 9-11 commission have publicly stated it was flawed!! But you don't care..it is of no concern to you and your treasonous ilk. You and them will fall with the boots of justice and truth all over your backs..I hope to see you there that day, so I can spit in your cowardly face.


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> You are once again lying, I asked YOU many times what is the difference in the steel in the other buildings compared to the WTC buildings??



*Because the design is affected differently by office fires as evidenced in the partial collapse of one building and "no inkling" of collapse in another!!!!!*



Mr. Jones said:


> And why didn't the N tower even partially collapse in "75 and YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER and instead dance around the subject lying about something I did not say!!!



Did the 1975 fires have a jet slam into the one side damaging structural components????


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how come at the ACTUAL WTC N tower..in 1975 we see no inkling of a collapse?? Answer this finally..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here, even though you are too stupid to realize it, you have proven my point about the design of a building making a difference as far as how it reacts to fires.
> 
> The steel of one building partially collapsed due to fire, yet there is "no inkling" of collapse in the other.
> 
> I thought you said steel performed the same in ALL FIRES?
> 
> 
> 
> How are these two different results possible? Should I just repeat your previous quote?
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't say truthfully,...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I ever say "steel performs the same in ALL FIRES"?
> 
> You are once again lying, I asked YOU many times what is the difference in the steel in the other buildings compared to the WTC buildings?? And why didn't the N tower even partially collapse in "75 and YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER and instead dance around the subject lying about something I did not say!!!
> You are a lying, chicken shit pussy...it is all right here for all to see what a disingenuous troll you really are
> 
> Was the WTC steel made out of the same steel those "railroad tracks" were made out of..you pathetic OCT pole swallower??
Click to expand...


Awww....

What's the matter pussy?

Get your ass handed to you and you don't like it? 

Too bad.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Mr. Jones said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol..you still see the building standing, and it suffered no total complete global collapse!! No free fall, ...you got no logical explanation for why these infernos did not globally collapse
> You lose troll!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike a fucking retard like you, I understand that different construction and circumstances will result in different outcomes.  Unlike a fucking retard like you, I understand the difference between a concrete frame and a steel frame.  Notice the steel framed section completely collapsed while the concrete section remained standing.  A child can understand such simple concepts, yet it it completely beyond your grasp.  It is no small wonder a piece of shit asshole like you can survive in this world with your complete lack of understanding of how things work in the real world.  "Jones fantasy land" is not reality by any stretch of the imagination!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinions mean nothing pussy parrot, they are just that..opinions and theories that have been destroyed by credible people and real Patriots, you can't explain why the N tower fire in 1975 didn't collapse...even partially.
> You have no reasonable answer for why no other infernos globally collapsed resulting in 2.25 secs. of free fall. EVER!
> You are just another stooge planted here to parrot the OCT, and you do a shitty job of it. You have opinions and theories that are less persuasive then the CD theory, you lose again "coincitard"
> 
> You are a treasonous piece of shit, that doesn't give a shit about all the lies and BS that credible people, even on the 9-11 commission have publicly stated it was flawed!! But you don't care..it is of no concern to you and your treasonous ilk. You and them will fall with the boots of justice and truth all over your backs..I hope to see you there that day, so I can spit in your cowardly face.
Click to expand...



could not have said it better myself.did you expect anything less from this ass kisser twin brother of candyfags?

This hypocrite troll always accuses people of running away but everytime I post this post below,the coward shill like the hypocrite he is,HE runs away and wont address is. He wont address it because he knows he cant refute it just like all OCTA'S know they cant refute it and know its true.

You agent trolls are so pathetic in your ramblings Parrot that you you constantly come on here and show what dumbfucks you are ignoring that all protocals were violated that day and evidence destroyed and confiscated and removed, yet nobody got fired and lost their jobs but instead got promoted for their incomptence.gee I wish I could have a job like that getting PROMOTED for making a serious mistake.

You agent dumbfucks obviously get paid well by your handlers coming on here for your ass beatings you constantly get here with your pathetic ramblings you make up to avoid these evidence and facts.

you trolls can only sling shit in defeat over this everytime.


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how come at the ACTUAL WTC N tower..in 1975 we see no inkling of a collapse?? Answer this finally..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here, even though you are too stupid to realize it, you have proven my point about the design of a building making a difference as far as how it reacts to fires.
> 
> The steel of one building partially collapsed due to fire, yet there is "no inkling" of collapse in the other.
> 
> I thought you said steel performed the same in ALL FIRES?
> 
> 
> 
> How are these two different results possible? Should I just repeat your previous quote?
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't say truthfully,...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I ever say "steel performs the same in ALL FIRES"?
Click to expand...


Oh I see. 

So you admit that steel structures are going to react differently based on their respective designs and that comparing the towers and WTC7 to buildings that have different structural designs, yet did NOT globally collapse, is a stupid comparison?

Glad you came to your senses.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> The funny thing is, you're too stupid to to realize that you posted the answer to your question and it's the same answer I keep giving you.


 No you avoid a direct answer to my questions..it's all here in the posts.



> You claim that all buildings should react the same in an office fire yet post two buildings, one that partially collapsed due to fire and one that doesn't show an "inkling" of collapse, that directly refute this claim!


 You are lying again...site where I actually say this?



> Then turn around and complain that I never answer your questions!
> 
> What a fucking idiot!


 You have not answered anything, you instead are displaying a cowardly troll tactic of avoidance and deflection. So how come the 75 fire didn't cause even a partial collapse??
Why is steel different in the examples of the infernos, no thermal expansion causing total collapse?
Why was there no global collapse in ANY of the other buildings, with free fall speed collapses??


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The funny thing is, you're too stupid to to realize that you posted the answer to your question and it's the same answer I keep giving you.
> 
> 
> 
> No you avoid a direct answer to my questions..it's all here in the posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claim that all buildings should react the same in an office fire yet post two buildings, one that partially collapsed due to fire and one that doesn't show an "inkling" of collapse, that directly refute this claim!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are lying again...site where I actually say this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then turn around and complain that I never answer your questions!
> 
> What a fucking idiot!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have not answered anything, you instead are displaying a cowardly troll tactic of avoidance and deflection. So how come the 75 fire didn't cause even a partial collapse??
Click to expand...


*sigh*

Was the structure damaged by a fucking jet before the fires started? Are you really this stupid? You don't think that played a roll in it? As I keep saying, the structural design is supposed to work as a whole. The more components you remove or weaken, then more stress is put on the remaining components.



Mr. Jones said:


> It's not just the steel you jackass. This is the last time I am going to answer you. The design of a building dictates how it will react. Since the design of the buildings is different, you can make no comparison!!!


Why was there no global collapse in ANY of the other buildings, with free fall speed collapses??[/QUOTE]

And this is a total lie. The buildings did not collapse at free fall speed. As much as you want this to be true, it isn't.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are once again lying, I asked YOU many times what is the difference in the steel in the other buildings compared to the WTC buildings??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Because the design is affected differently by office fires as evidenced in the partial collapse of one building and "no inkling" of collapse in another!!!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> And why didn't the N tower even partially collapse in "75 and YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER and instead dance around the subject lying about something I did not say!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did the 1975 fires have a jet slam into the one side damaging structural components????
Click to expand...


Of course not, but it was a fire correct? And in the WTC7 building there was a fire correct? Why didn't "fire" cause even a partial collapse in the N tower?
The fact is that fires that have been proven to have been worse in structures constructed of steel have never collapsed, producing free fall speeds EVER!! And all your mental masturbation and avoidance of the questions are cowardly tactics that show you are clueless and
believe in the"miracles" that NIST and your criminal government have told you.
You are a prime example of a brainwashed stooge, that does not give a shit about his nation. Even the 9-11 commission has rejected their own report  but you insist on telling us that it can be believed.
No hi rise has ever globally collapsed producing free fall speeds. yet you embarrass yourself by not even questioning any of these facts.
You have proven here on these forums what a lying treasonous coward you really are, thank you for proving what we have known all along


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are once again lying, I asked YOU many times what is the difference in the steel in the other buildings compared to the WTC buildings??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Because the design is affected differently by office fires as evidenced in the partial collapse of one building and "no inkling" of collapse in another!!!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> And why didn't the N tower even partially collapse in "75 and YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER and instead dance around the subject lying about something I did not say!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did the 1975 fires have a jet slam into the one side damaging structural components????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not, but it was a fire correct? And in the WTC7 building there was a fire correct? Why didn't "fire" cause even a partial collapse in the N tower?
Click to expand...


And there it is folks.

Mr. Jones assuming that all buildings should react the same, regardless of design, when an office fire occurs.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The funny thing is, you're too stupid to to realize that you posted the answer to your question and it's the same answer I keep giving you.
> 
> 
> 
> No you avoid a direct answer to my questions..it's all here in the posts.
> 
> You are lying again...site where I actually say this?
> 
> You have not answered anything, you instead are displaying a cowardly troll tactic of avoidance and deflection. So how come the 75 fire didn't cause even a partial collapse??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *sigh*
> 
> Was the structure damaged by a fucking jet before the fires started? Are you really this stupid? You don't think that played a roll in it? As I keep saying, the structural design is supposed to work as a whole. The more components you remove or weaken, then more stress is put on the remaining components.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just the steel you jackass. This is the last time I am going to answer you. The design of a building dictates how it will react. Since the design of the buildings is different, you can make no comparison!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why was there no global collapse in ANY of the other buildings, with free fall speed collapses??
Click to expand...




> And this is a total lie. The buildings did not collapse at free fall speed. As much as you want this to be true, it isn't.



Hey you lying OCT pole swallower. Nist finally admits 2.25 secs. of free fall! What a fucking lying scumbag you are!!

Why didn't other building infernos produce this?? Because the ONLY REASONABLE EXPLANATION IS THAT THEY WERE DESTROYED BY CD, THAT'S WHY.
 Empire State Building hit by a plane, caused fires, killed people, NO GLOBAL COLLAPSE. 
9-11 3 BUILDINGS, ONE not hit BY A PLANE COLLAPSED GLOBALLY,
one building fell at a rate of free fall. NIST got caught in a lie like you do here. The 9-11 commission report has been proven to be a flawed report...according to the people who wrote it...
You show a contemptuous disregard for these facts, deserving the label of treasonous scum, and coward. You have shown in these posts your true colors, coward piss yellow


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are once again lying, I asked YOU many times what is the difference in the steel in the other buildings compared to the WTC buildings??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Because the design is affected differently by office fires as evidenced in the partial collapse of one building and "no inkling" of collapse in another!!!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> And why didn't the N tower even partially collapse in "75 and YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER and instead dance around the subject lying about something I did not say!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did the 1975 fires have a jet slam into the one side damaging structural components????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that fires that have been proven to have been worse in structures constructed of steel have never collapsed, producing free fall speeds EVER!!
Click to expand...


Since these buildings were designed differently, you have no comparison to make.

End of story.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Because the design is affected differently by office fires as evidenced in the partial collapse of one building and "no inkling" of collapse in another!!!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> Did the 1975 fires have a jet slam into the one side damaging structural components????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, but it was a fire correct? And in the WTC7 building there was a fire correct? Why didn't "fire" cause even a partial collapse in the N tower?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there it is folks.
> 
> Mr. Jones assuming that all buildings should react the same, regardless of design, when an office fire occurs.
Click to expand...


How can you avoid answering my questions, by assuming I said something I clearly didn't?? Your a pathetic excuse even for a pole sucking OCTA.. You are a disgraceful troll, that runs away from answering clear, and sincere questions, you are an embarrassment, to all pole sucking OCTAs everywhere.


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you avoid a direct answer to my questions..it's all here in the posts.
> 
> You are lying again...site where I actually say this?
> 
> You have not answered anything, you instead are displaying a cowardly troll tactic of avoidance and deflection. So how come the 75 fire didn't cause even a partial collapse??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *sigh*
> 
> Was the structure damaged by a fucking jet before the fires started? Are you really this stupid? You don't think that played a roll in it? As I keep saying, the structural design is supposed to work as a whole. The more components you remove or weaken, then more stress is put on the remaining components.
> 
> It's not just the steel you jackass. This is the last time I am going to answer you. The design of a building dictates how it will react. Since the design of the buildings is different, you can make no comparison!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why was there no global collapse in ANY of the other buildings, with free fall speed collapses??
Click to expand...




> And this is a total lie. The buildings did not collapse at free fall speed. As much as you want this to be true, it isn't.



Hey you lying OCT pole swallower. Nist finally admits 2.25 secs. of free fall! What a fucking lying scumbag you are!!

Why didn't other building infernos produce this?? Because the ONLY REASONABLE EXPLANATION IS THAT THEY WERE DESTROYED BY CD, THAT'S WHY.
 Empire State Building hit by a plane, caused fires, killed people, NO GLOBAL COLLAPSE. 
9-11 3 BUILDINGS, ONE not hit BY A PLANE COLLAPSED GLOBALLY,
one building fell at a rate of free fall. NIST got caught in a lie like you do here. The 9-11 commission report has been proven to be a flawed report...according to the people who wrote it...
You show a contemptuous disregard for these facts, deserving the label of treasonous scum, and coward. You have shown in these posts your true colors, coward piss yellow [/QUOTE]

Was it PART of the collapse or the whole collapse asshole?


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Because the design is affected differently by office fires as evidenced in the partial collapse of one building and "no inkling" of collapse in another!!!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> Did the 1975 fires have a jet slam into the one side damaging structural components????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that fires that have been proven to have been worse in structures constructed of steel have never collapsed, producing free fall speeds EVER!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since these buildings were designed differently, you have no comparison to make.
> 
> End of story.
Click to expand...


They ALL had steel construction, yet only the WTC buildings..one that was not hit by a plane, collapsed globally and 1 produced 2.25 secs. of free fall.admitted to by NIST!!
Explain that you treasonous lying scumbag??
What was different in the STEEL??
Why no "thermal expansion" producing global collapse and free fall speeds in ANY of the towering infernos???

Did the WTC have faulty steel? Railroad steel perhaps


----------



## Mr. Jones

Let it be known on these forums that you *Gamolon* are a coward, who avoids answering legit questions, and you are a troll that can't produce evidence as to why other building infernos burned longer and more ferociously ,causing no global collapse, nor free fall speeds, despite your adherence and claim that the OCT as laid out by NIST and the government is believable.

You are forever branded as a traitor, and a liar, who only parrots the official government conspiracy THEORY, with no regard for the rest of the nation, nor the victims of the attack. You are an enemy of all real Americans, who sides with the criminals who helped/ caused the attacks. You have disgraced yourself, beyond repair, and will forever be considered a most unreliable source to believe, and engage with on this topic, I'm sure your handlers will be most displeased with your pathetic performance in this thread and others.

You lose troll.


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Let it be known on these forums that you *Gamolon* are a coward, who avoids answering legit questions, and you are a troll that can't produce evidence as to why other building infernos burned longer and more ferociously ,causing no global collapse, nor free fall speeds, despite your adherence and claim that the OCT as laid out by NIST and the government is believable.
> 
> You are forever branded as a traitor, and a liar, who only parrots the official government conspiracy THEORY, with no regard for the rest of the nation, nor the victims of the attack. You are an enemy of all real Americans, who sides with the criminals who helped/ caused the attacks. You have disgraced yourself, beyond repair, and will forever be considered a most unreliable source to believe, and engage with on this topic, I'm sure your handlers will be most displeased with your pathetic performance in this thread and others.
> 
> You lose troll.



Let it be known that YOU, *Mr. Jones* are an imbecile and cannot seem to grasp the concept that different buildings will react differently to office fires based on there design as has been told to you many times.

Maybe someday when you grow up and learn something, you'll realize how stupid you really were. I can only hope, but based on your previous idiocy, there probably isn't much hope.

Talk to some structural engineers. They may set your sorry ass straight.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let it be known on these forums that you *Gamolon* are a coward, who avoids answering legit questions, and you are a troll that can't produce evidence as to why other building infernos burned longer and more ferociously ,causing no global collapse, nor free fall speeds, despite your adherence and claim that the OCT as laid out by NIST and the government is believable.
> 
> You are forever branded as a traitor, and a liar, who only parrots the official government conspiracy THEORY, with no regard for the rest of the nation, nor the victims of the attack. You are an enemy of all real Americans, who sides with the criminals who helped/ caused the attacks. You have disgraced yourself, beyond repair, and will forever be considered a most unreliable source to believe, and engage with on this topic, I'm sure your handlers will be most displeased with your pathetic performance in this thread and others.
> 
> You lose troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let it be known that YOU, *Mr. Jones* are an imbecile and cannot seem to grasp the concept that different buildings will react differently to office fires based on there design as has been told to you many times.
> 
> Maybe someday when you grow up and learn something, you'll realize how stupid you really were. I can only hope, but based on your previous idiocy, there probably isn't much hope.
> 
> Talk to some structural engineers. They may set your sorry ass straight.
Click to expand...


The STEEL motherfucker, that is what has been in question all this time!! Why don't we see thermal expansion in the other inferno fires because of this phenomena....EVER?? Or global collapse...producing free fall speeds??
 You have had your ass handed to you you miserable OCTA twat
you have failed in your duty to your handlers, you are a treasonous POS. 
Dance around the questions motherfucker....DANCE


----------



## SFC Ollie

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol..you still see the building standing, and it suffered no total complete global collapse!! No free fall, ...you got no logical explanation for why these infernos did not globally collapse
> You lose troll!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did the steel part collapse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't say truthfully, but it still did not collapse globally, at amazing velocity did it??
> now using your tactic..It isn't the WTC isn't it?
> So how come at the ACTUAL WTC N tower..in 1975 we see no inkling of a collapse?? Answer this finally..
Click to expand...


We do understand that in 1975 it was an office fire which was mostly limited to one floor and that the steel trusses still had the fireproofing on them. And that in 2001 an Airliner crashed into the building doing structural damage and knocking much of the fire[proofing insulation away from the steel trusses? We do understand the differences don't we?


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let it be known on these forums that you *Gamolon* are a coward, who avoids answering legit questions, and you are a troll that can't produce evidence as to why other building infernos burned longer and more ferociously ,causing no global collapse, nor free fall speeds, despite your adherence and claim that the OCT as laid out by NIST and the government is believable.
> 
> You are forever branded as a traitor, and a liar, who only parrots the official government conspiracy THEORY, with no regard for the rest of the nation, nor the victims of the attack. You are an enemy of all real Americans, who sides with the criminals who helped/ caused the attacks. You have disgraced yourself, beyond repair, and will forever be considered a most unreliable source to believe, and engage with on this topic, I'm sure your handlers will be most displeased with your pathetic performance in this thread and others.
> 
> You lose troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let it be known that YOU, *Mr. Jones* are an imbecile and cannot seem to grasp the concept that different buildings will react differently to office fires based on there design as has been told to you many times.
> 
> Maybe someday when you grow up and learn something, you'll realize how stupid you really were. I can only hope, but based on your previous idiocy, there probably isn't much hope.
> 
> Talk to some structural engineers. They may set your sorry ass straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The STEEL motherfucker, that is what has been in question all this time!! Why don't we see thermal expansion in the other inferno fires because of this phenomena....EVER?? Or global collapse...producing free fall speeds??
> You have had your ass handed to you you miserable OCTA twat
> you have failed in your duty to your handlers, you are a treasonous POS.
> Dance around the questions motherfucker....DANCE
Click to expand...


  The stupid dumbfuck known as Mr. Jones STILL can't understand concepts a child can easily grasp.  Either that or he is too embarassed by his obvious fuckups that he can't back down from his mistakes now.  What a pussy!  

According to dumbfucks like you, the Windsor tower shouldn't have collapsed at all, yet the steel part did.  Why?  Why didn't it just stay perfectly there when you claim there is no such thing as thermal expansion?   

Just pointing out your amazing ignorance.

Steel failing due to fire
How about the Universal studios fire.  Those steel beams sure don't look straight to me!


----------



## Mr. Jones

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let it be known that YOU, *Mr. Jones* are an imbecile and cannot seem to grasp the concept that different buildings will react differently to office fires based on there design as has been told to you many times.
> 
> Maybe someday when you grow up and learn something, you'll realize how stupid you really were. I can only hope, but based on your previous idiocy, there probably isn't much hope.
> 
> Talk to some structural engineers. They may set your sorry ass straight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The STEEL motherfucker, that is what has been in question all this time!! Why don't we see thermal expansion in the other inferno fires because of this phenomena....EVER?? Or global collapse...producing free fall speeds??
> You have had your ass handed to you you miserable OCTA twat
> you have failed in your duty to your handlers, you are a treasonous POS.
> Dance around the questions motherfucker....DANCE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The stupid dumbfuck known as Mr. Jones STILL can't understand concepts a child can easily grasp.  Either that or he is too embarassed by his obvious fuckups that he can't back down from his mistakes now.  What a pussy!
> 
> According to dumbfucks like you, the Windsor tower shouldn't have collapsed at all, yet the steel part did.  Why?  Why didn't it just stay perfectly there when you claim there is no such thing as thermal expansion?
> 
> Just pointing out your amazing ignorance.
> 
> Steel failing due to fire
> How about the Universal studios fire.  Those steel beams sure don't look straight to me!
Click to expand...


Ah there you go again trying to say that I said something I did not.
I see you posting nonsense again, instead of trying to help your fellow traitor with some kind of explanation as to why the buildings that experienced blazing infernos DID NOT GLOBALLY COLLAPSE, producing free fall speeds. 
 Or try to explain to us why the STEEL in these infernos did NOT experience 'thermal expansion" to the point where the buildings collapsed straight down??
So many examples of blazing infernos...yet NOT A ONE totally collapsed. 
What's with the steel in Manhattan NY, Why only there do buildings collapse, at free fall speed while ejecting debris hundreds of feet away??
Why do the 9-11 commission writers reject their own report, one quit, and one wrote a book about the frustrations and lies that prevented them from doing their job??
Why is that?
 Do you care to answer these questions?? Or are you just here to get away from the ass kicking you are receiving in the other thread??? HMMMM?
According to you, a child should understand your explanation, but you provide absolutely NONE! 

You sick treasonous fucks are the scum of the Earth..Instead of standing with the people in your country, you stand with the liars and criminals that
have been caught deceiving your fellow citizens and are hell bent on destroying it!

So can you provide a logical explanation, to the above questions, or are you going to continue to make an ass out of yourself for the umpteenth time on a public forum?
 The STEEL motherfucker! What is the difference in the STEEL not the fucking design asshole! Why does the STEEL behave differently in the WTC buildings then in the other infernos in question???
It doesn't matter the design, how many rooms or offices you jaggoff!
It's the STEEL...Why didn't the STEEL expand and cause the buildings to globally collapse...at free fall speed...is the STEEL different in NYC?
Answer this instead of using your BS troll tactics for once?
What makes the STEEL so fucking different in the other buildings? The fires in the other buildings were certainly hot enough, and longer lasting wouldn't you agree?
And why not even a partial collapse in 1975 in the N tower, it was still a fire of high intensity and duration right?
Nist said fires were the primary cause of collapse...right?


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the steel part collapse?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't say truthfully, but it still did not collapse globally, at amazing velocity did it??
> now using your tactic..It isn't the WTC isn't it?
> So how come at the ACTUAL WTC N tower..in 1975 we see no inkling of a collapse?? Answer this finally..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do understand that in 1975 it was an office fire which was mostly limited to one floor and that the steel trusses still had the fireproofing on them. And that in 2001 an Airliner crashed into the building doing structural damage and knocking much of the fire[proofing insulation away from the steel trusses? We do understand the differences don't we?
Click to expand...


No YOU do not know about the 1975 fire Alzheimer Ollie.
It burned 6 floors for 3 hours mostly in the 11th floor.
Several fire suppression systems that were later installed in the towers were not present at the time, including sprinklers, elevator shaft dampers, and electrical system fireproofing.
The captain of Engine Co. 6 described the suppression effort as "like fighting a blow torch."

The fire burned for 3 hrs, and did not cause any thermal expansion nor did any portion of it collapse.
That the 1975 fire was more intense than the 9-11 fires is evident from the fact that it caused the 11th floor east side windows to break...

So, this was a very serious fire which spread over some 65 per cent of the eleventh floor (the core plus half the office area) in the very same building that supposedly "collapsed" on 9/11 due to a similar, or lesser, fire. This fire also spread to a number of other floors. And although it lasted over 3 hours, it caused no serious structural damage and trusses survived the fires without replacement and supported the building for many, many more years after the fires were put out.

BELLACIAO - The 1975 World Trade Center Fire - Simpleton says:

Why no collapse like WTC 7 Ollie?


----------



## SFC Ollie

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't say truthfully, but it still did not collapse globally, at amazing velocity did it??
> now using your tactic..It isn't the WTC isn't it?
> So how come at the ACTUAL WTC N tower..in 1975 we see no inkling of a collapse?? Answer this finally..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We do understand that in 1975 it was an office fire which was mostly limited to one floor and that the steel trusses still had the fireproofing on them. And that in 2001 an Airliner crashed into the building doing structural damage and knocking much of the fire[proofing insulation away from the steel trusses? We do understand the differences don't we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No YOU do not know about the 1975 fire Alzheimer Ollie.
> It burned 6 floors for 3 hours mostly in the 11th floor.
> Several fire suppression systems that were later installed in the towers were not present at the time, including sprinklers, elevator shaft dampers, and electrical system fireproofing.
> The captain of Engine Co. 6 described the suppression effort as "like fighting a blow torch."
> 
> The fire burned for 3 hrs, and did not cause any thermal expansion nor did any portion of it collapse.
> That the 1975 fire was more intense than the 9-11 fires is evident from the fact that it caused the 11th floor east side windows to break...
> 
> So, this was a very serious fire which spread over some 65 per cent of the eleventh floor (the core plus half the office area) in the very same building that supposedly "collapsed" on 9/11 due to a similar, or lesser, fire. This fire also spread to a number of other floors. And although it lasted over 3 hours, it caused no serious structural damage and trusses survived the fires without replacement and supported the building for many, many more years after the fires were put out.
> 
> BELLACIAO - The 1975 World Trade Center Fire - Simpleton says:
> 
> Why no collapse like WTC 7 Ollie?
Click to expand...


The fire actually burned the insulation off some communications cables that ran from floor to floor and never really did any damage on any other floors other than 11. And again you ignore the facts. The trusses and beams had fireproofing in 1975. It wasn't blown off by an airliner. That is probably the biggest difference. You do remember the airliners?


----------



## SFC Ollie

7 WTC is a different story.  The insulation was in place as far as we know. And this is where I believe that NIST was wrong. I believe that the damage done to the building by the towers falling did have more to do with it than they claim. We cannot see all the damage because of the fires on the south side of the building.


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> 7 WTC is a different story.  The insulation was in place as far as we know. And this is where I believe that NIST was wrong. I believe that the damage done to the building by the towers falling did have more to do with it than they claim. We cannot see all the damage because of the fires on the south side of the building.



well there is one little problem with that Ollie the computer model is the corner stone of the NIST theory and evidence and if you consider damage you cant get it to produce a isometrically collapse ...so if you think NIST is wrong about the damage...then you also invalidate the computer model and the NIST theory


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do understand that in 1975 it was an office fire which was mostly limited to one floor and that the steel trusses still had the fireproofing on them. And that in 2001 an Airliner crashed into the building doing structural damage and knocking much of the fire[proofing insulation away from the steel trusses? We do understand the differences don't we?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No YOU do not know about the 1975 fire Alzheimer Ollie.
> It burned 6 floors for 3 hours mostly in the 11th floor.
> Several fire suppression systems that were later installed in the towers were not present at the time, including sprinklers, elevator shaft dampers, and electrical system fireproofing.
> The captain of Engine Co. 6 described the suppression effort as "like fighting a blow torch."
> 
> The fire burned for 3 hrs, and did not cause any thermal expansion nor did any portion of it collapse.
> That the 1975 fire was more intense than the 9-11 fires is evident from the fact that it caused the 11th floor east side windows to break...
> 
> So, this was a very serious fire which spread over some 65 per cent of the eleventh floor (the core plus half the office area) in the very same building that supposedly "collapsed" on 9/11 due to a similar, or lesser, fire. This fire also spread to a number of other floors. And although it lasted over 3 hours, it caused no serious structural damage and trusses survived the fires without replacement and supported the building for many, many more years after the fires were put out.
> 
> BELLACIAO - The 1975 World Trade Center Fire - Simpleton says:
> 
> Why no collapse like WTC 7 Ollie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fire actually burned the insulation off some communications cables that ran from floor to floor and never really did any damage on any other floors other than 11. And again you ignore the facts. The trusses and beams had fireproofing in 1975. It wasn't blown off by an airliner. That is probably the biggest difference. You do remember the airliners?
Click to expand...


that might explain a partial collapse...maybe...but not the rest of the collapse


----------



## candycorn

Mr. Jones said:


> YouTube - Help put this TV Ad on the Air -- Go to RememberBuilding7.org
> 
> Spread the word and research what the real issues are with the NIST investigation and the problems the families of the victims of 9-11 and many others have with the explanation that was told to the country.



The investigation was fine; you can find no inaccuracies in the 9/11 Commission report.


----------



## eots

candycorn said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - Help put this TV Ad on the Air -- Go to RememberBuilding7.org
> 
> Spread the word and research what the real issues are with the NIST investigation and the problems the families of the victims of 9-11 and many others have with the explanation that was told to the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The investigation was fine; you can find no inaccuracies in the 9/11 Commission report.
Click to expand...


the 9/11 commission was not investigating the cause of the collapse cornyhole


----------



## PhysicsExist

SFC Ollie said:


> 7 WTC is a different story.  The insulation was in place as far as we know. And this is where I believe that NIST was wrong. I believe that the damage done to the building by the towers falling did have more to do with it than they claim. We cannot see all the damage because of the fires on the south side of the building.



Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall?  NISTs lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object has no structural components below it.[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives.  If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NISTs initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7s destruction, NISTs claim contradicted a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall.  According to NIST, This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7s free fall descent could have occurred.

*Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.  The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.
*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related]YouTube - WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)[/ame]


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let it be known on these forums that you *Gamolon* are a coward, who avoids answering legit questions, and you are a troll that can't produce evidence as to why other building infernos burned longer and more ferociously ,causing no global collapse, nor free fall speeds, despite your adherence and claim that the OCT as laid out by NIST and the government is believable.
> 
> You are forever branded as a traitor, and a liar, who only parrots the official government conspiracy THEORY, with no regard for the rest of the nation, nor the victims of the attack. You are an enemy of all real Americans, who sides with the criminals who helped/ caused the attacks. You have disgraced yourself, beyond repair, and will forever be considered a most unreliable source to believe, and engage with on this topic, I'm sure your handlers will be most displeased with your pathetic performance in this thread and others.
> 
> You lose troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let it be known that YOU, *Mr. Jones* are an imbecile and cannot seem to grasp the concept that different buildings will react differently to office fires based on there design as has been told to you many times.
> 
> Maybe someday when you grow up and learn something, you'll realize how stupid you really were. I can only hope, but based on your previous idiocy, there probably isn't much hope.
> 
> Talk to some structural engineers. They may set your sorry ass straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The STEEL motherfucker, that is what has been in question all this time!! Why don't we see thermal expansion in the other inferno fires because of this phenomena....EVER?? Or global collapse...producing free fall speeds??
> You have had your ass handed to you you miserable OCTA twat
> you have failed in your duty to your handlers, you are a treasonous POS.
> Dance around the questions motherfucker....DANCE
Click to expand...


Here you go you stupid fuck. Example of a total building collapse due to fire and with a steel structure.
CASE STUDY: THE KADER TOY FACTORY FIRE



> The Buildings Structural Integrity
> Probably the most notable difference between the Triangle and Kader fires is the effect they had on the structural integrity of the buildings involved. Even though the Triangle fire gutted the top three floors of the ten-storey factory building, the building remained structurally intact. The Kader buildings, on the other hand, *collapsed relatively early in the fire because their structural steel supports lacked the fireproofing that would have allowed them to maintain their strength when exposed to high temperatures*. A post-fire review of the debris at the Kader site showed no indication that any of the steel members had been fireproofed.



So why did this building collapse completely due to fire, yet your examples show that the steel either didn't collapse or partially collapsed.

Obviously steel was used in all cases and fire was involved. So what are the other factors that could have caused this total collapse of a steel building?


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> The STEEL motherfucker, that is what has been in question all this time!! *Why don't we see thermal expansion* in the other inferno fires because of this phenomena....EVER??



Tell you what dickhead. 

You provide me the proof that there was not one iota of thermal expansion in ANY of those buildings.

Let's see your proof behind your assumption. Otherwise you're guessing. Much like you asshole cohort eots who said engineers designed buildings for thermal expansion due to office fires.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let it be known that YOU, *Mr. Jones* are an imbecile and cannot seem to grasp the concept that different buildings will react differently to office fires based on there design as has been told to you many times.
> 
> Maybe someday when you grow up and learn something, you'll realize how stupid you really were. I can only hope, but based on your previous idiocy, there probably isn't much hope.
> 
> Talk to some structural engineers. They may set your sorry ass straight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The STEEL motherfucker, that is what has been in question all this time!! Why don't we see thermal expansion in the other inferno fires because of this phenomena....EVER?? Or global collapse...producing free fall speeds??
> You have had your ass handed to you you miserable OCTA twat
> you have failed in your duty to your handlers, you are a treasonous POS.
> Dance around the questions motherfucker....DANCE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you go you stupid fuck. Example of a total building collapse due to fire and with a steel structure.
> CASE STUDY: THE KADER TOY FACTORY FIRE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Buildings Structural Integrity
> Probably the most notable difference between the Triangle and Kader fires is the effect they had on the structural integrity of the buildings involved. Even though the Triangle fire gutted the top three floors of the ten-storey factory building, the building remained structurally intact. The Kader buildings, on the other hand, *collapsed relatively early in the fire because their structural steel supports lacked the fireproofing that would have allowed them to maintain their strength when exposed to high temperatures*. A post-fire review of the debris at the Kader site showed no indication that any of the steel members had been fireproofed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why did this building collapse completely due to fire, yet your examples show that the steel either didn't collapse or partially collapsed.
> 
> Obviously steel was used in all cases and fire was involved. So what are the other factors that could have caused this total collapse of a steel building?
Click to expand...


What is the difference in the steel in this fire then, say the other examples of infernos? Surely the other buildings had fireproofing no?
It also has not been proven that the planes caused all of the fireproofing to just fall off, in fact if I remember correctly, NIST did some lame test with a shotgun??

Nope, sorry this is not convincing proof from you in any way.
The fact still remains that the WTC towers should have still stood, I will even concede with a parial collapse. The 7 building is all together
too strange, as no plane hit it to blame lack of fireproofing on.

Again we are not talking about the design..it is the steel in the infernos that miraculously stayed upright in most all instances, where as the steel in the WTC..especially 7 falls like toothpicks, straight down, producing 2.25 secs. of free fall.

Keep in mind also that the fire you linked, -

"The initial fuel packages in both the Triangle and Kader fires were similar. The Triangle fire started in rag bins and quickly spread to combustible clothing and garments before involving wood furnishings, some of which were impregnated with machine oil. The initial fuel package at the Kader plant consisted of polyester and cotton fabrics, various plastics, and other materials used to manufacture stuffed toys, plastic dolls, and other related products. These are materials that can typically be ignited easily, can contribute to rapid fire growth and spread, and have a high heat release rate."

And I can't seem to find how long your fire burned?
The WTC were no 3rd world sweat shops.


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The STEEL motherfucker, that is what has been in question all this time!! Why don't we see thermal expansion in the other inferno fires because of this phenomena....EVER?? Or global collapse...producing free fall speeds??
> You have had your ass handed to you you miserable OCTA twat
> you have failed in your duty to your handlers, you are a treasonous POS.
> Dance around the questions motherfucker....DANCE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go you stupid fuck. Example of a total building collapse due to fire and with a steel structure.
> CASE STUDY: THE KADER TOY FACTORY FIRE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Buildings Structural Integrity
> Probably the most notable difference between the Triangle and Kader fires is the effect they had on the structural integrity of the buildings involved. Even though the Triangle fire gutted the top three floors of the ten-storey factory building, the building remained structurally intact. The Kader buildings, on the other hand, *collapsed relatively early in the fire because their structural steel supports lacked the fireproofing that would have allowed them to maintain their strength when exposed to high temperatures*. A post-fire review of the debris at the Kader site showed no indication that any of the steel members had been fireproofed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why did this building collapse completely due to fire, yet your examples show that the steel either didn't collapse or partially collapsed.
> 
> Obviously steel was used in all cases and fire was involved. So what are the other factors that could have caused this total collapse of a steel building?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the difference in the steel in this fire then, say the other examples of infernos? Surely the other buildings had fireproofing no?
> It also has not been proven that the planes caused all of the fireproofing to just fall off, in fact if I remember correctly, NIST did some lame test with a shotgun??
> 
> Nope, sorry this is not convincing proof from you in any way.
> The fact still remains that the WTC towers should have still stood, I will even concede with a parial collapse. The 7 building is all together
> too strange, as no plane hit it to blame lack of fireproofing on.
> 
> Again we are not talking about the design..it is the steel in the infernos that miraculously stayed upright in most all instances, where as the steel in the WTC..especially 7 falls like toothpicks, straight down, producing 2.25 secs. of free fall.
> 
> Keep in mind also that the fire you linked, -
> 
> "The initial fuel packages in both the Triangle and Kader fires were similar. The Triangle fire started in rag bins and quickly spread to combustible clothing and garments before involving wood furnishings, some of which were impregnated with machine oil. The initial fuel package at the Kader plant consisted of polyester and cotton fabrics, various plastics, and other materials used to manufacture stuffed toys, plastic dolls, and other related products. These are materials that can typically be ignited easily, can contribute to rapid fire growth and spread, and have a high heat release rate."
> 
> And I can't seem to find how long your fire burned?
> The WTC were no 3rd world sweat shops.
Click to expand...


Answer a question for me Mr. Jones.

What caused the different reactions between your examples? Why did one building partially collapse and why did one building not collapse at all?


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go you stupid fuck. Example of a total building collapse due to fire and with a steel structure.
> CASE STUDY: THE KADER TOY FACTORY FIRE
> 
> 
> 
> So why did this building collapse completely due to fire, yet your examples show that the steel either didn't collapse or partially collapsed.
> 
> Obviously steel was used in all cases and fire was involved. So what are the other factors that could have caused this total collapse of a steel building?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the difference in the steel in this fire then, say the other examples of infernos? Surely the other buildings had fireproofing no?
> It also has not been proven that the planes caused all of the fireproofing to just fall off, in fact if I remember correctly, NIST did some lame test with a shotgun??
> 
> Nope, sorry this is not convincing proof from you in any way.
> The fact still remains that the WTC towers should have still stood, I will even concede with a parial collapse. The 7 building is all together
> too strange, as no plane hit it to blame lack of fireproofing on.
> 
> Again we are not talking about the design..it is the steel in the infernos that miraculously stayed upright in most all instances, where as the steel in the WTC..especially 7 falls like toothpicks, straight down, producing 2.25 secs. of free fall.
> 
> Keep in mind also that the fire you linked, -
> 
> "The initial fuel packages in both the Triangle and Kader fires were similar. The Triangle fire started in rag bins and quickly spread to combustible clothing and garments before involving wood furnishings, some of which were impregnated with machine oil. The initial fuel package at the Kader plant consisted of polyester and cotton fabrics, various plastics, and other materials used to manufacture stuffed toys, plastic dolls, and other related products. These are materials that can typically be ignited easily, can contribute to rapid fire growth and spread, and have a high heat release rate."
> 
> And I can't seem to find how long your fire burned?
> The WTC were no 3rd world sweat shops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer a question for me Mr. Jones.
> 
> What caused the different reactions between your examples? Why did one building partially collapse and why did one building not collapse at all?
Click to expand...


What "all the different reactions"? The examples of the infernos, ALL stayed upright for the most part, and did not collapse straight down producing free fall speeds!

You talk about design and allude to that being a difference. That's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the steel for the hundredth time already!
 Look...take a Ford explorer, and a Ford Expedition as an example.
One is larger, slightly different in design, but both use a common steel and frame rails. 
Lift both off the ground on a rack..start a fire underneath both of them... for 1 hr let's say...Would ones steel rails "thermally expand" and collapse, while the other would not....despite using the same common steel?? This is what you are saying.


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> You talk about design and allude to that being a difference. That's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the steel for the hundredth time already!
> Look...take a Ford explorer, and a Ford Expedition as an example.
> One is larger, slightly different in design, but both use a common steel and frame rails.
> Lift both off the ground on a rack..start a fire underneath both of them... for 1 hr let's say...Would ones steel rails "thermally expand" and collapse, while the other would not....despite using the same common steel?? This is what you are saying.



  Wow.  To say you are clueless is to insult clueless people everywhere!   You really think the only difference in buildings is SIZE?!?!?  Holy shit, dude!  At this point a lobotomy could only improve your intelligence!  Are you seriously so fucking stupid that you don't understand that the construction of the buildings is going to use different structures made out of steel to hold up the building?  One structure may be more succeptable to fire than another due to the design.  Has your little peabrain ever thought of that?  Have you ever even LOOKED at the design of the WTC 7 to see just how unique it was and how it had steel structures holding up the building that were VERY unique? 

Every time I think I can't possibly have less respect for you than I already have, you prove me wrong.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> You talk about design and allude to that being a difference. That's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the steel for the hundredth time already!
> Look...take a Ford explorer, and a Ford Expedition as an example.
> One is larger, slightly different in design, but both use a common steel and frame rails.
> Lift both off the ground on a rack..start a fire underneath both of them... for 1 hr let's say...Would ones steel rails "thermally expand" and collapse, while the other would not....despite using the same common steel?? This is what you are saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  To say you are clueless is to insult clueless people everywhere!   You really think the only difference in buildings is SIZE?!?!?  Holy shit, dude!  At this point a lobotomy could only improve your intelligence!  Are you seriously so fucking stupid that you don't understand that the construction of the buildings is going to use different structures made out of steel to hold up the building?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is still STEEL you dumb twat!
> What was different about the steel in 7 compared to the infernos I sited? That is the question. You have many instances of actual infernos that DID NOT collapse producing free fall, AND ONLY 1 THAT DID THAT BEING 7!
> So what was different about 7s steel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One structure may be more succeptable to fire than another due to the design.  Has your little peabrain ever thought of that?  Have you ever even LOOKED at the design of the WTC 7 to see just how unique it was and how it had steel structures holding up the building that were VERY unique?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are implying that WTC 7 was a POS design, using POS steel?
> 
> 
> 
> Every time I think I can't possibly have less respect for you than I already have, you prove me wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I ask a simple question about the steel in 7 compared to the infernos elsewhere, and you dance around it, with insults, and BS and provide zero logical answers. You really do suck at this.
> So then try to answer the comparison I posed to you. 2 different trucks (buildings), same fire under both...same steel frame rails...which one will collapse with free fall speed?
> One could be a 4 dr. with tow package, it doesn't matter the design, as the steel to build both is the same.
> So tell us using your vast knowledge on this topic  instead of using your time tested and frequently exposed troll tactics, for once.
Click to expand...


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> It is still STEEL you dumb twat!


So you are confessing to everyone that you actually believe a steel structure configured one way should react the exact same way as every other steel structure when exposed to fire?    Thanks for confirming your utter ignorance!  BTW, I already showed you a building where the steel framed section of the building undeniably collapsed.  A shame you have to run away from the facts.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> What was different about the steel in 7 compared to the infernos I sited? That is the question.


Shit, you are one ignorant motherfucker, aren't you!  Nothing is different in the steel.  It is how the steel is holding up the building that matters.  That is the part you insist doesn't matter, yet matters far more than anything else.  The WTC 7 was a very unique design.  You may badmouth the NIST report all you want, but read it.  You can debate their findings, but the facts on the design of the building are beyond reproach.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> You have many instances of actual infernos that DID NOT collapse producing free fall, AND ONLY 1 THAT DID THAT BEING 7!


Define many.  A handful?  Certainly less than 50.  How many had the same circumstances as WTC 7 where the fire was started the way it was in WTC 7, not fought at all, and allowed to burn uncontested?  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> So what was different about 7s steel?


Read above and weap.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> So you are implying that WTC 7 was a POS design, using POS steel?


Nope.  Read what I say, not what you want me to say.  It was a unique design that had some issues IF some highly unlikely things happened.  Under normal circumstances it was a perfectly fine design.  As for the quality of steel, it isn't the steel, dipshit!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Every time I think I can't possibly have less respect for you than I already have, you prove me wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> I ask a simple question about the steel in 7 compared to the infernos elsewhere, and you dance around it, with insults, and BS and provide zero logical answers. You really do suck at this.
Click to expand...

Wrong yet again.  The fact you're too retarded to understand the answers I and many others have given you isn't our fault.  Debating with someone too stupid to qualify for the special olympics is very difficult.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> So then try to answer the comparison I posed to you. 2 different trucks (buildings), same fire under both...same steel frame rails...which one will collapse with free fall speed?


Come back when you actually understand the issue.  Don't keep re-displaying your utter ignorance.  It is embarassing to all your fellow truthtards when one of their own displays such amazing levels of ignorance.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> One could be a 4 dr. with tow package, it doesn't matter the design, as the steel to build both is the same.


Read above.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> So tell us using your vast knowledge on this topic  instead of using your time tested and frequently exposed troll tactics, for once.


Why should I respond to an example that has NO VALID RELATIONSHIP to the issue at hand?  Just because you're a dumb fuck doesn't mean everyone else has to lower themselves to your level.


----------



## Gamolon

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is still STEEL you dumb twat!
> 
> 
> 
> So you are confessing to everyone that you actually believe a steel structure configured one way should react the exact same way as every other steel structure when exposed to fire?    Thanks for confirming your utter ignorance!  BTW, I already showed you a building where the steel framed section of the building undeniably collapsed.  A shame you have to run away from the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was different about the steel in 7 compared to the infernos I sited? That is the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shit, you are one ignorant motherfucker, aren't you!  Nothing is different in the steel.  It is how the steel is holding up the building that matters.  *That is the part you insist doesn't matter, yet matters far more than anything else.*  The WTC 7 was a very unique design.  You may badmouth the NIST report all you want, but read it.  You can debate their findings, but the facts on the design of the building are beyond reproach.
Click to expand...


Amen.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is still STEEL you dumb twat!
> 
> 
> 
> So you are confessing to everyone that you actually believe a steel structure configured one way should react the exact same way as every other steel structure when exposed to fire?    Thanks for confirming your utter ignorance!  BTW, I already showed you a building where the steel framed section of the building undeniably collapsed.  A shame you have to run away from the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was different about the steel in 7 compared to the infernos I sited? That is the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shit, you are one ignorant motherfucker, aren't you!  Nothing is different in the steel.  It is how the steel is holding up the building that matters.  *That is the part you insist doesn't matter, yet matters far more than anything else.*  The WTC 7 was a very unique design.  You may badmouth the NIST report all you want, but read it.  You can debate their findings, but the facts on the design of the building are beyond reproach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amen.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one who started to "badmouth" the NIST, more educated and knowledgeable people have done so, and explained it to us layman in very understandable ways, that make sense without having to resort to ridiculous and far fetched, never before happened in history reasons. The CD theory explains their demise far more accurately when taking all of the available information into consideration.
 I still call bullshit on your theory, steel in the examples of the infernos according to NIST and you people, should have thermally expanded to the point of free fall collapses. WTC 7 was fortified, and so much confidence was given to its design that it was the command center.
Those 3 buildings were constructed with safety factors, and they should not have come down like they did.
Much testing has been done for over 100 yrs. and the testing in Britain suggests that they should not have collapsed like they did, you are basically saying that the WTC buildings were built inappropriately using crap quality steel, and suggesting that the WTC buildings had such load designs as to allow sporadic asymmetrical fire damage cause their collapses, one producing free fall speeds at one point.
One doesn't have to be a genius to view the examples of the fires side by side to see that your theory is BS, especially taking into account the massiveness of the WTC buildings.
Bottom line is, they did not collapse the way NIST has said, and you are still helping to cover up a heinous crime on behalf of the perpetrators. 
You would think when one steps back, and looks at the big picture it would give you people a reason to be concerned, but you are not, and you try to wave these very strange things away, why I'm not sure exactly but the label of disinformation "agent" sure fits you.

One more question for you...Why in no examples of other building infernos, do we see any outward ejecting of parts of the building, nor do we hear any popping sounds as they came down? Oh that's right I forgot, they DIDN'T come down or explode like the WTC towers...my bad.


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are confessing to everyone that you actually believe a steel structure configured one way should react the exact same way as every other steel structure when exposed to fire?    Thanks for confirming your utter ignorance!  BTW, I already showed you a building where the steel framed section of the building undeniably collapsed.  A shame you have to run away from the facts.
> 
> 
> Shit, you are one ignorant motherfucker, aren't you!  Nothing is different in the steel.  It is how the steel is holding up the building that matters.  *That is the part you insist doesn't matter, yet matters far more than anything else.*  The WTC 7 was a very unique design.  You may badmouth the NIST report all you want, but read it.  You can debate their findings, but the facts on the design of the building are beyond reproach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not the one who started to "badmouth" the NIST, more educated and knowledgeable people have done so, and explained it to us layman in very understandable ways, that make sense without having to resort to ridiculous and far fetched, never before happened in history reasons. The CD theory explains their demise far more accurately when taking all of the available information into consideration.
> I still call bullshit on your theory, steel in the examples of the infernos according to NIST and you people, should have thermally expanded to the point of free fall collapses. WTC 7 was fortified, and so much confidence was given to its design that it was the command center.
> Those 3 buildings were constructed with safety factors, and they should not have come down like they did.
> Much testing has been done for over 100 yrs. and the testing in Britain suggests that they should not have collapsed like they did, you are basically saying that the WTC buildings were built inappropriately using crap quality steel, and suggesting that the WTC buildings had such load designs as to allow sporadic asymmetrical fire damage cause their collapses, one producing free fall speeds at one point.
> One doesn't have to be a genius to view the examples of the fires side by side to see that your theory is BS, especially taking into account the massiveness of the WTC buildings.
> Bottom line is, they did not collapse the way NIST has said, and you are still helping to cover up a heinous crime on behalf of the perpetrators.
> You would think when one steps back, and looks at the big picture it would give you people a reason to be concerned, but you are not, and you try to wave these very strange things away, why I'm not sure exactly but the label of disinformation "agent" sure fits you.
> 
> One more question for you...Why in no examples of other building infernos, do we see any outward ejecting of parts of the building, nor do we hear any popping sounds as they came down? Oh that's right I forgot, they DIDN'T come down or explode like the WTC towers...my bad.
Click to expand...


Can you show me these massive parts of the building being ejected sideways out of the building? Videos perhaps?


----------



## Gamolon

Tell me something Mr. Jones.

You sit here bring up the fact that no building has ever globally collapsed do to fire and provide examples. You want to know WHY the steel performed differently in those buildings than in WTC7.

SO I am asking you yet again. Why did the steel perform differently in the buildings that showed NO signs of collapse as compared to the buildings that partially collapsed.

What is the difference?


----------



## eots

Gamolon said:


> Tell me something Mr. Jones.
> 
> You sit here bring up the fact that no building has ever globally collapsed do to fire and provide examples. You want to know WHY the steel performed differently in those buildings than in WTC7.
> 
> SO I am asking you yet again. Why did the steel perform differently in the buildings that showed NO signs of collapse as compared to the buildings that partially collapsed.
> 
> What is the difference?



where was the design of wtc 7 called into fault and what new building codes have been enacted as a result of the wtc 7 collapse ?


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> I'm not the one who started to "badmouth" the NIST, more educated and knowledgeable people have done so, and explained it to us layman in very understandable ways, that make sense without having to resort to ridiculous and far fetched, never before happened in history reasons.


I see.  So "educated" people would never lie to ignorant fucks like you.  Is that what we are suppose to believe?  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> The CD theory explains their demise far more accurately when taking all of the available information into consideration.


And ONLY when you completely ignore all the other facts that disprove a CD.  That is the part that proves your're a lameassed retard.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> I still call bullshit on your theory, steel in the examples of the infernos according to NIST and you people, should have thermally expanded to the point of free fall collapses. WTC 7 was fortified, and so much confidence was given to its design that it was the command center.


Show me where the NIST or anyone else has said all other examples of infernos should have collapsed due to thermal expansion and fallen at free fall speeds.  You are such a fucking liar it is amazing everyone else doesn't call you on your repeated and very provable lies.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Those 3 buildings were constructed with safety factors, and they should not have come down like they did.


Really?  They were designed to have high speed jets slam into them loaded with fuel, have buildings collapse on them, have no means to fight the fires, and have the fire suppression systems fail due to damage?  MORE bullshit lies from you claiming these are covered by "safety factors".  Safety factors are one thing.  Designing for the absolutely unthinkable is a waste of time, money and resources.  Oh, and that isn't my opinion.  That is the stated opinion of the man who designed the buildings in the first place.  Hard to argue with him, but I am sure you're just the kind of punk to do so.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Much testing has been done for over 100 yrs. and the testing in Britain suggests that they should not have collapsed like they did, you are basically saying that the WTC buildings were built inappropriately using crap quality steel, and suggesting that the WTC buildings had such load designs as to allow sporadic asymmetrical fire damage cause their collapses, one producing free fall speeds at one point.


  And what study would that be?  I already linked you the study I know about over in England.  Surely you're not talking about the Arup study, are you?  Because you're right.  They disagreed with the NIST findings.  They disagreed that the structural damage of the plane strikes had much to do with the collapse.  Through their own independant study they discovered that the towers would have collapsed from the fires alone given the circumstances.  So yes, they disagreed with the NIST.  But they disagree with your sorry ass even more!  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> One doesn't have to be a genius to view the examples of the fires side by side to see that your theory is BS, especially taking into account the massiveness of the WTC buildings.


Yeah, because all geniuses know that every building should behave the EXACT SAME WAY regardless of construction, materials and circumstances!  DUR!!!    And now you're claiming the fact that the towers were so massive is another reason they SHOULDN'T have collapsed?  My God!  I'm laughing so hard I'm crying right now!  Is this because you "geniuses" know that more weight obviously is less prone to collapse or what?



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Bottom line is, they did not collapse the way NIST has said, and you are still helping to cover up a heinous crime on behalf of the perpetrators.


Wrong yet again, treasonous bastard!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> You would think when one steps back, and looks at the big picture it would give you people a reason to be concerned, but you are not, and you try to wave these very strange things away, why I'm not sure exactly but the label of disinformation "agent" sure fits you.


So why can't you give us one piece of real evidence that your bullshit theories are in any way true?  All you have is the OPINIONS of some highly questionable people while ignoring the opinions of the true experts that are highly regarded world wide.  Oh, we all know of your anti-American bullshit attitudes and wanting to blame the government for all bad things.  Is it because you work for Al Qaeda?  Hell, if you keep blaming anyone who dares question your retarded claims of being a disinfo agent, surely that must mean you work for Al Qaeda, right?  So how does it feel to be partially responsible for all those deaths?  Naw.  I'm not nearly as desperate as you truthtards.  I don't need to pretend you're part of Al Qaeda.  You're pieces of shit all on your own!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> One more question for you...Why in no examples of other building infernos, do we see any outward ejecting of parts of the building, nor do we hear any popping sounds as they came down? Oh that's right I forgot, they DIDN'T come down or explode like the WTC towers...my bad.


Yes, because ALL you geniuses know EVERY BUILDING has to react the EXACT SAME WAY regardless of what they are built of, how they are built or what happened!  You geniuses may even get to double digit IQs some day!  Well, maybe not.


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me something Mr. Jones.
> 
> You sit here bring up the fact that no building has ever globally collapsed do to fire and provide examples. You want to know WHY the steel performed differently in those buildings than in WTC7.
> 
> SO I am asking you yet again. Why did the steel perform differently in the buildings that showed NO signs of collapse as compared to the buildings that partially collapsed.
> 
> What is the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> where was the design of wtc 7 called into fault and what new building codes have been enacted as a result of the wtc 7 collapse ?
Click to expand...


The design wasn't at fault.  The building wasn't designed to withstand being on fire for more than four hours (that's how long fire retardant will keep heat away from the steel in most buildings) and it wasn't designed to have fires go unfought.  Now, you could be a retard like you guys and force everyone to design buildings to withstand every possible scenario, but it is really hard to build bank vaults that big.


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me something Mr. Jones.
> 
> You sit here bring up the fact that no building has ever globally collapsed do to fire and provide examples. You want to know WHY the steel performed differently in those buildings than in WTC7.
> 
> SO I am asking you yet again. Why did the steel perform differently in the buildings that showed NO signs of collapse as compared to the buildings that partially collapsed.
> 
> What is the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> where was the design of wtc 7 called into fault and what new building codes have been enacted as a result of the wtc 7 collapse ?
Click to expand...


It wasn't a DESIGN FLAW dumbass. It's not like someone fucked up and designed it incorrectly. The fact that you don't get this is proven by your idiotic statement that engineers designed structures to compensate thermal expansion due to office fires.

Here is a quute from the following site.
NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, 08/21/08



> According to the report, a key factor leading to the eventual collapse of WTC 7 was thermal expansion of long-span floor systems at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings." WTC 7 used a structural system design in widespread use.



According to the report, a key factor leading to the eventual collapse of WTC 7 was thermal expansion of* long-span floor systems* at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings." WTC 7 used a structural system design in widespread use.

Since thermal expansion due to office fires wasn't designed for, this is what happened. This is why they made the suggested code changes.


Now I ask you. Which of the buildings you guys bring up that had office fires had long span structural components like WTC7? Apples to apples right eots?


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me something Mr. Jones.
> 
> You sit here bring up the fact that no building has ever globally collapsed do to fire and provide examples. You want to know WHY the steel performed differently in those buildings than in WTC7.
> 
> SO I am asking you yet again. Why did the steel perform differently in the buildings that showed NO signs of collapse as compared to the buildings that partially collapsed.
> 
> What is the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> where was the design of wtc 7 called into fault and what new building codes have been enacted as a result of the wtc 7 collapse ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't a DESIGN FLAW dumbass. It's not like someone fucked up and designed it incorrectly. The fact that you don't get this is proven by your idiotic statement that engineers designed structures to compensate thermal expansion due to office fires.
> 
> Here is a quute from the following site.
> NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, 08/21/08
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the report, a key factor leading to the eventual collapse of WTC 7 was thermal expansion of long-span floor systems at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings." WTC 7 used a structural system design in widespread use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the report, a key factor leading to the eventual collapse of WTC 7 was thermal expansion of* long-span floor systems* at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings." WTC 7 used a structural system design in widespread use.
> 
> Since thermal expansion due to office fires wasn't designed for, this is what happened. This is why they made the suggested code changes.
> 
> 
> Now I ask you. Which of the buildings you guys bring up that had office fires had long span structural components like WTC7? Apples to apples right eots?
Click to expand...

So you reply with another question?
This is something 60ft. or longer, and it is still made of steel. In fact the longer the piece the better it will dissipate heat. As you know the thermal expansion of steel beams and columns is quite minimal, and hardly a cause for concern in 100 yrs of construction, now you say that because the 7 building had components 60ft or longer and therefore it was susceptible to thermal expansion, that caused it to come down, at free fall speeds is far fetched to say the least, and quite a reach in explaining this collapse.
Again it is a steel component, steel moves heat away, the longer or more massive the part the better it does this. Your explanation is a fail again.
Buildings made of steel do not, nor ever have collapsed at free fall speed due to fire, not to mention sporadic and displaced fires.

It is amazing how readily you except the NIST theory, with all the holes in it, and first time in history thermal expansion, when they did not have much if any of the WTC 7 steel to confirm their theory. They are just guessing, and guessing that their version wont be questioned, but they guessed wrong. 
Why is it that they wont reveal their modeling equations or program for others to study?
Pretty suspicious to say the least. NIST was used as another arm of the 9-11 cover up that's why. Be a real American and question 9-11 instead of helping in the cover up, don't you care about your nation?


----------



## Mr. Jones

Thanks to a newly discovered law of physics by the National Institute of Standards and Technology or NIST it is now possible for all of us to become a controlled demolition expert. All you need is a couple of gallons of gasoline, start a couple of office fires and wait for the building to collapse neatly into its own footprint. I think I will apply for a permit on Monday and start my new business imploding buildings because I love to see buildings implode and I hear you can ask big bucks to do it.

This amazing phenomenon is the fourth law of movement or the NIST law of movement. According to the scientists at NIST a key factor leading to the eventual collapse of WTC 7 was thermal expansion of long-span floor systems at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings. In other words; the LONG-span floor systems heated up due to low temperature office fires and magically expanded and broke all the welded connections around a column, the column unsupported started to buckle and bingo, cascading floor collapses ensued bring the building down into its own footprint ....

Lets start at the beginning: What was WTC 7 and perhaps more important what was housed in WTC 7?

WTC 7 was a huge 47 floor Sky scraper higher than the Sky tower in Auckland. It was house to amongst others a CIA head quarter and Giulianis safety bunker. The building had been strengthened to the point that it could withstand a nuclear blast and it was build like a building within a building, this is what Larry Silverstein had to say about it:

    We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the buildings structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors, said Larry Silverstein, president of the company.

Yet NIST would have us believe that due to a unique construction the building could pulverise in mid air within 7 sec. due to low heat office fires that burn around 20 minutes in any given environment until the office contents have burned up after which it goes on to burn somewhere else.

    * The NIST has not been able to investigate steel from the building because the crime scene was destroyed and all the steel was shipped off to China to be recycled.
      This is very serious; how can you find out what really happened to a building if none of the building remains to be examined. Ho can you find out what caused this incredibly anomalous collapse if there is no way to determine if explosives have been used for example?

      But then the NIST tells us that computer modelling and testing was enough to be able to draw their conclusions. That is all fine but then show us the computer models used and show us why their conclusions are scientific and conclusive  yet they offer only an unscientific video animation.
    * NISTs rapport states that they did not consider a controlled demolition realistic and therefore did not investigate this possibility because there were no explosions loud enough to support that hypotheses.
    * For starters there are numerous videoed witness testimonies about explosion, about foreknowledge and even two witness testimonies confirming a huge explosion in the lobby before the second plane hit the building totally destroying the lobby. Without the building collapsing I might add until 8 hours later. Whats more in an Italian documentary two policemen who are talking to the mother of one of them get just about blown of their feet by explosions as the building commences to collapse. When they want to go to the building the get stopped by some fire fighters and when they say, the building is coming down, the fire fighters clearly know already, in fact they are saying so.


I know this is from someones blog and all, but it just about hits the nail on the head, that NIST and its backers would have us believe non sense, and their computer modeling can't be validated by any one else. 

The collapse of WTC 7 and the new law of physics as discovered by NIST. « Aotearoa: a wider perspective


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> * The NIST has not been able to investigate steel from the building because the crime scene was destroyed and all the steel was shipped off to China to be recycled.
> This is very serious; how can you find out what really happened to a building if none of the building remains to be examined. Ho can you find out what caused this incredibly anomalous collapse if there is no way to determine if explosives have been used for example?



Ah.  I love it!  I specifically showed Mr. Jones YESTERDAY that all the steel wasn't shipped off, yet here he is parroting that all the steel was shipped off and there was none to test.  

Anyone else need any evidence Mr. Jones is a blatant pathological liar and bullshit artist?


----------



## SFC Ollie

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> * The NIST has not been able to investigate steel from the building because the crime scene was destroyed and all the steel was shipped off to China to be recycled.
> This is very serious; how can you find out what really happened to a building if none of the building remains to be examined. Ho can you find out what caused this incredibly anomalous collapse if there is no way to determine if explosives have been used for example?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah.  I love it!  I specifically showed Mr. Jones YESTERDAY that all the steel wasn't shipped off, yet here he is parroting that all the steel was shipped off and there was none to test.
> 
> Anyone else need any evidence Mr. Jones is a blatant pathological liar and bullshit artist?
Click to expand...



I just wonder why they keep insisting that 7WTC fell in only 7 seconds when we all know there was seven seconds between the beginning of the collapse and the first movement of the facade. I would say they are rather dishonest with themselves.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know they did not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do I know? Because the damn penthouse collapsed FIRST you fucking idiot. What the hell do you think was supporting the penthouse? Toothpicks? The columns below the penthouse clearly failed for it to collapse into the building BEFORE the perimeter facade came down. That means that the interior columns DID not fail/get removed at the same time as the facade columns. Chandler is an idiot.
> 
> Jesus H. Christ are you a moron. The lengths you go to to TRY and look intelligent on this subject is just beyond words.
Click to expand...


What's really funny about you is that it does not take someone with superior intellect to see with their own eyes the deception, and put together the fact that a building suffering displaced damage from office fires, should not collapse straight down at free fall speed. It's not rocket science.
Also they had foreknowledge that it would collapse either on its own "or it would be taken down" this statement is on video with a major news anchor.
So this clearly is a building that was  taken down by CD, and your ridiculous explanations are so far fetched that you look like a fool in helping to cover up the obvious. Here you go stooge-

YouTube - DavidSChandler's Channel

Yeah right, column 79 caused a free fall collapse..fucking idiot..
A CD complete with explosions and for knowledge...built they couldn't tel us why it collapsed for years!!  You are an agent of disinformation and you suck at it too.

The NIST report was not an honest scientific inquiry.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Again, the only thing that was free fall  (for a whole 2.25 seconds) was the facade. and why it was able to obtain that speed was because the interior of the building fell 7 seconds prior.


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> * The NIST has not been able to investigate steel from the building because the crime scene was destroyed and all the steel was shipped off to China to be recycled.
> This is very serious; how can you find out what really happened to a building if none of the building remains to be examined. Ho can you find out what caused this incredibly anomalous collapse if there is no way to determine if explosives have been used for example?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah.  I love it!  I specifically showed Mr. Jones YESTERDAY that all the steel wasn't shipped off, yet here he is parroting that all the steel was shipped off and there was none to test.
> 
> Anyone else need any evidence Mr. Jones is a blatant pathological liar and bullshit artist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I just wonder why they keep insisting that 7WTC fell in only 7 seconds when we all know there was seven seconds between the beginning of the collapse and the first movement of the facade. I would say they are rather dishonest with themselves.
Click to expand...


1% of the steel was all that was left, if even that. NIST did not do a proper inquiry, they guessed and fudged until they came up with a fantasy explanation that you dimwits swear is gospel 

Looking at the video of 7s collapse, it is a prime example of a CD, with free fall speeds, and you stupid fucks live in denial of this, nitpicking at stupid tidbits of BS that only show how pathetically far you have to reach. Face it you were scammed and lied to, why do you bother to make yourselves look so foolish? Do you not want to stand up for your country and take it back from the criminals that hijacked it from you by lying to you?


Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage. 1  

During the official investigation controlled by FEMA, one hundred fifty pieces of steel were saved for future study. 5   One hundred fifty pieces out of hundreds of thousands of pieces! Moreover it is not clear who made the decision to save these particular pieces. It is clear that the volunteer investigators were doing their work at the Fresh Kills dump, not at Ground Zero, so whatever steel they had access to was first picked over by the people running the cleanup operation. 

Given that the people in charge considered the steel garbage, useless to any investigation in this age of computer simulations, they certainly took pains to make sure it didn't end up anywhere other than a smelting furnace. They installed GPS locater devices on each of the trucks that was carrying loads away from Ground Zero, at a cost of $1000 each. The securitysolutions.com website has an article on the tracking system with this passage.
Ninety-nine percent of the drivers were extremely driven to do their jobs. But there were big concerns, because the loads consisted of highly sensitive material. One driver, for example, took an extended lunch break of an hour and a half. There was nothing criminal about that, but he was dismissed. 6   


Copyright 2003-2010,
911Research.WTC7.net site last updated:12/18/10
fair use notice

Background 	Attack 	Aftermath 	Evidence 	Misinformation 	Analysis 	Memorial
WTC Steel Removal
The Expeditious Destruction of the Evidence at Ground Zero

Steel was the structural material of the buildings. As such it was the most important evidence to preserve in order to puzzle out how the structures held up to the impacts and fires, but then disintegrated into rubble. Since no steel-framed buildings had ever collapsed due to fires, the steel should have been subjected to detailed analysis. So what did the authorities do with this key evidence of the vast crime and unprecedented engineering failure? They recycled it!
Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage. 1  

The bulk of the steel was apparently shipped to China and India. The Chinese firm Baosteel purchased 50,000 tons at a rate of $120 per ton, compared to an average price of $160 paid by local mills in the previous year. 2  

Mayor Bloomberg, a former engineering major, was not concerned about the destruction of the evidence:
If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that's in this day and age what computers do. Just looking at a piece of metal generally doesn't tell you anything. 3  

The pace of the steel's removal was very rapid, even in the first weeks after the attack. By September 29, 130,000 tons of debris -- most of it apparently steel -- had been removed. 4  

During the official investigation controlled by FEMA, one hundred fifty pieces of steel were saved for future study. 5   One hundred fifty pieces out of hundreds of thousands of pieces! Moreover it is not clear who made the decision to save these particular pieces. It is clear that the volunteer investigators were doing their work at the Fresh Kills dump, not at Ground Zero, so whatever steel they had access to was first picked over by the people running the cleanup operation.
Highly Sensitive Garbage

Given that the people in charge considered the steel garbage, useless to any investigation in this age of computer simulations, they certainly took pains to make sure it didn't end up anywhere other than a smelting furnace. They installed GPS locater devices on each of the trucks that was carrying loads away from Ground Zero, at a cost of $1000 each. The securitysolutions.com website has an article on the tracking system with this passage.
Ninety-nine percent of the drivers were extremely driven to do their jobs. But there were big concerns, because the loads consisted of highly sensitive material. One driver, for example, took an extended lunch break of an hour and a half. There was nothing criminal about that, but he was dismissed. 6  
Shielding Investigators From the Evidence

According to FEMA, more than 350,000 tons of steel were extracted from Ground Zero and barged or trucked to salvage yards where it was cut up for recycling. Four salvage yards were contracted to process the steel.

    * Hugo Nue Schnitzer at Fresh Kills (FK) Landfill, Staten Island, NJ
    * Hugo Nue Schnitzer's Claremont (CM) Terminal in Jersey City, NJ
    * Metal Management in Newark (NW), NJ
    * Blanford and Co. in Keasbey (KB), NJ

FEMA's BPAT, who wrote the WTC Building Performance Study, were not given access to Ground Zero. Apparently, they were not even allowed to collect steel samples from the salvage yards. According to Appendix D of the Study:

Collection and storage of steel members from the WTC site was not part of the BPS Team efforts sponsored by FEMA and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).
Fate of Some Steel Revealed Years Later
base of core column stored in a JFK hanger
The base of one of the Twin Towers' massive core columns stored in a hanger at JFK Airport is shown in the film Up From Zero.

Given that the removal and recycling of World Trade Center steel continued over the objections of victims' families and others seeking a genuine investigation, revelations, years later, that some of Twin Towers' steel parts were preserved comes as something of a surprise. Many of the heaviest steel pieces from the Twin Towers are stored in an 80,000-square-foot hangar at John F. Kennedy International Airport. These include some of the base sections of the Towers' massive core columns and 13 of the 153 steel trees from the bases of the Towers' perimeter walls. 7   Some of these pieces are shown in the film Up From Zero.

*The hangar, which reportedly holds one five-hundredth of the "total debris field", is off-limits to the public. 8  *

I suppose if only one nut or bolt was the only thing salvaged some asshole would be salivating over _busting_ Mr. Jones for lying!

STFU and be a man and stand up for your country you POS. Instead of nitpicking and over stretching reality.


----------



## eots

sfc ollie said:


> again, the only thing that was free fall  (for a whole 2.25 seconds) was the facade. And why it was able to obtain that speed was because the interior of the building fell 7 seconds prior.



and you know this how ?


----------



## Mr. Jones

eots said:


> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> again, the only thing that was free fall  (for a whole 2.25 seconds) was the facade. And why it was able to obtain that speed was because the interior of the building fell 7 seconds prior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you know this how ?
Click to expand...

 So you're saying the inside of the building fell down.....??? There was no dustpile coming from the lobby if it did...it would have surely made some kind of deformation on the outside of the building that would have been visable...I again ask you, is it possible for a persons skull to disintegrate without seeing their face look strange?? I mean it's the same concept,...So many parts interconnected in that 47 story building and no visible deformities that suggest what you say is even the slightest bit possible.
Look at NISTS computer model...Looks nothing like the collapse with all the deformities in it does it? Come to reality Ollie, it sucks to have to face the country you served is in such peril, and run by international criminals...but all signs point to this.

9-11 Review: The Project For a New American Century

9-11 Review: The Gulf of Tonkin Incident

9-11 Review: Operation Northwoods

9-11 Review: Operation Gladio

9-11 Review: The Kuwaiti Incubator Baby Hoax

9-11 Review: Operation Ajax

9-11 Review: The Oklahoma City Bombing

Defenders of the World Trade Center collapse theory have dismissed the use of aluminothermics in the demolition of the skyscrapers with the argument that aluminothermic reactions are too slow to have been used used to cut the buildings' structural steel with the speed and precision necessary to bring the buildings down. There are several problems with this argument: 
 * It describes aluminothermic reactions as being too slow to have brought about the buildings' precipitous falls, while assuming that the far slower-acting and much more random building fires could have done so.
 * It assumes that aluminothermic charges would have to work in the same way as conventional cutter charges, ignoring, for example, the ability of thermite to rapidly melt though thick steel members under the the influence of gravity.
 * It ignores the cumulative effects of widespread attack of such large buildings by aluminothermic incindiaries. Even if the individual charges didn't cut through steel members, the overpressures generated by the confluence of hundreds of charges rapidly elevating temperatures and vaporizing moisture would be sufficient to literally blow the buildings apart -- such as we see in the mushrooming of the Twin Towers.
* It ignores the existence of "super-thermites" or energetic nano-composites, in which the aluminothermic preparation is engineered to accelerate the reaction rate such that they become just as explosive as conventional high-explosives.

9-11 Review: Energetic Nanocomposites


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> again, the only thing that was free fall  (for a whole 2.25 seconds) was the facade. And why it was able to obtain that speed was because the interior of the building fell 7 seconds prior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you know this how ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the inside of the building fell down.....??? There was no dustpile coming from the lobby if it did...it would have surely made some kind of deformation on the outside of the building that would have been visable...I again ask you, is it possible for a persons skull to disintegrate without seeing their face look strange?? I mean it's the same concept,...So many parts interconnected in that 47 story building and no visible deformities that suggest what you say is even the slightest bit possible.
> Look at NISTS computer model...Looks nothing like the collapse with all the deformities in it does it? Come to reality Ollie, it sucks to have to face the country you served is in such peril, and run by international criminals...but all signs point to this.
> 
> 9-11 Review: The Project For a New American Century
> 
> 9-11 Review: The Gulf of Tonkin Incident
> 
> 9-11 Review: Operation Northwoods
> 
> 9-11 Review: Operation Gladio
> 
> 9-11 Review: The Kuwaiti Incubator Baby Hoax
> 
> 9-11 Review: Operation Ajax
> 
> 9-11 Review: The Oklahoma City Bombing
> 
> Defenders of the World Trade Center collapse theory have dismissed the use of aluminothermics in the demolition of the skyscrapers with the argument that aluminothermic reactions are too slow to have been used used to cut the buildings' structural steel with the speed and precision necessary to bring the buildings down. There are several problems with this argument:
> * It describes aluminothermic reactions as being too slow to have brought about the buildings' precipitous falls, while assuming that the far slower-acting and much more random building fires could have done so.
> * It assumes that aluminothermic charges would have to work in the same way as conventional cutter charges, ignoring, for example, the ability of thermite to rapidly melt though thick steel members under the the influence of gravity.
> * It ignores the cumulative effects of widespread attack of such large buildings by aluminothermic incindiaries. Even if the individual charges didn't cut through steel members, the overpressures generated by the confluence of hundreds of charges rapidly elevating temperatures and vaporizing moisture would be sufficient to literally blow the buildings apart -- such as we see in the mushrooming of the Twin Towers.
> * It ignores the existence of "super-thermites" or energetic nano-composites, in which the aluminothermic preparation is engineered to accelerate the reaction rate such that they become just as explosive as conventional high-explosives.
> 
> 9-11 Review: Energetic Nanocomposites
Click to expand...


Any one else find it hilarious that total waste of oxygen like Mr. Jones have to pretend all kinds of bullshit in order to justify their traitorous actions?


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *and you know this how ?*
> 
> 
> 
> * So you're saying the inside of the building fell down.....??? There was no dustpile coming from the lobby if it did...it would have surely made some kind of deformation on the outside of the building that would have been visable*...I again ask you, is it possible for a persons skull to disintegrate without seeing their face look strange?? I mean it's the same concept,...So many parts interconnected in that 47 story building and no visible deformities that suggest what you say is even the slightest bit possible.
> Look at NISTS computer model...Looks nothing like the collapse with all the deformities in it does it? Come to reality Ollie, it sucks to have to face the country you served is in such peril, and run by international criminals...but all signs point to this.
> 
> 9-11 Review: The Project For a New American Century
> 
> 9-11 Review: The Gulf of Tonkin Incident
> 
> 9-11 Review: Operation Northwoods
> 
> 9-11 Review: Operation Gladio
> 
> 9-11 Review: The Kuwaiti Incubator Baby Hoax
> 
> 9-11 Review: Operation Ajax
> 
> 9-11 Review: The Oklahoma City Bombing
> 
> Defenders of the World Trade Center collapse theory have dismissed the use of aluminothermics in the demolition of the skyscrapers with the argument that aluminothermic reactions are too slow to have been used used to cut the buildings' structural steel with the speed and precision necessary to bring the buildings down. There are several problems with this argument:
> * It describes aluminothermic reactions as being too slow to have brought about the buildings' precipitous falls, while assuming that the far slower-acting and much more random building fires could have done so.
> * It assumes that aluminothermic charges would have to work in the same way as conventional cutter charges, ignoring, for example, the ability of thermite to rapidly melt though thick steel members under the the influence of gravity.
> * It ignores the cumulative effects of widespread attack of such large buildings by aluminothermic incindiaries. Even if the individual charges didn't cut through steel members, the overpressures generated by the confluence of hundreds of charges rapidly elevating temperatures and vaporizing moisture would be sufficient to literally blow the buildings apart -- such as we see in the mushrooming of the Twin Towers.
> * It ignores the existence of "super-thermites" or energetic nano-composites, in which the aluminothermic preparation is engineered to accelerate the reaction rate such that they become just as explosive as conventional high-explosives.
> 
> 9-11 Review: Energetic Nanocomposites
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any one else find it hilarious that total waste of oxygen like Mr. Jones have to pretend all kinds of bullshit in order to justify their traitorous actions?
Click to expand...


No.but I find everything  out of your mouth a joke...so why dont you try to answer the question put to you ?


----------



## candycorn

eots=garbage


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah.  I love it!  I specifically showed Mr. Jones YESTERDAY that all the steel wasn't shipped off, yet here he is parroting that all the steel was shipped off and there was none to test.
> 
> Anyone else need any evidence Mr. Jones is a blatant pathological liar and bullshit artist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1% of the steel was all that was left, if even that. NIST did not do a proper inquiry, they guessed and fudged until they came up with a fantasy explanation that you dimwits swear is gospel
Click to expand...

Yet you just got done saying NO steel was left!  Which is it?  Come on you dishonest fuck!  You've been caught in yet ANOTHER lie and all you do is lie there like a bitch and prove your lies to everyone!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Looking at the video of 7s collapse, it is a prime example of a CD, with free fall speeds, and you stupid fucks live in denial of this, nitpicking at stupid tidbits of BS that only show how pathetically far you have to reach.


It LOOKS like a CD.  That's all you have?  When pressed for details you waffle all over the place making excuse after excuse that nullifies the reasons you're claiming it was a CD in the FIRST place!  

News flash.  Your OPINON of how it LOOKS is NOT EVIDENCE!    I've never seen a group of dumbfucks so full of themselves that they think their opinion is the only thing that matters.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Face it you were scammed and lied to, why do you bother to make yourselves look so foolish?


  We're not the gullible twats swallowing everything AE911 and other sites say.  We're the ones looking at the ACTUAL EVIDENCE to see what happened.  You claim it was a CD.  Video and audio of the event shows NO EXPLOSIONS!  You know.... really loud bangs that can be heard for miles?  The trademark of CDs?  You pretend "oh, it was because it was thermite!", yet thermite can't be controlled down to the millisecond which is REQUIRED for a successful controlled demolition.  Just one aspect of your lie that proves you're full of shit and have been lied to while ignoring the truth.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Do you not want to stand up for your country and take it back from the criminals that hijacked it from you by lying to you?


I am standing up against the traitorous fucks trying to rise people up against the government based on a pack of lies.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage.


It WAS examined at the salvage yards.  This has been proven to you before, yet you still insist on lying about it.  Where are the investigators saying they didn't have a chance to examine the steel to their content?  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> During the official investigation controlled by FEMA, one hundred fifty pieces of steel were saved for future study. 5   One hundred fifty pieces out of hundreds of thousands of pieces! Moreover it is not clear who made the decision to save these particular pieces. It is clear that the volunteer investigators were doing their work at the Fresh Kills dump, not at Ground Zero, so whatever steel they had access to was first picked over by the people running the cleanup operation.


But you said NO steel was saved.  Do you see your lie yet or are you going to continue to flip flop and pretend no steel and 150 pieces of steel are the same? 



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Given that the people in charge considered the steel garbage, useless to any investigation in this age of computer simulations, they certainly took pains to make sure it didn't end up anywhere other than a smelting furnace.


A bullshit assumption on your part.  Unless, of course, you have proof of what the people in charge were actually thinking instead of pretending you just somehow KNOW these things.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> They installed GPS locater devices on each of the trucks that was carrying loads away from Ground Zero, at a cost of $1000 each. The securitysolutions.com website has an article on the tracking system with this passage.  Ninety-nine percent of the drivers were extremely driven to do their jobs. But there were big concerns, because the loads consisted of highly sensitive material. One driver, for example, took an extended lunch break of an hour and a half. There was nothing criminal about that, but he was dismissed.


Wait.... I thought you said they thought it was all garbage!  Why do you track stuff like this unless you KNOW it is evidence that needs to be gone over?  You are so blind you can't even see the evidence right in front of your face!

I've skipped over the rest of your garbage as I'm tired of constantly debunking your cut and paste jobs.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> I suppose if only one nut or bolt was the only thing salvaged some asshole would be salivating over busting Mr. Jones for lying!


It wasn't one nut or bolt, was it.  Time to man up, you piece of lying shit!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> STFU and be a man and stand up for your country you POS. Instead of nitpicking and over stretching reality.


I am defending my country.  I am defending it from pieces of shit like you who are using a pack of lies you can't even show evidence is true while ignoring TONS of evidence because it destroys your theories.  Your aim?  Overthrowing the government.  So how is standing up for assholes like you not standing up for my country?  Or are we just suppose to believe lying pieces of shits like you and pretend all the lies and the ignoring of real evidence is OK?  That might be OK for malcontents like you, but for normal citizens like me who demand evidence and not opinion, your bullshit just isn't anywhere near good enough.  This is a fact you are going to have to live with along with the proven fact you are a liar.


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> again, the only thing that was free fall  (for a whole 2.25 seconds) was the facade. And why it was able to obtain that speed was because the interior of the building fell 7 seconds prior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you know this how ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the inside of the building fell down.....??? There was no dustpile coming from the lobby if it did...it would have surely made some kind of deformation on the outside of the building that would have been visable...
Click to expand...


Hey jackass. Watch this video.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXbBSm8tMmk]YouTube - 9/11 - NIST FOIA WTC7 Collapse including Penthouse.(with audio)[/ame]

What happens at :03? Holy shit! The penthouse collapsed INSIDE the building? Holy fuck? I see windows break as the penthouse collapses INSIDE the building.

What a moron.

Yeah NOTHING collapsed inside the building.


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> I again ask you, is it possible for a persons skull to disintegrate without seeing their face look strange?? I mean it's the same concept,...



OMFG!!!!

First you fucking idiots compare the twin towers to a "muffler", now you are comparing WTC7 to a skull as having the same design?!?!?!!?

WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. This is friggin' PRICELESS!!!

Mr. Jones. You just earned a place in my signature for making the dumbest comment yet. You also earned a spot on my ignore list as you have completely lost what little credibility you had left when discussing structures. It is quite obvious you have NO clue what you are talking about.

Have fun!

A skull....

Jesus H. Christ!!!!!


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> I again ask you, is it possible for a persons skull to disintegrate without seeing their face look strange?? I mean it's the same concept,...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMFG!!!!
> 
> First you fucking idiots compare the twin towers to a "muffler", now you are comparing WTC7 to a skull as having the same design?!?!?!!?
> 
> WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. This is friggin' PRICELESS!!!
> 
> Mr. Jones. You just earned a place in my signature for making the dumbest comment yet. You also earned a spot on my ignore list as you have completely lost what little credibility you had left when discussing structures. It is quite obvious you have NO clue what you are talking about.
> 
> Have fun!
> 
> A skull....
> 
> Jesus H. Christ!!!!!
Click to expand...

Things have to be explained to you morons in a way a child could comprehend....besides this comparison makes more sense then you comparing the steel in the WTC to railroad tracks!!
If you're too stupid to understand that the inside skeleton of something does not just "fall down" while leaving the outer facade
motionless, you are truly one stupid SOB. I welcome your ignore list, as you aren't worth the time, as you have failed to answer even direct questions in many threads, and instead you focus on strawman arguments like you have just done,  sidetrack discussions, 
you are incredulous and indignant.
In fact you use all the tactics that you are trained to use on public forums that focus on the 9-11 or other subject that ridicules the government in any way.

As a warning to all others that might encounter you here or elsewhere I submit the following list of tactics you and your cohorts use to obfuscate all discussions.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor" which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

http://svnlsenetter.wordpress.com/2008/02/29/twenty-five-rules-of-disinformation/

Welcome to MY ignore list asshole.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Gee, won't be long before we can close up the conspiracy forums. Everyone will be on everyone else ignore list. Ain't it grand?


----------



## Gamolon

SFC Ollie said:


> Gee, won't be long before we can close up the conspiracy forums. Everyone will be on everyone else ignore list. Ain't it grand?





That explanation by Mr. Jones took the cake. When someone makes an asinine statement like that, there is no way I'm going to continue having a discussion as they are clearly clueless.

A skull.

What a moron. Almost a good as the twins designed like "mufflers". 

I just can't get over the idiocy I've witnessed this past week. It really shows the level of intellect of some that believe this crap.


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> I again ask you, is it possible for a persons skull to disintegrate without seeing their face look strange?? I mean it's the same concept,...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMFG!!!!
> 
> First you fucking idiots compare the twin towers to a "muffler", now you are comparing WTC7 to a skull as having the same design?!?!?!!?
> 
> WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. This is friggin' PRICELESS!!!
> 
> Mr. Jones. You just earned a place in my signature for making the dumbest comment yet. You also earned a spot on my ignore list as you have completely lost what little credibility you had left when discussing structures. It is quite obvious you have NO clue what you are talking about.
> 
> Have fun!
> 
> A skull....
> 
> Jesus H. Christ!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Things have to be explained to you morons in a way a child could comprehend....besides this comparison makes more sense then you comparing the steel in the WTC to railroad tracks!!
> If you're too stupid to understand that the inside skeleton of something does not just "fall down" while leaving the outer facade
> motionless, you are truly one stupid SOB. I welcome your ignore list, as you aren't worth the time, as you have failed to answer even direct questions in many threads, and instead you focus on strawman arguments like you have just done,  sidetrack discussions,
> you are incredulous and indignant.
> In fact you use all the tactics that you are trained to use on public forums that focus on the 9-11 or other subject that ridicules the government in any way.
> 
> As a warning to all others that might encounter you here or elsewhere I submit the following list of tactics you and your cohorts use to obfuscate all discussions.
> 
> 1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
> 
> 2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.
> 
> 3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor" which can have no basis in fact.
> 
> 4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
> 
> 5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
> 
> 6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
> 
> 7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
> 
> 8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
> 
> 9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
> 
> 10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
> 
> 11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
> 
> 12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
> 
> 13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.
> 
> 14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.
> 
> 15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
> 
> 16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
> 
> 17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
> 
> 18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".
> 
> 19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
> 
> 20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
> 
> 21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.
> 
> 22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
> 
> 23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
> 
> 24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.
> 
> 25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
> 
> http://svnlsenetter.wordpress.com/2008/02/29/twenty-five-rules-of-disinformation/
> 
> Welcome to MY ignore list asshole.
Click to expand...


  So everyone is suppose to believe that this list is what Mr. Jones has personally seen from Gamolon.  

Would it surprise anyone if the piece of shit liar Mr. Jones plagerized the list because he is too damn lazy to actually list his "complaints"?  

One of many sites Mr. Jones plagerized his list from.  Anyone else have any doubts at all about Mr. Jones incredible levels of dishonesty and all around disgusting behavior?


----------



## Gamolon

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMFG!!!!
> 
> First you fucking idiots compare the twin towers to a "muffler", now you are comparing WTC7 to a skull as having the same design?!?!?!!?
> 
> WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. This is friggin' PRICELESS!!!
> 
> Mr. Jones. You just earned a place in my signature for making the dumbest comment yet. You also earned a spot on my ignore list as you have completely lost what little credibility you had left when discussing structures. It is quite obvious you have NO clue what you are talking about.
> 
> Have fun!
> 
> A skull....
> 
> Jesus H. Christ!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Things have to be explained to you morons in a way a child could comprehend....besides this comparison makes more sense then you comparing the steel in the WTC to railroad tracks!!
> If you're too stupid to understand that the inside skeleton of something does not just "fall down" while leaving the outer facade
> motionless, you are truly one stupid SOB. I welcome your ignore list, as you aren't worth the time, as you have failed to answer even direct questions in many threads, and instead you focus on strawman arguments like you have just done,  sidetrack discussions,
> you are incredulous and indignant.
> In fact you use all the tactics that you are trained to use on public forums that focus on the 9-11 or other subject that ridicules the government in any way.
> 
> As a warning to all others that might encounter you here or elsewhere I submit the following list of tactics you and your cohorts use to obfuscate all discussions.
> 
> 1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
> 
> 2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.
> 
> 3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor" which can have no basis in fact.
> 
> 4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
> 
> 5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
> 
> 6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
> 
> 7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
> 
> 8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
> 
> 9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
> 
> 10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
> 
> 11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
> 
> 12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
> 
> 13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.
> 
> 14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.
> 
> 15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
> 
> 16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
> 
> 17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
> 
> 18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".
> 
> 19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
> 
> 20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
> 
> 21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.
> 
> 22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
> 
> 23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
> 
> 24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.
> 
> 25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
> 
> http://svnlsenetter.wordpress.com/2008/02/29/twenty-five-rules-of-disinformation/
> 
> Welcome to MY ignore list asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So everyone is suppose to believe that this list is what Mr. Jones has personally seen from Gamolon.
> 
> Would it surprise anyone if the piece of shit liar Mr. Jones plagerized the list because he is too damn lazy to actually list his "complaints"?
> 
> One of many sites Mr. Jones plagerized his list from.  Anyone else have any doubts at all about Mr. Jones incredible levels of dishonesty and all around disgusting behavior?
Click to expand...


Mr. Jones??? Did what??? I don't believe it!!!!

Actually, this is the third time this derelict has done this without giving proper due to the person or website the information was copied from.

All in the name of trying to make Mr. Jones look like he can think for himself.

What a loser.


----------



## eots

Gamolon said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, won't be long before we can close up the conspiracy forums. Everyone will be on everyone else ignore list. Ain't it grand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That explanation by Mr. Jones took the cake. When someone makes an asinine statement like that, there is no way I'm going to continue having a discussion as they are clearly clueless.
> 
> A skull.
> 
> What a moron. Almost a good as the twins designed like "mufflers".
> 
> I just can't get over the idiocy I've witnessed this past week. It really shows the level of intellect of some that believe this crap.
Click to expand...


I notice you use it as a way of avoiding the question of distortion to the facade or other disturbances from the entire inner structure collapsing...why is that ?


----------



## eots

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me something Mr. Jones.
> 
> You sit here bring up the fact that no building has ever globally collapsed do to fire and provide examples. You want to know WHY the steel performed differently in those buildings than in WTC7.
> 
> SO I am asking you yet again. Why did the steel perform differently in the buildings that showed NO signs of collapse as compared to the buildings that partially collapsed.
> 
> What is the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> where was the design of wtc 7 called into fault and what new building codes have been enacted as a result of the wtc 7 collapse ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't a DESIGN FLAW dumbass. It's not like someone fucked up and designed it incorrectly. The fact that you don't get this is proven by your idiotic statement that engineers designed structures to compensate thermal expansion due to office fires.
> 
> Here is a quute from the following site.
> NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, 08/21/08
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the report, a key factor leading to the eventual collapse of WTC 7 was thermal expansion of long-span floor systems at temperatures &#8220;hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings." WTC 7 used a structural system design in widespread use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the report, a key factor leading to the eventual collapse of WTC 7 was thermal expansion of* long-span floor systems* at temperatures &#8220;hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings." WTC 7 used a structural system design in widespread use.
> 
> Since thermal expansion due to office fires wasn't designed for, this is what happened. This is why they made the *suggested code changes.
> *
> 
> Now I ask you. Which of the buildings you guys bring up that had office fires had long span structural components like WTC7? Apples to apples right eots?
Click to expand...


suggest ?...so what codes were _actually_ changed ?


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> where was the design of wtc 7 called into fault and what new building codes have been enacted as a result of the wtc 7 collapse ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a DESIGN FLAW dumbass. It's not like someone fucked up and designed it incorrectly. The fact that you don't get this is proven by your idiotic statement that engineers designed structures to compensate thermal expansion due to office fires.
> 
> Here is a quute from the following site.
> NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, 08/21/08
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the report, a key factor leading to the eventual collapse of WTC 7 was thermal expansion of long-span floor systems at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings." WTC 7 used a structural system design in widespread use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the report, a key factor leading to the eventual collapse of WTC 7 was thermal expansion of* long-span floor systems* at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings." WTC 7 used a structural system design in widespread use.
> 
> Since thermal expansion due to office fires wasn't designed for, this is what happened. This is why they made the *suggested code changes.
> *
> 
> Now I ask you. Which of the buildings you guys bring up that had office fires had long span structural components like WTC7? Apples to apples right eots?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> suggest ?...so what codes were _actually_ changed ?
Click to expand...


Since you're too damn lazy to do your own research, here is a link.
Safer Buildings Are Goal of New Code Changes Based on  Recommendations from NIST World Trade Center Investigation

Here is a link to track the code changes' status.
NIST and the World Trade Center

I've shown you this before, but you obviously can't read and just want to argue and continue to push your bullshit around because hat's what you want. Face it. You hate the government and want nothing more than for it to fail in any way possible so you can rant and rave about it. So you quote mine, lie, and spread shit for YOUR cause. 

Perfect example.

You made the statement that engineers designed steel structures to compensate for thermal expansion due to fires. I proved you wrong and you ignored it. I asked you where you got this information and you never responded.

Basically, you guessed.

You're no better than Terral and Christophera. Nothing more than a snake oil salesman.


----------



## eots

so after ten years you can not point to one code change


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> so after ten years you can not point to one code change



  Yet another example of the utter dishonesty and completely despicable nature of eots.  He DEMANDS links.  We give him links.  Does he read them?  Who knows.  But he invariably comes back with bullshit statements like the ones above.    What a fucking piece of shit loser!  

Code changes that have been put in place:

&#8226;An additional (third) exit stairway for buildings more than 420 feet high.

&#8226;An increase of 50 percent in the width of exit stairways in new sprinklered buildings.

&#8226;Permitting the use of elevators for occupant evacuation in fires and other emergencies for all buildings, and as an alternative to the required additional exit stairway for buildings more than 420 feet high. Passenger elevators must meet specific criteria to be used for evacuation purposes.

&#8226;Hardening of exit stairway and passageway enclosures, and elevator shaft enclosures, in buildings&#8212;for all buildings more than 420 feet high, for buildings 75-420 feet high where failure of the enclosure would substantially jeopardize human life, and in essential facilities such as hospitals.

&#8226;Separating exit stairway enclosures by a distance not less than 30 feet or not less than one-fourth of the maximum building diagonal, whichever is less. For example, a building with a 50-foot by 50-foot floor plan would have a diagonal of about 70 feet. One-fourth of 70 is 17.5 feet, which would be the minimum distance required between exits (since it is less than 30 feet).

&#8226;A minimum of one fire service access elevator for buildings more than 120 feet high.

&#8226;Fire service access elevator lobby sizes that are a minimum of 150 square feet in area with sides at least 8 feet long.



http://www.continuitycentral.com/news04193.html


----------



## eots

these are * recommendations*


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> these are * recommendations*



God DAMN but you are dumb!  

Which part of CODE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN *PUT IN PLACE* are you too ignorant to understand?  The last part of the list I gave you was recommendations.  And you wonder why people seriously and rightly question your intelligence or complete lack thereof!


----------



## Patriot911

Just because eots is too fucking stupid to be able to understand simple English, I'm posting the verbage from the link.

Changes to U.S. Model Building and Fire Codes
Based on Recommendations from NIST's WTC Towers Investigation

Approved at the Final Action Hearings of the International Code Council
Minneapolis, Minn., Sept. 15-21, 2008

The following are the 23 model building and fire code changes consistent with the NIST WTC investigation recommendations now required by the I-Codes (changes displayed in italics are ones that were approved at previous ICC hearings and incorporated at the Minneapolis hearing into the 2009 I-Codes):[/quote]

Now, eots, do you STILL want to try and pretend these are just recommendations that have not been codified?    Please do.  I think it is hilarious how you flaunt your ignorance for everyone to see.


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> so after ten years you can not point to one code change
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another example of the utter dishonesty and completely despicable nature of eots.  He DEMANDS links.  We give him links.  Does he read them?  Who knows.  But he invariably comes back with bullshit statements like the ones above.    What a fucking piece of shit loser!
> 
> Code changes that have been put in place:
> 
> &#8226;An additional (third) exit stairway for buildings more than 420 feet high.
> 
> &#8226;An increase of 50 percent in the width of exit stairways in new sprinklered buildings.
> 
> &#8226;Permitting the use of elevators for occupant evacuation in fires and other emergencies for all buildings, and as an alternative to the required additional exit stairway for buildings more than 420 feet high. Passenger elevators must meet specific criteria to be used for evacuation purposes.
> 
> &#8226;Hardening of exit stairway and passageway enclosures, and elevator shaft enclosures, in buildings&#8212;for all buildings more than 420 feet high, for buildings 75-420 feet high where failure of the enclosure would substantially jeopardize human life, and in essential facilities such as hospitals.
> 
> &#8226;Separating exit stairway enclosures by a distance not less than 30 feet or not less than one-fourth of the maximum building diagonal, whichever is less. For example, a building with a 50-foot by 50-foot floor plan would have a diagonal of about 70 feet. One-fourth of 70 is 17.5 feet, which would be the minimum distance required between exits (since it is less than 30 feet).
> 
> 
> http://www.continuitycentral.com/news04193.html
> 
> So there you have it eots.  Now run away with your skirt lifted up like a good little bitch!  And truthtards wonder why I have zero respect for them.
Click to expand...


*how many of these speak to building construction*


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> *how many of these speak to building construction*


All of them, dipshit!  Every one of the new buildings where these codes are applicable have to be designed and constructed to code.  Just because YOU'RE too retard to understand how a building has to be designed and constructed to have the proper markings or radio transmission capabilities doesn't mean the buildings are somehow exempt from having these elements in the design and construction of the building.  We all know you have a big ego, but single handedly re-writing the codes?    Give me a break!

Despite your whining to the contrary, the ones listed as code changes are now codified.  Yes, I included ones that were recommendations that had not yet been codified and I clearly marked them as such.  Even when it is there in plain English you bitch about it or outright lie about it.

True to the truthtard code of never admitting a mistake or fault, you continue to trudge on even though you've been caught with your pants down around your ankles yet again.    Keep squirming asshole!  It's fun watching you dance on the end of your string like a good little puppet!


----------



## Mr. Jones

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, won't be long before we can close up the conspiracy forums. Everyone will be on everyone else ignore list. Ain't it grand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That explanation by Mr. Jones took the cake. When someone makes an asinine statement like that, there is no way I'm going to continue having a discussion as they are clearly clueless.
> 
> A skull.
> 
> What a moron. Almost a good as the twins designed like "mufflers".
> 
> I just can't get over the idiocy I've witnessed this past week. It really shows the level of intellect of some that believe this crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I notice you use it as a way of avoiding the question of distortion to the facade or other disturbances from the entire inner structure collapsing...why is that ?
Click to expand...


And these idiots believe NIST?? 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - WTC 7 NIST Model vs. Reality[/ame]


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> And these idiots believe NIST??
> 
> YouTube - WTC 7 NIST Model vs. Reality



  I love it when truthtards prove they are completely clueless about computer modeling of complex events!  Wow!  Thanks for the laughs, Jones!


----------



## TakeAStepBack

> his message is hidden because Patriot911 is on your ignore list.


 

But let me guess, he completely attacks the posters credibility without addressing the science. Or twists a combination of attack and knowledge deficiency about a particular component of the overall issue.

Am I close?


----------



## Patriot911

TakeAStepBack said:


> his message is hidden because Patriot911 is on your ignore list.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But let me guess, he completely attacks the posters credibility without addressing the science. Or twists a combination of attack and knowledge deficiency about a particular component of the overall issue.
> 
> Am I close?
Click to expand...


You'll never know, asshole!    Pretenders like you who get proven time and time again to be liars and plagerists aren't exactly credible, are you.  Funny how you had to cut and paste your "science" from a thoroughly debunked piece of garbage from Judy Woods the dental technician!    Even funnier how you couldn't refute what I wrote or actually supply values for your supposed work.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Patriot911 said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> his message is hidden because Patriot911 is on your ignore list.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But let me guess, he completely attacks the posters credibility without addressing the science. Or twists a combination of attack and knowledge deficiency about a particular component of the overall issue.
> 
> Am I close?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll never know, asshole!    Pretenders like you who get proven time and time again to be liars and plagerists aren't exactly credible, are you.  Funny how you had to cut and paste your "science" from a thoroughly debunked piece of garbage from Judy Woods the dental technician!    Even funnier how you couldn't refute what I wrote or actually supply values for your supposed work.
Click to expand...


Takeashit read it all, he's not fooling anyone.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Let me guess again, since I have some down time. The two dude ranchin', rump rangers, just slandered my character without again consulting any science, or other relevant commentary. Am I right?

Do you guys find lube effective? Or do you just raw dog it?


----------



## SFC Ollie

Told you.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

> This message is hidden because SFC Ollie is on your ignore list





I have real work to do. Good bye for now, basement dwellers.


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *how many of these speak to building construction*
> 
> 
> 
> All of them, dipshit!  Every one of the new buildings where these codes are applicable have to be designed and constructed to code.  Just because YOU'RE too retard to understand how a building has to be designed and constructed to have the proper markings or radio transmission capabilities doesn't mean the buildings are somehow exempt from having these elements in the design and construction of the building.  We all know you have a big ego, but single handedly re-writing the codes?    Give me a break!
> 
> Despite your whining to the contrary, the ones listed as code changes are now codified.  Yes, I included ones that were recommendations that had not yet been codified and I clearly marked them as such.  Even when it is there in plain English you bitch about it or outright lie about it.
> 
> True to the truthtard code of never admitting a mistake or fault, you continue to trudge on even though you've been caught with your pants down around your ankles yet again.    Keep squirming asshole!  It's fun watching you dance on the end of your string like a good little puppet!
Click to expand...

more exits....luminous lines...wider stairwells....give me a fucking break


----------



## PhysicsExist

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_gE4wZEh0g]YouTube - Geraldo Rivera changes mind on AE911Truth and BuildingWhat.m4v[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *how many of these speak to building construction*
> 
> 
> 
> All of them, dipshit!  Every one of the new buildings where these codes are applicable have to be designed and constructed to code.  Just because YOU'RE too retard to understand how a building has to be designed and constructed to have the proper markings or radio transmission capabilities doesn't mean the buildings are somehow exempt from having these elements in the design and construction of the building.  We all know you have a big ego, but single handedly re-writing the codes?    Give me a break!
> 
> Despite your whining to the contrary, the ones listed as code changes are now codified.  Yes, I included ones that were recommendations that had not yet been codified and I clearly marked them as such.  Even when it is there in plain English you bitch about it or outright lie about it.
> 
> True to the truthtard code of never admitting a mistake or fault, you continue to trudge on even though you've been caught with your pants down around your ankles yet again.    Keep squirming asshole!  It's fun watching you dance on the end of your string like a good little puppet!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> more exits....luminous lines...wider stairwells....give me a fucking break
Click to expand...


Take a break, you've had your ass handed to you.


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of them, dipshit!  Every one of the new buildings where these codes are applicable have to be designed and constructed to code.  Just because YOU'RE too retard to understand how a building has to be designed and constructed to have the proper markings or radio transmission capabilities doesn't mean the buildings are somehow exempt from having these elements in the design and construction of the building.  We all know you have a big ego, but single handedly re-writing the codes?    Give me a break!
> 
> Despite your whining to the contrary, the ones listed as code changes are now codified.  Yes, I included ones that were recommendations that had not yet been codified and I clearly marked them as such.  Even when it is there in plain English you bitch about it or outright lie about it.
> 
> True to the truthtard code of never admitting a mistake or fault, you continue to trudge on even though you've been caught with your pants down around your ankles yet again.    Keep squirming asshole!  It's fun watching you dance on the end of your string like a good little puppet!
> 
> 
> 
> more exits....luminous lines...wider stairwells....give me a fucking break
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take a break, you've had your ass handed to you.
Click to expand...


nonsense no where are the designs of any of the buildings called into fault for the collapses and luminous lines and more exits are in no way connected to design flaws leading to collapse from fire


----------



## Obamerican

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *how many of these speak to building construction*
> 
> 
> 
> All of them, dipshit!  Every one of the new buildings where these codes are applicable have to be designed and constructed to code.  Just because YOU'RE too retard to understand how a building has to be designed and constructed to have the proper markings or radio transmission capabilities doesn't mean the buildings are somehow exempt from having these elements in the design and construction of the building.  We all know you have a big ego, but single handedly re-writing the codes?    Give me a break!
> 
> Despite your whining to the contrary, the ones listed as code changes are now codified.  Yes, I included ones that were recommendations that had not yet been codified and I clearly marked them as such.  Even when it is there in plain English you bitch about it or outright lie about it.
> 
> True to the truthtard code of never admitting a mistake or fault, you continue to trudge on even though you've been caught with your pants down around your ankles yet again.    Keep squirming asshole!  It's fun watching you dance on the end of your string like a good little puppet!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> more exits....luminous lines...wider stairwells....give me a fucking break
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> so after ten years you can not point to one code change
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another example of the utter dishonesty and completely despicable nature of eots.  He DEMANDS links.  We give him links.  Does he read them?  Who knows.  But he invariably comes back with bullshit statements like the ones above.    What a fucking piece of shit loser!
> 
> Code changes that have been put in place:
> 
> &#8226;An additional (third) exit stairway for buildings more than 420 feet high.
> 
> &#8226;An increase of 50 percent in the width of exit stairways in new sprinklered buildings.
> 
> &#8226;Permitting the use of elevators for occupant evacuation in fires and other emergencies for all buildings, and as an alternative to the required additional exit stairway for buildings more than 420 feet high. Passenger elevators must meet specific criteria to be used for evacuation purposes.
> 
> &#8226;Hardening of exit stairway and passageway enclosures, and elevator shaft enclosures, in buildings&#8212;for all buildings more than 420 feet high, for buildings 75-420 feet high where failure of the enclosure would substantially jeopardize human life, and in essential facilities such as hospitals.
> 
> &#8226;Separating exit stairway enclosures by a distance not less than 30 feet or not less than one-fourth of the maximum building diagonal, whichever is less. For example, a building with a 50-foot by 50-foot floor plan would have a diagonal of about 70 feet. One-fourth of 70 is 17.5 feet, which would be the minimum distance required between exits (since it is less than 30 feet).
> 
> &#8226;A minimum of one fire service access elevator for buildings more than 120 feet high.
> 
> &#8226;Fire service access elevator lobby sizes that are a minimum of 150 square feet in area with sides at least 8 feet long.
> 
> &#8226;Keeping fire service access elevator lobbies free of storage.
> 
> &#8226;Greater reliability of sprinklers with a minimum of two water supply risers for each sprinkler zone in buildings more than 420 feet high. Each riser is required to supply sprinklers on alternate floors and will be placed in remotely located stair enclosures.
> 
> &#8226;Providing minimum structural integrity for framed and bearing wall structures
> 
> 
> http://www.continuitycentral.com/news04193.html
Click to expand...


where the link to your source loser ?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

No construction/structural code changes have happened. All of the changes have to do with FDNY (at least in NYC) standards and EAP (Emergency Action Plan) standards. While they are enforceable, they are far from addressing the structural integrity of a building. Why?
Because before or after 9/11, no steel structure high rise building has ever collapsed due to fire. 

In fact, the 2005 Madrid fire involving the Windsor building burned for well over ten hours, at more than 800 degrees AND suffered a 5-6 upper floor collapse without a global collapse. No floors were pulverized.








Amazing!


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *how many of these speak to building construction*
> 
> 
> 
> All of them, dipshit!  Every one of the new buildings where these codes are applicable have to be designed and constructed to code.  Just because YOU'RE too retard to understand how a building has to be designed and constructed to have the proper markings or radio transmission capabilities doesn't mean the buildings are somehow exempt from having these elements in the design and construction of the building.  We all know you have a big ego, but single handedly re-writing the codes?    Give me a break!
> 
> Despite your whining to the contrary, the ones listed as code changes are now codified.  Yes, I included ones that were recommendations that had not yet been codified and I clearly marked them as such.  Even when it is there in plain English you bitch about it or outright lie about it.
> 
> True to the truthtard code of never admitting a mistake or fault, you continue to trudge on even though you've been caught with your pants down around your ankles yet again.    Keep squirming asshole!  It's fun watching you dance on the end of your string like a good little puppet!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> more exits....luminous lines...wider stairwells....give me a fucking break
Click to expand...


This from the asshole who said there were no code changes.  Now that he has been presented with code changes he can't lie about anymore, he has to bitch about them.    What a fucking loser!  And now he is pretending all the changes to the code were cosmetic in nature.  Anyone else need more proof this fucker is an ignorant prick who is as dishonest as a snake oil salesman, a used car salesman and a politician rolled into one?


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> so after ten years you can not point to one code change
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another example of the utter dishonesty and completely despicable nature of eots.  He DEMANDS links.  We give him links.  Does he read them?  Who knows.  But he invariably comes back with bullshit statements like the ones above.    What a fucking piece of shit loser!
> 
> Code changes that have been put in place:
> 
> An additional (third) exit stairway for buildings more than 420 feet high.
> 
> An increase of 50 percent in the width of exit stairways in new sprinklered buildings.
> 
> Permitting the use of elevators for occupant evacuation in fires and other emergencies for all buildings, and as an alternative to the required additional exit stairway for buildings more than 420 feet high. Passenger elevators must meet specific criteria to be used for evacuation purposes.
> 
> Hardening of exit stairway and passageway enclosures, and elevator shaft enclosures, in buildingsfor all buildings more than 420 feet high, for buildings 75-420 feet high where failure of the enclosure would substantially jeopardize human life, and in essential facilities such as hospitals.
> 
> Separating exit stairway enclosures by a distance not less than 30 feet or not less than one-fourth of the maximum building diagonal, whichever is less. For example, a building with a 50-foot by 50-foot floor plan would have a diagonal of about 70 feet. One-fourth of 70 is 17.5 feet, which would be the minimum distance required between exits (since it is less than 30 feet).
> 
> A minimum of one fire service access elevator for buildings more than 120 feet high.
> 
> Fire service access elevator lobby sizes that are a minimum of 150 square feet in area with sides at least 8 feet long.
> 
> Keeping fire service access elevator lobbies free of storage.
> 
> Greater reliability of sprinklers with a minimum of two water supply risers for each sprinkler zone in buildings more than 420 feet high. Each riser is required to supply sprinklers on alternate floors and will be placed in remotely located stair enclosures.
> 
> Providing minimum structural integrity for framed and bearing wall structures
> 
> 
> World Trade Center Investigation leads to building and fire code changes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> where the link to your source loser ?
Click to expand...


  WTF!  This is from the links you already claimed showed no code changes, you dumb fuck!  Since I know you have this strong aversion to actually doing anything to dispell your profound ignorance, I know you won't bother to go back and look at the links Gamolon sent you, so here it is.  Maybe next time you should actually READ the links rather than proving your ignorance by making claims that are nothing but pure bullshit lies.


----------



## Patriot911

TakeAStepBack said:


> No construction/structural code changes have happened. All of the changes have to do with FDNY (at least in NYC) standards and EAP (Emergency Action Plan) standards. While they are enforceable, they are far from addressing the structural integrity of a building. Why?
> Because before or after 9/11, no steel structure high rise building has ever collapsed due to fire.
> 
> In fact, the 2005 Madrid fire involving the Windsor building burned for well over ten hours, at more than 800 degrees AND suffered a 5-6 upper floor collapse without a global collapse. No floors were pulverized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing!



AMAZING!  Only the steel framed section of the tower collapsed!  The concrete framed portion of the stucture remains standing!   OMG!  Maybe, just maybe, the construction materials used MIGHT have a hand in how the structure handles fire!    Dumbfucks like TASB prove just how fucking retarded the truthtard bowel movement really is.

Go back to pretending you are a productive member of society, loser.    We all know it isn't true.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

> This message is hidden because Patriot911 is on your ignore list



I'm sure whatever this hick wrote isn't worth reading anyway.


----------



## Fizz

TakeAStepBack said:


> This message is hidden because Patriot911 is on your ignore list
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure whatever this hick wrote isn't worth reading anyway.
Click to expand...


yawn......

another twoofer that refuses to look at the truth.

how typical.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

So you show up for that? Nothing to add to the discussion? I'm shocked. 

You must be excessively bored.

I haven't seen any truth come out of agent patriot. Which is why his hick ass is on ignore. I don't have time to argue and fling insults around with a dumb hick. Topic of discussion only. Which I see you have nothing to add....


----------



## Patriot911

Fizz said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This message is hidden because Patriot911 is on your ignore list
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure whatever this hick wrote isn't worth reading anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yawn......
> 
> another twoofer that refuses to look at the truth.
> 
> how typical.
Click to expand...


I'll never understand their ostrich mentality of sticking their head in the sand every time someone decimates their bullshit.  Do they really think that if they put someone on ignore that the person they are ignoring won't respond?  Do they think they will somehow look less childish to everyone else because they can't respond?  I don't get it.  All it does is prove they're not here to find the truth, but to push an agenda no matter what anyone else says or what the truth is.


----------



## Patriot911

TakeAStepBack said:


> So you show up for that? Nothing to add to the discussion? I'm shocked.
> 
> You must be excessively bored.
> 
> I haven't seen any truth come out of agent patriot. Which is why his hick ass is on ignore. I don't have time to argue and fling insults around with a dumb hick. Topic of discussion only. Which I see you have nothing to add....



More pathetic excuses as for why he can't respond.    I would hide too if I were plagerizing Judy Woods and trying to pretend I knew what I was talking about!  What a loser!


----------



## SFC Ollie

Patriot911 said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure whatever this hick wrote isn't worth reading anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yawn......
> 
> another twoofer that refuses to look at the truth.
> 
> how typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll never understand their ostrich mentality of sticking their head in the sand every time someone decimates their bullshit.  Do they really think that if they put someone on ignore that the person they are ignoring won't respond?  Do they think they will somehow look less childish to everyone else because they can't respond?  I don't get it.  All it does is prove they're not here to find the truth, but to push an agenda no matter what anyone else says or what the truth is.
Click to expand...


But no one is on ignore.


----------



## Patriot911

SFC Ollie said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> 
> yawn......
> 
> another twoofer that refuses to look at the truth.
> 
> how typical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll never understand their ostrich mentality of sticking their head in the sand every time someone decimates their bullshit.  Do they really think that if they put someone on ignore that the person they are ignoring won't respond?  Do they think they will somehow look less childish to everyone else because they can't respond?  I don't get it.  All it does is prove they're not here to find the truth, but to push an agenda no matter what anyone else says or what the truth is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But no one is on ignore.
Click to expand...


They also don't have their heads in the sand.  Like everything else, they're just pretending.  Good point!


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another example of the utter dishonesty and completely despicable nature of eots.  He DEMANDS links.  We give him links.  Does he read them?  Who knows.  But he invariably comes back with bullshit statements like the ones above.    What a fucking piece of shit loser!
> 
> Code changes that have been put in place:
> 
> An additional (third) exit stairway for buildings more than 420 feet high.
> 
> An increase of 50 percent in the width of exit stairways in new sprinklered buildings.
> 
> Permitting the use of elevators for occupant evacuation in fires and other emergencies for all buildings, and as an alternative to the required additional exit stairway for buildings more than 420 feet high. Passenger elevators must meet specific criteria to be used for evacuation purposes.
> 
> Hardening of exit stairway and passageway enclosures, and elevator shaft enclosures, in buildingsfor all buildings more than 420 feet high, for buildings 75-420 feet high where failure of the enclosure would substantially jeopardize human life, and in essential facilities such as hospitals.
> 
> Separating exit stairway enclosures by a distance not less than 30 feet or not less than one-fourth of the maximum building diagonal, whichever is less. For example, a building with a 50-foot by 50-foot floor plan would have a diagonal of about 70 feet. One-fourth of 70 is 17.5 feet, which would be the minimum distance required between exits (since it is less than 30 feet).
> 
> A minimum of one fire service access elevator for buildings more than 120 feet high.
> 
> Fire service access elevator lobby sizes that are a minimum of 150 square feet in area with sides at least 8 feet long.
> 
> Keeping fire service access elevator lobbies free of storage.
> 
> Greater reliability of sprinklers with a minimum of two water supply risers for each sprinkler zone in buildings more than 420 feet high. Each riser is required to supply sprinklers on alternate floors and will be placed in remotely located stair enclosures.
> 
> Providing minimum structural integrity for framed and bearing wall structures
> 
> 
> World Trade Center Investigation leads to building and fire code changes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> where the link to your source loser ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF!  This is from the links you already claimed showed no code changes, you dumb fuck!  Since I know you have this strong aversion to actually doing anything to dispell your profound ignorance, I know you won't bother to go back and look at the links Gamolon sent you, so here it is.  Maybe next time you should actually READ the links rather than proving your ignorance by making claims that are nothing but pure bullshit lies.
Click to expand...


I cant help but notice when you pasted it you cut of the title that says fire code changes  and then list them as if there are building code changes...how deceptive of you


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> I cant help but notice when you pasted it you cut of the title that says fire code changes  and then list them as if there are building code changes...how deceptive of you



Are you STILL trying to come up with some nitpick that might save you a little face?!?    Where did I cut off the title that says fire code changes?  They are both fire code AND building changes.  We both know that.  Yet here you are trying to pretend it makes a difference. 

Man, when you get your ass kicked up one side of the block and then down the other, you really fall apart, don'tcha!    What a sore loser!


----------



## eots

nitpick ?...distinguishing the difference between minor fire codes and calling the design into fault is nitpicking ?


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> nitpick ?...distinguishing the difference between fire codes and calling the design into fault is nitpicking ?



They were building AND fire code changes, dipshit!  And when I referred to them, I just said codes.  So yes.  Once again you've been caught fucking the goat and now you're trying to come up with excuses.  So far, everything is falling very flat!  

Ever stop to think the design wasn't so much at fault as it had room for improvement?  

Oh wait.  That would actually involve original thought on your part.    Never mind.  We know you're not capable.


----------



## CandySlice

SFC Ollie said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> 
> yawn......
> 
> another twoofer that refuses to look at the truth.
> 
> how typical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll never understand their ostrich mentality of sticking their head in the sand every time someone decimates their bullshit.  Do they really think that if they put someone on ignore that the person they are ignoring won't respond?  Do they think they will somehow look less childish to everyone else because they can't respond?  I don't get it.  All it does is prove they're not here to find the truth, but to push an agenda no matter what anyone else says or what the truth is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But no one is on ignore.
Click to expand...



I don't know how to ignore anyone. Besides, some of these characters need to have an eye kept on them.


----------



## eots

you deceivingly refereed to them as codes and removed the title from your cut and paste and provided no link


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> you deceivingly refereed to them as codes and removed the title from your cut and paste and provided no link



As has been clearly stated several times now, the links I used had already been given.  A shame you're too retarded to read, yet actually pretend like you have a point.  Does everyone have to spell everything out to the nth degree for you?  Oh wait.  If everyone did that you would have nothing to bitch about since you obviously can't back up your bullshit, nor can you ever admit your mistakes.  The only point you have is on top of that pointy head of yours.  

BTW, how does one "referee" to codes?    And now I've removed the title altogether, whereas before you said I took out the words fire code.  Got caught in yet another lie, didn't you eots!  

What a fucking piece of shit liar eots is!


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> you deceivingly refereed to them as codes and removed the title from your cut and paste and provided no link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As has been clearly stated several times now, the links I used had already been given.  A shame you're too retarded to read, yet actually pretend like you have a point.  Does everyone have to spell everything out to the nth degree for you?  Oh wait.  If everyone did that you would have nothing to bitch about since you obviously can't back up your bullshit, nor can you ever admit your mistakes.  The only point you have is on top of that pointy head of yours.
> 
> BTW, how does one "referee" to codes?    And now I've removed the title altogether, whereas before you said I took out the words fire code.  Got caught in yet another lie, didn't you eots!
> 
> What a fucking piece of shit liar eots is!
Click to expand...


a link is to be posted with all material from other sources..it is a rule of copy write and a rule of the board, I know its a lot to expect from persons such as yourself, but it is whats required...so your claims of doing it before are pointless...much like yourself


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> you deceivingly refereed to them as codes and removed the title from your cut and paste and provided no link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As has been clearly stated several times now, the links I used had already been given.  A shame you're too retarded to read, yet actually pretend like you have a point.  Does everyone have to spell everything out to the nth degree for you?  Oh wait.  If everyone did that you would have nothing to bitch about since you obviously can't back up your bullshit, nor can you ever admit your mistakes.  The only point you have is on top of that pointy head of yours.
> 
> BTW, how does one "referee" to codes?    And now I've removed the title altogether, whereas before you said I took out the words fire code.  Got caught in yet another lie, didn't you eots!
> 
> What a fucking piece of shit liar eots is!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a link is to be posted with all material from other sources..it is a rule of copy write and a rule of the board, I know its a lot to expect from persons such as yourself, but it is whats required...so your claims of doing it before are pointless...much like yourself
Click to expand...


This coming from an asshole who rarely, if ever, backs up his claims with links.    You're so full of shit, eots.


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> you deceivingly refereed to them as codes and removed the title from your cut and paste and provided no link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As has been clearly stated several times now, the links I used had already been given.  A shame you're too retarded to read, yet actually pretend like you have a point.  Does everyone have to spell everything out to the nth degree for you?  Oh wait.  If everyone did that you would have nothing to bitch about since you obviously can't back up your bullshit, nor can you ever admit your mistakes.  The only point you have is on top of that pointy head of yours.
> 
> BTW, how does one "referee" to codes?    And now I've removed the title altogether, whereas before you said I took out the words fire code.  Got caught in yet another lie, didn't you eots!
> 
> What a fucking piece of shit liar eots is!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a link is to be posted with all material from other sources..it is a rule of copy write and a rule of the board, I know its a lot to expect from persons such as yourself, but it is whats required...so your claims of doing it before are pointless...much like yourself
Click to expand...


Why haven't you called out Mr. Jones on these "rule" infractions?

Hypocrite.


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As has been clearly stated several times now, the links I used had already been given.  A shame you're too retarded to read, yet actually pretend like you have a point.  Does everyone have to spell everything out to the nth degree for you?  Oh wait.  If everyone did that you would have nothing to bitch about since you obviously can't back up your bullshit, nor can you ever admit your mistakes.  The only point you have is on top of that pointy head of yours.
> 
> BTW, how does one "referee" to codes?    And now I've removed the title altogether, whereas before you said I took out the words fire code.  Got caught in yet another lie, didn't you eots!
> 
> What a fucking piece of shit liar eots is!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a link is to be posted with all material from other sources..it is a rule of copy write and a rule of the board, I know its a lot to expect from persons such as yourself, but it is whats required...so your claims of doing it before are pointless...much like yourself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This coming from an asshole who rarely, if ever, backs up his claims with links.    You're so full of shit, eots.
Click to expand...


I never post others material without a link


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> a link is to be posted with all material from other sources..it is a rule of copy write and a rule of the board, I know its a lot to expect from persons such as yourself, but it is whats required...so your claims of doing it before are pointless...much like yourself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This coming from an asshole who rarely, if ever, backs up his claims with links.    You're so full of shit, eots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never post others material without a link
Click to expand...


Do you repost it in EVERY post where you discuss it?  No?  I didn't think so.    You're so full of shit, eots.  How do people stand you in real life?


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This coming from an asshole who rarely, if ever, backs up his claims with links.    You're so full of shit, eots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never post others material without a link
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you repost it in EVERY post where you discuss it?  No?  I didn't think so.    You're so full of shit, eots.  How do people stand you in real life?
Click to expand...


yes, I post a link to all copywrite material every-time I post it and leave the title  intact as does most everyone else ...what is that too difficult for you ?


----------



## eots

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As has been clearly stated several times now, the links I used had already been given.  A shame you're too retarded to read, yet actually pretend like you have a point.  Does everyone have to spell everything out to the nth degree for you?  Oh wait.  If everyone did that you would have nothing to bitch about since you obviously can't back up your bullshit, nor can you ever admit your mistakes.  The only point you have is on top of that pointy head of yours.
> 
> BTW, how does one "referee" to codes?    And now I've removed the title altogether, whereas before you said I took out the words fire code.  Got caught in yet another lie, didn't you eots!
> 
> What a fucking piece of shit liar eots is!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a link is to be posted with all material from other sources..it is a rule of copy write and a rule of the board, I know its a lot to expect from persons such as yourself, but it is whats required...so your claims of doing it before are pointless...much like yourself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why haven't you called out Mr. Jones on these "rule" infractions?
> 
> Hypocrite.
Click to expand...


feel free to point out to anyone if you notice a copywrite infraction I am sure  as good citizens of the board they will appreciate the reminder


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> a link is to be posted with all material from other sources..it is a rule of copy write and a rule of the board, I know its a lot to expect from persons such as yourself, but it is whats required...so your claims of doing it before are pointless...much like yourself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why haven't you called out Mr. Jones on these "rule" infractions?
> 
> Hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> feel free to point out to anyone if you notice a copywrite infraction I am sure  as good citizens of the board they will appreciate the reminder
Click to expand...


  eots got his ass handed to him and got exposed as a fucking liar and now he is trying to cover it all up by trying to pretend it is a copyright issue.  BTW, fucktard, it is copyright, not copywrite.


----------



## Mr. Jones

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> a link is to be posted with all material from other sources..it is a rule of copy write and a rule of the board, I know its a lot to expect from persons such as yourself, but it is whats required...so your claims of doing it before are pointless...much like yourself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why haven't you called out Mr. Jones on these "rule" infractions?
> 
> Hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> feel free to point out to anyone if you notice a copywrite infraction I am sure  as good citizens of the board they will appreciate the reminder
Click to expand...


They will cry and complain about anything to try and sidetrack debate and the truth don't they?
 Anyway I noticed you had to really twist Parrots arm to provide a link, and I think I know why he was so hesitant, I read his link and found the following-Seems this study does not quite agree with NIST from what I can tell.
from another thread-

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3526345-post150.html



> Quote: Originally Posted by Patriot911Give a truthtard enough rope and he will hang himself from the highest tree! Since you are too lazy, too fucking stupid, or both to find the paper, here is your link you will probably not read.
> http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/download353.pdf
> 
> As for you posting the link, .!.. ..!. Dream on, dumbfuck!




*
This lower reliance on passive fire protection is in contrast to
the NIST work where the amount
of fire protection on the truss elements is believed to be a
significant factor in defining the time to collapse.
However there is no evidence in NISTs preliminary report that
this is backed up by structural modelling in response to fire. It
appears that only heat transfer modelling considering different
levels of fire protection have been carried out and the failure of
the individual elements has been related to loss in strength and
stiffness only.
Thermal expansion and the response of the whole frame to this
effect has not been described as yet.

Structural engineers do not traditionally consider fire
as an actual load on the structural frame.

This graph is an example of the data output from our thermomechancial
analysis and shows the support available to the
columns from truss floors at different steel truss temperatures.
It forms one part of the basis of our understanding of restraint
to columns in fire.
It demonstrates that even at very high temperatures the truss
floors can provide restraint.
(This coincides with the testing and results conducted on the floor assemblies conducted by NIST-THEY DID NOT FAIL! SEE LINK #2 BELOW)
This could explain the time gap between the column inward
bowing shown in the NIST presentation on 5 April at approx
18mins and the structural survival in that state to collapse
several minutes later.

As part of these studies, we have analysed WTC type
structural designs in various severe fire scenarios. In addition
we have been investigating the behaviour of long span cellular
beams in fire  the most popular form of construction in
London at this time.
( So the WTC design type of design was in no way unusual enough to say that is why they collapsed like they did!) 
The tall building studies presented here must not be viewed as
a forensic investigation of the WTC buildings. Nor is that what
we want to achieve  for we must be able to translate any new
understanding to all different forms of construction.

Our aim is to be in a position where we can understand if
there are any specific progressive collapse mechanisms in
tall structures that are not known or not understood in the
fire limit state.
( Good luck, freefall collapses of steel buildings are only understood in the NIST Bush science world)
The WTC towers behaved very well following impact and
in response to multiple floor fires indicating that it was a
robust system.
The draft NIST report appears to rely on dislodged fire
protection.
(has anyone actually looked at the extent of the NIST testing to prove this asinine theory? They used one shot from a shotgun-see link #1 below) 
Collapse mechanism proposed
by NIST in April 5 Presentation Report
The basis of NISTs collapse theory is also column behaviour
in fire.
However, we believe that a considerable difference in
downward displacement between the core and perimeter
columns, much greater than the 300mm proposed, is required
for the collapse theory to hold true.

Why upward expansion of the column would act against
the mechanical shortening.
Crude initial calculations indicate that the elastic downward
deflection at half the modulus (say at approx. 500C) will be
roughly 38mm.
Assuming plastic strains, a maximum yielding of approximately
190mm is possible.
If the downward displacement is 300mm as assumed, the
rotation at the perimeter connection would be 300mm vertical
over an 18000mm span - extremely small.
The floor elongation must be less than 2.5mm to generate
tensile pulling forces on the exterior columns as a result of the
column shortening in the core.
Thermal expansion of the floor truss would be 65mm at 300°C
over a length of 18000mm.
Therefore the 2.5mm is swamped by thermal expansion and
the core columns cannot pull the exterior columns in via the
floor simply as a result of column shortening.
(This whole "thermal expansion theory" is insane, it is sooo minimal that it is not even taken into consideration, past or present, this is just another "miracle" NIST wants stupid people to believe happened only on that day, in that city etc)

The NIST collapse theory also states that floors weakened and
sagged from the fires, pulling inward on the perimeter columns.
Floor sagging and exposure to high temperatures caused
the perimeter columns to bow inward and bucklea process
that spread across the faces of the buildings. (BS) Collapse
then ensued.This is similar to some of our collapse proposals but no
mention of thermal expansion is made, the floor buckling and
lack of support to the columns seems to be entirely due to
loss in strength and stiffness in their view which we would
consider to be only part of the story.
(Steel fails and causes free fall collapses only in Manhattan apparently-Also NIST overestimated the actual sagging of these floors-SEE LINK#3 BELOW)
Influence of the hat truss on the
buildings performance
We have analyzed models with and without a hat truss at
the top of a tall-building and found that - a hat truss
significantly improves stability in multiple floor fires.
In the image above, the Hat Truss shows clear redistribution
from outer columns to the core (primarily the outer core
columns). NIST have also observed load transfer via the hat
truss. Such issues could become the basis for future fire related
structural design guidance.

Our aim now and the reason for our continuing research and
development in this field is to introduce quantified secondary
structural systems to help the structure cope with the loads
induced in fire. (sure...it's allll about the $$$)
On a final note structural fire engineering continues to
be important.
We have noticed an interesting step change in the approvals
process with specific requests now, even for fully code
compliant buildings in terms of structural fire proofing, for global
structural responses be quantified and justified, in order to
obtain structural design approval..
Events will happen and we have to address concerns but we
need to make sure that our response is measured and
beneficial in many ways.
Our goal is to deliver the design vision for our architects and
clients and all the key stakeholders in a project, safely.
Therefore we are recommending threat and risk assessments
to determine design solutions, innovative evacuation strategies
that address real human response and imminent catastrophic
events, and whole frame structural analysis to be employed,
as required, on tall buildings in the future.*
*(Again more needless regulations produce more $$$$ needlessly spent on "analysis" and construction to conform)*

* (seems they want to be in on the ground floor to take advantage of potential income, should new construction and safety codes come into play because of NISTS lunacy.)*

*They also say-
Sometimes*
however we may disagree with NIST and we therefore currently
plan to comment on the draft final report due in June as
part of the public consultation process before the final issue..
in September.
*If anyone has these final comments I would like to read them.*

link 1-The idea that fireproofing was removed from most of the structural steel surfaces of the impact zones is essential to NIST's theory. NIST sought to "prove" that the plane crashes could do this by shooting shotguns at surfaces coated with spray-on foam insulation. Contrary to the popular notion that the jolts of the plane crashes could knocked off large amounts of spray-on insulation from steel not directly in the line of fire, the tests showed that it took being sprayed with shotgun pellets to remove the insulation. In addition to the fact that there is no evidence that a crashing Boeing 757 could have been transformed into the equivalent of the thousands of shotgun blasts it would take to blast the 6,000 square meters of surface area of structural steel in the fire areas, Ryan makes another argument based on the available energy.
       * NIST says 2500 MJ of kinetic energy from plane that hit WTC1
              o Calculations show that all this energy was consumed in crushing aircraft and breaking columns and floors *
              o Shotgun tests found that 1 MJ per sq meter was needed to dislodge fireproofing
              o For the areas in question, intact floors and columns had 6000 sq meters of surface area
          * Calculations by Tomasz Wierzbicki of MIT
The idea that fireproofing was removed from most of the structural steel surfaces of the impact zones is essential to NIST's theory. NIST sought to "prove" that the plane crashes could do this by shooting shotguns at surfaces coated with spray-on foam insulation. Contrary to the popular notion that the jolts of the plane crashes could knocked off large amounts of spray-on insulation from steel not directly in the line of fire, the tests showed that it took being sprayed with shotgun pellets to remove the insulation. In addition to the fact that there is no evidence that a crashing Boeing 757 could have been transformed into the equivalent of the thousands of shotgun blasts it would take to blast the 6,000 square meters of surface area of structural steel in the fire areas, Ryan makes another argument based on the available energy.

NIST says 2500 MJ of kinetic energy from plane that hit WTC1

    * Calculations show that all this energy was consumed in crushing aircraft and breaking columns and floors *
    * Shotgun tests found that 1 MJ per sq meter was needed to dislodge fireproofing
    * For the areas in question, intact floors and columns had 6000 sq meters of surface area

* Calculations by Tomasz Wierzbicki of MIT 
Review of 'A New Standard For Deception' A Presentation by Kevin Ryan

LINK 2
Laboratory tests conducted by NIST included:

    * Tests to prove loss of fireproofing
    * Workstation burn tests
    * Tests by UL to test failure in floor assemblies

The floor assemblies tests were important because they were supposed to prove the pancake theory. Yet, despite NIST using less fireproofing on the assemblies than was known to be on the steel in the Twin Towers, and despite their loading the floors with double the weight known to have been on the actual floors, it could not get an assembly to collapse. The tests showed:
       * Minimal floor sagging
        * No floor collapse
        * "The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."

LINK 3
Some floors began to sag?
Step five in NIST's collapse theory is that floors began to sag. The idea that fires could have caused floors to sag is not unreasonable, since it has been observed in fire tests and in cases of severe fires in steel-framed buildings, such as the One Meridian Plaza fire.
What is not reasonable is the degree of sagging NIST used in its computer models compared with the amounts its physical tests showed. Whereas the 35-foot floor model sagged only a few inches in the middle after two hours in a high-temperature furnace, NIST's computer model showed a sagging of 54 inches. 

Just more proof that NIST stretched their data and lied to us all, they like the apologists on this forum hope you will just not read any of their BS.

*"I describe NIST's Report as a mountain of distracting detail. 

NIST Conceals the Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers

Ryan more succinctly describes their theory as a 'tin rat' -- They'll Never Read All This -- theory. The Report on the Twin Towers is 42 sub-reports totaling more than 10,000 pages." *

*And here is your fucking links you crying ass bitches-*

Review of 'A New Standard For Deception' A Presentation by Kevin Ryan


----------



## eots

Mr. Jones said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why haven't you called out Mr. Jones on these "rule" infractions?
> 
> Hypocrite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> feel free to point out to anyone if you notice a copywrite infraction I am sure  as good citizens of the board they will appreciate the reminder
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They will cry and complain about anything to try and sidetrack debate and the truth don't they?
> Anyway I noticed you had to really twist Parrots arm to provide a link, and I think I know why he was so hesitant, I read his link and found the following-Seems this study does not quite agree with NIST from what I can tell.
> from another thread-
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes,indeed and his the removal of the title was a nice touch..btw...nice work Mr Jones,well done
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why haven't you called out Mr. Jones on these "rule" infractions?
> 
> Hypocrite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> feel free to point out to anyone if you notice a copywrite infraction I am sure  as good citizens of the board they will appreciate the reminder
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> eots got his ass handed to him and got exposed as a fucking liar and now he is trying to cover it all up by trying to pretend it is a copyright issue.  BTW, fucktard, it is copyright, not copywrite.
Click to expand...


no, parrot tried to device  by not providing a link and removing the title and got busted...and then Jones handed him his ass


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> feel free to point out to anyone if you notice a copywrite infraction I am sure  as good citizens of the board they will appreciate the reminder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots got his ass handed to him and got exposed as a fucking liar and now he is trying to cover it all up by trying to pretend it is a copyright issue.  BTW, fucktard, it is copyright, not copywrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, parrot tried to device  by not providing a link and removing the title and got busted...and then Jones handed him his ass
Click to expand...


Let's look at the big picture.  

The lying piece of shit known as eots tried to pretend no code changes happened due to the NIST report.  

Gamolon proved eots was a fucking liar by posting the code changes.

eots, being the scum sucking liar that he is, lies about there being any code changes.

In response, I point out all the code changes eots pretends don't exist.

eots then tries another lie by claiming they are just recommendations.

I point out which code changes are made and which are recommended.

eots then whines that I didn't link the article.

I post a link.

eots then whines that I removed fire codes from the title.

I point out I never even posted the title in the original, and the response was an unaltered title.

eots then starts crying like a little bitch that I didn't post the link right away and that I still didn't post the title in my original post as if that somehow changes the fact eots got his ass kicked yet again AND made himself look like a fool AND proved once again just how often he lies.

  Well done, eots.  Well done!


----------



## TakeAStepBack

&#8220;The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.&#8221; ~  Thomas Jefferson


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Good  work, Jones. You clearly have your thinking cap on. Why haven't you put Patriot on ignore already is beyond me. He's a shit flinging hick, remedial. Yes, remedial. It is my polite and PC way of saying retarded as I don't like that word.. Arguing with him is like chasing your tail.

Do yourself a favor. 

You know the truth. The problem is cognitive aware, not recognition. people don't fucking care. They like it apparently. "Willfully ignorant."

Peace.


----------



## Patriot911

TakeAStepBack said:


> The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. ~  Thomas Jefferson



I sincerely doubt Thomas Jefferson was talking about a bunch of retarded liars trying to overthrow the government when he said that.  He would spit on the lot of you.


----------



## Patriot911

TakeAStepBack said:


> Good  work, Jones. You clearly have your thinking cap on. Why haven't you put Patriot on ignore already is beyond me. He's a shit flinging hick, remedial. Yes, remedial. It is my polite and PC way of saying retarded as I don't like that word.. Arguing with him is like chasing your tail.
> 
> Do yourself a favor.
> 
> You know the truth. The problem is cognitive aware, not recognition. people don't fucking care. They like it apparently. "Willfully ignorant."
> 
> Peace.



  That's rich!  The retard is trying to insult me by misusing a word!    Aww.  Is he still pretending not to read what I write?


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> eots got his ass handed to him and got exposed as a fucking liar and now he is trying to cover it all up by trying to pretend it is a copyright issue.  BTW, fucktard, it is copyright, not copywrite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, parrot tried to device  by not providing a link and removing the title and got busted...and then Jones handed him his ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's look at the big picture.
> 
> The lying piece of shit known as eots tried to pretend *no code changes *happened due to the NIST report.
> 
> Gamolon proved eots was a fucking liar by posting the code changes.
> 
> eots, being the scum sucking liar that he is, lies about there being any code changes.
> 
> In response, I point out all the code changes eots pretends don't exist.
> 
> eots then tries another lie by claiming they are just recommendations.
> 
> I point out which code changes are made and which are recommended.
> 
> eots then whines that I didn't link the article.
> 
> I post a link.
> 
> eots then whines that I removed fire codes from the title.
> 
> I point out I never even posted the title in the original, and the response was an unaltered title.
> 
> eots then starts crying like a little bitch that I didn't post the link right away and that I still didn't post the title in my original post as if that somehow changes the fact eots got his ass kicked yet again AND made himself look like a fool AND proved once again just how often he lies.
> 
> Well done, eots.  Well done!
Click to expand...


actually it was stated the design was the reason the* building  7 *collapsed  from when no others ever have ,I asked where the building design was was ever called into question and to show any building codes changes that reflect this...he could not do so, so he listed a bunch of* fire code *changes pretending they were *building code *changes or relevant to design flaws that contributed to the collapse,they even cut the title off paper and left off the link to try and hide the lie


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> actually it was stated the design was the reason the* building  7 *collapsed  from when no others ever have ,I asked where the building design was was ever called into question and to show any building codes changes that reflect this...he could not do so, so he listed a bunch of* fire code *changes pretending they were *building code *changes or relevant to design flaws that contributed to the collapse,they even cut the title off paper and left off the link to try and hide the lie



  Would you look at that!  eots lying his slimey ass off yet again!  Who would have thunk it?  

First off, the codes listed were both FIRE AND BUILDING codes.  Funny how you lie your ass off trying to pretend I omitted fire codes from the title, yet here you are pretending there were no building codes!  So now you're not only a liar, but a massive hypocrite as well!    I love it!

Second, the design of WTC 7 contributed to the collapse, but it was not at fault.  If it had collapsed before the codes stated it should have remained standing (usually 4 hours), then the design could be called faulty if the circumstances were "normal".  The circumstances surrounding the collapse of WTC 7 were ANYTHING but normal.  Fires started on several floors at once.  No fire fighting.  Structural damage from the collapse of other buildings.  Those are NOT normal and should be taken into account.  

All honest people understand this stuff.  Dishonest fucks like you pretend it doesn't exist.  You've stepped on your own dick so many times in the last few days lying your ass off about all this that I would be surprised if anyone not a diehard truthtard who is used to liars of epic scale would ever believe you on anything.


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually it was stated the design was the reason the* building  7 *collapsed  from when no others ever have ,I asked where the building design was was ever called into question and to show any building codes changes that reflect this...he could not do so, so he listed a bunch of* fire code *changes pretending they were *building code *changes or relevant to design flaws that contributed to the collapse,they even cut the title off paper and left off the link to try and hide the lie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you look at that!  eots lying his slimey ass off yet again!  Who would have thunk it?
> 
> First off, the codes listed were both FIRE AND BUILDING codes.  Funny how you lie your ass off trying to pretend I omitted fire codes from the title, yet here you are pretending there were no building codes!  So now you're not only a liar, but a massive hypocrite as well!    I love it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> where did I say no building codes ..I POINTED OUT THE FACT YOU POSTED THE ENTIRE PIECE BUT REMOVED THE TITLE TO MAKE IT APPEAR AS THERE IS A LONG LIST OF BUILDING CODE CHANGES WHEN IN FACT THEY WHERE MAINLY IRRELEVANT FIRE CODE CHANGES
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, the design of WTC 7 contributed to the collapse, but it was not at fault.  If it had collapsed before the codes stated it should have remained standing (usually 4 hours),
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GOT A LINK TO ANY OF THESE MADE UP FACTS...NO OF COURSE YOU DONT
> BECAUSE YOU JUST MADE THEM UP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then the design could be called faulty if the circumstances were "normal".  The circumstances surrounding the collapse of WTC 7 were ANYTHING but normal.  Fires started on several floors at once.  No fire fighting.  Structural damage from the collapse of other buildings.  Those are NOT normal and should be taken into account.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NIST SAYS THE COLLAPSE WAS DUE TO FIRE AND DAMAGE WAS NOT A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR ...SO AGAIN YOU TRY TO DECEIVE
Click to expand...


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> where did I say no building codes ..


Really?  Are you seriously that ignorant?  



			
				eots said:
			
		

> so he listed a bunch of fire code changes pretending they were building code changes


According to you he listed only fire codes and no building codes.  Caught in a lie yet again.



			
				eots said:
			
		

> I POINTED OUT THE FACT YOU POSTED THE ENTIRE PIECE BUT REMOVED THE TITLE TO MAKE IT APPEAR AS THERE IS A LONG LIST OF BUILDING CODE CHANGES WHEN IN FACT THEY WHERE MAINLY IRRELEVANT FIRE CODE CHANGES



Another easily proven lie from eots.  

what you claimed was "you cut the title off fire code changes and pretend they are building code changes".  Now, I didn't post the title at all, yet you try and pretend I just cut fire code changes from the title.  Then you lie and say I pretend they are building code changes.  I did no such thing.  I simply said codes when referring to the codes.  

Try to embrace the truth for once you lying piece of shit!



			
				eots said:
			
		

> GOT A LINK TO ANY OF THESE MADE UP FACTS...NO OF COURSE YOU DONT
> BECAUSE YOU JUST MADE THEM UP


One example



			
				eots said:
			
		

> then the design could be called faulty if the circumstances were "normal".  The circumstances surrounding the collapse of WTC 7 were ANYTHING but normal.  Fires started on several floors at once.  No fire fighting.  Structural damage from the collapse of other buildings.  Those are NOT normal and should be taken into account.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NIST SAYS THE COLLAPSE WAS DUE TO FIRE AND DAMAGE WAS NOT A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR ...SO AGAIN YOU TRY TO DECEIVE
Click to expand...

Wrong yet again, fucktard!  I didn't say ANYTHING about the cause of collapse.  I was clearly pointing out the circumstances surrounding the collapse were not normal.  Why do you insist on constantly lying your ass off about every little thing?


----------



## eots

NIST SAYS THE COLLAPSE WAS DUE TO FIRE AND DAMAGE WAS NOT A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR ...SO AGAIN YOU TRY TO DECEIVE[/QUOTE]



> Wrong yet again, fucktard!  I didn't say ANYTHING about the cause of collapse.  I was clearly pointing out the circumstances surrounding the collapse were not normal.  Why do you insist on constantly lying your ass off about every little thing?



I see,so it was just another irrelevant pointless statement...got ya


----------



## eots

still waiting for that link to your made up facts...


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> NIST SAYS THE COLLAPSE WAS DUE TO FIRE AND DAMAGE WAS NOT A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR ...SO AGAIN YOU TRY TO DECEIVE





> Wrong yet again, fucktard!  I didn't say ANYTHING about the cause of collapse.  I was clearly pointing out the circumstances surrounding the collapse were not normal.  Why do you insist on constantly lying your ass off about every little thing?



I see,so it was just another irrelevant pointless statement...got ya[/QUOTE]

  It isn't my fault you have your head so far up your ass you can't understand the very relevant points other people are trying to make.  The discussion isn't about what caused the collapse.  The discussion is why the NIST didn't say the design was faulty.  Now, if WTC 7 had collapsed early or for no apparent reason, the design might be called into fault, but it performed better than required.  

Now go ahead and pretend the only point that matters in this discussion is now what caused the collapse despite all the posts prior to this one.


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> still waiting for that link to your made up facts...



Well, if you're so damn stupid you can't figure out the difference between normal text and links, you're going to have a very long wait.  I'm not going to hold your hand for you as if you are some retarded little child.  Maybe you can ask some kids to show you the difference between links and non links.  They are far more intelligent than you are by every indication you've given.


----------



## eots

> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> NIST SAYS THE COLLAPSE WAS DUE TO FIRE AND DAMAGE WAS NOT A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR ...SO AGAIN YOU TRY TO DECEIVE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong yet again, fucktard!  I didn't say ANYTHING about the cause of collapse.  I was clearly pointing out the circumstances surrounding the collapse were not normal.  Why do you insist on constantly lying your ass off about every little thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see,so it was just another irrelevant pointless statement...got ya
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't my fault you have your head so far up your ass you can't understand the very relevant points other people are trying to make.  The discussion isn't about what caused the collapse.  The discussion is why the NIST didn't say the design was faulty. * Now, if WTC 7 had collapsed early or for no apparent reason, the design might be called into fault, but it performed better than required.  *
> 
> Now go ahead and pretend the only point that matters in this discussion is now what caused the collapse despite all the posts prior to this one.  [/QUOTE
Click to expand...

]

please provide a link to your made up fact that steel frame hi rise buildings are expected to collapse completely in secs within in 4 hrs of a building fire

I will be waiting...and waiting and....


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Patriot is toilet paper. Stop wasting your time on him. His arguments and Points are invalid and deceitful. Anyone who believes his diaper of shit is hopeless. 


Get prepared.


New Madrid had a small quake today...they will intensify.


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> still waiting for that link to your made up facts...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you're so damn stupid you can't figure out the difference between normal text and links, you're going to have a very long wait.  I'm not going to hold your hand for you as if you are some retarded little child.  Maybe you can ask some kids to show you the difference between links and non links.  They are far more intelligent than you are by every indication you've given.
Click to expand...


translation = sorry eots but there is no link or source I can provide for my made up facts


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> where did I say no building codes ..



Right here you fucking loser...



eots said:


> THE NIST QUOTE IS THERE HAVE BEEN SIMILAR FIRES IN BUILDINGS OF SIMILAR CONSTRUCTION ..SO AGAIN GO ARGUE WITH NIST..NOWHERE WAS THE DESIGN OF WTC 7 CALLED INTO QUESTIONS..*NO BUILDING CODES WHERE CHANGED AS A RESULT* ...YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT AND FLINGING LIKE  THEW MONKEY YOU ARE



Were you able to see what you posted above?

What a deceptive piece of shit you are. No wonder the truth movement fails continually. Not only are all the theories based on bullshit, but it has people like you.


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see,so it was just another irrelevant pointless statement...got ya
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't my fault you have your head so far up your ass you can't understand the very relevant points other people are trying to make.  The discussion isn't about what caused the collapse.  The discussion is why the NIST didn't say the design was faulty. * Now, if WTC 7 had collapsed early or for no apparent reason, the design might be called into fault, but it performed better than required.  *
> 
> Now go ahead and pretend the only point that matters in this discussion is now what caused the collapse despite all the posts prior to this one.  [/QUOTE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ]
> 
> please provide a link to your made up fact that steel frame hi rise buildings are expected to collapse completely in secs within in 4 hrs of a building fire
> 
> I will be waiting...and waiting and....
Click to expand...


Yet another bullshit lie from eots.  The list keeps growing and growing!  Where did I even REMOTELY say highrise buildings are expected to collapse completely in seconds within four hours of a building fire?  Are you so fucking stupid you can't even read English so you just make shit up?  Or is it just your inability to tell the truth so you make shit up.


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> actually it was stated the design was the reason the* building  7 *collapsed  from when no others ever have ,I asked where the building design was was ever called into question and to show any building codes changes that reflect this...he could not do so, so he listed a bunch of* fire code *changes pretending they were *building code *changes or relevant to design flaws that contributed to the collapse,they even cut the title off paper and left off the link to try and hide the lie



Eots, you stupid git...

You fail at comprehension. It was the way the design REACTED to the fire. It was the way the STEEL reacted to the fire. There was no "design flaw". As has been stated to you time and time again, structural engineers never designed a steel structure to compensate for thermal expansion due to an office fire.

I posted links that directly refuted this claim of yours and you just ignored it as usual.


----------



## eots

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> where did I say no building codes ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right here you fucking loser...
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> THE NIST QUOTE IS THERE HAVE BEEN SIMILAR FIRES IN BUILDINGS OF SIMILAR CONSTRUCTION ..SO AGAIN GO ARGUE WITH NIST..NOWHERE WAS THE DESIGN OF WTC 7 CALLED INTO QUESTIONS..*NO BUILDING CODES WHERE CHANGED AS A RESULT* ...YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT AND FLINGING LIKE  THEW MONKEY YOU ARE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were you able to see what you posted above?
> 
> What a deceptive piece of shit you are. No wonder the truth movement fails continually. Not only are all the theories based on bullshit, but it has people like you.
Click to expand...


THE PAPER YOU POSTED WAS ABOUT THE TOWERS AND  i AM CORRECT THE BUILDING DESIGN OF WTC 7 WAS NEVER CALLED INTO FAULT


----------



## eots

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually it was stated the design was the reason the* building  7 *collapsed  from when no others ever have ,I asked where the building design was was ever called into question and to show any building codes changes that reflect this...he could not do so, so he listed a bunch of* fire code *changes pretending they were *building code *changes or relevant to design flaws that contributed to the collapse,they even cut the title off paper and left off the link to try and hide the lie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eots, you stupid git...
> 
> You fail at comprehension. It was the way the design REACTED to the fire. It was the way the STEEL reacted to the fire. There was no "design flaw". As has been stated to you time and time again, structural engineers never designed a steel structure to compensate for thermal expansion due to an office fire.
> 
> I posted links that directly refuted this claim of yours and you just ignored it as usual.
Click to expand...


engineers are well aware of the effects of fire on steel and have been for a long time now


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually it was stated the design was the reason the* building  7 *collapsed  from when no others ever have ,I asked where the building design was was ever called into question and to show any building codes changes that reflect this...he could not do so, so he listed a bunch of* fire code *changes pretending they were *building code *changes or relevant to design flaws that contributed to the collapse,they even cut the title off paper and left off the link to try and hide the lie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eots, you stupid git...
> 
> You fail at comprehension. It was the way the design REACTED to the fire. It was the way the STEEL reacted to the fire. There was no "design flaw". As has been stated to you time and time again, structural engineers never designed a steel structure to compensate for thermal expansion due to an office fire.
> 
> I posted links that directly refuted this claim of yours and you just ignored it as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> engineers are well aware of the effects of fire on steel and have been for a long time now
Click to expand...


Yet engineers do not design structures to withstand the effects of thermal expansion due to office fire as has been pointed out to you numerous times.  If the engineers did, they wouldn't put fire retardant on the steel that prevents thermal expansion now would they.    eots goes down in flames again, clueless as usual.


----------



## eots

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually it was stated the design was the reason the* building  7 *collapsed  from when no others ever have ,I asked where the building design was was ever called into question and to show any building codes changes that reflect this...he could not do so, so he listed a bunch of* fire code *changes pretending they were *building code *changes or relevant to design flaws that contributed to the collapse,they even cut the title off paper and left off the link to try and hide the lie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eots, you stupid git...
> 
> You fail at comprehension. It was the way the design REACTED to the fire. It was the way the STEEL reacted to the fire. There was no "design flaw". As has been stated to you time and time again, structural engineers never designed a steel structure to compensate for thermal expansion due to an office fire.
> 
> I posted links that directly refuted this claim of yours and you just ignored it as usual.
Click to expand...



yes they do ..and they calculate it o being too  minimal for concern
lol...so steel structures everywhere are in danger of falling in fire because engineers are blind to the new discovery of thermal expansion...lol


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> where did I say no building codes ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right here you fucking loser...
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> THE NIST QUOTE IS THERE HAVE BEEN SIMILAR FIRES IN BUILDINGS OF SIMILAR CONSTRUCTION ..SO AGAIN GO ARGUE WITH NIST..NOWHERE WAS THE DESIGN OF WTC 7 CALLED INTO QUESTIONS..*NO BUILDING CODES WHERE CHANGED AS A RESULT* ...YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT AND FLINGING LIKE  THEW MONKEY YOU ARE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were you able to see what you posted above?
> 
> What a deceptive piece of shit you are. No wonder the truth movement fails continually. Not only are all the theories based on bullshit, but it has people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THE PAPER YOU POSTED WAS ABOUT THE TOWERS AND  i AM CORRECT THE BUILDING DESIGN OF WTC 7 WAS NEVER CALLED INTO FAULT
Click to expand...


Calm down, child.    The paper posted was about the changes to the building and fire codes from the NIST studies.  Nothing in there limited it to just the towers.  

And everyone agrees that the design of WTC 7 was never called into fault.  Why?  Because the design of WTC 7 wasn't at fault.  It didn't collapse pre-maturely even though it was never designed to survive the circumstances it was put under on 9/11.  I would feel perfectly safe working in a building designed exactly like WTC 7.  Look at what the building had to go through before it collapsed!


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually it was stated the design was the reason the* building  7 *collapsed  from when no others ever have ,I asked where the building design was was ever called into question and to show any building codes changes that reflect this...he could not do so, so he listed a bunch of* fire code *changes pretending they were *building code *changes or relevant to design flaws that contributed to the collapse,they even cut the title off paper and left off the link to try and hide the lie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eots, you stupid git...
> 
> You fail at comprehension. It was the way the design REACTED to the fire. It was the way the STEEL reacted to the fire. There was no "design flaw". As has been stated to you time and time again, structural engineers never designed a steel structure to compensate for thermal expansion due to an office fire.
> 
> I posted links that directly refuted this claim of yours and you just ignored it as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes they do ..and they calculate it o being too  minimal for concern
> lol...so steel structures everywhere are in danger of falling in fire because engineers are blind to the new discovery of thermal expansion...lol
Click to expand...


And the ignorant fucktard justifies why everyone laughs at him!  

The thermal expansion engineers design for isn't the thermal expansion it would experience during a fire, but for the varying temperatures a building encounters through the days and seasons.  

And you are right.  Everyone WOULD be in danger of steel structures failing due to fire..... if fire retardant wasn't used all over the place to prevent the steel from heating up and expanding.   

Anything else you need explained to you?


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eots, you stupid git...
> 
> You fail at comprehension. It was the way the design REACTED to the fire. It was the way the STEEL reacted to the fire. There was no "design flaw". As has been stated to you time and time again, structural engineers never designed a steel structure to compensate for thermal expansion due to an office fire.
> 
> I posted links that directly refuted this claim of yours and you just ignored it as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes they do ..and they calculate it o being too  minimal for concern
> lol...so steel structures everywhere are in danger of falling in fire because engineers are blind to the new discovery of thermal expansion...lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the ignorant fucktard justifies why everyone laughs at him!
> 
> The thermal expansion engineers design for isn't the thermal expansion it would experience during a fire, but for the varying temperatures a building encounters through the days and seasons.
> 
> And you are right.  Everyone WOULD be in danger of steel structures failing due to fire..... if fire retardant wasn't used all over the place to prevent the steel from heating up and expanding.
> 
> Anything else you need explained to you?
Click to expand...


so what happened to the fire retardant in building 7...retard


----------



## eots

why do engineers of hi rise structures not take into consideration thermal expansion from fire, if the take into consideration for ...sunshine...lol


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eots, you stupid git...
> 
> You fail at comprehension. It was the way the design REACTED to the fire. It was the way the STEEL reacted to the fire. There was no "design flaw". As has been stated to you time and time again, structural engineers never designed a steel structure to compensate for thermal expansion due to an office fire.
> 
> I posted links that directly refuted this claim of yours and you just ignored it as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes they do ..and they calculate it o being too  minimal for concern
> lol...so steel structures everywhere are in danger of falling in fire because engineers are blind to the new discovery of thermal expansion...lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the ignorant fucktard justifies why everyone laughs at him!
> 
> The thermal expansion engineers design for isn't the thermal expansion it would experience during a fire, but for the varying temperatures a building encounters through the days and seasons.
> 
> And you are right.  Everyone WOULD be in danger of steel structures failing due to fire..... if fire retardant wasn't used all over the place to prevent the steel from heating up and expanding.
> 
> Anything else you need explained to you?
Click to expand...


well we made sure the building doesn't collapse in the hot sun...but damn we forgot about fire !


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes they do ..and they calculate it o being too  minimal for concern
> lol...so steel structures everywhere are in danger of falling in fire because engineers are blind to the new discovery of thermal expansion...lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the ignorant fucktard justifies why everyone laughs at him!
> 
> The thermal expansion engineers design for isn't the thermal expansion it would experience during a fire, but for the varying temperatures a building encounters through the days and seasons.
> 
> And you are right.  Everyone WOULD be in danger of steel structures failing due to fire..... if fire retardant wasn't used all over the place to prevent the steel from heating up and expanding.
> 
> Anything else you need explained to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so what happened to the fire retardant in building 7...retard
Click to expand...


  What do you think happened to it?  Are you so fucking stupid that you think fire retardant just works forever and is some kind of miracle substance?    You should really bother to do SOME research before exposing your utter ignorance to the world like that.

Fire retardant comes in ratings that state the retardant will keep the steel from heating to the point of failure for X amount of time, usually a value between one and six hours.  I don't know what the codes were when WTC 7 was built.  I know most structures are rated for at least four hours.  

Let's see.  The North Tower, the one that did the most damage to WTC 7, collapsed at 10:28 am.  WTC 7 collapsed at 5:20 pm.  Almost 7 hours later.  

Here are some examples of fire retardants.  This one is good for one hour. This is their top of the line good for 4 hours.  Here is one for structural steel that is only good for 2.5 hours.  

Still want to keep on pretending you know what the fuck you're talking about?    You lose.  Again.  Anyone surprised?  I'm not.


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes they do ..and they calculate it o being too  minimal for concern
> lol...so steel structures everywhere are in danger of falling in fire because engineers are blind to the new discovery of thermal expansion...lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the ignorant fucktard justifies why everyone laughs at him!
> 
> The thermal expansion engineers design for isn't the thermal expansion it would experience during a fire, but for the varying temperatures a building encounters through the days and seasons.
> 
> And you are right.  Everyone WOULD be in danger of steel structures failing due to fire..... if fire retardant wasn't used all over the place to prevent the steel from heating up and expanding.
> 
> Anything else you need explained to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well we made sure the building doesn't collapse in the hot sun...but damn we forgot about fire !
Click to expand...


  More ignorant bullshit from eots.  Which part of "they don't have to design for fire because fire retardant is suppose to protect the steel long enough to evacuate the building" do you not understand?  Yes, I realize there are some big words in there.  Which ones don't you understand and I will try and simplify for you.


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> why do engineers of hi rise structures not take into consideration thermal expansion from fire, if the take into consideration for ...sunshine...lol



Because the fire retardant prevents the heat from the fire from affecting the steel long enough for people to get out.  This is NOT a hard concept, yet seems to be a concept far beyond what your simple mind can comprehend.


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do engineers of hi rise structures not take into consideration thermal expansion from fire, if the take into consideration for ...sunshine...lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the fire retardant prevents the heat from the fire from affecting the steel long enough for people to get out.  This is NOT a hard concept, yet seems to be a concept far beyond what your simple mind can comprehend.
Click to expand...


 get out before what  ?...a complete collapse in seconds at near free fall speed ?


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8]YouTube - Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!![/ame]


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do engineers of hi rise structures not take into consideration thermal expansion from fire, if the take into consideration for ...sunshine...lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the fire retardant prevents the heat from the fire from affecting the steel long enough for people to get out.  This is NOT a hard concept, yet seems to be a concept far beyond what your simple mind can comprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> get out before what  ?...a complete collapse in seconds at near free fall speed ?
Click to expand...


Always a possibility regardless of how little intelligence you have.


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> YouTube - Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!



Seriously?  This is the best you could come up with?  I am ashamed of you, eots!    Ran out of things to whine about?  Finally convinced fire retardant does  what everyone has been telling you?


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?  This is the best you could come up with?  I am ashamed of you, eots!    Ran out of things to whine about?  Finally convinced fire retardant does  what everyone has been telling you?
Click to expand...


yes,and it apparently works in even in far greater fires burning for much longer


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?  This is the best you could come up with?  I am ashamed of you, eots!    Ran out of things to whine about?  Finally convinced fire retardant does  what everyone has been telling you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes,and it apparently works in even in far greater fires burning for much longer
Click to expand...


I didn't realize you were one of those truthtards who were so fucking stupid they believe every building should react the exact same way regardless of construction, materials, and circumstances.  In hindsight, I should have known you're no smarter than any of the other fucking idiots that can't get this simple concept through their heads.    Seriously, eots.  Grow a brain.


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually it was stated the design was the reason the* building  7 *collapsed  from when no others ever have ,I asked where the building design was was ever called into question and to show any building codes changes that reflect this...he could not do so, so he listed a bunch of* fire code *changes pretending they were *building code *changes or relevant to design flaws that contributed to the collapse,they even cut the title off paper and left off the link to try and hide the lie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eots, you stupid git...
> 
> You fail at comprehension. It was the way the design REACTED to the fire. It was the way the STEEL reacted to the fire. There was no "design flaw". As has been stated to you time and time again, structural engineers never designed a steel structure to compensate for thermal expansion due to an office fire.
> 
> I posted links that directly refuted this claim of yours and you just ignored it as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes they do ..and they calculate it o being too  minimal for concern
> lol...so steel structures everywhere are in danger of falling in fire because engineers are blind to the new discovery of thermal expansion...lol
Click to expand...


No they don't asswipe. I proivided this link to you before and you ignored it becuase it made you look like an asshole (not that hard actually).

http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/irc/doc/pubs/nrcc50830/nrcc50830.pdf

Here are a couple of quotes from the pdf linked above.



> Thermal expansion is not a new term in structural engineering, as it has been *considered in the design of bridge structures* for many years at ambient temperature. However, such *consideration has not been extended to the design of building structures exposed to fire*.





> This result reveals the fact that currently, *there is a clear lack of knowledge and design methodology relating to the effects of thermal expansion on performance of structures in fire.*



See that first quote? This addresses your sun versus office fire horseshit. They design for thermal expansion due to ambient temperatures, but not office fires. 

So once again, you've been proven to have a complete lack of knowledge  in this field, yet you continue to argue while providing no links or evidence to support your claim.

I'll ask again. Please provide the link or source you are using to to make the claim that structural engineers design for thermal expansion due to fires. I have just provided you with a source that debunks your asinine claim and further proves that you are just guessing.


----------



## Gamolon

Here's another document I found concerning offshore structures. The quoted material is for you and the other fuckstick, Mr. Jones, who seems to think all buildings constructed of steel frames will act exaclty the same when exposed to office fires.

http://www.usfos.no/publications/fire/documents/1998-AdvancedFireDesign.pdf



> Structures exposed to fire will be heated up, and the
> heating rate is dependent on the intensity of the fire,
> the surface/mass ratio of structural components, the
> surface properties of the actual material and finally
> the presence of passive fire protection covering the
> surface.
> The main effects of the heating are thermal
> expansion, reduced elastic modulus and yield stress
> and creep. Thermal expansion takes place from the
> very beginning, and due to the fact that the different
> components will be heated differently (different
> exposure and surface/mass ratio), the thermal expansion
> will vary from one structural component to another.



Be sure to read the sections on Column Behavior and Fundamental Beam Behavior. Maybe you idiots will learn something.


----------



## Gamolon

Another article for those who THINK they know about structural design and fires.

STRUCTUREmag: Fireproofing Steel Structures

This article clearly shows how different *DESIGNS* are affected *DIFFERENTLY* when exposed to office fires.

For you Mr. Jones...

If you have the balls to read (since I'm on ignore) and then admit you were completely wrong.


----------



## Gamolon

A link to a fireproofing brochure...

http://www.carboline.com/docs/FireproofingBrochure_May2007.pdf

Here's a quote from that brochure...



> Steel retains approximately 50% of its strength when it reaches 1100°F (600°C). Temperatures during fires can be much
> hotter - a standard fire test reaches 1300°F (704°C) in the first 10 minutes. *If left unprotected, the structure may collapse
> when exposed to fire.*
> Building codes require certain beam, column, floor, wall and roof assemblies to have fire resistance ratings which are
> determined on the basis of standard fire tests. Fire resistance ratings can be accomplished with the application of
> sprayed fire resistive materials (fireproofing) to those assemblies.


----------



## Gamolon

More proof that steel is protected to PREVENT COLLPASE...

http://tenders.hpcl.co.in/tenders/t...CR/A-320_FIRE PROOFING Of Steel Structure.pdf



> *Purpose*
> Fire proofing is aimed at providing resistance to all the load bearing steel
> structures and equipment supports that would collapse under fire conditions and
> contribute to the intensity of the fire.
> *This fire resistance would allow the people to be evacuated and fire to be
> suppressed. *
> Therefore, the supports of all potential fire sources shall be fireproofed.
> The support of non-potential fire hazards shall also be fireproofed, if their
> collapse is likely to endanger other hazardous equipments.



That bolded and enlarged part of the quote above is for you eots. Since you don't understand what fireproofing is supposed to accomplish in a building fire.


----------



## Gamolon

So eots (and Mr. Jones), in essence. Your understanding of structural design and fire proofing is SEVERELY lacking. 

Thermal expansion due to fire is NOT designed for. The structural engineers rely on fireproofing to protect the steel for a certain timeframe. A timeframe in which people can get out and that fire suppression can be applied BEFORE a catastrophic event occurs.


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> YouTube - Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!



Why did a portion of the one building collapse? Why did it not stay completely intact as you say it should?


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> YouTube - Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!



Why didn't the above buildings totally collapse but this next one did. The Kader Toy factory.

CASE STUDY: THE KADER TOY FACTORY FIRE

I thought you idiots said that office fires can't cause steel frame buildings to collapse?


----------



## eots

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't the above buildings totally collapse but this next one did. The Kader Toy factory.
> 
> CASE STUDY: THE KADER TOY FACTORY FIRE
> 
> I thought you idiots said that office fires can't cause steel frame buildings to collapse?
Click to expand...


it was a toy factory not a hi-rise and the claim is not that structures cant fail in intense fires, it is they can not collapse completely in secs at near free fall speed...stay focused


----------



## eots

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did a portion of the one building collapse? Why did it not stay completely intact as you say it should?
Click to expand...


never said it would stay completely intact


----------



## eots

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eots, you stupid git...
> 
> You fail at comprehension. It was the way the design REACTED to the fire. It was the way the STEEL reacted to the fire. There was no "design flaw". As has been stated to you time and time again, structural engineers never designed a steel structure to compensate for thermal expansion due to an office fire.
> 
> I posted links that directly refuted this claim of yours and you just ignored it as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes they do ..and they calculate it o being too  minimal for concern
> lol...so steel structures everywhere are in danger of falling in fire because engineers are blind to the new discovery of thermal expansion...lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don't asswipe. I proivided this link to you before and you ignored it becuase it made you look like an asshole (not that hard actually).
> 
> http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/irc/doc/pubs/nrcc50830/nrcc50830.pdf
> 
> Here are a couple of quotes from the pdf linked above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thermal expansion is not a new term in structural engineering, as it has been *considered in the design of bridge structures* for many years at ambient temperature. However, such *consideration has not been extended to the design of building structures exposed to fire*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This result reveals the fact that currently, *there is a clear lack of knowledge and design methodology relating to the effects of thermal expansion on performance of structures in fire.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See that first quote? This addresses your sun versus office fire horseshit. They design for thermal expansion due to ambient temperatures, but not office fires.
> 
> So once again, you've been proven to have a complete lack of knowledge  in this field, yet you continue to argue while providing no links or evidence to support your claim.
> 
> I'll ask again. Please provide the link or source you are using to to make the claim that structural engineers design for thermal expansion due to fires. I have just provided you with a source that debunks your asinine claim and further proves that you are just guessing.
Click to expand...


any study the points to the collapse of wtc 7 as evidence of thermal expansion and the lack of previous understanding of its effects is flawed in its initial premise...using the failed NIST theories as evidence to build upon and expand their thermal expansion theory


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes they do ..and they calculate it o being too  minimal for concern
> lol...so steel structures everywhere are in danger of falling in fire because engineers are blind to the new discovery of thermal expansion...lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't asswipe. I proivided this link to you before and you ignored it becuase it made you look like an asshole (not that hard actually).
> 
> http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/irc/doc/pubs/nrcc50830/nrcc50830.pdf
> 
> Here are a couple of quotes from the pdf linked above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This result reveals the fact that currently, *there is a clear lack of knowledge and design methodology relating to the effects of thermal expansion on performance of structures in fire.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See that first quote? This addresses your sun versus office fire horseshit. They design for thermal expansion due to ambient temperatures, but not office fires.
> 
> So once again, you've been proven to have a complete lack of knowledge  in this field, yet you continue to argue while providing no links or evidence to support your claim.
> 
> I'll ask again. Please provide the link or source you are using to to make the claim that structural engineers design for thermal expansion due to fires. I have just provided you with a source that debunks your asinine claim and further proves that you are just guessing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> any study the points to the collapse of wtc 7 as evidence of thermal expansion and the lack of previous understanding of its effects is flawed in its initial premise...using the failed NIST theories as evidence to build upon and expand their thermal expansion theory
Click to expand...


Show me your proof that structural engineers design steel structures to accommodate thermal expansion due to office fires. Anything will due. Source the evidence to your claim.

I've asked you this many times, but you refuse to provide it. Show me codes, design guides, quotes from actual structural engineers. 

You can't because you are WRONG!


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did a portion of the one building collapse? Why did it not stay completely intact as you say it should?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> never said it would stay completely intact
Click to expand...


Hmmm. So you admit that fire can affect steel and cause it to partially collapse, but not a total collapse.

Interesting....

Why do you suppose that is eots?


----------



## eots

KissMy said:


> Building Falls



why would some moron post a video of a building falling over ?


----------



## Mr. Jones

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did a portion of the one building collapse? Why did it not stay completely intact as you say it should?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> never said it would stay completely intact
Click to expand...

 LETS COMPARE THE WTC 7 TO THE MADRID INFERNO IN A FAIR COMPARISON-

In fact, comparisons between the Windsor tower and the WTC Towers are limited because of the very different structures of these buildings. *The Twin Towers and Building 7 were both 100% steel-framed, with large wide-flange columns and box columns, some measuring over four feet wide and fabricated of steel up to five inches thick. **Severe fires in other skyscrapers which, like the WTC Towers, were 100% steel-framed, have not produced even partial collapses.*

In contrast to the WTC Towers, *the Windsor building was framed primarily in steel-reinforced concrete, with columns of concrete reinforced by thin sections of rebar*. 4   The concrete pillars in the Windsor building are clearly visible in the photographs showing the intact core exposed by the collapsed facade. The very light construction of the *perimeter, described below, makes it clear that the core was the main load-bearing component of the building.*

Windsor fire 	Windsor fire close-up

















Compare these photographs of the Windsor building fire to photographs of the Twin Towers' fires and Building 7's fires


























Before examining the partial collapse of the Windsor building more closely, *we note that steel-framed and steel-reinforced-concrete-framed structures behave very differently in fires.*

    * *Steel is a good conductor and concrete is a poor conductor of heat. Thus in a fire, a steel frame will conduct heat away from the hotspots into the larger structure.* As long as the fire does not consume the larger structure, this heat conductivity will keep the temperatures of the frame well below the fire temperatures. *The same is not true of steel-reinforced-concrete structures, since concrete is not a good thermal conductor, and the thermal conductivity of the rebar inside the concrete is limited by its small mass and the embedding matrix of concrete.*
    ** Fires can cause spalling of concrete, but not of steel. *This is because concrete has a small percentage of latent moisture, which is converted to steam by heat. *Thus, a large fire can gradually erode a concrete structure to the point of collapse, whereas a fire can only threaten a steel-framed structure if it elevates steel temperatures to such an extent that it causes failures.*
*
Windsor Building Partial Collapse*

*The observation that the Windsor Building is the only skyscraper to have suffered even a partial collapse as a result of fire suggests that the use of steel-reinforced-concrete framing was responsible.* A closer look at the incident shows reality to be more complex. The portion of the building that collapsed consisted of the outer portions of floor slabs and perimeter walls throughout the upper third of the building (the 21st through 32nd floors). The outer walls consisted of steel box columns arranged on 1.8 meter centers and connected by narrow spandrel plates. The columns had square cross-sections 120mm on a side, and were fabricated of C-sections 7mm thick welded together. *(these had a fraction of the dimensions, and were spaced about twice as far apart as the perimeter columns of the Twin Towers.) *The perimeter columns lacked fireproofing throughout the upper third of the Windsor building. 

The Windsor Building fire demonstrates that a huge building-consuming fire, after burning for many hours, can produce the collapse of parts of the building with weak steel supports lacking fire protection. *It also shows that the collapse events that do occur are gradual and partial. *

9-11 Research: The Windsor Building Fire

No total collapse straight down to the ground at free fall speed for 2.25 secs., in fact it had to be dismantled. Thermal expansion theory by NIST is a fucking joke, and you apologists are fucking jokes too.


----------



## Patriot911

Still trying to prove one conspiracy by using conspiracy sites alone?    It still astounds me that you fucktards are dumb enough to pretend all buildings should react the same regardless of construction, materials and circumstances.  And you wonder why you have no credibility!


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> any study the points to the collapse of wtc 7 as evidence of thermal expansion and the lack of previous understanding of its effects is flawed in its initial premise...using the failed NIST theories as evidence to build upon and expand their thermal expansion theory



  The dumbshit eots STILL thinks nobody knows about thermal expansion unless dealing with WTC 7.    Why do you think they put fire retardant on the steel, dumbass!!!  Come on!  What possible purpose would one have for putting fire retardant on steel unless one knows what happens if that fire retardant ISN'T there?    You shitheads crack me up!


----------



## Gamolon

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't asswipe. I proivided this link to you before and you ignored it becuase it made you look like an asshole (not that hard actually).
> 
> http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/irc/doc/pubs/nrcc50830/nrcc50830.pdf
> 
> Here are a couple of quotes from the pdf linked above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See that first quote? This addresses your sun versus office fire horseshit. They design for thermal expansion due to ambient temperatures, but not office fires.
> 
> So once again, you've been proven to have a complete lack of knowledge  in this field, yet you continue to argue while providing no links or evidence to support your claim.
> 
> I'll ask again. Please provide the link or source you are using to to make the claim that structural engineers design for thermal expansion due to fires. I have just provided you with a source that debunks your asinine claim and further proves that you are just guessing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> any study the points to the collapse of wtc 7 as evidence of thermal expansion and the lack of previous understanding of its effects is flawed in its initial premise...using the failed NIST theories as evidence to build upon and expand their thermal expansion theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me your proof that structural engineers design steel structures to accommodate thermal expansion due to office fires. Anything will due. Source the evidence to your claim.
> 
> I've asked you this many times, but you refuse to provide it. Show me codes, design guides, quotes from actual structural engineers.
> 
> You can't because you are WRONG!
Click to expand...


C'mon "Mr. I source my claims"...

You made a bold claim now let's see you back it up. Please give the source that you have for making the claim that structural engineers design their steel structures to accommodate thermal expansion due to office fires.

I have asked you this may times yet you seem to "miss it".

Or are you just pulling shit out of your ass like usual?

Source please...


----------



## Gamolon

More information that eots' claim that structural engineers design steel buildings to accommodate thermal expansion due to fires is nothing more than bullshit. Not only can he NOT source any proof to support his claims, there have baan MANY sources that prove otherwise.

Here is ANOTHER source proving him completely wrong.
http://www.jcss.ethz.ch/events/ws_2005-11/Paper/Lamont_Paper.pdf



> Structural engineers do not traditionally consider fire as a load on a structural frame. This is
> in contrast to other loads they must consider. Seismic design relies on modelling, risk
> analysis and changes to the structural stiffness. Wind design often relies on additional
> structural members and wind tunnel tests. Fire design relies on very simple, single element
> tests to calculate insulating material for a frame, in order to limit its temperature increase for
> specific fire resistance ratings. *Thermal induced forces, as occur in fire, are generally not
> calculated or designed for*.


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes they do ..and they calculate it o being too  minimal for concern
> lol...so steel structures everywhere are in danger of falling in fire because engineers are blind to the new discovery of thermal expansion...lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't asswipe. I proivided this link to you before and you ignored it becuase it made you look like an asshole (not that hard actually).
> 
> http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/irc/doc/pubs/nrcc50830/nrcc50830.pdf
> 
> Here are a couple of quotes from the pdf linked above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This result reveals the fact that currently, *there is a clear lack of knowledge and design methodology relating to the effects of thermal expansion on performance of structures in fire.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See that first quote? This addresses your sun versus office fire horseshit. They design for thermal expansion due to ambient temperatures, but not office fires.
> 
> So once again, you've been proven to have a complete lack of knowledge  in this field, yet you continue to argue while providing no links or evidence to support your claim.
> 
> I'll ask again. Please provide the link or source you are using to to make the claim that structural engineers design for thermal expansion due to fires. I have just provided you with a source that debunks your asinine claim and further proves that you are just guessing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> any study the points to the collapse of wtc 7 as evidence of thermal expansion and the lack of previous understanding of its effects is flawed in its initial premise...using the failed NIST theories as evidence to build upon and expand their thermal expansion theory
Click to expand...


The reason, ass, that I posted this was to prove that your claim of "structural engineers do in fact design buildings to accommodate thermal expansion due to fires" is completely wrong.

You have yet to provide ONE source that proves otherwise.

You lose.


----------



## Gamolon

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did a portion of the one building collapse? Why did it not stay completely intact as you say it should?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> never said it would stay completely intact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm. So you admit that fire can affect steel and cause it to partially collapse, but not a total collapse.
> 
> Interesting....
> 
> Why do you suppose that is eots?
Click to expand...


No answer yet again?

Interesting...


----------



## Mr. Jones

The NIST theory of thermal expansion is so full of shit it's pathetic. Everyone knows that thermal expansion does indeed occur, and to think and say that an engineer in building design does not know this is absurd, however what is more absurd is for NIST to say that a 47 story building reinforced beyond the original safety factors it was designed with, would collapse globally to the ground while in the process achieve speeds of actual free fall for approximately 8 of those stories.
Thermal expansion happens, but it is so minimal that it never has been the cause of such a collapse like the WTC7 building.
Why didn't the Madrid fire have all this "thermal expansion" and collapse straight down despite burning longer and more intensely then WTC 7? 
The Madrid building had steel components that were less robust then WTC 7.
I guess only in Manhattan NY. And only on Silverstein owned properties.


----------



## SFC Ollie

The building never achieved freefall speed. Part of the building may have. But only because the interior fell first.


----------



## Gamolon

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't asswipe. I proivided this link to you before and you ignored it becuase it made you look like an asshole (not that hard actually).
> 
> http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/irc/doc/pubs/nrcc50830/nrcc50830.pdf
> 
> Here are a couple of quotes from the pdf linked above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See that first quote? This addresses your sun versus office fire horseshit. They design for thermal expansion due to ambient temperatures, but not office fires.
> 
> So once again, you've been proven to have a complete lack of knowledge  in this field, yet you continue to argue while providing no links or evidence to support your claim.
> 
> I'll ask again. Please provide the link or source you are using to to make the claim that structural engineers design for thermal expansion due to fires. I have just provided you with a source that debunks your asinine claim and further proves that you are just guessing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> any study the points to the collapse of wtc 7 as evidence of thermal expansion and the lack of previous understanding of its effects is flawed in its initial premise...using the failed NIST theories as evidence to build upon and expand their thermal expansion theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reason, ass, that I posted this was to prove that your claim of "structural engineers do in fact design buildings to accommodate thermal expansion due to fires" is completely wrong.
> 
> You have yet to provide ONE source that proves otherwise.
> 
> You lose.
Click to expand...


Still no source for your claim eots?

I suppose that means you pulled it out of your ass?

I'll wait here.

Again.


----------



## Gamolon

Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> any study the points to the collapse of wtc 7 as evidence of thermal expansion and the lack of previous understanding of its effects is flawed in its initial premise...using the failed NIST theories as evidence to build upon and expand their thermal expansion theory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason, ass, that I posted this was to prove that your claim of "structural engineers do in fact design buildings to accommodate thermal expansion due to fires" is completely wrong.
> 
> You have yet to provide ONE source that proves otherwise.
> 
> You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still no source for your claim eots?
> 
> I suppose that means you pulled it out of your ass?
> 
> I'll wait here.
> 
> Again.
Click to expand...


What's the matter eots? Having a hard time finding that source for you claim?


----------



## eots

patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> any study the points to the collapse of wtc 7 as evidence of thermal expansion and the lack of previous understanding of its effects is flawed in its initial premise...using the failed nist theories as evidence to build upon and expand their thermal expansion theory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dumbshit eots still thinks nobody knows about thermal expansion unless dealing with wtc 7.    Why do you think they put fire retardant on the steel, dumbass!!!  Come on!  What possible purpose would one have for putting fire retardant on steel unless one knows what happens if that fire retardant isn't there?    You shitheads crack me up!
Click to expand...


apparently not to protect against thermal expansion   according to your little friend...


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> any study the points to the collapse of wtc 7 as evidence of thermal expansion and the lack of previous understanding of its effects is flawed in its initial premise...using the failed nist theories as evidence to build upon and expand their thermal expansion theory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dumbshit eots still thinks nobody knows about thermal expansion unless dealing with wtc 7.    Why do you think they put fire retardant on the steel, dumbass!!!  Come on!  What possible purpose would one have for putting fire retardant on steel unless one knows what happens if that fire retardant isn't there?    You shitheads crack me up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> apparently not to protect against thermal expansion   according to your little friend...
Click to expand...


Oh my god, you have got to be the biggest fucking retard in the WORLD!  Fire retardant prevents thermal expansion, but it can only do so for so long before the steel heats up anyway.  That is why fire retardant is rated on how long it can keep the heat away from the steel.  Thanks for proving once again just how big of a dumbshit you really are!


----------



## eots

patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The dumbshit eots still thinks nobody knows about thermal expansion unless dealing with wtc 7.    Why do you think they put fire retardant on the steel, dumbass!!!  Come on!  What possible purpose would one have for putting fire retardant on steel unless one knows what happens if that fire retardant isn't there?    You shitheads crack me up!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> apparently not to protect against thermal expansion   according to your little friend...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh my god, you have got to be the biggest fucking retard in the world!  Fire retardant prevents thermal expansion, but it can only do so for so long before the steel heats up anyway.  That is why fire retardant is rated on how long it can keep the heat away from the steel.  Thanks for proving once again just how big of a dumbshit you really are!
Click to expand...


so what you are saying is engineers are aware of the effects of thermal expansion and compensated foir it with fire retardant ..is that correct ?


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOHuv4mb-m8]YouTube - NIST - A WARNING FOR YOU![/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie

Oh shit a youtube video. That must be the truth. After all it's on a youtube video...


----------



## Obamerican

eots said:


> YouTube - NIST - A WARNING FOR YOU!


----------



## Obamerican

TakeAStepBack said:


> This message is hidden because Patriot911 is on your ignore list
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure whatever this hick wrote isn't worth reading anyway.
Click to expand...

You're an idiot. You call names without reading??? Go fuck yourself, sock!!!


----------



## TakeAStepBack

So, you come in to attack my character based on one post without finding out why agent hick is on my ignore list? You bring nothing to the discussion what so ever and this is how you validate your existence?

I'm the idiot??


----------



## TakeAStepBack

eots said:


> YouTube - NIST - A WARNING FOR YOU!



It's true. There have been no changes to the codes for construction. How do i know this?
I have 3 copies of the codes right on my desk for reference from the last 15 years. None since 2001 or after address any of the problem the NIST report claim about thermal expansion.

And seriously? He actually compared the lid on a jar under hot water to a steel structure suffering from thermal expansion? That's fucking rich.


----------



## Patriot911

TakeAStepBack said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - NIST - A WARNING FOR YOU!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's true. There have been no changes to the codes for construction. How do i know this?
> I have 3 copies of the codes right on my desk for reference from the last 15 years. None since 2001 or after address any of the problem the NIST report claim about thermal expansion.
> 
> And seriously? He actually compared the lid on a jar under hot water to a steel structure suffering from thermal expansion? That's fucking rich.
Click to expand...


  We're suppose to believe a piece of shit liar who CLAIMS to have 3 copies over the last 15 years and has compared them point for point to make sure there are no changes.   

And don't worry, Obamerican, TakeAShit is reading everything.  Their egos are far to big and fragile to allow them to ignore something said about them.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

This message is hidden because Patriot911 is on your ignore list.  

I'm sorry, did you say something?


----------



## SFC Ollie

> It should come as no surprise that New York City, having been the subject of two separate terrorist attacks, has made a determined effort to upgrade its building code to incorporate lessons learned from the 9/11 disaster. On June 24, 2004, Mayor Michael Bloomberg signed Local Law 26 of 2004 which incorporated most of the recommendations of the World Trade Building Code Task Force, which was formed in March of 2002. This task force was a collaboration of public and private interests that worked in record time to recommend legislation that would enact into law most of the conclusions reached in the investigation of the World Trade Center collapse. Local Law 26 is not only prospective for new construction, but includes retroactive requirements for existing buildings of a certain size, i.e. usually over 75 feet in height. Some of the many requirements found in Local Law 26 are as follows:
> 
> With its incorporation of construction improvements, Local Law 26 provides the basis for the standard of care for design-builders that build projects potentially at risk. While New York City remains in the forefront of taking steps to ensure that the construction process responds to evolving terrorist threats, the New York City Building Code, which incorporates Local Law 26, is simply a baseline, or floor, to measure a design-builder's actions. As technology will, no doubt, advance more rapidly than building codes, design-builders must stay ahead of the curve and identify those construction practices and technological advances which should be incorporated into new construction.


The Construction Standard of Care After 9/11 - Zetlin & De Chiara


----------



## Patriot911

TakeAStepBack said:


> This message is hidden because Patriot911 is on your ignore list.
> 
> I'm sorry, did you say something?



Yes I did.  And everyone but you can read it.    Do you really think ignoring people makes you somehow more intelligent?  Or does it make you look like a lame asshole who can't respond to valid issues with his statement?  I'll give you a hint.  It's the second one, asshole!


----------



## Patriot911

SFC Ollie said:


> It should come as no surprise that New York City, having been the subject of two separate terrorist attacks, has made a determined effort to upgrade its building code to incorporate lessons learned from the 9/11 disaster. On June 24, 2004, Mayor Michael Bloomberg signed Local Law 26 of 2004 which incorporated most of the recommendations of the World Trade Building Code Task Force, which was formed in March of 2002. This task force was a collaboration of public and private interests that worked in record time to recommend legislation that would enact into law most of the conclusions reached in the investigation of the World Trade Center collapse. Local Law 26 is not only prospective for new construction, but includes retroactive requirements for existing buildings of a certain size, i.e. usually over 75 feet in height. Some of the many requirements found in Local Law 26 are as follows:
> 
> With its incorporation of construction improvements, Local Law 26 provides the basis for the standard of care for design-builders that build projects potentially at risk. While New York City remains in the forefront of taking steps to ensure that the construction process responds to evolving terrorist threats, the New York City Building Code, which incorporates Local Law 26, is simply a baseline, or floor, to measure a design-builder's actions. As technology will, no doubt, advance more rapidly than building codes, design-builders must stay ahead of the curve and identify those construction practices and technological advances which should be incorporated into new construction.
> 
> 
> 
> The Construction Standard of Care After 9/11 - Zetlin & De Chiara
Click to expand...


But... but.... but..... TakeAShit ASSURES us that he has done his homework and there haven't been any code changes at all since 9/11!  Surely he wouldn't LIE to everyone like he did with his supposed credentials, right?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Sorry, ladies, you're on my ignore list. Which means I can read whatever nonsense you wrote. But it's nice to see you two rump rangers are still drooling at the keyboard just waiting to slander someone. 

Maybe go outside today??


----------



## Patriot911

TakeAStepBack said:


> Sorry, ladies, you're on my ignore list. Which means I can read whatever nonsense you wrote. But it's nice to see you two rump rangers are still drooling at the keyboard just waiting to slander someone.
> 
> Maybe go outside today??



  What makes you think we care if we are on your ignore list?  I can only speak for myself, but I don't expose your ignorance for your sake.  I know I will never change the mind of an ignorant ass like you.  So I respond to your lunacy for everyone else who reads these threads.  You having me on ignore only makes you look really REALLY pathetic.  Not that your posts don't do an excellent job of exposing your ignorance already.  Good thing you have Ollie on ignore as he proves you lied yet again when you claimed there are no code changes.  Then again, a retarded cat would know that there have been code changes since 2001.    One would think an engineer would understand that code changes happen very frequently.  Then again, someone lying about being an engineer and having the code books wouldn't necessarily understand how often codes change.  After all, fantasy land is whatever you want it to be!!  

Have fun pretending you're not reading all this!  We all know your ego is WAAAAY to big for you to not read a response!


----------



## TakeAStepBack

This message is hidden because Patriot911 is on your ignore list.


----------



## Patriot911

Anyone else need proof the truthtard bowel movement is a complete and utter failure?    Truthtards can't back their shit up and have to resort to putting anyone they can't debate on ignore.  TakeAShit is a prime example.  He has been reduced to a completely meaningless troll.  Think anyone is going to listen to someone who has nothing to say?    Way to go, TakeAShit!


----------



## Triton

I don't even engage in the debate of WTC 7 collapse anymore.

Presenting the obvious truth to some people that the building was brought down by controlled demolition when they believe otherwise is akin to convincing someone the sky is blue when they believe otherwise.

No amount of evidence nor reason can be used with them


----------



## Gamolon

Triton said:


> I don't even engage in the debate of WTC 7 collapse anymore.
> 
> Presenting the obvious truth to some people that the building was brought down by controlled demolition when they believe otherwise is akin to convincing someone the sky is blue when they believe otherwise.
> 
> No amount of evidence nor reason can be used with them


----------



## Patriot911

Triton said:


> I don't even engage in the debate of WTC 7 collapse anymore.
> 
> Presenting the obvious truth to some people that the building was brought down by controlled demolition when they believe otherwise is akin to convincing someone the sky is blue when they believe otherwise.
> 
> No amount of evidence nor reason can be used with them



So what is your real evidence that it was brought down by controlled demolition?  Don't tell me.  Let me guess.  It LOOKED like a controlled demolition to you, so therefore it MUST be a controlled demolition, end of story.    Yeah, that's what it boils down to. 

How do you explain the complete lack of explosions?  Your "PROOF" that it was a controlled demolition is that it looks like one.  The only way to do a controlled demolition with that kind of accuracy is with high explosives.  Thermite doesn't work with the precision needed.  There are numerous audio tracks of the collapse from several sources.  None of them have the telltale explosions from high explosives.  

So who are we to believe?  Our own ears?  Or a truthtard who is all wet?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Triton said:


> I don't even engage in the debate of WTC 7 collapse anymore.
> 
> Presenting the obvious truth to some people that the building was brought down by controlled demolition when they believe otherwise is akin to convincing someone the sky is blue when they believe otherwise.
> 
> No amount of evidence nor reason can be used with them



Especially here with this crowd. There is a group that spend day and night trying to deflect the scientific evidence by attempting to smear the character of those they oppose rather than offering any evidence to the contrary. That's why butt nuggets like Patriot (oh, the irony there) and his partner Ollie, just get the ignore list from me. I have no time to keep jumping back through the fruit loop with these type of dumb hicks. It's pointless.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

I actually feel kind of bad for them. Obviously their lives are so boring, they have nothing better to do in the world than continue to make rude remarks towards others, all the while never addressing the science/evidence being displayed.

Must be boring as fuck in that little farm town in Mississippi.


----------



## Gamolon

TakeAStepBack said:


> I actually feel kind of bad for them. Obviously their lives are so boring, they have nothing better to do in the world than continue to make rude remarks towards others, all the while never addressing the science/evidence being displayed.
> 
> Must be boring as fuck in that little farm town in Mississippi.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Triton said:


> I don't even engage in the debate of WTC 7 collapse anymore.
> 
> Presenting the obvious truth to some people that the building was brought down by controlled demolition when they believe otherwise is akin to convincing someone the sky is blue when they believe otherwise.
> 
> No amount of evidence nor reason can be used with them


Yeah they ignore the obvious that something other then hydrocarbon fires had to be present to produce the molten metal under all 3 buildings. They insist that the fires were hot and intense enough to weaken all the major support columns at the same time to produce a 2.25 sec. free fall collapse but ignore the  the molten metal. They also ignore the outward explosive ejections of material, and the fact that the buildings fell down in such a uniform manner, that contradicts the sporadic damage.

Independent scientist using advanced techniques led to the discovery of nano thermite particles in the WTC dust, they also found iron, sulfur, manganese which is characteristic of a variation of thermite which is used to cut through steel which is called thermate.
Thermite incendiary cutter charges do in fact exist, and are what is speculated to have caused the extreme heat that produced the molten metal that lasted for 3 months under the rubble, despite the attempts to extinguish it, even using a chemical known as Pyrocool.

There is solid physical evidence that points to thermitic reactions at the WTC. The video evidence of a thermitic action dripping from the S tower, and the underground fires, as well as the iron spheres that scientists have found, as well as the evidence of it in the dust.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAk3u4i_zkg&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Debunking 9/11 Debunking: Controlled Demolition IS Possible[/ame]
 Anyone who insist that thermitic cutting charges are not reliable or insist that the possibility of them being used is remote, doesn't know about it or is lying.
Thermite self-consuming cutter charge casings have been around since first patented back in 1984.


----------



## Mr. Jones

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFpbZ-aLDLY&feature=email]YouTube - NIST Report on WTC7 debunked and exposed![/ame]


----------



## Triton

Patriot911 said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even engage in the debate of WTC 7 collapse anymore.
> 
> Presenting the obvious truth to some people that the building was brought down by controlled demolition when they believe otherwise is akin to convincing someone the sky is blue when they believe otherwise.
> 
> No amount of evidence nor reason can be used with them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what is your real evidence that it was brought down by controlled demolition?  Don't tell me.  Let me guess.  It LOOKED like a controlled demolition to you, so therefore it MUST be a controlled demolition, end of story.    Yeah, that's what it boils down to.
> 
> How do you explain the complete lack of explosions?  Your "PROOF" that it was a controlled demolition is that it looks like one.  The only way to do a controlled demolition with that kind of accuracy is with high explosives.  Thermite doesn't work with the precision needed.  There are numerous audio tracks of the collapse from several sources.  None of them have the telltale explosions from high explosives.
> 
> So who are we to believe?  Our own ears?  Or a truthtard who is all wet?
Click to expand...



Mr. Patriot, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this message board is now dumber for having read it.

 I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.


Truthtard? seriously?


----------



## Triton

Mr. Jones said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even engage in the debate of WTC 7 collapse anymore.
> 
> Presenting the obvious truth to some people that the building was brought down by controlled demolition when they believe otherwise is akin to convincing someone the sky is blue when they believe otherwise.
> 
> No amount of evidence nor reason can be used with them
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah they ignore the obvious that something other then hydrocarbon fires had to be present to produce the molten metal under all 3 buildings. They insist that the fires were hot and intense enough to weaken all the major support columns at the same time to produce a 2.25 sec. free fall collapse but ignore the  the molten metal. They also ignore the outward explosive ejections of material, and the fact that the buildings fell down in such a uniform manner, that contradicts the sporadic damage.
> 
> Independent scientist using advanced techniques led to the discovery of nano thermite particles in the WTC dust, they also found iron, sulfur, manganese which is characteristic of a variation of thermite which is used to cut through steel which is called thermate.
> Thermite incendiary cutter charges do in fact exist, and are what is speculated to have caused the extreme heat that produced the molten metal that lasted for 3 months under the rubble, despite the attempts to extinguish it, even using a chemical known as Pyrocool.
> 
> There is solid physical evidence that points to thermitic reactions at the WTC. The video evidence of a thermitic action dripping from the S tower, and the underground fires, as well as the iron spheres that scientists have found, as well as the evidence of it in the dust.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAk3u4i_zkg&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Debunking 9/11 Debunking: Controlled Demolition IS Possible[/ame]
> Anyone who insist that thermitic cutting charges are not reliable or insist that the possibility of them being used is remote, doesn't know about it or is lying.
> Thermite self-consuming cutter charge casings have been around since first patented back in 1984.
Click to expand...



So, are you saying that the 47 story steel framed building fell at near free fall speed into its own foundation 8 hours after the twin towers collapsed despite no airplane striking it and with only sporadic fires on 7-8 floors because of............controlled demolition?

YOU'RE INSANE!     

Surely the 19 cavemen did it, oh wait, no plane hit the building, so um...UM.........You're a TRUTHTARD!


----------



## Patriot911

Triton said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even engage in the debate of WTC 7 collapse anymore.
> 
> Presenting the obvious truth to some people that the building was brought down by controlled demolition when they believe otherwise is akin to convincing someone the sky is blue when they believe otherwise.
> 
> No amount of evidence nor reason can be used with them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what is your real evidence that it was brought down by controlled demolition?  Don't tell me.  Let me guess.  It LOOKED like a controlled demolition to you, so therefore it MUST be a controlled demolition, end of story.    Yeah, that's what it boils down to.
> 
> How do you explain the complete lack of explosions?  Your "PROOF" that it was a controlled demolition is that it looks like one.  The only way to do a controlled demolition with that kind of accuracy is with high explosives.  Thermite doesn't work with the precision needed.  There are numerous audio tracks of the collapse from several sources.  None of them have the telltale explosions from high explosives.
> 
> So who are we to believe?  Our own ears?  Or a truthtard who is all wet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Patriot, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this message board is now dumber for having read it.
Click to expand...

In other words, you couldn't refute it so you have to whine about it like a little bitch.  Got it.



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.


  What makes you think I would want ANYTHING from a coward like you?  



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> Truthtard? seriously?


Yep.  Retarded fucker who can't debate the topic so runs away.  That perfectly describes you.  Get use to it.


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> Anyone who insist that thermitic cutting charges are not reliable or insist that the possibility of them being used is remote, doesn't know about it or is lying.
> Thermite self-consuming cutter charge casings have been around since first patented back in 1984.



  Wrong again!  You got suckered into blindly believing everything AE911 tells you.  They CLAIMED there was a patent for a self contained thermite cutter charge, yet never actually produced the patent.  You ignorantly pretend they are right without ever actually verifying the truth.

In fact, when AE-911 was pressed to clarify their patent claim, it turns out their "patent" was for a thermite charge that would ignite other, larger charges.    Once again you've been caught with your pants down around your ankles looking like a complete buffoon!



			
				Ignorant liars at AE-911 said:
			
		

> We incorrectly identified the thermite device illustrated in this article as a "cutter charge.  But, the device as described in the patent is only an igniter heat source only used to ignite larger charges. It does not in and of itself have the capability of cutting structural steel.



Source

So once again the jackass (that would be you, Mr. Jones) going around calling other people liars turns out to be lying once again.    Oh the irony!!


----------



## SFC Ollie

Mr. Jones said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even engage in the debate of WTC 7 collapse anymore.
> 
> Presenting the obvious truth to some people that the building was brought down by controlled demolition when they believe otherwise is akin to convincing someone the sky is blue when they believe otherwise.
> 
> No amount of evidence nor reason can be used with them
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah they ignore the obvious that something other then hydrocarbon fires had to be present to produce the molten metal under all 3 buildings. They insist that the fires were hot and intense enough to weaken all the major support columns at the same time to produce a 2.25 sec. free fall collapse but ignore the  the molten metal. They also ignore the outward explosive ejections of material, and the fact that the buildings fell down in such a uniform manner, that contradicts the sporadic damage.
> 
> Independent scientist using advanced techniques led to the discovery of nano thermite particles in the WTC dust, they also found iron, sulfur, manganese which is characteristic of a variation of thermite which is used to cut through steel which is called thermate.
> Thermite incendiary cutter charges do in fact exist, and are what is speculated to have caused the extreme heat that produced the molten metal that lasted for 3 months under the rubble, despite the attempts to extinguish it, even using a chemical known as Pyrocool.
> 
> There is solid physical evidence that points to thermitic reactions at the WTC. *The video evidence of a thermitic action dripping from the S tower,* and the underground fires, as well as the iron spheres that scientists have found, as well as the evidence of it in the dust.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAk3u4i_zkg&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Debunking 9/11 Debunking: Controlled Demolition IS Possible[/ame]
> Anyone who insist that thermitic cutting charges are not reliable or insist that the possibility of them being used is remote, doesn't know about it or is lying.
> Thermite self-consuming cutter charge casings have been around since first patented back in 1984.
Click to expand...


The so called thermitic reaction has been shown to be from a UPS. If you don't know what that is please look it up.

And underground fires? Really? How long does thermite burn?


----------



## SFC Ollie

I smell another sock......


----------



## Patriot911

SFC Ollie said:


> The so called thermitic reaction has been shown to be from a UPS. If you don't know what that is please look it up.
> 
> And underground fires? Really? How long does thermite burn?



I've yet to find a truthtard who can explain how thermite is suppose to contain enough energy to keep steel molten for weeks at a time when it burns itself out in seconds. 

I've yet to find a truthtard who can explain how there was so much molten iron from cutting the core that it was able to flow like a river all the way from the core to the outer edge and drip out.


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even engage in the debate of WTC 7 collapse anymore.
> 
> Presenting the obvious truth to some people that the building was brought down by controlled demolition when they believe otherwise is akin to convincing someone the sky is blue when they believe otherwise.
> 
> No amount of evidence nor reason can be used with them
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah they ignore the obvious that something other then hydrocarbon fires had to be present to produce the molten metal under all 3 buildings. They insist that the fires were hot and intense enough to weaken all the major support columns at the same time to produce a 2.25 sec. free fall collapse but ignore the  the molten metal. They also ignore the outward explosive ejections of material, and the fact that the buildings fell down in such a uniform manner, that contradicts the sporadic damage.
> 
> Independent scientist using advanced techniques led to the discovery of nano thermite particles in the WTC dust, they also found iron, sulfur, manganese which is characteristic of a variation of thermite which is used to cut through steel which is called thermate.
> Thermite incendiary cutter charges do in fact exist, and are what is speculated to have caused the extreme heat that produced the molten metal that lasted for 3 months under the rubble, despite the attempts to extinguish it, even using a chemical known as Pyrocool.
> 
> There is solid physical evidence that points to thermitic reactions at the WTC. *The video evidence of a thermitic action dripping from the S tower,* and the underground fires, as well as the iron spheres that scientists have found, as well as the evidence of it in the dust.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAk3u4i_zkg&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Debunking 9/11 Debunking: Controlled Demolition IS Possible[/ame]
> Anyone who insist that thermitic cutting charges are not reliable or insist that the possibility of them being used is remote, doesn't know about it or is lying.
> Thermite self-consuming cutter charge casings have been around since first patented back in 1984.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so called thermitic reaction has been shown to be from a UPS. If you don't know what that is please look it up.
> 
> And underground fires? Really? How long does thermite burn?
Click to expand...

UPS HUH? Interesting how the planes managed to hit the UPS/computer room floors of both towers.

No it hasn't been shown to be from UPS, it is just another guess, and a counter to the thermite theory. However the theory for thermite/mate is more of a solid theory as there is more scientific evidence to back it up.
 UPS/Batteries creating the flow? No mention of this being made by NIST or anybody immediately after this was seen. NIST didn't even mention what was on the 81st floor until the final report I believe.

The floors where they were installed were reinforced, lots of work being done there the summer before 9-11, lots of wiring too.
Strange how the planes hit the floors these systems were in, possibly guided.
What was seen pouring out was yellow and almost white molten metal that only a very hot source could produce.
The facts are that in all of the buildings rubble, there was molten metal that some described as blast furnaces they were so intense that lasted for 99 days, and the fires from the jet fuel could not have caused this, and when you realize that Thermite/mate contains its own supply of oxygen, and does not require any external source such as air. It makes for a solid theory.
 Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment, given sufficient initial heat. It will burn just as well while underwater, for example, and cannot even be extinguished with water, as water sprayed on a thermite reaction will instantly be boiled into steam.  
Thermit: Definition from Answers.com
 This could explain why the 'fires" burned (thermite reaction) for so long, and one could surmise, there had to be a shit load of it.
You have been presented solid evidence of the rubble fires, don't go pretending it doesn't exist, you will look foolish again.

*Next to the discovery of Nano-thermite in the WTC dust, the question of whether such thermite-based devices were used is a side issue -- merely one possible technology that could account for the dozens of observations of molten iron or steel in the debris pile. 

In the debate about what brought down the World Trade Center, providing the grand "problem-reaction" for which the War on Terror is the alleged "solution," our position is solid on every important point. This is underscored by our critics' noisy attention to small errors such as this. The promoters of, and believers in, the official government conspiracy have always ignored or misrepresented the gross features of the three WTC towers' destruction. Those features -- the speed, symmetry, thoroughness, completeness -- have always pointed unequivocally to surreptitious demolition with explosives as the cause of that destruction. The details of how the demolitions were accomplished are largely irrelevant at this point in time, except that al Qaeda clearly lacked the access to accomplish any variant of them. *

Correction and Clarification: Article: Explosive Evidence at WTC Cited by Former CDI Employee

A 9/11 Challenge/Experiment


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> UPS HUH? Interesting how the planes managed to hit the UPS/computer room floors of both towers.


Really?  Now you're going to try and pretend you saw thermite from BOTH towers!?!  What a fucking liar!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> No it hasn't been shown to be from UPS, it is just another guess, and a counter to the thermite theory. However the theory for thermite/mate is more of a solid theory as there is more scientific evidence to back it up.


Wrong again, fuckface!  Your claim that thermite is a "more solid theory" is just wishful thinking on your part.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> UPS/Batteries creating the flow? No mention of this being made by NIST or anybody immediately after this was seen. NIST didn't even mention what was on the 81st floor until the final report I believe.


So, unlike fucking liar truthtards like you, the NIST didn't state a guess as fact.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> The floors where they were installed were reinforced, lots of work being done there the summer before 9-11, lots of wiring too.
> Strange how the planes hit the floors these systems were in, possibly guided.
> What was seen pouring out was yellow and almost white molten metal that only a very hot source could produce.


More bullshit guessing from the king of liars.  Care to back up your bullshit?  Oh wait.  I forgot.  You're a bullshit artist.  A bullshit artist doesn't back anything up!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> The facts are that in all of the buildings rubble, there was molten metal that some described as blast furnaces they were so intense that lasted for 99 days, and the fires from the jet fuel could not have caused this, and when you realize that Thermite/mate contains its own supply of oxygen, and does not require any external source such as air. It makes for a solid theory.


BULLFUCKINGSHIT!!!!  Thermite burns out in SECONDS you fucking moron!  Even if you had a MOUNTAIN of thermite it wouldn't last a day, much less 99!  This is a fact you refuse to address!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment, given sufficient initial heat. It will burn just as well while underwater, for example, and cannot even be extinguished with water, as water sprayed on a thermite reaction will instantly be boiled into steam.
> Thermit: Definition from Answers.com
> This could explain why the 'fires" burned (thermite reaction) for so long, and one could surmise, there had to be a shit load of it.


The entire tower being made out of thermite wouldn't last 99 days.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> You have been presented solid evidence of the rubble fires, don't go pretending it doesn't exist, you will look foolish again.


Nobody has denied the fires.  We're all denying your bullshit that it had to be from thermite.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> *Next to the discovery of Nano-thermite in the WTC dust, the question of whether such thermite-based devices were used is a side issue -- merely one possible technology that could account for the dozens of observations of molten iron or steel in the debris pile. *


*
So even your own source doesn't claim as fact what you do.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		


			In the debate about what brought down the World Trade Center, providing the grand "problem-reaction" for which the War on Terror is the alleged "solution," our position is solid on every important point. This is underscored by our critics' noisy attention to small errors such as this. The promoters of, and believers in, the official government conspiracy have always ignored or misrepresented the gross features of the three WTC towers' destruction. Those features -- the speed, symmetry, thoroughness, completeness -- have always pointed unequivocally to surreptitious demolition with explosives as the cause of that destruction. The details of how the demolitions were accomplished are largely irrelevant at this point in time, except that al Qaeda clearly lacked the access to accomplish any variant of them.
		
Click to expand...

*


			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Correction and Clarification: Article: Explosive Evidence at WTC Cited by Former CDI Employee


How utterly ironic that you post the exact same thread I did, yet supposedly I am on ignore.    I TOLD everyone that these fucktards don't really have me on ignore!    Funny how a fucking liar like Jones doesn't admit he got it wrong about the 1984 patent even when he posts the evidence he blatantly lied about it.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah they ignore the obvious that something other then hydrocarbon fires had to be present to produce the molten metal under all 3 buildings. They insist that the fires were hot and intense enough to weaken all the major support columns at the same time to produce a 2.25 sec. free fall collapse but ignore the  the molten metal. They also ignore the outward explosive ejections of material, and the fact that the buildings fell down in such a uniform manner, that contradicts the sporadic damage.
> 
> Independent scientist using advanced techniques led to the discovery of nano thermite particles in the WTC dust, they also found iron, sulfur, manganese which is characteristic of a variation of thermite which is used to cut through steel which is called thermate.
> Thermite incendiary cutter charges do in fact exist, and are what is speculated to have caused the extreme heat that produced the molten metal that lasted for 3 months under the rubble, despite the attempts to extinguish it, even using a chemical known as Pyrocool.
> 
> There is solid physical evidence that points to thermitic reactions at the WTC. *The video evidence of a thermitic action dripping from the S tower,* and the underground fires, as well as the iron spheres that scientists have found, as well as the evidence of it in the dust.
> 
> YouTube - Debunking 9/11 Debunking: Controlled Demolition IS Possible
> Anyone who insist that thermitic cutting charges are not reliable or insist that the possibility of them being used is remote, doesn't know about it or is lying.
> Thermite self-consuming cutter charge casings have been around since first patented back in 1984.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The so called thermitic reaction has been shown to be from a UPS. If you don't know what that is please look it up.
> 
> And underground fires? Really? How long does thermite burn?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> UPS HUH? Interesting how the planes managed to hit the UPS/computer room floors of both towers.
> 
> No it hasn't been shown to be from UPS, it is just another guess, and a counter to the thermite theory. However the theory for thermite/mate is more of a solid theory as there is more scientific evidence to back it up.
> UPS/Batteries creating the flow? No mention of this being made by NIST or anybody immediately after this was seen. NIST didn't even mention what was on the 81st floor until the final report I believe.
> 
> The floors where they were installed were reinforced, lots of work being done there the summer before 9-11, lots of wiring too.
> Strange how the planes hit the floors these systems were in, possibly guided.
> What was seen pouring out was yellow and almost white molten metal that only a very hot source could produce.
> The facts are that in all of the buildings rubble, there was molten metal that some described as blast furnaces they were so intense that lasted for 99 days, and the fires from the jet fuel could not have caused this, and when you realize that Thermite/mate contains its own supply of oxygen, and does not require any external source such as air. It makes for a solid theory.
> Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment, given sufficient initial heat. It will burn just as well while underwater, for example, and cannot even be extinguished with water, as water sprayed on a thermite reaction will instantly be boiled into steam.
> Thermit: Definition from Answers.com
> This could explain why the 'fires" burned (thermite reaction) for so long, and one could surmise, there had to be a shit load of it.
> You have been presented solid evidence of the rubble fires, don't go pretending it doesn't exist, you will look foolish again.
> 
> *Next to the discovery of Nano-thermite in the WTC dust, the question of whether such thermite-based devices were used is a side issue -- merely one possible technology that could account for the dozens of observations of molten iron or steel in the debris pile.
> 
> In the debate about what brought down the World Trade Center, providing the grand "problem-reaction" for which the War on Terror is the alleged "solution," our position is solid on every important point. This is underscored by our critics' noisy attention to small errors such as this. The promoters of, and believers in, the official government conspiracy have always ignored or misrepresented the gross features of the three WTC towers' destruction. Those features -- the speed, symmetry, thoroughness, completeness -- have always pointed unequivocally to surreptitious demolition with explosives as the cause of that destruction. The details of how the demolitions were accomplished are largely irrelevant at this point in time, except that al Qaeda clearly lacked the access to accomplish any variant of them. *
> 
> Correction and Clarification: Article: Explosive Evidence at WTC Cited by Former CDI Employee
> 
> A 9/11 Challenge/Experiment
Click to expand...


OK I think you've drank enough of the Kool-aide.....


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah they ignore the obvious that something other then hydrocarbon fires had to be present to produce the molten metal under all 3 buildings. They insist that the fires were hot and intense enough to weaken all the major support columns at the same time to produce a 2.25 sec. free fall collapse but ignore the  the molten metal. They also ignore the outward explosive ejections of material, and the fact that the buildings fell down in such a uniform manner, that contradicts the sporadic damage.
> 
> Independent scientist using advanced techniques led to the discovery of nano thermite particles in the WTC dust, they also found iron, sulfur, manganese which is characteristic of a variation of thermite which is used to cut through steel which is called thermate.
> Thermite incendiary cutter charges do in fact exist, and are what is speculated to have caused the extreme heat that produced the molten metal that lasted for 3 months under the rubble, despite the attempts to extinguish it, even using a chemical known as Pyrocool.
> 
> There is solid physical evidence that points to thermitic reactions at the WTC. *The video evidence of a thermitic action dripping from the S tower,* and the underground fires, as well as the iron spheres that scientists have found, as well as the evidence of it in the dust.
> 
> YouTube - Debunking 9/11 Debunking: Controlled Demolition IS Possible
> Anyone who insist that thermitic cutting charges are not reliable or insist that the possibility of them being used is remote, doesn't know about it or is lying.
> Thermite self-consuming cutter charge casings have been around since first patented back in 1984.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The so called thermitic reaction has been shown to be from a UPS. If you don't know what that is please look it up.
> 
> And underground fires? Really? How long does thermite burn?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> UPS HUH? Interesting how the planes managed to hit the UPS/computer room floors of both towers.
> 
> No it hasn't been shown to be from UPS, it is just another guess, and a counter to the thermite theory. However the theory for thermite/mate is more of a solid theory as there is more scientific evidence to back it up.
> UPS/Batteries creating the flow? No mention of this being made by NIST or anybody immediately after this was seen. NIST didn't even mention what was on the 81st floor until the final report I believe.
> 
> The floors where they were installed were reinforced, lots of work being done there the summer before 9-11, lots of wiring too.
> Strange how the planes hit the floors these systems were in, possibly guided.
> What was seen pouring out was yellow and almost white molten metal that only a very hot source could produce.
> The facts are that in all of the buildings rubble, there was molten metal that some described as blast furnaces they were so intense that lasted for 99 days, and the fires from the jet fuel could not have caused this, and when you realize that Thermite/mate contains its own supply of oxygen, and does not require any external source such as air. It makes for a solid theory.
> Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment, given sufficient initial heat. It will burn just as well while underwater, for example, and cannot even be extinguished with water, as water sprayed on a thermite reaction will instantly be boiled into steam.
> Thermit: Definition from Answers.com
> *This could explain why the 'fires" burned (thermite reaction) for so long, and one could surmise, there had to be a shit load of it.*You have been presented solid evidence of the rubble fires, don't go pretending it doesn't exist, you will look foolish again.
> 
> *Next to the discovery of Nano-thermite in the WTC dust, the question of whether such thermite-based devices were used is a side issue -- merely one possible technology that could account for the dozens of observations of molten iron or steel in the debris pile.
> 
> In the debate about what brought down the World Trade Center, providing the grand "problem-reaction" for which the War on Terror is the alleged "solution," our position is solid on every important point. This is underscored by our critics' noisy attention to small errors such as this. The promoters of, and believers in, the official government conspiracy have always ignored or misrepresented the gross features of the three WTC towers' destruction. Those features -- the speed, symmetry, thoroughness, completeness -- have always pointed unequivocally to surreptitious demolition with explosives as the cause of that destruction. The details of how the demolitions were accomplished are largely irrelevant at this point in time, except that al Qaeda clearly lacked the access to accomplish any variant of them. *
> 
> Correction and Clarification: Article: Explosive Evidence at WTC Cited by Former CDI Employee
> 
> A 9/11 Challenge/Experiment
Click to expand...


This is one of the things that makes me look beyond thermite/thermate as a culprit.
In my research folder at home, I have doen the calculations on the amount of explosive material needed in order to bring the towers down symetrically. The number is in the tons (I'll check what I came out with when time permits). With so many potential errors involved in the use of explosives, I can't get my head around how those two buildings could have been wired. Cell phone signal interference, among other needed control to make that possible just isnt there. It could very well have been a version of nantechnology that we aren't currently aware of, so I wont completely rule it out.
What thermite does NOT have the ability to do is create the level of pulverization seen in the destruction.

Another profound item to consider is the bathtub. Which kept the Hudson from flooding the PATH and other underground infrastructure. 1 million tons of building material crashing down onto the tub and it remained almost completely intact?? 
Given all of the other anomalies I'd say, sure. fine. 
Looking more deeply into it, the fact is most of the material was turned to dust and blew away rather than crashing down.

I've yet to see any technology that can accomplish this fantastic level of energy. Just a thought.

It also does not make clear how the parking lot, which is quite a ways away from the site, managed to catch so many cars on fire and turn them into warped hunks of metal. There are plenty of first responder and fire fighter testimony of spontaneous combustion of vehicles at the ground level. From Manhattan bridge, to FDR, to the parking lot. Some testimony even claimed people were being spontaneously ignited. What could cause this?


----------



## SFC Ollie

Spontaneous combustion? Really?


----------



## Mr. Jones

TakeAStepBack said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The so called thermitic reaction has been shown to be from a UPS. If you don't know what that is please look it up.
> 
> And underground fires? Really? How long does thermite burn?
> 
> 
> 
> UPS HUH? Interesting how the planes managed to hit the UPS/computer room floors of both towers.
> 
> No it hasn't been shown to be from UPS, it is just another guess, and a counter to the thermite theory. However the theory for thermite/mate is more of a solid theory as there is more scientific evidence to back it up.
> UPS/Batteries creating the flow? No mention of this being made by NIST or anybody immediately after this was seen. NIST didn't even mention what was on the 81st floor until the final report I believe.
> 
> The floors where they were installed were reinforced, lots of work being done there the summer before 9-11, lots of wiring too.
> Strange how the planes hit the floors these systems were in, possibly guided.
> What was seen pouring out was yellow and almost white molten metal that only a very hot source could produce.
> The facts are that in all of the buildings rubble, there was molten metal that some described as blast furnaces they were so intense that lasted for 99 days, and the fires from the jet fuel could not have caused this, and when you realize that Thermite/mate contains its own supply of oxygen, and does not require any external source such as air. It makes for a solid theory.
> Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment, given sufficient initial heat. It will burn just as well while underwater, for example, and cannot even be extinguished with water, as water sprayed on a thermite reaction will instantly be boiled into steam.
> Thermit: Definition from Answers.com
> *This could explain why the 'fires" burned (thermite reaction) for so long, and one could surmise, there had to be a shit load of it.*You have been presented solid evidence of the rubble fires, don't go pretending it doesn't exist, you will look foolish again.
> 
> *Next to the discovery of Nano-thermite in the WTC dust, the question of whether such thermite-based devices were used is a side issue -- merely one possible technology that could account for the dozens of observations of molten iron or steel in the debris pile.
> 
> In the debate about what brought down the World Trade Center, providing the grand "problem-reaction" for which the War on Terror is the alleged "solution," our position is solid on every important point. This is underscored by our critics' noisy attention to small errors such as this. The promoters of, and believers in, the official government conspiracy have always ignored or misrepresented the gross features of the three WTC towers' destruction. Those features -- the speed, symmetry, thoroughness, completeness -- have always pointed unequivocally to surreptitious demolition with explosives as the cause of that destruction. The details of how the demolitions were accomplished are largely irrelevant at this point in time, except that al Qaeda clearly lacked the access to accomplish any variant of them. *
> 
> Correction and Clarification: Article: Explosive Evidence at WTC Cited by Former CDI Employee
> 
> A 9/11 Challenge/Experiment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the things that makes me look beyond thermite/thermate as a culprit.
> In my research folder at home, I have doen the calculations on the amount of explosive material needed in order to bring the towers down symetrically. The number is in the tons (I'll check what I came out with when time permits). With so many potential errors involved in the use of explosives, I can't get my head around how those two buildings could have been wired. Cell phone signal interference, among other needed control to make that possible just isnt there. It could very well have been a version of nantechnology that we aren't currently aware of, so I wont completely rule it out.
> What thermite does NOT have the ability to do is create the level of pulverization seen in the destruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes very good points indeed, however one has to take into consideration what the scientists like Jones and others found and collaborated , and put out for review. The # 1 fact in all of this is that these massive structures came down in a most peculiar fashion, also the stonewalling and cover ups immediately after including the hauling away of the evidence. One would think that they would have wanted to know every little thing they could from the pile, to learn of any new techniques, or means the "enemy" had used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another profound item to consider is the bathtub. Which kept the Hudson from flooding the PATH and other underground infrastructure. 1 million tons of building material crashing down onto the tub and it remained almost completely intact??
> Given all of the other anomalies I'd say, sure. fine.
> Looking more deeply into it, the fact is most of the material was turned to dust and blew away rather than crashing down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I ran into an article the other day that was interesting to me about the WTC buildings and what they had in common with the Statue of Liberty, check it out when you have time, it's a way of trying to explain this pulverization that was witnessed.
> 
> An architects' two cents worth:
> What do the Statue of Liberty and WTC Towers have in common? | 100777.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see any technology that can accomplish this fantastic level of energy. Just a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obtaining knowledge comes from "just a thought", and is better then excepting ridiculous non provable theories like those in the OCTASSes arsenal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It also does not make clear how the parking lot, which is quite a ways away from the site, managed to catch so many cars on fire and turn them into warped hunks of metal. There are plenty of first responder and fire fighter testimony of spontaneous combustion of vehicles at the ground level. From Manhattan bridge, to FDR, to the parking lot. Some testimony even claimed people were being spontaneously ignited. What could cause this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link us to any articles you have about this, though I do remember seeing and reading about the cars and other vehicles catching fire and only parts of many of them burning..strange indeed. Perhaps there was more then one method of destruction used, which is why the need for a real evaluation of events has to take place.
Click to expand...


----------



## Patriot911

Get ready for TakeAShit to go with dental assistant Judy Woods' energy beam theory now!    So predictable that it isn't even funny!


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Mr. Jones said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It also does not make clear how the parking lot, which is quite a ways away from the site, managed to catch so many cars on fire and turn them into warped hunks of metal. There are plenty of first responder and fire fighter testimony of spontaneous combustion of vehicles at the ground level. From Manhattan bridge, to FDR, to the parking lot. Some testimony even claimed people were being spontaneously ignited. What could cause this?
> 
> 
> 
> Link us to any articles you have about this, though I do remember seeing and reading about the cars and other vehicles catching fire and only parts of many of them burning..strange indeed. Perhaps there was more then one method of destruction used, which is why the need for a real evaluation of events has to take place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oral testimony of EMT Alan Cooke:
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110040.PDF
> 
> ....We got to the beginning of the FDR Drive, by the ferry, and i guess because of the way the streets channeled everything, one of the fire balls or whatever, had to have made it as far as south street seaport, because what happened at the time, it seemed like an explosion was coming from there...........
> ........Now we had everybody running [to] us from the seaport and running to us from the west side, so we couldnt go either way. That's when all the ash and everything started coming. We had a couple of people stop us because they were complaining of chest pains......
> ....Nobody could breathe and everybody was trying to climb up on to the wall of the FDR Drive.....
> 
> Testimony from Firefighter Todd Heaney:
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110255.PDF
> ....When I got to the front of the building, it tossed rigs down the street like it was--like they were toys. They were upside down on fire.
> 
> Firefighter Patrick Connolly:
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110453.PDF
> The only thing I knew, that I wanted to do was
> I wanted to go back out the door that we came in and
> make a left turn and walk straight up West Broadway
> out to safety.  They were a little bit more
> controlled.  They decided to stay put about five
> minutes.  And think things through and they were
> gonna go down.  There were some interior stairs and
> they were gonna go down to probably more like a bomb
> 
> shelter area an d I think when Joe looked, it looked
> like it was destroyed.  So we decided that we would
> tie the search rope off to the doorway and the three
> of us hand in hand decided that we would walk out.
> And as we came out we started to walk north and
> slowly but surely and up and over and under steel
> and cars were --* cars with tires and cars were
> popping and they were just starting to light up
> spontaneously* and there was near zero visibility at
> this stage.
> 
> I'll PM you a list of the testimonies that are particularly noteworthy....the list goes on and on and on......
Click to expand...


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Testimony from Lieutenant Rene Davila

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110453.PDF

....But we were there. Vehicle 219 was 
destroyed. 
Q.  Was it on fire? 
A.  What? 
Q.  Was it on fire? 
A.  Fire?  We saw the sucker blow up.  We 
heard "Boom!"  We were walking up Fulton Street. 
I don't know how far we made it up when someone 
says, "The building's coming down."  By the time 
I realized, it's a repeat. .....


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Emergency Medical Technician, Renae O'Carroll"

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110116.PDF

....... We went down Atlantic Avenue going  
              towards the Manhattan Bridge, and the heat was so  
              intense, so intense, you could actually feel it  
              while you were up on the bridge.  I mean that  
              intense you could feel the heat.  Cars were  
              coming this way, and we were driving that way. 
                        They assigned us to go to Church and  
              Vesey.  We were going towards that area.  The  
              cars are coming this way.  People are screaming  
              and running, and we're going the opposite  
              direction into the mess, into the belly of the  
              beast of this thing.  I still can't believe I had  
              the nerve to do that to this day.......

There is quite a distance between the Manhattan bridge and WTC.....

 Q.   The building actually came down at that  
              point? 
                   A.   The building wasn't down yet.  I was  
              getting ready to pull out, and the transportation  
              officer waved me over.  He wanted to tell me what  
              hospital to go to.......


It was just basically dark.  I had  
              never been through anything -- I thought I was  
              dying.  The only thing I could see was balls of  
              fire, just balls of fire.  At one point I thought  
              I was on fire because it was that close to me.  I  
              could feel the heat.  I said to myself, wow, I'm  
              on fire.  This is what it feels like to be on                                 
              fire.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

> I ran into an article the other day that was interesting to me about the WTC buildings and what they had in common with the Statue of Liberty, check it out when you have time, it's a way of trying to explain this pulverization that was witnessed.
> 
> An architects' two cents worth:
> What do the Statue of Liberty and WTC Towers have in common? | 100777.com



That's an interesting read. I Will take some time out in the future to learn a bit more on Galvanic corrosion. But I have to say, my initial reaction to his 30 year replacement assessment makes me chuckle.

Also the Statue of liberty sits in the middle of a salt water body and has stood there, thick and thin, since 1870 or so.....hmmmmmm


----------



## Bones

Patriot911 said:


> Ahhhh, truthtard losers being suckered out of their money by a bunch of liars who milk them for all they are worth.    Couldn't happen to a nicer group of fucked up liars.  Think a commercial changes the truth?  Nope.  Just like Mr. Jones' videos with "clear explosions" of non-explosives going off proves the non-explosives.   *Truthtard paranoia and delusions are getting worse I see.*


So is unquestioning trust in what the United States government and the 9/11 commission had to say about what happened on that fateful day.

There's something awfully fishy about the entire happening.  Such as jets being called off before the crash, the government knowing about the threat and doing *nothing* to stop it, and a massive airliner crashing into the pentagon.  How can a terrorist, who only flew on flight simulators beforehand, manage to steer a metal behemoth right into the pentagon while flying parallel with the ground?

A lot of shit just doesn't add up.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Don't bother with him, Bones. It truly is a waste. I'd like to have an intelligent discussion on the evidence here though. The best way to do that is ignore the shit flingers and only engage those pursuing truth and fact.


----------



## Patriot911

Bones said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhh, truthtard losers being suckered out of their money by a bunch of liars who milk them for all they are worth.    Couldn't happen to a nicer group of fucked up liars.  Think a commercial changes the truth?  Nope.  Just like Mr. Jones' videos with "clear explosions" of non-explosives going off proves the non-explosives.   *Truthtard paranoia and delusions are getting worse I see.*
> 
> 
> 
> So is unquestioning trust in what the United States government and the 9/11 commission had to say about what happened on that fateful day.
Click to expand...

Who said I have unquestioning trust?  More bullshit from someone who has no actual comeback.



			
				Bones said:
			
		

> There's something awfully fishy about the entire happening.  Such as jets being called off before the crash


No jets were called off.  Care to supply actual evidence?



			
				Bones said:
			
		

> the government knowing about the threat and doing *nothing* to stop it


Care to supply the evidence of the government knowing about the specific threat?  That would make worldwide headlines if it were true.  You know it.  I know it.  Everyone knows it.  Yet you silly truthtards still pretend it is true.  



			
				Bones said:
			
		

> and a massive airliner crashing into the pentagon.


What's so hard about crashing an airliner into a building?  That is easier than landing!



			
				Bones said:
			
		

> How can a terrorist, who only flew on flight simulators beforehand, manage to steer a metal behemoth right into the pentagon while flying parallel with the ground?


More bullshit from the truthtard camp.  Hanjour had hundreds of hours of flight time.  The simulator is where he practiced flying a commerical airliner.  



			
				Bones said:
			
		

> A lot of shit just doesn't add up.


Unfortunately it is all YOUR shit that doesn't add up.  Maybe if you started with the truth and not the truthtard lies you would see things add up.


----------



## SFC Ollie

What threat was known?

What could anyone have done about it?

Can you see any congress approving of measure like the Patriot act because there was a threat?

Please Bones, think for yourself on this.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

I hope they get the new investigation and get everything out in the open, and if anyone is found at fualt I hope the full extent of the law comes down on them


----------



## SFC Ollie

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I hope they get the new investigation and get everything out in the open, and if anyone is found at fualt I hope the full extent of the law comes down on them



I don't see any new investigation unless these truthers can come up with some real evidence. So far all they have is opinion.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

EMT Micheal D'Angelo:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110148.PDF

....I remember too, the cars started to explode inside the parking lot. I mean, the cars started to cook off, they started going off, boom, boom, boom, boom. I remember that......


----------



## TakeAStepBack

EMT, Patricia Ondrovic
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110048.PDF

Q: West Side Highway and Vesey?
A: And Vesey, yeah. I was still on Vesey, cause the building that blew up on
me was on Vesey, it was on the corner next to the West Side Highway. Cause I know I
was running west, I didn't run that way. Thank God, I would have been dead had I run
the other way. But I ran towards the West Side Highway, and I kept running up Vesey.
As I was running up Vesey, the first car blew up on me on the corner of Vessey and the
West Side Highway. That set my turnout coat on fire, that set my hair on fire, and that
set my feet on fire. I kept running. I got news for you, those turn out coats need to be
called burn out coats, cause this thing caught up in flames. They cut two inches off my
hair in less that two minutes, my coat was completely engulfed, and that was the only
way I could see where I was running at that point, because I had a glow from my coat.


----------



## Patriot911

TakeAStepBack said:


> EMT Micheal D'Angelo:
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110148.PDF
> 
> ....I remember too, the cars started to explode inside the parking lot. I mean, the cars started to cook off, they started going off, boom, boom, boom, boom. I remember that......



And?  Why do you find it strange that after both collapses and the numerous fires started by the collapses that some cars would catch fire and explode when their gas tanks catch on fire?  Loosen the tin foil.  It is cutting off oxygen to your brain!


----------



## Patriot911

TakeAStepBack said:


> EMT, Patricia Ondrovic
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110048.PDF
> 
> Q: West Side Highway and Vesey?
> A: And Vesey, yeah. I was still on Vesey, cause the building that blew up on
> me was on Vesey, it was on the corner next to the West Side Highway. Cause I know I
> was running west, I didn't run that way. Thank God, I would have been dead had I run
> the other way. But I ran towards the West Side Highway, and I kept running up Vesey.
> As I was running up Vesey, the first car blew up on me on the corner of Vessey and the
> West Side Highway. That set my turnout coat on fire, that set my hair on fire, and that
> set my feet on fire. I kept running. I got news for you, those turn out coats need to be
> called burn out coats, cause this thing caught up in flames. They cut two inches off my
> hair in less that two minutes, my coat was completely engulfed, and that was the only
> way I could see where I was running at that point, because I had a glow from my coat.



Same area as the last EMT.  So again, why do you find this strange?  Patricia didn't.  If a car just explodes for no reason, you comment on the fact there was no reason for the car to have exploded.  Instead she focuses on the gasoline fire from the explosion.  Gee.  Wouldn't that make one think it was the gas that exploded, not one of your Judy energy beams?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Firefighter James Curran
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110412.PDF

.....WE WENT IN THROUGH THE REVOLVING DOORS
THERE WAS A MINI LOBBY THERE WAS LIKE BROWN HAZE
SMOKE IN THE LOBBY LOT OF THE MARBLE SLABS WERE
FALLING OFF THE WALL CRACKED THERE WERE TWO PEOPLE
IN LIKE THE LITTLE SECTION OF THIS LOBBY ONE GUY WAS
BURNT PRETTY MUCH TO CRISP AND HIS JACKET WAS THE ONLY THING LEFT ON HIM PUT THAT OUT WITH A CAN AND
THEN THERE WAS LADY OFF TO THE RIGHT OF US THAT WAS
ALIVE BUT SHE WAS SCREAMING THAT SHE COULDNT BREATHE
SO HIT HER WITH THE CAN AND COOLED HER DOWN......


So, how does a man burn to a crisp except his jacket???


----------



## TakeAStepBack

There are dozens more, but presumably you get the idea....


----------



## TakeAStepBack

This message is hidden because Patriot911 is on your ignore list. 

Seriously. I am not reading your posts. I'm not willing to entertain your level of douchenozzlery. So save yourself the time and dont bother commenting on my posts.

Go play outside or something....let the adults have an intelligent discussion.


----------



## Patriot911

TakeAStepBack said:


> Firefighter James Curran
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110412.PDF
> 
> .....WE WENT IN THROUGH THE REVOLVING DOORS
> THERE WAS A MINI LOBBY THERE WAS LIKE BROWN HAZE
> SMOKE IN THE LOBBY LOT OF THE MARBLE SLABS WERE
> FALLING OFF THE WALL CRACKED THERE WERE TWO PEOPLE
> IN LIKE THE LITTLE SECTION OF THIS LOBBY ONE GUY WAS
> BURNT PRETTY MUCH TO CRISP AND HIS JACKET WAS THE ONLY THING LEFT ON HIM PUT THAT OUT WITH A CAN AND
> THEN THERE WAS LADY OFF TO THE RIGHT OF US THAT WAS
> ALIVE BUT SHE WAS SCREAMING THAT SHE COULDNT BREATHE
> SO HIT HER WITH THE CAN AND COOLED HER DOWN......
> 
> 
> So, how does a man burn to a crisp except his jacket???



Oh look!  TakeAShit is pretending he knows something not said in his "proof"!!!  Where does it say his jacket wasn't burned?  It just says it was all he had on.  More evidence of how dishonest truthtards are.


----------



## Patriot911

TakeAStepBack said:


> This message is hidden because Patriot911 is on your ignore list.
> 
> Seriously. I am not reading your posts. I'm not willing to entertain your level of douchenozzlery. So save yourself the time and dont bother commenting on my posts.
> 
> Go play outside or something....



Not writing for an ignorant fuck like you.  I am writing to show everyone else just what an ignorant fuck you are.    Pathetic you're not intelligent enough to see that and far to childish to actually discuss the topic instead of hiding behind the excuse of an ignore button.


----------



## Patriot911

TakeAStepBack said:


> There are dozens more, but presumably you get the idea....



That you are an ignorant liar who is preparing us for the Judy Woods energy beam excuse?    Yeah, we got the idea.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

For a little better understanding, here is a map. The parking lot is on the opposite side of West from the Verizon building.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

EMT Ronald Coyne
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110395.PDF
AT THAT POINT I JUST HEARD THUNDEROUS
SOUND AND LOOKED UP AND SAW THE BUILDING START TO
TOPPLE START TO SWAY AND IT WAS SWAYING OUR WAY AND
WE JUST YELLED RUN AND TRIED TO RUN AS FAST AS WE
COULD AND I SAW AN SUV PARKED AND I FIGURED THAT THAT
WOULD TAKE SOME YOU KNOW SOME OF THE HIT BECAUSE I
KNEW COULDNT OUT RUN THE BUILDING AND BY THE TIME
IT TOOK ME TO BREAK THE BACK WINDOW OF THE SUV MY
SAFETY COAT WAS ALREADY ON FIRE MY SOCKS WERE ON
FIRE WAS ALREADY COVERED WITH SOOT AND ALL SORTS OF
PARTICLES THAT WERE COMING OUT OF THE BUILDING
I CLIMBED INTO THE TRUCK AND THATS WHEN PIECES OF THE BUILDING 
LIFTED THE TRUCK AND CAME THROUGH THE FRONT
WINDOW AND FLIPPED THE TRUCK OVER AND WAS TRAPPED IN
THERE FOR APPROXIMATELY 25 MINUTES TO HALF HOUR


----------



## TakeAStepBack

LiveLeak.com - 1400 VEHICLES melted NEAR WTC

The link takes you to an interview with a volunteer that talks about the crumpled cars and lack of fires associated with those crumpled cars. I'd embed it if i could.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Firefighter Armando Reno
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110448.PDF

Also, I
drove a high-pressure rig and I thought maybe, you
know, it looks like it might be needed because the 80th
floor the plane hit, and the second plane didn't hit at
this time yet, the south tower.
I was working by the south bridge. There
were numerous car fires there. I was located by the
south bridge and the chauffeur from 1 Engine was with
me. There were two lengths of a 2-1/2 inch line
stretched off the hydrant there on the south side of
Liberty Street. We were putting out the car fires, or
attempting to, and there was no -- the water had no
effect on the car fires at the time. I started
thinking about getting the foam off the rig, and I also
noticed there were numerous bodies by Cedar Street, and
I was thinking of getting the EMS equipment off the
rig, putting gloves on and starting to get the bodies,
putting them in bags.


----------



## Patriot911

TakeAStepBack said:


> Firefighter Armando Reno
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110448.PDF
> 
> Also, I
> drove a high-pressure rig and I thought maybe, you
> know, it looks like it might be needed because the 80th
> floor the plane hit, and the second plane didn't hit at
> this time yet, the south tower.
> I was working by the south bridge. There
> were numerous car fires there. I was located by the
> south bridge and the chauffeur from 1 Engine was with
> me. There were two lengths of a 2-1/2 inch line
> stretched off the hydrant there on the south side of
> Liberty Street. We were putting out the car fires, or
> attempting to, and there was no -- the water had no
> effect on the car fires at the time. I started
> thinking about getting the foam off the rig, and I also
> noticed there were numerous bodies by Cedar Street, and
> I was thinking of getting the EMS equipment off the
> rig, putting gloves on and starting to get the bodies,
> putting them in bags.



So TakeAShit is surprised that water doesn't work well on gas?    Why do you think they were going to go for foam?  Gas floats on water which means the fire just comes back as they move the hose.  It is why they designed foam which will smother the fire.

  I love it when truthtards show just how stupid they really are.  And we're suppose to believe TakeAShit is some kind of engineer?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack said:


> Firefighter Armando Reno
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110448.PDF
> 
> Also, I
> drove a high-pressure rig and I thought maybe, you
> know, it looks like it might be needed because the 80th
> floor the plane hit, and the second plane didn't hit at
> this time yet, the south tower.
> I was working by the south bridge. There
> were numerous car fires there. I was located by the
> south bridge and the chauffeur from 1 Engine was with
> me. There were two lengths of a 2-1/2 inch line
> stretched off the hydrant there on the south side of
> Liberty Street. We were putting out the car fires, or
> attempting to, and there was no -- the water had no
> effect on the car fires at the time. I started
> thinking about getting the foam off the rig, and I also
> noticed there were numerous bodies by Cedar Street, and
> I was thinking of getting the EMS equipment off the
> rig, putting gloves on and starting to get the bodies,
> putting them in bags.

















This, along with the above, is 2 1/2 line. Hooked to pressure, that's a lot of water power. Enough to stop a car fire.


And this folks, is why Patriot is on ignore. His inability to comprehend basic things, along with being a complete fucking douchebag that in real life, I would stuff his own head up his ass for him, puts his creedence at exactly zero. 

No where did the firefighter, or I, indicate the fire was the result of gasoline. The foam is a retardant used to keep the fire from spreading.....

Seriously, I must log in before viewing the page going forward so I don't have to be subjected to this morons fucking idiocy.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

And there you are. 1,400 cars, some of which underwent by witness, spontaneous combustion, from FDR by South Street Seaport (across the island's lower tip), to the parking lot almost 2 full city blocks away (if not more) were destroyed.

Thermite/thermate, of the variety we are aware of, can not make that happen. Neither can kerosene.


----------



## Patriot911

But a paranoid fuckwad who thinks he knows something but clearly doesn't thinks some magical ray did it.    And thanks for proving you do too continue to read what I write, but are too big a chickenshit to respond to it. 

I didn't say water WOULDN'T put out the fires.  I said it was harder.  That is why they use foam.  

Read and weep, shithead!



> Fire fighting foam is a foam used for fire suppression. Its role is to cool the fire and to coat the fuel, preventing its contact with oxygen, resulting in suppression of the combustion.



So much for the bullshit about foam being a retardant to prevent spreading and not something that puts out fires.    I love it when truthtards step all over their dicks trying to pretend they are somehow intelligent.

So if the fires were not gas fires, why didn't the fire fighter mention it?  If the fires were not based on gas, why would they think about foam?  Foam isn't as effective on fires that are based on regular combustables like car seats and the like.  

Also, they were fighting multiple fires from multiple cars.  Yes, we realize you're too big a fucking idiot to tell the difference between one and many, which is why you post pictures of single cars being put out with water and pretend that this answers all questions.


----------



## Triton

I'm keeping Patriot911 off my ignore list just so I can tally how many times he types the word "truthtard"


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Hey, whatever floats your boat, Triton. I am far too busy to engage that level of stupid. I'm all for intelligent discourse though....


----------



## SFC Ollie

TakeAStepBack said:


> Hey, whatever floats your boat, Triton. I am far too busy to engage that level of stupid. I'm all for intelligent discourse though....



LOL that's funny, tell us another one.....


----------



## Patriot911

Triton said:


> I'm keeping Patriot911 off my ignore list just so I can tally how many times he types the word "truthtard"



Awww.... is the poor widdle truthtard upset by the truth again?  Get use to it junior.  With all the bullshit lies you've been spewing, it is no wonder you have an inferiority complex.    Care to go to the other thread and try to salvage whatever is left of your dignity and credibility?


----------



## SFC Ollie

Patriot911 said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm keeping Patriot911 off my ignore list just so I can tally how many times he types the word "truthtard"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Awww.... is the poor widdle truthtard upset by the truth again?  Get use to it junior.  With all the bullshit lies you've been spewing, it is no wonder you have an inferiority complex.    Care to go to the other thread and try to salvage whatever is left of your dignity and credibility?
Click to expand...


Trinton has no credibility to salvage.


----------



## Patriot911

SFC Ollie said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm keeping Patriot911 off my ignore list just so I can tally how many times he types the word "truthtard"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Awww.... is the poor widdle truthtard upset by the truth again?  Get use to it junior.  With all the bullshit lies you've been spewing, it is no wonder you have an inferiority complex.    Care to go to the other thread and try to salvage whatever is left of your dignity and credibility?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trinton has no credibility to salvage.
Click to expand...


Even truthtards with no credibility can dream!    The fact he is running from my debunkings of his shit is proof he's nothing but a pretty pathetic pretender who is running on nothing but soundbites from the conspiratard sites.


----------



## Triton

conspiratard, did you come up with that one yourself too?


----------



## Patriot911

Triton said:


> conspiratard, did you come up with that one yourself too?



What can I say.  Ignorant fucks like you who like to lie to push an agenda inspire me.  Why is it you only focus on the words I use instead of addressing the lies of yours I exposed?  

Care to explain how PSA 1771 looks almost exactly like Flight 93 including the 8 mile debris field despite your claim it couldn't happen?

Care to explain how you claim the planes were off course for an hour and a half when none of them were off course more than 45 minutes?  

No?  I didn't think so.  Now run along, junior.  You've been exposed as a piece of shit liar of the worst kind.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

So, Jones, when you have time, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the anomalies involving spontaneous combustion as the eye witness testimonies presented above indicate.

Next time I have time to kill, I'd like to talk about hurricane Erin and her lack of being reported in NYC news/weather on 9/11 even though she was of concern due to proximity and route.


----------



## Triton

Patriot911 said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> conspiratard, did you come up with that one yourself too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What can I say.  Ignorant fucks like you who like to lie to push an agenda inspire me.  Why is it you only focus on the words I use instead of addressing the lies of yours I exposed?
> 
> Care to explain how PSA 1771 looks almost exactly like Flight 93 including the 8 mile debris field despite your claim it couldn't happen?
> 
> Care to explain how you claim the planes were off course for an hour and a half when none of them were off course more than 45 minutes?
> 
> No?  I didn't think so.  Now run along, junior.  You've been exposed as a piece of shit liar of the worst kind.
Click to expand...



Flight 77 impacted 83 minutes after veering off course hitting the most secure airspace in the world.

Where was NORAD?

Can you provide more than one single crash that looks comparitively to 93? Most others show a fuselage and some semblance of a crashed plane. Your example does not disprove that the plane was shot down with its unusually scattered debris field as supporting evidence

And you do nothing to address the controlled demolition of the towers.

Why? Because you are full of what I like to call BULLSHIT


----------



## Patriot911

Triton said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> conspiratard, did you come up with that one yourself too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What can I say.  Ignorant fucks like you who like to lie to push an agenda inspire me.  Why is it you only focus on the words I use instead of addressing the lies of yours I exposed?
> 
> Care to explain how PSA 1771 looks almost exactly like Flight 93 including the 8 mile debris field despite your claim it couldn't happen?
> 
> Care to explain how you claim the planes were off course for an hour and a half when none of them were off course more than 45 minutes?
> 
> No?  I didn't think so.  Now run along, junior.  You've been exposed as a piece of shit liar of the worst kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Flight 77 impacted 83 minutes after veering off course hitting the most secure airspace in the world.
Click to expand...


As has already been shown to you, YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT!  Flight 77 first deviated from it's course at 8:54.  It crashed into the Pentagon at 9:57.  Now, I know you're a fucking idiot and all, but seriously.... how do you get 83 minutes out of that?  When are you going to grow a pair of balls and man up that you don't know this shit and you're lying your truthtard ass off?



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> Where was NORAD?


Seriously?  You don't know?  I thought you were some kind of expert!  First off, Flight 77 was thought to have CRASHED.  Nobody even knew it had been hijacked because Indianapolis ATC was unaware of what was going on in NYC.  All they saw was Flight 77 drop off their radar when the transponders were turned off.  They even reported Flight 77 as a possible crash and started a search for the crash.  

In the meantime, NORAD received a report from the FAA that Flight 11 was approaching Washington from the North.  Fighters were launched to intercept.  When Dulles discovered Flight 77 inbound to Washington airspace, the fighters were revectored to intercept.  There wasn't enough time.  

Those are the facts.  No amount of pretending by a piece of shit like you is going to change that.



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> Can you provide more than one single crash that looks comparitively to 93?


Why?  You didn't like the one I showed you that was almost identical?    So if I showed you TWO, would you then demand THREE?    You piece of shits are all alike!  You get your ass handed to you and you pretend like nothing happened.  Think anyone else is fooled?  I don't think so.  So how do you explain PSA 1771 looking almost identical to Flight 93?  Even your bullshit about no other crash having an 8 mile debris field was proven as a lie.



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> Most others show a fuselage and some semblance of a crashed plane.


Do you even read what you write?  MOST others.  So why is it so hard for you to believe this one didn't have large pieces?



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> Your example does not disprove that the plane was shot down with its unusually scattered debris field as supporting evidence


Your "proof" that Flight 93 was shot down was that there was no other example.  I gave you one almost EXACTLY like Flight 93 INCLUDING the "unusually scattered debris field".  You did watch the video where the Sheriff said there was debris eight miles away, right?  



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> And you do nothing to address the controlled demolition of the towers.


There is absolutely no evidence of controlled demolition.  No explosives.  No detonators.  No wiring.  No cut beams.  No seismic evidence of the charges going off.  

Not to mention several studies of the collapse that proved the collapse was not only possible, but would have happened with fire alone in those circumstances.  So again, who are we to believe?  The experts or proven liars like you?  



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> Why? Because you are full of what I like to call BULLSHIT


You call the truth bullshit?  No wonder you're so fucked up!


----------



## Triton

I will concede my error in the Flight 77 time delay as 63 minutes (don't worry this error does nothing to support your "arguments")


Regardless, it is still an hour off course with no interception. It does not change the fact that NORAD did not respond to it at all and it hit the most secure and heavily defended airspace on earth leaving only a 15 ft hole. 

Yet, nobody can see the footage from all the surveillance cameras confiscated by the FBI surrounding the most heavily defended land area in the U.S. But you won't explain the reason for that, you will type some obcene thing like "Fuckwad"  to clutter the rest of your ranting.

Wasn't enough time? 

NORAD says the FAA notified them at 9:24, 21 minutes after Flight 175 collided with the South Tower.

It took the FAA 34 minutes to report to NORAD and so it took more than a half hour to scramble jets near Washington D.C. even after Flights 175 and 11 had already struck the Towers? Yea, there wasn't enough time you're right.

Patriot911

Wheres the Plane?






I haven't watched your video yet so I will address PSA 1771 compared to Flight 93 on the other thread. In the meantime feel free to examine for yourself the numerous photographs of other commercial airliners crashing on land, perhaps you will notice a difference.

Controlled Demolition not possible? 

Yes, in the imaginary world of the repulsive Patriot911 maybe, but symmetrical near free fall collapses of steel framed buildings not hit by any planes into their own footprint that leave behind molten steel with residue from Thermite reactions being found in dust samples suggest Controlled Demolition.

But those aren't real either right? Yep, just made up claims by truth/conspiratards.

I bet you think that sporadic fires melted the steel and caused a total collapse, don't you.




Don't worry, Patriot911, you're still my bitch.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Triton said:


> I will concede my error in the Flight 77 time delay as 63 minutes (don't worry this error does nothing to support your "arguments")
> 
> 
> Regardless, it is still an hour off course with no interception. It does not change the fact that NORAD did not respond to it at all and it hit the most secure and heavily defended airspace on earth leaving only a 15 ft hole.
> 
> Yet, nobody can see the footage from all the surveillance cameras confiscated by the FBI surrounding the most heavily defended land area in the U.S. But you won't explain the reason for that, you will type some obcene thing like "Fuckwad"  to clutter the rest of your ranting.
> 
> Wasn't enough time?
> 
> NORAD says the FAA notified them at 9:24, 21 minutes after Flight 175 collided with the South Tower.
> 
> It took the FAA 34 minutes to report to NORAD and so it took more than a half hour to scramble jets near Washington D.C. even after Flights 175 and 11 had already struck the Towers? Yea, there wasn't enough time you're right.
> 
> Patriot911
> 
> Wheres the Plane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't watched your video yet so I will address PSA 1771 compared to Flight 93 on the other thread. In the meantime feel free to examine for yourself the numerous photographs of other commercial airliners crashing on land, perhaps you will notice a difference.
> 
> Controlled Demolition not possible?
> 
> Yes, in the imaginary world of the repulsive Patriot911 maybe, but symmetrical near free fall collapses of steel framed buildings not hit by any planes into their own footprint that leave behind molten steel with residue from Thermite reactions being found in dust samples suggest Controlled Demolition.
> 
> But those aren't real either right? Yep, just made up claims by truth/conspiratards.
> 
> I bet you think that sporadic fires melted the steel and caused a total collapse, don't you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry, Patriot911, you're still my bitch.



I want to know more about " the most secure and heavily defended airspace on earth", you know the area the one that is almost a mile from the main runway of an international airport...

Please explain what makes you think that airspace is so heavily guarded....


----------



## Patriot911

Triton said:


> I will concede my error in the Flight 77 time delay as 63 minutes (don't worry this error does nothing to support your "arguments")


  You know what?  You're a piece of shit pretender.  You don't know the facts.  Not even close.  Everyone knows that flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon at 9:*3*7, not 9:57.  So they had 41 minutes to react IF NORAD had been notified right when Indianapolis ATC noticed Flight 77 go off their scopes.  They didn't even see Flight 77 deviate.  The hijackers turned AFTER they had turned off their transponder.  



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> Regardless, it is still an hour off course with no interception. It does not change the fact that NORAD did not respond to it at all and it hit the most secure and heavily defended airspace on earth leaving only a 15 ft hole.


More bullshit from you.  Most heavily defended airspace on Earth?!?    Are you fucking kidding me?  The Pentagon is less than a mile from the end of an international airport, and you're trying to convince everyone that it is the most secure and heavily defended airspace?  Hell, Frank Corder crashed a plane into the Whitehouse LAWN in 1994!   Keep up with the bullshit lies.  The truth is making a complete mockery of you. 



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> Yet, nobody can see the footage from all the surveillance cameras confiscated by the FBI surrounding the most heavily defended land area in the U.S. But you won't explain the reason for that, you will type some obcene thing like "Fuckwad"  to clutter the rest of your ranting.


Wrong yet again, fuckwad.  The FBI released all relevant footage.  Just as the FBI claimed, the footage didn't show anything other than the explosion.  

Wasn't enough time? 



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> NORAD says the FAA notified them at 9:24, 21 minutes after Flight 175 collided with the South Tower.
> 
> It took the FAA 34 minutes to report to NORAD and so it took more than a half hour to scramble jets near Washington D.C. even after Flights 175 and 11 had already struck the Towers? Yea, there wasn't enough time you're right.



So NORAD had from 9:24 to 9:37.  13 minutes.  And you expect fighter jets to intercept and shoot it down over a major metropolitan area?    Keep going, shithead!  This is GREAT!



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> Patriot911
> 
> Wheres the Plane?


All over the place according to everyone who was there.  Or was the coroner of Shanksville in on the conspiracy?  And all the volunteers who helped collect debris and body parts from the surrounding area?  And the people who dug the plane parts out of the ground?  Why don't you call United?  The parts were returned to United.  Surely they would know their own plane, right?  Or is that too much trouble for you to go through as you ask people to believe something that would demand the LIVES of other people?  You little fucks don't even know what it is you're demanding people to do.



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> I haven't watched your video yet so I will address PSA 1771 compared to Flight 93 on the other thread. In the meantime feel free to examine for yourself the numerous photographs of other commercial airliners crashing on land, perhaps you will notice a difference.


So, just like buildings, this stupid fuck wants everyone to believe every plane crash should look the same regardless of type of plane, circumstances surrounding the crash, or what it crashed into.    Well, at least these shits are consistant!



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> Controlled Demolition not possible?


Where did I state it was not possible?  Is that the only way you can make a point?  Put words in people's mouths?  Sure it is possible.  But don't you agree there would be evidence?  Not to mention the logistics of wiring a building for demolition while it is occupied without ANYONE noticing what is going on.



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> Yes, in the imaginary world of the repulsive Patriot911 maybe, but symmetrical near free fall collapses of steel framed buildings not hit by any planes into their own footprint that leave behind molten steel with residue from Thermite reactions being found in dust samples suggest Controlled Demolition.


There are so many lies in that sentence that it is amazing you can still consider yourself a viable human being.



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> But those aren't real either right? Yep, just made up claims by truth/conspiratards.


You got it!  Know what the residue from a thermite reaction is?  Aluminum oxide and iron.  WOW!  Like there isn't any aluminum oxide or iron anywhere.   

BTW, there was only one building that collapsed that wasn't hit by a plane.  More lies from you.

BTW, it didn't fall into it's own footprint.  It damaged other buildings.  If it fell within its own footprint, it wouldn't have hit anything else.  

BTW, WTC 7 didn't have a plane hit it, but it DID have a 110 story building collapse nearby which caused undeniable damage and fires.  Hmmm.  Which is worse?  A 110 story building or a plane?



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> I bet you think that sporadic fires melted the steel and caused a total collapse, don't you.


Well, the theory of "sporadic fires" is bullshit put forth by you.  According to the firefighters it wasn't a "sporadic fire".  Apparently you stupid fucks think a fire can burn for eight hours in one little place and not run out of fuel or spread.    You should join us here in the real world some time!



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> Don't worry, Patriot911, you're still my bitch.


  In your dreams, beotch!  You couldn't own a kindergartener with your lameassed lies.  In the meantime, have fun trying to run away from the truth yet again!


----------



## Triton

Patriot911 said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will concede my error in the Flight 77 time delay as 63 minutes (don't worry this error does nothing to support your "arguments")
> 
> 
> 
> You know what?  You're a piece of shit pretender.  You don't know the facts.  Not even close.  Everyone knows that flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon at 9:*3*7, not 9:57.  So they had 41 minutes to react IF NORAD had been notified right when Indianapolis ATC noticed Flight 77 go off their scopes.  They didn't even see Flight 77 deviate.  The hijackers turned AFTER they had turned off their transponder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless, it is still an hour off course with no interception. It does not change the fact that NORAD did not respond to it at all and it hit the most secure and heavily defended airspace on earth leaving only a 15 ft hole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit from you.  Most heavily defended airspace on Earth?!?    Are you fucking kidding me?  The Pentagon is less than a mile from the end of an international airport, and you're trying to convince everyone that it is the most secure and heavily defended airspace?  Hell, Frank Corder crashed a plane into the Whitehouse LAWN in 1994!   Keep up with the bullshit lies.  The truth is making a complete mockery of you.
> 
> 
> Wrong yet again, fuckwad.  The FBI released all relevant footage.  Just as the FBI claimed, the footage didn't show anything other than the explosion.
> 
> Wasn't enough time?
> 
> 
> 
> So NORAD had from 9:24 to 9:37.  13 minutes.  And you expect fighter jets to intercept and shoot it down over a major metropolitan area?    Keep going, shithead!  This is GREAT!
> 
> 
> All over the place according to everyone who was there.  Or was the coroner of Shanksville in on the conspiracy?  And all the volunteers who helped collect debris and body parts from the surrounding area?  And the people who dug the plane parts out of the ground?  Why don't you call United?  The parts were returned to United.  Surely they would know their own plane, right?  Or is that too much trouble for you to go through as you ask people to believe something that would demand the LIVES of other people?  You little fucks don't even know what it is you're demanding people to do.
> 
> 
> So, just like buildings, this stupid fuck wants everyone to believe every plane crash should look the same regardless of type of plane, circumstances surrounding the crash, or what it crashed into.    Well, at least these shits are consistant!
> 
> 
> Where did I state it was not possible?  Is that the only way you can make a point?  Put words in people's mouths?  Sure it is possible.  But don't you agree there would be evidence?  Not to mention the logistics of wiring a building for demolition while it is occupied without ANYONE noticing what is going on.
> 
> 
> There are so many lies in that sentence that it is amazing you can still consider yourself a viable human being.
> 
> 
> You got it!  Know what the residue from a thermite reaction is?  Aluminum oxide and iron.  WOW!  Like there isn't any aluminum oxide or iron anywhere.
> 
> BTW, there was only one building that collapsed that wasn't hit by a plane.  More lies from you.
> 
> BTW, it didn't fall into it's own footprint.  It damaged other buildings.  If it fell within its own footprint, it wouldn't have hit anything else.
> 
> BTW, WTC 7 didn't have a plane hit it, but it DID have a 110 story building collapse nearby which caused undeniable damage and fires.  Hmmm.  Which is worse?  A 110 story building or a plane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you think that sporadic fires melted the steel and caused a total collapse, don't you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the theory of "sporadic fires" is bullshit put forth by you.  According to the firefighters it wasn't a "sporadic fire".  Apparently you stupid fucks think a fire can burn for eight hours in one little place and not run out of fuel or spread.    You should join us here in the real world some time!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry, Patriot911, you're still my bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In your dreams, beotch!  You couldn't own a kindergartener with your lameassed lies.  In the meantime, have fun trying to run away from the truth yet again!
Click to expand...


I will concede to your statement on the time of impact  Patriot911, I was incorrect about the time differential on Flight 77. This comes from not having gone through the 9/11 material for quite sometime, thankfully this humorous exchange (hint, YOUR the humorous part) is leading me to recheck over the evidence.

So the Pentagon, the Capitol, and the White house are not the most heavily defended airspace, I guess they are simply facades of government because if they are that vulnerable that is very sad.

Still doesn't explain the 15 ft hole and the lack of footage confiscated by the FBI, only thing released is the video with a handful of frames which isn't very conclusive at all. Why are they hiding the other videos? Is it because the Pentagon lacks sufficient surveillance because its not heavily defended as Ollie suggests (at least he is not as obscene as you)

You're statements on Shanksville mean nothing;

_All over the place according to everyone who was there. Or was the coroner of Shanksville in on the conspiracy? And all the volunteers who helped collect debris and body parts from the surrounding area? And the people who dug the plane parts out of the ground? Why don't you call United? The parts were returned to United. Surely they would know their own plane, right? Or is that too much trouble for you to go through as you ask people to believe something that would demand the LIVES of other people? You little fucks don't even know what it is you're demanding people to do._


_So, just like buildings, this stupid fuck wants everyone to believe every plane crash should look the same regardless of type of plane, circumstances surrounding the crash, or what it crashed into. Well, at least these shits are consistant!_

So you can provide one similar crash as evidence, big deal.

Yet if I provide evidence to the contrary with other land based commercial airplane crashes, which a simple google image search will reveal, it doesn't count?

Call United? WTF "Has Flight 93 been destroyed and did the passengers died?"  "Yes Patriot911, it did and they did" 

The evidence suggests the plane was shot down. There's barely a plane at the crash site, just a hole, the debris was scattered everywhere which suggests it was shot while in the air. Is this not the truth?

Again, wheres the plane? Your little paragraph rant concluding with "you little fucks" amounts to nothing.




You are one silly little creature to say I am making blatant lies after I acknowledge my errors and when you say things like:


_BTW, it didn't fall into it's own footprint.  It damaged other buildings.  If it fell within its own footprint, it wouldn't have hit anything else.  _

That is a lie, it fell into its own foundation, these are large buildings and despite their symmetrical collapses they still are going to cause damage to the surrounding buildings. Yes, other buildings were damaged as a result of WTC 1,2,7's total collapse yet, despite suffering far greater structural damage did not have a total collapse, look at at WTC 3 with its huge gash cutting tdown the middle, didn't have a total collapse

_BTW, WTC 7 didn't have a plane hit it, but it DID have a 110 story building collapse nearby which caused undeniable damage and fires.  Hmmm.  Which is worse?  A 110 story building or a plane?_

It did have undeniable damage. 7-8 floors with sporadic, yes sporadic, fires and a gash on the south side, still utterly insufficient to cause a total near free fall symmetrical collapse, (that means no resistance)  etc.

Except

_BTW, there was only one building that collapsed that wasn't hit by a plane.  More lies from you._

Yes, the other WTC buildings suffered far greater structural damage yet didn't have a total collapse like WTC 7 did, which had very little structural damage. 

_You got it!  Know what the residue from a thermite reaction is?  Aluminum oxide and iron.  WOW!  Like there isn't any aluminum oxide or iron anywhere_

Then explain how there was molten steel. If a thermite, or nano-thermite reaction didn't melt the steel, what did, Jet fuel? You saying there was no molten steel doesn't cut it pinocchio  



You continue to claim WTC 7 was not brought down by controlled demolition.

Please, in your own words, as I have repeatedly explained in detail and to which there is legitimate observable video evidence (yes, that counts as evidence whether you say so or not) explain to us "Truth/Conspiratards" how building WTC 7 fell.


----------



## SFC Ollie

> Then explain how there was molten steel. If a thermite, or nano-thermite reaction didn't melt the steel, what did, Jet fuel? You saying there was no molten steel doesn't cut it pinocchio



Please provide proof of there being molten steel.....


----------



## Patriot911

Triton said:


> I will concede to your statement on the time of impact  Patriot911, I was incorrect about the time differential on Flight 77. This comes from not having gone through the 9/11 material for quite sometime, thankfully this humorous exchange (hint, YOUR the humorous part) is leading me to recheck over the evidence.


So you're shooting blanks and pretending they are real facts.  Thanks for the confession.



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> So the Pentagon, the Capitol, and the White house are not the most heavily defended airspace, I guess they are simply facades of government because if they are that vulnerable that is very sad.


Ah, the typical truthtard tactic of pretending if it isn't what they pretend then it is the exact opposite.    What a fucking loser!  Apparently truthtards are so stupid things are either black or they are white.  The airspace is either the most defended or it is completely vulnerable.   



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> Still doesn't explain the 15 ft hole and the lack of footage confiscated by the FBI, only thing released is the video with a handful of frames which isn't very conclusive at all.


And again you expose your extreme ignorance for everyone to see.  The FBI released the rest of the footage YEARS ago.    Try to keep up, loser.



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> Why are they hiding the other videos? Is it because the Pentagon lacks sufficient surveillance because its not heavily defended as Ollie suggests (at least he is not as obscene as you)


So why do you think it would have video cameras pointing up into the sky on a side of the Pentagon that isn't used by people?  You stupid shits seem to think there should have been video cameras every five feet pointed every direction.  Hate to break it to you, chuckles, but life and budgets often times get in the way of silly dreams like yours.



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> You're statements on Shanksville mean nothing;
> 
> _All over the place according to everyone who was there. Or was the coroner of Shanksville in on the conspiracy? And all the volunteers who helped collect debris and body parts from the surrounding area? And the people who dug the plane parts out of the ground? Why don't you call United? The parts were returned to United. Surely they would know their own plane, right? Or is that too much trouble for you to go through as you ask people to believe something that would demand the LIVES of other people? You little fucks don't even know what it is you're demanding people to do._


So you're too stupid to understand simple words?  You claim there were no plane parts.  So everyone who was actually there and EXPERIENCED the crime scene was lying and there wasn't anything there?  Get real, retard!



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> _So, just like buildings, this stupid fuck wants everyone to believe every plane crash should look the same regardless of type of plane, circumstances surrounding the crash, or what it crashed into. Well, at least these shits are consistant!_
> 
> So you can provide one similar crash as evidence, big deal.


Yes, it IS a big deal.  Your whole argument is based on the claim it never happened before so it was all fake.  Now you've been presented with the fact it CAN happen like that and now you're claiming it is no big deal?  Damn!  If someone just showed me I was wrong in the extreme I would at least re-examine the facts and see where the flaws are.  Then again, I am a far better person than a piece of shit like you who lies just to push an anti-American agenda.



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> Yet if I provide evidence to the contrary with other land based commercial airplane crashes, which a simple google image search will reveal, it doesn't count?


You got it!  Wow!  Unfortunately, I am sure you're far too stupid to understand the significance.  Plane crashes can happen all kinds of different ways.  You claim it was all faked because it NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE.  Yet it did.  So therefore it COULD have happened that way.  Every other example is moot.  BTW, you might want to check out the recent crash in Iran.  Another plane that went in at high speed.  Little left bit itty bitty pieces.



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> Call United? WTF "Has Flight 93 been destroyed and did the passengers died?"  "Yes Patriot911, it did and they did"


So you think the airline would cover for the government?  Why are you so afraid to stand up for what you supposedly believe in?  I've done it.  Why can't you?  I've contacted people personally to get through all the bullshit and find out the truth.  



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> The evidence suggests the plane was shot down.


WHAT evidence?  Making the claim and then running away doesn't cut it.  You have numerous witnesses that said the plane went down in one piece and no smoke.  You have a flight data recorder and a cockpit voice recorder that don't show any explosion or concern over the plane being shot down.

More importantly, WHY would the government shoot down the plane and then pretend they hadn't?  Why go through all the bullshit of covering up a crash scene?  Think the US public would be mad that the government had shot down a hijacked plane given everything that happened?  My God, man!  Use your brain for once!  Your shit makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.  For what reason would the government shoot down a plane and then have everything in place to fake a crash scene with the plane being whole?  



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> There's barely a plane at the crash site, just a hole, the debris was scattered everywhere which suggests it was shot while in the air. Is this not the truth?


No, that is just your retarded opinion.  Everyone who was actually THERE disagrees with your lying ass.



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> Again, wheres the plane? Your little paragraph rant concluding with "you little fucks" amounts to nothing.


Sure it does.  It amounts to the truth.  It is a shame you are far too ignorant or far too dishonest to acknowledge the truth.  The people who were there found the plane.  Can you find ANYONE who was there who says there was no plane?  No.  Why?



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> You are one silly little creature to say I am making blatant lies after I acknowledge my errors and when you say things like:
> 
> _BTW, it didn't fall into it's own footprint.  It damaged other buildings.  If it fell within its own footprint, it wouldn't have hit anything else.  _
> 
> That is a lie, it fell into its own foundation, these are large buildings and despite their symmetrical collapses they still are going to cause damage to the surrounding buildings.


Then they, by definition, did NOT fall into their own footprint.  A controlled demolition makes a building fall truly within its own footprint so it DOESN'T damage buildings around it.  That is the whole PURPOSE of a controlled demolition.  Somehow that simple fact has escaped you.



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> Yes, other buildings were damaged as a result of WTC 1,2,7's total collapse yet, despite suffering far greater structural damage did not have a total collapse, look at at WTC 3 with its huge gash cutting tdown the middle, didn't have a total collapse


To have a collapse, you need a huge amount of weight bearing down on a relatively small footprint.  It is simple physics.  When you have something spread out, it exerts a lot less pressure.  When you have something vertical with a small footprint it exerts a huge amount of pressure that can cause issues not found in a large footprint.  



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> _BTW, WTC 7 didn't have a plane hit it, but it DID have a 110 story building collapse nearby which caused undeniable damage and fires.  Hmmm.  Which is worse?  A 110 story building or a plane?_
> 
> It did have undeniable damage. 7-8 floors with sporadic, yes sporadic, fires and a gash on the south side, still utterly insufficient to cause a total near free fall symmetrical collapse, (that means no resistance)  etc.


Where do you get off saying 7-8 floors of sporadic damage?  According to the firefighters that were there along with all the video footage, you're talking out your ass once again.



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> Except
> 
> _BTW, there was only one building that collapsed that wasn't hit by a plane.  More lies from you._
> 
> Yes, the other WTC buildings suffered far greater structural damage yet didn't have a total collapse like WTC 7 did, which had very little structural damage.


Yup.  Once again we have a stupid fuck truthtard who thinks every building should react the same way regardless of construction, material and circumstances.  We all know you are a very simple person who can't understand anything more complex than a yes or no answer, but real life is far more complex than you imagine.  It is a shame life doesn't fit into your bullshit theories of how it SHOULD fit, but hey.... that's life.



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> _You got it!  Know what the residue from a thermite reaction is?  Aluminum oxide and iron.  WOW!  Like there isn't any aluminum oxide or iron anywhere_
> 
> Then explain how there was molten steel. If a thermite, or nano-thermite reaction didn't melt the steel, what did, Jet fuel? You saying there was no molten steel doesn't cut it pinocchio


You have yet to prove there was molten steel.  You forget.  You're the proven liar.  You have to prove there was molten steel.  Did you test it?  Did the people there test it?  Were they metalurgists able to determine the mineral content of a molten substance?  No?  Then you haven't proven dick.  



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> You continue to claim WTC 7 was not brought down by controlled demolition.
> 
> Please, in your own words, as I have repeatedly explained in detail and to which there is legitimate observable video evidence (yes, that counts as evidence whether you say so or not) explain to us "Truth/Conspiratards" how building WTC 7 fell.


Read the NIST report, shithead!  As for the video evidence, it is your retarded OPINION of what the video evidence shows that is not evidence.  The video evidence is relevant.  Unfortunately for your lying ass, the video evidence shows an internal collapse before an external collapse and shows no explosives being used as clearly demonstrated by the audio tracks.  

Once again, you lose.  Yes.  That's right.  You're still my bitch!


----------



## Patriot911

SFC Ollie said:


> Then explain how there was molten steel. If a thermite, or nano-thermite reaction didn't melt the steel, what did, Jet fuel? You saying there was no molten steel doesn't cut it pinocchio
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide proof of there being molten steel.....
Click to expand...


He can't.  He knows it.  I know it.  You know it.  Everyone else knows it.  He will continue to pretend though.  After all.... ignorance is bliss and truthtards are very VERY blissful!


----------



## Triton

I want your explanation in your own words, Patriot911. I haven't said "Read professor Jone's studies" I've articulated my explanation coherently, you divert the argument with your vile insults.

Everything you quoted is out of context, you did not quote my explanations, and again you just insult me without producing anything of substance. Way to capitalize on my time errors too. We're going to stick with WTC7's collapse because it is painfully obvious you have no argument except, "Read the NIST report"

If I can offer my explanation for WTC 7's collapse in my own words, which the evidence supports, than you should be able to do the same if its so obvious and simple, Patriot911.



In the meantime

Here are some photos of the Molten Steel that you claim didn't exist. But you will probably make something up about the pictures that isn't true anyway.





































If you'd like, have a look at some of this:

Workers Reported Molten Metal in Ground Zero Rubble
Molten Steel Found at Ground Zero Weeks After 9/11
KMPH Fresno
Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe 


And per the FEMA report

"Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation _with subsequent intragranular melting_, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A _liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron_, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), _which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel_.





How about a firefighters first hand account? "Molten Steel" "Flowing...Like Lava"

Molten Metal Flows at Ground Zero





There is no way you can argue with a straight face that there was no molten steel. The above video says it all despite everything else. Or were the firefighters making it up?


----------



## Triton

triton said:


> i don't even engage in the debate of wtc 7 collapse anymore.
> 
> Presenting the obvious truth to some people that the building was brought down by controlled demolition when they believe otherwise is akin to convincing someone the sky is blue when they believe otherwise.
> 
> No amount of evidence nor reason can be used with them





dammit


----------



## Patriot911

Triton said:


> I want your explanation in your own words, Patriot911. I haven't said "Read professor Jone's studies" I've articulated my explanation coherently, you divert the argument with your vile insults.


Yet you constantly misquote Professor Jones' study.  Why haven't you read it?  You pretend you know what it states, yet you have it completely wrong.  



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> Everything you quoted is out of context, you did not quote my explanations, and again you just insult me without producing anything of substance. Way to capitalize on my time errors too. We're going to stick with WTC7's collapse because it is painfully obvious you have no argument except, "Read the NIST report"


Wrong yet again you piece of shit!  I can't help it you are incapable of refuting what I write so have to run to your "safe haven" of WTC 7.  That is your own shortcomings, not mine.  Quit whining about it like the little bitch you are.



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> If I can offer my explanation for WTC 7's collapse in my own words, which the evidence supports, than you should be able to do the same if its so obvious and simple, Patriot911.


It is neither obvious, nor simple.  Which, of course, is why you're nothing but an ignorant fucktard and I am an educated individual.  You see a collapse and your little peabrain goes "It HAS to be a controlled demolition!  There is no other explanation!"  Have you read the NIST report?  Obviously not.  Are you capable of understanding it?  Highly doubtful.  

The WTC 7 had a unique construction due to it being built over the Con Ed Substation.  That put a majority of the weight of the structure on a relatively small number of main supports.  One of these supports failed which caused a vertical progression up the building.  This is evidenced by the collapse of the Penthouse before the collapse of the rest of the building.  The collapse started to progress horizontally through the building until there wasn't enough support left to keep the building up, which caused the global collapse of the building.  There it is in a nutshell.  Now what are you going to do about it?



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> In the meantime
> 
> Here are some photos of the Molten Steel that you claim didn't exist. But you will probably make something up about the pictures that isn't true anyway.


Really?  A beam I've already shown you was cut by a plasma cutter and clearly was cut by neither high explosives nor thermite is your evidence?  You couldn't refute it then (you ran like the little bitch you are, remember?) and you can't refute it now.



			
				Triton said:
			
		

>


Really?  Construction workers standing around what you claim is molten steel just hanging there in mid air?   Come on, ya fucking retard!  Use your brain for once in your life!



			
				Triton said:
			
		

>


Ah yes.  The picture of the rescue workers huddled around people working below.    You fucktards pretend there was molten steel down below and people were just "looking down on it".    The problem with that is those people would be fried if they were truly looking down on molten steel.  Do you even think about the plausibility of these pictures  before posting them?  It sure doesn't seem like it!



			
				Triton said:
			
		

>



Wow!  Supposed molten steel that holds its shape!  A MIRACLE!!!!  Better yet, care to explain how a claw can hold molten steel that would melt the claw and blow the hydraulics?  



			
				Triton said:
			
		

>


And you can tell this is molten metal, much less molten steel, HOW?  



			
				Triton said:
			
		

>


Ah yes.  The molten metal coming from the south tower.   So tell us again how you know this is molten steel instead of say.... molten aluminum from all the airplane parts that were in a fire hot enough to melt aluminum.



			
				Triton said:
			
		

>


Same picture you showed before.  Try to answer those questions.  



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> If you'd like, have a look at some of this:
> 
> Workers Reported Molten Metal in Ground Zero Rubble


Molten metal isn't molten steel, is it.



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> Molten Steel Found at Ground Zero Weeks After 9/11


Same video as above.  What... you're just cutting and pasting because you have nothing else?  



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> KMPH Fresno


Richard Gage is not a "top architect".  He is a fucktard who is making a living off of gullible people like you because he couldn't cut it as a real architect.  Want me to post the writings of Leslie Robertson who was the lead structural engineer of the twin towers and how he knows it was due to fire? You DO know the difference between an architect and a structural engineer, right?  And you DO understand the difference between some fucking liar and the guy who actually designed the buildings, right?



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple


Look at the first fucking sentence.  They claim the presence of thermitics proves explosives.  You stupid fucks don't even understand the difference!!!  Explosives work through a high pressure wave generated by the speed with which the explosive burns.  Thermitics work through heat.  They are mutually exclusive.  The presence of a thermitic proves NOTHING, ESPECIALLY not the presence of explosives.



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe


Active thermitic material.  It's what I've been trying to explain to your ignorant ass all along!  Thermitic material is any material that gives off heat!  They couldn't actually identify the thermitic material, nor could they prove it was responsible for anything.  It "reacted" at a temperature far too low for thermite or any other thermite derivative, and didn't produce nearly enough energy to be a thermite reaction.  In other words, through a lot of processing of the dust, they got some of it to ignite.  Big fucking whoop de doo.  



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> And per the FEMA report
> 
> "Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation _with subsequent intragranular melting_, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A _liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron_, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), _which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel_.


And?  So now you're claiming the buildings were brought down through an acid attack?    FEMA saw some unusual corrosion on a very small sample of the steel.  They couldn't explain it, but it wasn't the steel that failed.  If it was the steel that failed you might have a point.  But it wasn't and you don't.



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> How about a firefighters first hand account? "Molten Steel" "Flowing...Like Lava"
> 
> Molten Metal Flows at Ground Zero


So this firefighter is a metalurgist able to tell it is steel just by looking at it?  WOW!  

BTW, this is the THIRD time in one post you've posted the same video of the same firefighter.  You reek of desperation and ignorance.



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> There is no way you can argue with a straight face that there was no molten steel. The above video says it all despite everything else. Or were the firefighters making it up?


Sure I can.  I am not denying molten metal.  Many metals have a lower melting point than a standard office fire.  What I am denying is that you or anyone else knows for a fact it was steel.

Here is something else for you to chew on.  There is no substance known to man that can heat steel to the melting point and keep it there for weeks.  PERIOD.  Therefore there HAS to be something wrong with your bullshit.  Either it wasn't molten steel but some other red hot metal kept hot by the known subterranian fires that burned, or it was molten steel and you've broken all the laws of thermodynamics.  Take your pick.


----------



## Triton

Please explain in your own words how WTC 7 collapsed


----------



## Triton

You can't, because you are typing out of your ass


----------



## Triton

Still waiting, your own words, WTC 7 lets go Patriot911.

Put it out there for all to see


----------



## Triton

C'mon Patriot911, 


*EXPLAIN IN YOUR OWN WORDS HOW WTC7 COLLAPSED*


----------



## candycorn

Triton said:


> In the meantime
> 
> Here are some photos of the Molten Steel that you claim didn't exist. But you will probably make something up about the pictures that isn't true anyway.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YXzjAKJQOg]YouTube - 9/11 Debunked: WTC - No Pools of Molten Steel[/ame]

Gee, there goes your proof...at the 2:06 mark.  It was a flashlight you lying asshole!


I know, the video you got the picture from is now faked...right.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Triton said:


>



The two photos above are of much interest.
The first one, when the entire photo is visible, shows a hydraulic bucket grappler holding what appears to be a hunk of almost liquid metal. Who cares? Well, If a grappler had been digging around in a hot rubble pile, the cylinder would have been heated to the point of seizing up.

Hydraulic Equipment Reliability: Beyond Contamination Control

....Hydraulic fluid temperatures above 82°C (180ºF) damage most seal compounds and accelerate oil degradation. A single overtemperature event of sufficient magnitude can permanently damage all the seals in an entire hydraulic system, resulting in numerous leaks. The by-products of thermal degradation of the oil (soft particles) can cause reliability problems such as valve-spool stiction and filter clogging.....

I believe the photo to be misleading. The photo shows construction equipment removing debris that appears to be red hot. An optical camera photo shows us color, while a thermal imaging device would show us temperature. 

The second photo offers us another interesting anomaly involving heat/flame/temperature.

Here we have a piece of aluminum cladding that is red/white glowing hot. Again by optical image, not thermal. 






Going roughly off this chart, the flames would indicate a temperature around 1050 C and 1200 C... ~
Aluminum however, melts at 660 C. Also, why hasn't all that surrounding paper ignited?


----------



## Triton

Please explain, in your own words, how WTC 7 collapsed


----------



## candycorn

candycorn said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the meantime
> 
> Here are some photos of the Molten Steel that you claim didn't exist. But you will probably make something up about the pictures that isn't true anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YXzjAKJQOg]YouTube - 9/11 Debunked: WTC - No Pools of Molten Steel[/ame]
> 
> Gee, there goes your proof...at the 2:06 mark.  It was a flashlight you lying asshole!
> 
> 
> I know, the video you got the picture from is now faked...right.
Click to expand...


Gee, whats the matter trite....running from your statements from earlier?  Typical twoofer; when called out and proven to be a fucking liar, you turn tail and run for the hills.

This is why your movement has gone nowhere for 9 years; losers like you who swear they have evidence and then are so easily debunked, I didn't finish my coffee before I had blown your ass out of the water this morning.

All too easy.

Check Please!


----------



## SFC Ollie

Triton said:


> Please explain, in your own words, how WTC 7 collapsed



A 110 story building fell on it. The resulting fires were not fought. It fell down. Shit happens. Nothing more to see here, move on......


----------



## Triton

Very well SFC Ollie.

We will agree to disagree and that is all. 



This messageboard is whats great about America, we can completely disagree with each other and throw insults at each other without retribution because the constitution is still the law of the land

Thank you for your service as well. As a person who has many family members who have served in the various branches including combat veterans it is the boy on the ground with the rifle who is the true protector and warrior of our society regardless of the misguidings of the government.

I also thank you for your candor throughout this heated debate. Maybe we will agree on another topics on the board and maybe not.



Even you Patriot911, and Candycorn.  You've insulted me and i've insulted you but I do respect your persistence in continuing to further your arguments and not backing down.

I'm sure we will be at each others proverbial throats soon enough.  Even though we completely disagree about the events of 9/11 as I have told Ollie, perhaps we will find agreement on other topics on the board.  I do hope so, as you both would be pretty powerful allies in another debate.


----------



## candycorn

Triton said:


> Very well SFC Ollie.
> 
> We will agree to disagree and that is all.
> 
> 
> 
> This messageboard is whats great about America, we can completely disagree with each other and throw insults at each other without retribution because the constitution is still the law of the land
> 
> Thank you for your service as well. As a person who has many family members who have served in the various branches including combat veterans it is the boy on the ground with the rifle who is the true protector and warrior of our society regardless of the misguidings of the government.
> 
> I also thank you for your candor throughout this heated debate. Maybe we will agree on another topics on the board and maybe not.
> 
> 
> 
> Even you Patriot911, and Candycorn.  You've insulted me and i've insulted you but I do respect your persistence in continuing to further your arguments and not backing down.
> 
> I'm sure we will be at each others proverbial throats soon enough.  Even though we completely disagree about the events of 9/11 as I have told Ollie, perhaps we will find agreement on other topics on the board.  I do hope so, as you both would be pretty powerful allies in another debate.



Just let us know when you start blaming the Jews...any thoughts on why you lied about the thermite?  Hmm?  Didn't think so beeotch!

I own you.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I hope they get the new investigation and get everything out in the open, and if anyone is found at fualt I hope the full extent of the law comes down on them



wont happen,not as long as we have this corrupt two partysystem of the republicrats and demopublicans sleeping in bed together and without a third party president which will never happen.the american sheepie just dont want to fight for it.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

9/11 inside job said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope they get the new investigation and get everything out in the open, and if anyone is found at fualt I hope the full extent of the law comes down on them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wont happen,not as long as we have this corrupt two partysystem of the republicrats and demopublicans sleeping in bed together and without a third party president which will never happen.the american sheepie just dont want to fight for it.
Click to expand...


This is the truth. 

My only concern relating to the anomalies surrounding 9/11 fall into the category of the sciences Im involved in. So when people start utilizing faux science based on blatant lies, it can effect the outcomes of said science.

Thankfully, no real structural code changes have ever happened. Most of the changes involve fire safety code and EAP.


----------



## candycorn

candycorn said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the meantime
> 
> Here are some photos of the Molten Steel that you claim didn't exist. But you will probably make something up about the pictures that isn't true anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YXzjAKJQOg]YouTube - 9/11 Debunked: WTC - No Pools of Molten Steel[/ame]
> 
> Gee, there goes your proof...at the 2:06 mark.  It was a flashlight you lying asshole!
> 
> 
> I know, the video you got the picture from is now faked...right.
Click to expand...


Why are you running from your "proof" bitch?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Im surprised no one was willing to address the eye witness accounts involving spontaneous combustion of vehicles and persons. Apparently it is easy to just ignore something that doesnt fall in line with ones preferred theory on what happened.

Oh well.

"Even if you are a minority of one the truth is still the truth."


----------



## candycorn




----------



## Triton

You own me?

In the land of make believe where the laws of physics don't exist perhaps.

JEWS??? LMAO

Please explain how WTC7, in your own words, collapsed.


----------



## Patriot911

Triton said:


> C'mon Patriot911,
> 
> 
> *EXPLAIN IN YOUR OWN WORDS HOW WTC7 COLLAPSED*



  You stupid prick!  I've answered numerous times.  Go back and actually read the response, or are you too embarassed by the ass kicking you received from your bullshit claims?


----------



## Triton

You haven't explained the collapse of WTC 7 in your own words.

You said "read the NIST report" 

Please, explain,in your own words, how WTC 7 collapsed.


----------



## Triton

I would like to highlight what I like to  call "Candycorn Logic"



Basically, what "Candycorn Logic" entails is:

Candycorn states something doesn't exist, therefore it doesn't exist.




For example:

Suppose Candycorn and I enter into a debate about the existence of the Moon.

I make the claim that "The moon exists"






See, that's the Moon.


Candycorn, using Candycorn Logic replies with  "No, the moon doesn't exist, go fuck yourself!"





Then, I respond to Candycorn by providing observable video, photographic, and physical evidence of the existence of the Moon to support my claim that the Moon does indeed exist.

Then Candycorn, continuing to use Candycorn Logic, states That's not the Moon, fuckwad!




After successfully stating that the Moon doesn't exist Candycorn is likely to reinforce his/her successful argument through the use of  Candycorn Logic with a resounding

I own you biatch!







This is how using Candycorn Logic Candycorn can simply state that molten steel did not exist at ground zero during 9/11 and therefore didn't exist despite the presentation of easily accessed video, photographic, and physical evidence supporting the claim that there was in fact  molten steel found at ground zero.


----------



## candycorn

candycorn said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the meantime
> 
> Here are some photos of the Molten Steel that you claim didn't exist. But you will probably make something up about the pictures that isn't true anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YXzjAKJQOg]YouTube - 9/11 Debunked: WTC - No Pools of Molten Steel[/ame]
> 
> Gee, there goes your proof...at the 2:06 mark.  It was a flashlight you lying asshole!
> 
> 
> I know, the video you got the picture from is now faked...right.
Click to expand...


Sorry Charlie:






I own you; too bad you're not worth a shit.


----------



## Triton

See, Candycorn states he/she own me, therefore it must be true.


"Candycorn Logic" at its best.


I'm still waiting for your explanation, in your own words, of how WTC 7 collapsed


----------



## candycorn

Triton said:


> See, Candycorn states he/she own me, therefore it must be true.
> 
> 
> "Candycorn Logic" at its best.
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for your explanation, in your own words, of how WTC 7 collapsed



Keep waiting fag; or you can try reading it; I posted it this afternoon; See you next Tuesday


----------



## Triton

Well done "Candycorn" That photo is actually a doctored version of this photo







Now I have made two errors in our "debate"

One regarding the time elapsed as the Planes veered off course. (Patriot911 also made the exact same error but did not admit to it) 

The other regarding that photo as I did not examine it in enough detail.


BUT IT STILL DOESN'T MEAN THERE WASN'T ANY MOLTEN STEEL or that WTC 1,2, and 7 wasn't brought down by cotrolled demolition, 


Are these fakes too?







This is Molten Steel at the WTC after 9/11











This is Molten Aluminum












Now back to more molten steel on 9/11


----------



## Triton

Yes, yours and Patriot911's mysteriously disappearing explanation for the collapse of WTC7, oh where oh where could it have gone


----------



## candycorn

Triton said:


> Well done "Candycorn" That photo is actually a doctored version of this photo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I have made two errors in our "debate"


No, you lied twice, were called on it and retreated like the little bitch that you are.

You're forgetting the "15 minute intercept" bullshit you tried to pass off earlier.  Massive fail on that part beeotch too.

Metal does not equal steel.  Try reading your own lies sometime; they will do wonders in terms of making you look less moronic in the future.


----------



## Triton

Steel is not an alloy metal, huh.





There's that "Candycorn Logic" again.

You say steel is not metal therefore it is not.




I have kept the focus on WTC 7, the aspect of 9/11 with the least amount of speculation regarding the overwhelming evidence to the contrary of the official government theory.


Other aspects of the events of 9/11 are open to more speculation including the NORAD stand down theory.


But I bet you don't believe there were exercises happening that were simulations similar to the actual events that transpired, (ie planes being hijacked and flown into the Towers, D.C.)

Or that over 2 trillion went missing from the pentagon as stated by Rumsfeld the day before 9/11. Where did all that money go? What was it used for?




Oh wait, not possible, Candycorn said so.


----------



## Triton

I have lied twice, okay, but I acknowledged my two errors.



You have made few, if any statements, that bear any resemblance to reality, whatsoever.


----------



## candycorn

Triton said:


> I have lied twice, okay, but I acknowledged my two errors.
> 
> 
> 
> You have made few, if any statements, that bear any resemblance to reality, whatsoever.



Gee, you'll have to live with being a liar and thinking that I am.  Sorry Charline






You say you've been investigating this for years and then you post the photo that was debunked 4 or 5 years ago?  Lie; pure lie.  

Care to try to explain the light poles Sword of Dumbfuck?  Or have you ever come up with an explanation for those.  Didn't think so.


----------



## Triton

candycorn said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well done "Candycorn" That photo is actually a doctored version of this photo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I have made two errors in our "debate"
> 
> 
> 
> No, you lied twice, were called on it and retreated like the little bitch that you are.
> 
> You're forgetting the "15 minute intercept" bullshit you tried to pass off earlier.  Massive fail on that part beeotch too.
> 
> Metal does not equal steel.  Try reading your own lies sometime; they will do wonders in terms of making you look less moronic in the future.
Click to expand...






Correct, I was called out on the elapsed time off course error I made regarding Flight 77 by Patriot911, who is guilty of the exact same error in the very same thread.

Yet I ,unlike him, admitted to the error.


What does flight 77 have to do with the collapse of WTC 7 again?


----------



## candycorn

Triton said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well done "Candycorn" That photo is actually a doctored version of this photo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I have made two errors in our "debate"
> 
> 
> 
> No, you lied twice, were called on it and retreated like the little bitch that you are.
> 
> You're forgetting the "15 minute intercept" bullshit you tried to pass off earlier.  Massive fail on that part beeotch too.
> 
> Metal does not equal steel.  Try reading your own lies sometime; they will do wonders in terms of making you look less moronic in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, I was called out on the elapsed time off course error I made regarding Flight 77 by Patriot911, who is guilty of the exact same error in the very same thread.
> 
> Yet I ,unlike him, admitted to the error.
> 
> 
> What does flight 77 have to do with the collapse of WTC 7 again?
Click to expand...


No you were called out on your lie about it taking 15 minutes to intercept any aircraft; when I pointed out the sleeping pilots who overshot MSP by an hour your response was "who cares" if I recall.

The light poles disprove any conspiracy.


----------



## Triton

Charline,

I guess that's better that biatch fuckwad fag or something of that sort you usually call me.

You are incorrect, I said I hadn't discussed or argued about 9/11 for years. (discussions like ours get tiring over time, people are too emotional when they discuss 9/11, I don't like getting screamed at, in person at least) So my failure is not verifying the validity of that photo.


I was not aware of that particular photo being debunked years ago, I wasn't paying attention, simple. I am now curious as to how that photo got out there, who released it, and why are some people claiming it as real.



Regardless, one doctored photo does not disprove controlled demolition when there is so much other evidence in support of it.


By Light poles, are you referring to the pentagon?


My avatar is a trident, not the Sword of Dumbfuck, show some common decency for your fellow human being.


----------



## candycorn

Triton said:


> Charline,
> 
> I guess that's better that biatch fuckwad fag or something of that sort you usually call me.
> 
> You are incorrect, I said I hadn't discussed or argued about 9/11 for years. (discussions like ours get tiring over time, people are too emotional when they discuss 9/11, I don't like getting screamed at, in person at least) So my failure is not verifying the validity of that photo.I was not aware of that particular photo being debunked years ago, I wasn't paying attention, simple. I am now curious as to how that photo got out there, who released it, and why are some people claiming it as real.


Yeah, I'm sure you're all over whoever you got the photo from screaming about it....who do you think you're fooling?



Triton said:


> Regardless, one doctored photo does not disprove controlled demolition when there is so much other evidence in support of it.


No evidence whatsoever exists to support CD;
No blasting caps, no unexploded ordinance that would have been thrown clear by the impact of the planes (engines went a few blocks--how far do you think the tiny charges would have gone?), no det cord, no staccato of explosions before a collapse, none of that at all.  Yet you say there is "so much" evidence; so much for your ability to reason; THAT doesn't exist either.



Triton said:


> By Light poles, are you referring to the pentagon?






Triton said:


> My avatar is a trident, not the Sword of Dumbfuck, show some common decency for your fellow human being.



Find me one who deserves to be treated decently and I will; you're an obnoxious little pissant who deserves much more than what I have dealt.


----------



## Triton

candycorn said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you lied twice, were called on it and retreated like the little bitch that you are.
> 
> You're forgetting the "15 minute intercept" bullshit you tried to pass off earlier.  Massive fail on that part beeotch too.
> 
> Metal does not equal steel.  Try reading your own lies sometime; they will do wonders in terms of making you look less moronic in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, I was called out on the elapsed time off course error I made regarding Flight 77 by Patriot911, who is guilty of the exact same error in the very same thread.
> 
> Yet I ,unlike him, admitted to the error.
> 
> 
> What does flight 77 have to do with the collapse of WTC 7 again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you were called out on your lie about it taking 15 minutes to intercept any aircraft; when I pointed out the sleeping pilots who overshot MSP by an hour your response was "who cares" if I recall.
> 
> The light poles disprove any conspiracy.
Click to expand...





The most powerful Air Force can't intercept planes in 15 minutes?


I had the elapsed time veered off course by Flight 77 wrong, Not whether planes can or cannot be intercepted in 15 minutes.

The FAA is also to blame for failing to notify Norad in a timely manner.







Now, wheres your WTC 7 explanation? Before you continue to try to avoid the question


----------



## Triton

_No evidence whatsoever exists to support CD;
No blasting caps, no unexploded ordinance that would have been thrown clear by the impact of the planes (engines went a few blocks--how far do you think the tiny charges would have gone?), no det cord, no staccato of explosions before a collapse, none of that at all. Yet you say there is "so much" evidence; so much for your ability to reason; THAT doesn't exist either._


Now now Candycorn, this does not refute the evidence supporting controlled demolition, and it is almost entirely incorrect.

There were explosions and squibs going off, in fact some squibs discharged a little too early, not too mention the CD incision cuts left behind in the wreckage.



YOU ARE WRONG


----------



## candycorn

Triton said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, I was called out on the elapsed time off course error I made regarding Flight 77 by Patriot911, who is guilty of the exact same error in the very same thread.
> 
> Yet I ,unlike him, admitted to the error.
> 
> 
> What does flight 77 have to do with the collapse of WTC 7 again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you were called out on your lie about it taking 15 minutes to intercept any aircraft; when I pointed out the sleeping pilots who overshot MSP by an hour your response was "who cares" if I recall.
> 
> The light poles disprove any conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most powerful Air Force can't intercept planes in 15 minutes?
> 
> 
> I had the elapsed time veered off course by Flight 77 wrong, Not whether planes can or cannot be intercepted in 15 minutes.
> 
> The FAA is also to blame for failing to notify Norad in a timely manner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, wheres your WTC 7 explanation? Before you continue to try to avoid the question
Click to expand...




Earlier you said NORAD stood down...another lie I suppose?


----------



## Triton

Norman Mineta's testimony supports that notion.


----------



## Triton

Still waiting for your WTC 7 explanation


----------



## candycorn

Triton said:


> Still waiting for your WTC 7 explanation



Down girl...I'll give you a kibble or bit after a while.


----------



## Triton

Sorry, that doesn't suffice.

All you have said is that WTC 7 was not brought down by controlled demolition.



You have yet to offer an alternative explanation for its collapse, in your own words.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Anyone find anything particularly interesting about this photo?


----------



## SFC Ollie

Triton said:


> Sorry, that doesn't suffice.
> 
> All you have said is that WTC 7 was not brought down by controlled demolition.
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to offer an alternative explanation for its collapse, in your own words.



What is your problem? You ask the same question over and over when everyone knows that Candy believes that the NIST has all the major points correct.

Just as I do, with the exception that I believe they under estimated the damage done to the building on the south side.

Still waiting on you to provide audio of the controlled demolition which you want to believe in so badly. And maybe you could also show us a video of all these flashes that your eyewitnesses reported that we haven't seen on any videos so far....

You see this isn't like any regular incident, it was all caught on hundreds of audio and video devices. We have the real evidence, we do not have to rely on what people in the heat of the moment say they saw or thought they heard. We can see it all ourselves.


----------



## candycorn

SFC Ollie said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, that doesn't suffice.
> 
> All you have said is that WTC 7 was not brought down by controlled demolition.
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to offer an alternative explanation for its collapse, in your own words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your problem? You ask the same question over and over when everyone knows that Candy believes that the NIST has all the major points correct.
> 
> Just as I do, with the exception that I believe they under estimated the damage done to the building on the south side.
> 
> Still waiting on you to provide audio of the controlled demolition which you want to believe in so badly. And maybe you could also show us a video of all these flashes that your eyewitnesses reported that we haven't seen on any videos so far....
> 
> You see this isn't like any regular incident, it was all caught on hundreds of audio and video devices. We have the real evidence, we do not have to rely on what people in the heat of the moment say they saw or thought they heard. We can see it all ourselves.
Click to expand...


Triton logic...

Here are what witnesses said about this past week's tornadoes:



> An Altoona native attending law school in Tuscaloosa, Ala., had a close call late Wednesday afternoon as a massive tornado flattened part of the city.
> 
> "I was shocked. It was almost as if we had just been bombed," Curt A. Polito said Thursday from Montgomery, Ala.



Obviously, since an ear witness said so; there must have been bombs in the tornado.  



> Polito, 28, who is scheduled to graduate May 7 from the University of Alabama School of Law, was attending a Chinese class about 4:15 p.m. when the emergency sirens started wailing.
> 
> About a half hour later, the tornado started its path of destruction through the city.
> 
> "It sounded like a really loud freight train, and then we heard very loud booms," he said.



Same witness; so there must have been not only bombs but trains too.


---

Idiots like him won't account for people relating uncommon sounds and experiences to less uncommon sounds and experiences; it is the most basic form of communication; known to man.  

I wonder if when he reads the paper and someone says "it's as hot as an oven", he thinks the temperature is 300 degrees.  His brand of cognitive dissonance to the all-too-clear truth of that day is particularly sad in this context.

As for what I think happened, I published it yesterday; he can read it or he can keep snipping at my heels like a little poodle.


----------



## SFC Ollie

candycorn said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, that doesn't suffice.
> 
> All you have said is that WTC 7 was not brought down by controlled demolition.
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to offer an alternative explanation for its collapse, in your own words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your problem? You ask the same question over and over when everyone knows that Candy believes that the NIST has all the major points correct.
> 
> Just as I do, with the exception that I believe they under estimated the damage done to the building on the south side.
> 
> Still waiting on you to provide audio of the controlled demolition which you want to believe in so badly. And maybe you could also show us a video of all these flashes that your eyewitnesses reported that we haven't seen on any videos so far....
> 
> You see this isn't like any regular incident, it was all caught on hundreds of audio and video devices. We have the real evidence, we do not have to rely on what people in the heat of the moment say they saw or thought they heard. We can see it all ourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Triton logic...
> 
> Here are what witnesses said about this past week's tornadoes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An Altoona native attending law school in Tuscaloosa, Ala., had a close call late Wednesday afternoon as a massive tornado flattened part of the city.
> 
> "I was shocked. It was almost as if we had just been bombed," Curt A. Polito said Thursday from Montgomery, Ala.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously, since an ear witness said so; there must have been bombs in the tornado.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polito, 28, who is scheduled to graduate May 7 from the University of Alabama School of Law, was attending a Chinese class about 4:15 p.m. when the emergency sirens started wailing.
> 
> About a half hour later, the tornado started its path of destruction through the city.
> 
> "It sounded like a really loud freight train, and then we heard very loud booms," he said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same witness; so there must have been not only bombs but trains too.
> 
> 
> ---
> 
> Idiots like him won't account for people relating uncommon sounds and experiences to less uncommon sounds and experiences; it is the most basic form of communication; known to man.
> 
> I wonder if when he reads the paper and someone says "it's as hot as an oven", he thinks the temperature is 300 degrees.  His brand of cognitive dissonance to the all-too-clear truth of that day is particularly sad in this context.
> 
> As for what I think happened, I published it yesterday; he can read it or he can keep snipping at my heels like a little poodle.
Click to expand...


Ask 5 guys what happened during a fire fight that they had been involved in an hour ago and you will get 5 different stories.
 We all look at things from our own perspective.
 Something Blowing up is not always caused by an explosive device. 
Secondary explosions do not sound like a controlled demolition, but some people just cannot understand these simple things.


----------



## Patriot911

Triton said:


> Norman Mineta's testimony supports that notion.



Bullfuckingshit, you lying fuck!  I am willing to bet you haven't even READ Norman Mineta's testimony just like you got everything else wrong.  Norman Mineta's entire testimony was based on WHEN THE SHOOTDOWN ORDER WAS GIVEN.  Oh sure, if you only look at conspiratard sites and swallow whole what they want gullible sheep like you to believe, one could construe he might have been talking about a stand down order..... if one is completely retarded and has absolutely no brains.  How fucking stupid do you have to be to think someone could talk about a stand down order and NOBODY CATCHES IT?!?!   

But hey.  Don't take my word for it.  Choke on the truth. Taken directly from Mineta's testimony, but including clarification you stupid fucks always omit in order to try and pass off your bullshit as the truth.



> MR. HAMILTON: We thank you for that. I wanted to focus just a moment on the Presidential Emergency Operating Center. You were there for a good part of the day. I think you were there with the vice president. *And when you had that order
> given, I think it was by the president, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists, were you there when that order was given?*
> 
> MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice
> president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant.



Full Mineta testimony

So what do you have to say for yourself now?  Just another mistake in an ever growing list of mistakes?   With this many mistakes, isn't it about time for you to take a serious look at the bullshit you're spewing IF you actually believe it to be true?


----------



## Triton

SFC Ollie, I have presented you with Video, photographic, and the results of the analysis of physical evidence.

None of you have been able to articulate a semblance of an explanation for its collapse.

You merely state that it was not brought down by controlled demolition.


----------



## Triton

Patriot911 said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Norman Mineta's testimony supports that notion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullfuckingshit, you lying fuck!  I am willing to bet you haven't even READ Norman Mineta's testimony just like you got everything else wrong.  Norman Mineta's entire testimony was based on WHEN THE SHOOTDOWN ORDER WAS GIVEN.  Oh sure, if you only look at conspiratard sites and swallow whole what they want gullible sheep like you to believe, one could construe he might have been talking about a stand down order..... if one is completely retarded and has absolutely no brains.  How fucking stupid do you have to be to think someone could talk about a stand down order and NOBODY CATCHES IT?!?!
> 
> But hey.  Don't take my word for it.  Choke on the truth. Taken directly from Mineta's testimony, but including clarification you stupid fucks always omit in order to try and pass off your bullshit as the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MR. HAMILTON: We thank you for that. I wanted to focus just a moment on the Presidential Emergency Operating Center. You were there for a good part of the day. I think you were there with the vice president. *And when you had that order
> given, I think it was by the president, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists, were you there when that order was given?*
> 
> MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice
> president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Full Mineta testimony
> 
> So what do you have to say for yourself now?  Just another mistake in an ever growing list of mistakes?   With this many mistakes, isn't it about time for you to take a serious look at the bullshit you're spewing IF you actually believe it to be true?
Click to expand...




What exactly, is your point?


----------



## Triton

Patriot911, you probably should not harp on my errors, when you made the exact same error regarding the timelapse of Flight 77 veering off course.

When are YOU going to admit to your errors?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack said:


> Anyone find anything particularly interesting about this photo?



OK, I'm just going to talk to myself since I have time to burn. 

In the center of the above photo there is a steel i-beam that appears to have suffered from super extreme levels of heat and force. Never in all of my years have a seen a beam shrivel, twist and pinch crimp in this fashion.

I can only imagine the level of energy required to make that happen. If someone can find a comparable example, I would love to see it.


----------



## Triton

Sorry, TASB, this is what happens when one chooses to engage in futile discussion with those who employ "Candycorn Logic"

Quite incredible, then again alot of energy is required to cause a total free fall symmetrical collapse of a steel framed building.


However, the usual suspects will employ "Candycorn Logic" and say fire caused it, and therefore, because they said it, it is true.


I would go out on a limb and say that a comparable photograph could be found at a controlled demolition site, but this is speculation as I have not checked yet.


I just love how there's all the examples of other steel framed buildings burning for several hours and not collapsing, even with greater structural damage and larger fires. But on 9/11 Physics did not apply.


----------



## Patriot911

Triton said:


> Patriot911, you probably should not harp on my errors, when you made the exact same error regarding the timelapse of Flight 77 veering off course.
> 
> When are YOU going to admit to your errors?



I posted the correct times twice.  You ignored them.  So I posted the incorrect time to see if you would be dishonest enough to use my times when they agreed with your bullshit.  I admitted to this before anyone ever pointed it out.    You lose.  Again.  Your list of lies and "errors" just keeps growing to the point where your credibility is right where it should be.  In the toilet with the rest of your shit.


----------



## Patriot911

Triton said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Norman Mineta's testimony supports that notion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullfuckingshit, you lying fuck!  I am willing to bet you haven't even READ Norman Mineta's testimony just like you got everything else wrong.  Norman Mineta's entire testimony was based on WHEN THE SHOOTDOWN ORDER WAS GIVEN.  Oh sure, if you only look at conspiratard sites and swallow whole what they want gullible sheep like you to believe, one could construe he might have been talking about a stand down order..... if one is completely retarded and has absolutely no brains.  How fucking stupid do you have to be to think someone could talk about a stand down order and NOBODY CATCHES IT?!?!
> 
> But hey.  Don't take my word for it.  Choke on the truth. Taken directly from Mineta's testimony, but including clarification you stupid fucks always omit in order to try and pass off your bullshit as the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MR. HAMILTON: We thank you for that. I wanted to focus just a moment on the Presidential Emergency Operating Center. You were there for a good part of the day. I think you were there with the vice president. *And when you had that order
> given, I think it was by the president, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists, were you there when that order was given?*
> 
> MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice
> president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Full Mineta testimony
> 
> So what do you have to say for yourself now?  Just another mistake in an ever growing list of mistakes?   With this many mistakes, isn't it about time for you to take a serious look at the bullshit you're spewing IF you actually believe it to be true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly, is your point?
Click to expand...


My point is you're completely full of shit when you claim Mineta's testimony was about the stand down order when, in fact, Mineta was clearly talking about the shoot down order.  Or would you care to point out where he is supposedly talking about a stand down order?  Remember, we're not just going to read your cherry picked quotes like the truthtard sites post.  When it is in context, your bullshit gets exposed for everyone to see just what a dishonest little bitch you are.


----------



## Patriot911

Triton said:


> SFC Ollie, I have presented you with Video, photographic, and the results of the analysis of physical evidence.
> 
> None of you have been able to articulate a semblance of an explanation for its collapse.
> 
> You merely state that it was not brought down by controlled demolition.



Why do you continue to lie your ass off like that?  I have restated twice what caused the collapse of WTC 7.  The fact you are too dishonest to admit this only shows your true, dishonest character.


----------



## Triton

You posted an incorrect time after I posted an incorrect time.

I took your word for it without verifying assuming you were telling the truth, Which you weren't.

Then, when you finally posted the correct time I admitted to my mistake of agreeing with the incorrect time which you, yourself, posted.

Now you admit you intentionally lied and employ falsehoods to further your "argument".



Still waiting for your explanation of the collapse of WTC7


----------



## Patriot911

Triton said:


> You posted an incorrect time after I posted an incorrect time.
> 
> I took your word for it without verifying assuming you were telling the truth, Which you weren't.
> 
> Then, when you finally posted the correct time I admitted to my mistake of agreeing with the incorrect time which you, yourself, posted.
> 
> Now you admit you intentionally lied and employ falsehoods to further your "argument".


I stated why I did it.  To prove you don't know shit and never did.  



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> Still waiting for your explanation of the collapse of WTC7



I've already posted it.  Twice.  You refuse to read it, so you lie about it to try and cover how fucking stupid you are.  Your loss, not mine.  Do I need to post the links and expose your lies yet AGAIN?  I can see missing it once.  No way you could have missed it twice.


----------



## Triton

Is it that difficult to copy/paste your own explanation?

That is much easier than having me dig through over 20 pages of your posts to find it.


You are so off base with your points about Mineta's testimony its ridiculous


That shoot down order wasn't very successful was it


----------



## Triton

why don't you take the 30 seconds it requires to describe the collapse of WTC 7 in your own words as I have done so repeatedly


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Triton said:


> Sorry, TASB, this is what happens when one chooses to engage in futile discussion with those who employ "Candycorn Logic"
> 
> Quite incredible, then again alot of energy is required to cause a total free fall symmetrical collapse of a steel framed building.
> 
> 
> However, the usual suspects will employ "Candycorn Logic" and say fire caused it, and therefore, because they said it, it is true.
> 
> 
> I would go out on a limb and say that a comparable photograph could be found at a controlled demolition site, but this is speculation as I have not checked yet.
> 
> 
> I just love how there's all the examples of other steel framed buildings burning for several hours and not collapsing, even with greater structural damage and larger fires. But on 9/11 Physics did not apply.



I've searched and searched. I haven't found a single example that can come close to the shrivel, twist, pinch crimp of that I-beam anywhere except at the WTC site on 9/11.
I have that photo hanging in my office framed. My colleagues come in, look at it, look at me and ask where it's from. When I tell them their reaction is quite astounding.


----------



## Patriot911

Triton said:


> Is it that difficult to copy/paste your own explanation?
> 
> That is much easier than having me dig through over 20 pages of your posts to find it.
> 
> 
> You are so off base with your points about Mineta's testimony its ridiculous
> 
> 
> That shoot down order wasn't very successful was it



Why should I do anything for a lying fuck like you?  I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.  I think you fail to realize the true level of contempt I have for you shitbags.  Everyone else, I am sure, has found the explanations I gave IN RESPONSE TO YOUR REQUEST.  Now you keep repeating the same bullshit in a pathetic attempt to try and show nobody can?    Keep it up!


----------



## Triton

Nothing, huh?

What is the implication of this? a method of controlled demolition that is not public?


----------



## candycorn

Triton said:


> Nothing, huh?
> 
> What is the implication of this? a method of controlled demolition that is not public?



Kibbles and bits, kibbles and bits, I bet you want some kibbles and bits....

What a waste of carbon.


----------



## Triton

Your contempt for people who disagree with the "official" theory is obvious, Patriot911.



Your explanation for the collapse of WTC 7, in your own words, is not.


What do you make of TakeAStepBack's photograph, Patriot911?


----------



## Triton

Hi candycorn


----------



## Patriot911

Triton said:


> Your contempt for people who disagree with the "official" theory is obvious, Patriot911.


More lies from a piece of shit liar.  I have contempt for fucks like you who ignore the evidence and pretend their lies are somehow relevant.  



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> Your explanation for the collapse of WTC 7, in your own words, is not.


So, now you're agreeing I explained it, but you're too stupid to understand it?



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> What do you make of TakeAStepBack's photograph, Patriot911?


Funny how you ignorant shits can't understand the forces unleashed in a collapse.  TakeAShit has already proven he knows nothing of physics, especially when he cut and paste a thoroughly debunked formula from dental assistant Judy Woods.


----------



## Triton

Patriot911 said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your contempt for people who disagree with the "official" theory is obvious, Patriot911.
> 
> 
> 
> More lies from a piece of shit liar.  I have contempt for fucks like you who ignore the evidence and pretend their lies are somehow relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your explanation for the collapse of WTC 7, in your own words, is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, now you're agreeing I explained it, but you're too stupid to understand it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you make of TakeAStepBack's photograph, Patriot911?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how you ignorant shits can't understand the forces unleashed in a collapse.  TakeAShit has already proven he knows nothing of physics, especially when he cut and paste a thoroughly debunked formula from dental assistant Judy Woods.
Click to expand...




No, I am satiring the fact that you have made no explanation, in your own words, on how WTC7 collapsed.




Admit, that was a very pathetic tactic on your part.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Triton said:


> Your contempt for people who disagree with the "official" theory is obvious, Patriot911.
> 
> 
> 
> Your explanation for the collapse of WTC 7, in your own words, is not.
> 
> 
> What do you make of TakeAStepBack's photograph, Patriot911?



Let me guess since he's on my ignore list. He completely slandered my character and did not address your question at all, Triton.

Am I right?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

And what do you?! I AM right! 

Dental assistant?

Dr. Judy Wood sacrificed her career to spread the truth.

Judy D. Wood is a former professor of mechanical engineering with research interests in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, optical methods, deformation analysis, and the materials characterization of biomaterials and composite materials. She is a member of the Society for Experimental Mechanics (SEM), co-founded SEMs Biological Systems and Materials Division, and has served on the SEM Composite Materials Technical Division.
Dr. Judy Wood, bio
Dr. Wood received her
B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering),
M.S. (Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983), and
Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992) from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia.
Her dissertation involved the development of an experimental method to measure thermal stresses in bimaterial joints. She has taught courses including
Experimental Stress Analysis,
Engineering Mechanics,
Mechanics of Materials (Strength of Materials)
Strength of Materials Testing
Is this what Eisenhower warned us of?

Figure 1. My intellectual integrity prevents me from calling this a collapse. This is why I have chosen to stand up. My conscience leaves me no other choice.
From 1999 to 2006 Dr. Wood has been an assistant professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department at Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina. Before moving to Clemson she spent three years as a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Tech.
One of Dr. Wood's research interests is biomimicry, or applying the mechanical structures of biological materials to engineering design using engineering materials. Other recent research has investigated the deformation behavior of materials and structures with complex geometries and complex material properties, such as fiber-reinforced composite materials and biological materials. Dr. Wood is an expert in the use of moiré interferometry, a full-field optical method that is used in stress analysis, as well as materials characterization and other types of interference. In recent years, Dr. Wood and her students have developed optical systems with various wavelengths and waveguides. Dr. Wood has over 60 technical publications in refereed journals, conference proceedings, and edited monographs and special technical reports.

Dr. Wood started to question the events of 9/11 on that same day when what she saw and heard on television was contradictory and appeared to violate the laws of physics. Since that day she has used her knowledge of engineering mechanics to prove that the collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers could not have happened as the American public was told.

Taught courses including:
- Experimental Stress Analysis,
- Engineering Mechanics,
- Mechanics of Materials (Strength of Materials)
- Strength of Materials Testing

issertation: "Determination of thermal strains in the neighborhood of a bimaterial interface"
Title page for ETD etd-06072006-124140

Wood, J. D., et. al., "The Effect of Delaminations on the Thermal Expansion Behavior of Quasi-Isotropic Composite Laminates," Proceedings of the ASTM Symposium on Effects of Defects in Composite Materials, (December 1982).

Wood, J. D., et. al., "Deformation of Composite Multispan Beam Shear Specimens," Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress on Experimental Mechanics, Montreal, Canada, pp. 297-298 (June 1984).

Wood, J. D., et. al., "Relative Displacement Measurements for Two-Body Problems," Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics (SEM) Spring Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, pp. 309- 314 (June 1985).

Wood, J. D., "Detection of Delamination Onset in a Composite Laminate Using Moiré Interferometry," Composites Technology and Research, Vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 121-128 (Winter 1985).

Wood, J. D., et. al., "Deformation and Strains in a Thick Adherend Lap Joint," Adhesively Bonded Joints: Testing, Analysis, and Design, ASTM STP 981, W. S. Johnson, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 107-118 (1988).

Wood, J. D., et. al., "Thermal Strains in a Bimaterial Joint," Proceedings of the Seventh ASCE/Engineering Mechanics Division Specialty Conference, Blacksburg, Virginia (May 1988).

Wood, J. D., et. al., "Thermal Strains in a Bimaterial Joint: Experimental and Numerical Analysis," Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics (SEM) Spring Conference, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 543-551 (May 28-June 1, 1989).

Wood, J. D., et. al., "Determination of Thermal Strains by Moiré Interferometry," Experimental Mechanics, Vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 318-322 (Sept. 1989).

Wood, J. D., et. al., "Micromechanical Study of Thermal Strains near the Interface of a Bimaterial Joint by Microscopic Moiré Interferometry," Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress on Experimental Mechanics, Las Vegas, Nevada (July 1992).

Wood, J. D., et. al., "Thermal Stresses in a Bimaterial Joint: An Experimental Analysis," ASME J. of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 61, (no. 1), pp. 192-198 (March 1994).

Wood, J. D., et. al., "Residual Material Properties in Aging of Composites," Proceedings of ASME Conference, Atlanta, Georgia (August 1996).

Wood, J. D., et. al., "Designed Polymeric Interphases", Gordon Conference on Composites, Ventura, California (January 1997).

Wood, J. D., et. al., "Aging of Polymer Matrix Composites: The Reverse Thermal Effect," The International Composites Expo (ICE) 1997, Nashville, Tennessee (January 1997) p. 14.

Wood, J. D., et. al., "Effect of Sizing on Shear Properties of Hybrid Composite Materials Using Moiré; Interferometry," Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics (SEM) Spring Conference, Seattle, Washington (June 1997).

Wood, J. D., et. al., "Effects of Temperature Sequencing During Hygrothermal Aging of Polymers and Polymer Matrix Composites: The Reverse Thermal Effect," Proceedings of the International Conference on Composites in Infrastructure (ICCI), Tucson, Arizona (January 1998).

Wood, J. D., et. al., "Influence of Matrix Chemistry on the Short Term, Hydrothermal Aging of Vinyl Ester Matrix and Composites Under Both Isothermal and Thermal Spiking Conditions," Journal of Composite Materials (USA) Vol. 33. (no.20), pp.1918-1938 (July 1999).

Wood, J. D., et. al., "Measurement of Strain Distribution and Viscoelastic Characteristics in Layers of a Soft-Core Sandwich Beam Using Moiré Interferometry," Society for Experimental Mechanics, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (June 2002).

Wood, J. D., et. al., "Strain distribution within multilayer thermoplastic elastomers using Moiré interferometry," Society for Experimental Mechanics, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (June 2002).

Wood, J. D., et. al., "Utilization of moiré interferometry to study the strain distribution within multi-layer thermoplastic elastomeric samples," Journal of Biomaterials, Polymer division, Vol. 13. (no.9), pp.1051-1065 (October 2002). (Journal of Biomaterials Science, Polymer Edition)

Wood, J. D., "Determining Thermal Stressess Near a Bimaterial Interface," Handbook of Moire Measurements, C. Walker, Ed., Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, University of Strathclyde, UK, Chapter 8: Residual Stresses (2), pp.287-293, (2004, IOP Publishing Ltd).

Wood, J. D., et. al., "Designing a Perfect Bimaterial Interface," Society for Experimental Mechanics, Costa Mesa, California (June 2004).

Wood, J. D., et. al., "Development of a Real-Time Microscopic Moiré Interferometry System," Society for Experimental Mechanics, Costa Mesa, California (June 2004).


So, tell us Patriot, what are your credentials?


----------



## Triton

TakeAStepBack said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your contempt for people who disagree with the "official" theory is obvious, Patriot911.
> 
> 
> 
> Your explanation for the collapse of WTC 7, in your own words, is not.
> 
> 
> What do you make of TakeAStepBack's photograph, Patriot911?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me guess since he's on my ignore list. He completely slandered my character and did not address your question at all, Triton.
> 
> Am I right?
Click to expand...



Yes, you are absolutely correct.

 But I must abandon the "discussion" for a while and will not have access the board for some time.

I will be accused of "running away like a little bitch"


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Peace, Triton.

I gotta run too. Not much for me to do here except either be insulted or talk to myself so I might just hiatus and leave the monkeys to fling shit at the humans and the humans to get aggravated with the monkeys too.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Triton said:


> SFC Ollie, I have presented you with Video, photographic, and the results of the analysis of physical evidence.
> 
> None of you have been able to articulate a semblance of an explanation for its collapse.
> 
> You merely state that it was not brought down by controlled demolition.



I read the report about the so called magic dust where they found thematic compounds..

In the report they said it made up 1/100th of the dust....

Do you realize that would mean there would have had to have been hundreds of tons of the stuff in those buildings? And where did the dust come from? Which Building, which floor? Where is the chain of custody for such an important piece of evidence? What exactly is a thematic compound? What is thermite? (rust and aluminum in its most basic form) No shit they would find that in the dust. I could have told them that without even thinking about it.

The trouble is that the truthers who are driving this train and making the $'s off of it don't want you to think.


----------



## SFC Ollie

TakeAStepBack said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone find anything particularly interesting about this photo?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I'm just going to talk to myself since I have time to burn.
> 
> In the center of the above photo there is a steel i-beam that appears to have suffered from super extreme levels of heat and force. Never in all of my years have a seen a beam shrivel, twist and pinch crimp in this fashion.
> 
> I can only imagine the level of energy required to make that happen. If someone can find a comparable example, I would love to see it.
Click to expand...


15th floor of what building, and when was it taken?


----------



## SFC Ollie

candycorn said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing, huh?
> 
> What is the implication of this? a method of controlled demolition that is not public?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kibbles and bits, kibbles and bits, I bet you want some kibbles and bits....
> 
> What a waste of carbon.
Click to expand...


Love the new Sig line, we used to call it Angel wings....


----------



## SFC Ollie

TakeAStepBack said:


> And what do you?! I AM right!
> 
> Dental assistant?
> 
> Dr. Judy Wood sacrificed her career to spread the truth.
> 
> Judy D. Wood is a former professor of mechanical engineering with research interests in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, optical methods, deformation analysis, and the materials characterization of biomaterials and composite materials. She is a member of the Society for Experimental Mechanics (SEM), co-founded SEMs Biological Systems and Materials Division, and has served on the SEM Composite Materials Technical Division.
> Dr. Judy Wood, bio
> Dr. Wood received her
> B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering),
> M.S. (Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983), and
> Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992) from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia.
> Her dissertation involved the development of an experimental method to measure thermal stresses in bimaterial joints. She has taught courses including
> Experimental Stress Analysis,
> Engineering Mechanics,
> Mechanics of Materials (Strength of Materials)
> Strength of Materials Testing
> Is this what Eisenhower warned us of?
> 
> Figure 1. My intellectual integrity prevents me from calling this a collapse. This is why I have chosen to stand up. My conscience leaves me no other choice.
> From 1999 to 2006 Dr. Wood has been an assistant professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department at Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina. Before moving to Clemson she spent three years as a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Tech.
> One of Dr. Wood's research interests is biomimicry, or applying the mechanical structures of biological materials to engineering design using engineering materials. Other recent research has investigated the deformation behavior of materials and structures with complex geometries and complex material properties, such as fiber-reinforced composite materials and biological materials. Dr. Wood is an expert in the use of moiré interferometry, a full-field optical method that is used in stress analysis, as well as materials characterization and other types of interference. In recent years, Dr. Wood and her students have developed optical systems with various wavelengths and waveguides. Dr. Wood has over 60 technical publications in refereed journals, conference proceedings, and edited monographs and special technical reports.
> 
> Dr. Wood started to question the events of 9/11 on that same day when what she saw and heard on television was contradictory and appeared to violate the laws of physics. Since that day she has used her knowledge of engineering mechanics to prove that the collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers could not have happened as the American public was told.
> 
> Taught courses including:
> - Experimental Stress Analysis,
> - Engineering Mechanics,
> - Mechanics of Materials (Strength of Materials)
> - Strength of Materials Testing
> 
> issertation: "Determination of thermal strains in the neighborhood of a bimaterial interface"
> Title page for ETD etd-06072006-124140
> 
> Wood, J. D., et. al., "The Effect of Delaminations on the Thermal Expansion Behavior of Quasi-Isotropic Composite Laminates," Proceedings of the ASTM Symposium on Effects of Defects in Composite Materials, (December 1982).
> 
> Wood, J. D., et. al., "Deformation of Composite Multispan Beam Shear Specimens," Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress on Experimental Mechanics, Montreal, Canada, pp. 297-298 (June 1984).
> 
> Wood, J. D., et. al., "Relative Displacement Measurements for Two-Body Problems," Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics (SEM) Spring Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, pp. 309- 314 (June 1985).
> 
> Wood, J. D., "Detection of Delamination Onset in a Composite Laminate Using Moiré Interferometry," Composites Technology and Research, Vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 121-128 (Winter 1985).
> 
> Wood, J. D., et. al., "Deformation and Strains in a Thick Adherend Lap Joint," Adhesively Bonded Joints: Testing, Analysis, and Design, ASTM STP 981, W. S. Johnson, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 107-118 (1988).
> 
> Wood, J. D., et. al., "Thermal Strains in a Bimaterial Joint," Proceedings of the Seventh ASCE/Engineering Mechanics Division Specialty Conference, Blacksburg, Virginia (May 1988).
> 
> Wood, J. D., et. al., "Thermal Strains in a Bimaterial Joint: Experimental and Numerical Analysis," Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics (SEM) Spring Conference, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 543-551 (May 28-June 1, 1989).
> 
> Wood, J. D., et. al., "Determination of Thermal Strains by Moiré Interferometry," Experimental Mechanics, Vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 318-322 (Sept. 1989).
> 
> Wood, J. D., et. al., "Micromechanical Study of Thermal Strains near the Interface of a Bimaterial Joint by Microscopic Moiré Interferometry," Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress on Experimental Mechanics, Las Vegas, Nevada (July 1992).
> 
> Wood, J. D., et. al., "Thermal Stresses in a Bimaterial Joint: An Experimental Analysis," ASME J. of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 61, (no. 1), pp. 192-198 (March 1994).
> 
> Wood, J. D., et. al., "Residual Material Properties in Aging of Composites," Proceedings of ASME Conference, Atlanta, Georgia (August 1996).
> 
> Wood, J. D., et. al., "Designed Polymeric Interphases", Gordon Conference on Composites, Ventura, California (January 1997).
> 
> Wood, J. D., et. al., "Aging of Polymer Matrix Composites: The Reverse Thermal Effect," The International Composites Expo (ICE) 1997, Nashville, Tennessee (January 1997) p. 14.
> 
> Wood, J. D., et. al., "Effect of Sizing on Shear Properties of Hybrid Composite Materials Using Moiré; Interferometry," Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics (SEM) Spring Conference, Seattle, Washington (June 1997).
> 
> Wood, J. D., et. al., "Effects of Temperature Sequencing During Hygrothermal Aging of Polymers and Polymer Matrix Composites: The Reverse Thermal Effect," Proceedings of the International Conference on Composites in Infrastructure (ICCI), Tucson, Arizona (January 1998).
> 
> Wood, J. D., et. al., "Influence of Matrix Chemistry on the Short Term, Hydrothermal Aging of Vinyl Ester Matrix and Composites Under Both Isothermal and Thermal Spiking Conditions," Journal of Composite Materials (USA) Vol. 33. (no.20), pp.1918-1938 (July 1999).
> 
> Wood, J. D., et. al., "Measurement of Strain Distribution and Viscoelastic Characteristics in Layers of a Soft-Core Sandwich Beam Using Moiré Interferometry," Society for Experimental Mechanics, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (June 2002).
> 
> Wood, J. D., et. al., "Strain distribution within multilayer thermoplastic elastomers using Moiré interferometry," Society for Experimental Mechanics, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (June 2002).
> 
> Wood, J. D., et. al., "Utilization of moiré interferometry to study the strain distribution within multi-layer thermoplastic elastomeric samples," Journal of Biomaterials, Polymer division, Vol. 13. (no.9), pp.1051-1065 (October 2002). (Journal of Biomaterials Science, Polymer Edition)
> 
> Wood, J. D., "Determining Thermal Stressess Near a Bimaterial Interface," Handbook of Moire Measurements, C. Walker, Ed., Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, University of Strathclyde, UK, Chapter 8: Residual Stresses (2), pp.287-293, (2004, IOP Publishing Ltd).
> 
> Wood, J. D., et. al., "Designing a Perfect Bimaterial Interface," Society for Experimental Mechanics, Costa Mesa, California (June 2004).
> 
> Wood, J. D., et. al., "Development of a Real-Time Microscopic Moiré Interferometry System," Society for Experimental Mechanics, Costa Mesa, California (June 2004).
> 
> 
> So, tell us Patriot, what are your credentials?



OK, nice credentials, but what does she say happened?


----------



## SFC Ollie

TakeAStepBack said:


> Peace, Triton.
> 
> I gotta run too. Not much for me to do here except either be insulted or talk to myself so I might just hiatus and leave the monkeys to fling shit at the humans and the humans to get aggravated with the monkeys too.



You talk to yourself a lot.


----------



## candycorn

SFC Ollie said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peace, Triton.
> 
> I gotta run too. Not much for me to do here except either be insulted or talk to myself so I might just hiatus and leave the monkeys to fling shit at the humans and the humans to get aggravated with the monkeys too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You talk to yourself a lot.
Click to expand...


Be insulted or talk to himself...he's pretty much the anti-Stephen Covey.


----------



## SFC Ollie

candycorn said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peace, Triton.
> 
> I gotta run too. Not much for me to do here except either be insulted or talk to myself so I might just hiatus and leave the monkeys to fling shit at the humans and the humans to get aggravated with the monkeys too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You talk to yourself a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be insulted or talk to himself...he's pretty much the anti-Stephen Covey.
Click to expand...


Actually I kind of figure he's probably just another sock.


----------



## candycorn

SFC Ollie said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You talk to yourself a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be insulted or talk to himself...he's pretty much the anti-Stephen Covey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I kind of figure he's probably just another sock.
Click to expand...

Kinda sounds like Rimjob.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

SFC Ollie said:


> 15th floor of what building, and when was it taken?



the 15th floor of Bankers Trust sometime after 9/11. Taken by FEMA.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Looks like a building fell on it.

And if i remember right it was finally deconstructed a few months ago.

Due to the structural damage and contamination.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

SFC Ollie said:


> *Looks like a building fell on it.*
> 
> And if i remember right it was finally deconstructed a few months ago.
> 
> Due to the structural damage and contamination.


----------



## Crosser

Corruption is even there in US , Shattering...


----------



## Crosser

I guess... Dirt is everywhere... it's the quantity which is varied from place to place


----------



## TakeAStepBack

So, no one can rebuttal the spontenous combustion of cars from south street seaport, to the car park across from the Verizon building on West and the testimony from numerous firefighters and first responders claiming it so?

What about the picture taken by FEMA of the Bankers Trust building showing  asteel I-beam that has been twisted, shriveled and pinch crimped.

Anyone care to explain these anomalies?


----------



## Gamolon

TakeAStepBack said:


> asteel I-beam that has been twisted, shriveled and pinch crimped.



Shriveled? You mean that could not have been caused by COMPRESSION of some sort that caused that beam to "accordian" like that?

Like how this beam reacted in a fire test?






Good grief.


----------



## Triton

TakeAStepBack said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Looks like a building fell on it.*
> 
> And if i remember right it was finally deconstructed a few months ago.
> 
> Due to the structural damage and contamination.
Click to expand...




I second this


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Bankers Trust was hit by falling debris. It didnt catch on fire. Try being honest for a change.
Even still, your example doesn't meet the criteria, sorry.


----------



## Triton

Or WTC 3 being almost cut in half and still not collapsing


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Still none of the usual apologists will touch the car anomaly. With very good reason. It can not be explained. At least not under any conditions that we are aware of.

The only way it makes any sense is if ALL people who testified are very dilusional AND all 1,400 cars were parked right around the buildings that collapsed. Unfortunately, that is not the case.


----------



## Gamolon

TakeAStepBack said:


> Still none of the usual apologists will touch the car anomaly. With very good reason. It can not be explained. At least not under any conditions that we are aware of.
> 
> The only way it makes any sense is if ALL people who testified are very dilusional AND all 1,400 cars were parked right around the buildings that collapsed. Unfortunately, that is not the case.



Can you show me a post where someone witnessed the spontaneous combustion of a car where there was no debris falling on it?

I want to see you provide proof of someone witnessing a car just igniting all by itself with nothing else around. Make sure it wasn't already burning in their account because that's not a witness of spontaneous combustion happening.

This should be good.


----------



## Patriot911

TakeAStepBack said:


> Still none of the usual apologists will touch the car anomaly. With very good reason. It can not be explained. At least not under any conditions that we are aware of.
> 
> The only way it makes any sense is if ALL people who testified are very dilusional AND all 1,400 cars were parked right around the buildings that collapsed. Unfortunately, that is not the case.



Oh look!  TakeAShit is still pretending he is somehow relevant!  

So how is blowing up a bunch of cars part of the conspiracy?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link us to any articles you have about this, though I do remember seeing and reading about the cars and other vehicles catching fire and only parts of many of them burning..strange indeed. Perhaps there was more then one method of destruction used, which is why the need for a real evaluation of events has to take place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oral testimony of EMT Alan Cooke:
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110040.PDF
> 
> ....We got to the beginning of the FDR Drive, by the ferry, and i guess because of the way the streets channeled everything, one of the fire balls or whatever, had to have made it as far as south street seaport, because what happened at the time, it seemed like an explosion was coming from there...........
> ........Now we had everybody running [to] us from the seaport and running to us from the west side, so we couldnt go either way. That's when all the ash and everything started coming. We had a couple of people stop us because they were complaining of chest pains......
> ....Nobody could breathe and everybody was trying to climb up on to the wall of the FDR Drive.....
> 
> Testimony from Firefighter Todd Heaney:
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110255.PDF
> ....When I got to the front of the building, it tossed rigs down the street like it was--like they were toys. They were upside down on fire.
> 
> Firefighter Patrick Connolly:
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110453.PDF
> The only thing I knew, that I wanted to do was
> I wanted to go back out the door that we came in and
> make a left turn and walk straight up West Broadway
> out to safety.  They were a little bit more
> controlled.  They decided to stay put about five
> minutes.  And think things through and they were
> gonna go down.  There were some interior stairs and
> they were gonna go down to probably more like a bomb
> 
> shelter area an d I think when Joe looked, it looked
> like it was destroyed.  So we decided that we would
> tie the search rope off to the doorway and the three
> of us hand in hand decided that we would walk out.
> And as we came out we started to walk north and
> slowly but surely and up and over and under steel
> and cars were --* cars with tires and cars were
> popping and they were just starting to light up
> spontaneously* and there was near zero visibility at
> this stage.
> 
> I'll PM you a list of the testimonies that are particularly noteworthy....the list goes on and on and on......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Testimony from Lieutenant Rene Davila
> 
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110453.PDF
> 
> ....But we were there. Vehicle 219 was
> destroyed.
> Q.  Was it on fire?
> A.  What?
> Q.  Was it on fire?
> A.  Fire?  We saw the sucker blow up.  We
> heard "Boom!"  We were walking up Fulton Street.
> I don't know how far we made it up when someone
> says, "The building's coming down."  By the time
> I realized, it's a repeat. .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emergency Medical Technician, Renae O'Carroll"
> 
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110116.PDF
> 
> ....... We went down Atlantic Avenue going
> towards the Manhattan Bridge, and the heat was so
> intense, so intense, you could actually feel it
> while you were up on the bridge.  I mean that
> intense you could feel the heat.  Cars were
> coming this way, and we were driving that way.
> They assigned us to go to Church and
> Vesey.  We were going towards that area.  The
> cars are coming this way.  People are screaming
> and running, and we're going the opposite
> direction into the mess, into the belly of the
> beast of this thing.  I still can't believe I had
> the nerve to do that to this day.......
> 
> There is quite a distance between the Manhattan bridge and WTC.....
> 
> Q.   The building actually came down at that
> point?
> A.   The building wasn't down yet.  I was
> getting ready to pull out, and the transportation
> officer waved me over.  He wanted to tell me what
> hospital to go to.......
> 
> 
> It was just basically dark.  I had
> never been through anything -- I thought I was
> dying.  The only thing I could see was balls of
> fire, just balls of fire.  At one point I thought
> I was on fire because it was that close to me.  I
> could feel the heat.  I said to myself, wow, I'm
> on fire.  This is what it feels like to be on
> fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> EMT Micheal D'Angelo:
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110148.PDF
> 
> ....I remember too, the cars started to explode inside the parking lot. I mean, the cars started to cook off, they started going off, boom, boom, boom, boom. I remember that......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> EMT, Patricia Ondrovic
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110048.PDF
> 
> Q: West Side Highway and Vesey?
> A: And Vesey, yeah. I was still on Vesey, cause the building that blew up on
> me was on Vesey, it was on the corner next to the West Side Highway. Cause I know I
> was running west, I didn't run that way. Thank God, I would have been dead had I run
> the other way. But I ran towards the West Side Highway, and I kept running up Vesey.
> As I was running up Vesey, the first car blew up on me on the corner of Vessey and the
> West Side Highway. That set my turnout coat on fire, that set my hair on fire, and that
> set my feet on fire. I kept running. I got news for you, those turn out coats need to be
> called burn out coats, cause this thing caught up in flames. They cut two inches off my
> hair in less that two minutes, my coat was completely engulfed, and that was the only
> way I could see where I was running at that point, because I had a glow from my coat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firefighter James Curran
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110412.PDF
> 
> .....WE WENT IN THROUGH THE REVOLVING DOORS
> THERE WAS A MINI LOBBY THERE WAS LIKE BROWN HAZE
> SMOKE IN THE LOBBY LOT OF THE MARBLE SLABS WERE
> FALLING OFF THE WALL CRACKED THERE WERE TWO PEOPLE
> IN LIKE THE LITTLE SECTION OF THIS LOBBY ONE GUY WAS
> BURNT PRETTY MUCH TO CRISP AND HIS JACKET WAS THE ONLY THING LEFT ON HIM PUT THAT OUT WITH A CAN AND
> THEN THERE WAS LADY OFF TO THE RIGHT OF US THAT WAS
> ALIVE BUT SHE WAS SCREAMING THAT SHE COULDNT BREATHE
> SO HIT HER WITH THE CAN AND COOLED HER DOWN......
> 
> 
> So, how does a man burn to a crisp except his jacket???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> EMT Ronald Coyne
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110395.PDF
> AT THAT POINT I JUST HEARD THUNDEROUS
> SOUND AND LOOKED UP AND SAW THE BUILDING START TO
> TOPPLE START TO SWAY AND IT WAS SWAYING OUR WAY AND
> WE JUST YELLED RUN AND TRIED TO RUN AS FAST AS WE
> COULD AND I SAW AN SUV PARKED AND I FIGURED THAT THAT
> WOULD TAKE SOME YOU KNOW SOME OF THE HIT BECAUSE I
> KNEW COULDNT OUT RUN THE BUILDING AND BY THE TIME
> IT TOOK ME TO BREAK THE BACK WINDOW OF THE SUV MY
> SAFETY COAT WAS ALREADY ON FIRE MY SOCKS WERE ON
> FIRE WAS ALREADY COVERED WITH SOOT AND ALL SORTS OF
> PARTICLES THAT WERE COMING OUT OF THE BUILDING
> I CLIMBED INTO THE TRUCK AND THATS WHEN PIECES OF THE BUILDING
> LIFTED THE TRUCK AND CAME THROUGH THE FRONT
> WINDOW AND FLIPPED THE TRUCK OVER AND WAS TRAPPED IN
> THERE FOR APPROXIMATELY 25 MINUTES TO HALF HOUR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firefighter Armando Reno
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110448.PDF
> 
> Also, I
> drove a high-pressure rig and I thought maybe, you
> know, it looks like it might be needed because the 80th
> floor the plane hit, and the second plane didn't hit at
> this time yet, the south tower.
> I was working by the south bridge. There
> were numerous car fires there. I was located by the
> south bridge and the chauffeur from 1 Engine was with
> me. There were two lengths of a 2-1/2 inch line
> stretched off the hydrant there on the south side of
> Liberty Street. We were putting out the car fires, or
> attempting to, and there was no -- the water had no
> effect on the car fires at the time. I started
> thinking about getting the foam off the rig, and I also
> noticed there were numerous bodies by Cedar Street, and
> I was thinking of getting the EMS equipment off the
> rig, putting gloves on and starting to get the bodies,
> putting them in bags.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the cars that ignited in the parking lot were hit by debris?
> Because there are images available that show no debris, yet burning cars. You clearly havent done any homework and you are a liar to boot, Gamolon. The reason you're on ignore in the first place.
> 
> Go find your own images of the car park and FDR drive car explosion. I'm not here so you can waste my time with your dishonest posting.
Click to expand...


----------



## TakeAStepBack

This message is hidden because Patriot911 is on your ignore list.

I'm willing to bet this fucking hick moron didnt even address the question. So dishonest.


----------



## Patriot911

TakeAStepBack said:


> This message is hidden because Patriot911 is on your ignore list.
> 
> I'm willing to bet this fucking hick moron didnt even address the question. So dishonest.



As usual, you're wrong.  BTW, do you honestly believe people think you actually have me on ignore?    We all know your ego couldn't withstand knowing someone wrote something about you without reading it.    TakeAShit is nothing if not predictable!

So how about answering the question.  How does cars catching fire fit into the conspiracy theory?


----------



## Gamolon

Let's take these apart one by one shall we?



TakeAStepBack said:


> EMT Ronald Coyne
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110395.PDF
> AT THAT POINT I JUST HEARD THUNDEROUS
> SOUND AND LOOKED UP AND SAW THE BUILDING START TO
> TOPPLE START TO SWAY AND IT WAS SWAYING OUR WAY AND
> WE JUST YELLED RUN AND TRIED TO RUN AS FAST AS WE
> COULD AND I SAW AN SUV PARKED AND I FIGURED THAT THAT
> WOULD TAKE SOME YOU KNOW SOME OF THE HIT BECAUSE I
> KNEW COULDNT OUT RUN THE BUILDING AND BY THE TIME
> IT TOOK ME TO BREAK THE BACK WINDOW OF THE SUV MY
> SAFETY COAT WAS ALREADY ON FIRE MY SOCKS WERE ON
> FIRE WAS ALREADY COVERED WITH SOOT AND ALL SORTS OF
> PARTICLES THAT WERE COMING OUT OF THE BUILDING
> I CLIMBED INTO THE TRUCK AND THATS WHEN PIECES OF THE BUILDING
> LIFTED THE TRUCK AND CAME THROUGH THE FRONT
> WINDOW AND FLIPPED THE TRUCK OVER AND WAS TRAPPED IN
> THERE FOR APPROXIMATELY 25 MINUTES TO HALF HOUR



Please show me where the witness mentions spontaneous combustion due to an unknown source. I see a description of soot and particles flying around that probably caught his cloths on fire.

Are you saying with 100% certainty, that the particles/debris could not have caught his clothes on fire?


----------



## Patriot911

TakeAStepBack said:


> Are you saying that the cars that ignited in the parking lot were hit by debris?
> Because there are images available that show no debris, yet burning cars. You clearly havent done any homework and you are a liar to boot, Gamolon. The reason you're on ignore in the first place.
> 
> Go find your own images of the car park and FDR drive car explosion. I'm not here so you can waste my time with your dishonest posting.



Hey TakeAShit.... if Gamolon is on ignore, why are you responding to what he wrote?    BUSTED AGAIN!!!!  

And you're just like Triton; such a lazy fuck or so dishonest that you hope someone ELSE can do your work for you.    Why bother?  We all know you're a lying piece of shit!  You want to make a point?  Make a point.  Don't sit there jacking off and pretending your bullshit is real and then telling everyone else they have to prove it for themselves.


----------



## Gamolon

TakeAStepBack said:


> Firefighter Armando Reno
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110448.PDF
> 
> Also, I
> drove a high-pressure rig and I thought maybe, you
> know, it looks like it might be needed because the 80th
> floor the plane hit, and the second plane didn't hit at
> this time yet, the south tower.
> I was working by the south bridge. There
> were numerous car fires there. I was located by the
> south bridge and the chauffeur from 1 Engine was with
> me. There were two lengths of a 2-1/2 inch line
> stretched off the hydrant there on the south side of
> Liberty Street. We were putting out the car fires, or
> attempting to, and there was no -- the water had no
> effect on the car fires at the time. I started
> thinking about getting the foam off the rig, and I also
> noticed there were numerous bodies by Cedar Street, and
> I was thinking of getting the EMS equipment off the
> rig, putting gloves on and starting to get the bodies,
> putting them in bags.




Show me where he says he witnessed the cars just spontaneously ignite? Show me your proof that those cars were not hit by debris.

NEXT!


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Address ALL of the witness accounts. All of them. Dont pick and fucking choose to what matches your liking.


NEXT!


----------



## TakeAStepBack

EMT Micheal D'Angelo:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110148.PDF

....I remember too, the cars started to explode inside the parking lot. I mean, the cars started to cook off, they started going off, boom, boom, boom, boom. I remember that......


Testimony from Lieutenant Rene Davila

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110453.PDF

....But we were there. Vehicle 219 was 
destroyed. 
Q. Was it on fire? 
A. What? 
Q. Was it on fire? 
A. Fire? We saw the sucker blow up. We 
heard "Boom!" We were walking up Fulton Street. 
I don't know how far we made it up when someone 
says, "The building's coming down." By the time 
I realized, it's a repeat. .....


Firefighter Patrick Connolly:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110453.PDF
The only thing I knew, that I wanted to do was 
I wanted to go back out the door that we came in and 
make a left turn and walk straight up West Broadway 
out to safety. They were a little bit more 
controlled. They decided to stay put about five 
minutes. And think things through and they were 
gonna go down. There were some interior stairs and 
they were gonna go down to probably more like a bomb 

shelter area an d I think when Joe looked, it looked 
like it was destroyed. So we decided that we would 
tie the search rope off to the doorway and the three 
of us hand in hand decided that we would walk out. 
And as we came out we started to walk north and 
slowly but surely and up and over and under steel 
and cars were -- cars with tires and cars were 
popping and they were just starting to light up 
spontaneously and there was near zero visibility at 
this stage.


----------



## Gamolon

TakeAStepBack said:


> Firefighter Patrick Connolly:
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110453.PDF
> The only thing I knew, that I wanted to do was
> I wanted to go back out the door that we came in and
> make a left turn and walk straight up West Broadway
> out to safety.  They were a little bit more
> controlled.  They decided to stay put about five
> minutes.  And think things through and they were
> gonna go down.  There were some interior stairs and
> they were gonna go down to probably more like a bomb
> 
> shelter area an d I think when Joe looked, it looked
> like it was destroyed.  So we decided that we would
> tie the search rope off to the doorway and the three
> of us hand in hand decided that we would walk out.
> And as we came out we started to walk north and
> slowly but surely and up and over and under steel
> and cars were --* cars with tires and cars were
> popping and they were just starting to light up
> spontaneously* and there was near zero visibility at
> this stage.
> 
> I'll PM you a list of the testimonies that are particularly noteworthy....the list goes on and on and on......



Please show where this proves that the cars just spontaneously ignited by something other than debris. According to him there was zero visibility which means DEBRIS was everywhere.

NEXT!


----------



## TakeAStepBack

You trolls are so fucking dishonest.

I'm not address you anymore, Gamolon. You're a dishonest troll.


----------



## Gamolon

TakeAStepBack said:


> Testimony from Lieutenant Rene Davila
> 
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110453.PDF
> 
> ....But we were there. Vehicle 219 was
> destroyed.
> Q.  Was it on fire?
> A.  What?
> Q.  Was it on fire?
> A.  Fire?  We saw the sucker blow up.  We
> heard "Boom!"  We were walking up Fulton Street.
> I don't know how far we made it up when someone
> says, "The building's coming down."  By the time
> I realized, it's a repeat. .....



He never answered if it was on fire already did he. Another reach by you. 

NEXT!


----------



## Patriot911

TakeAStepBack said:


> You trolls are so fucking dishonest.
> 
> I'm not address you anymore, Gamolon. You're a dishonest troll.



Look at the little bitch run away YET AGAIN!!!    Apparently TakeAShit can't handle anyone who disagrees with him, so he has to start whining and bitching about trolls when someone directly refutes his claims and asks reasonable questions.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Why would he not mention cars being hit by debris, regardless of visibility. It would seem that he would say, " I heard debris slamming down onto cars and they blew up/"

Not mention of spontaneous. You're dishonest and would love to discredit these accounts, but you can not.


----------



## Gamolon

TakeAStepBack said:


> Emergency Medical Technician, Renae O'Carroll"
> 
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110116.PDF
> 
> ....... We went down Atlantic Avenue going
> towards the Manhattan Bridge, and the heat was so
> intense, so intense, you could actually feel it
> while you were up on the bridge.  I mean that
> intense you could feel the heat.  Cars were
> coming this way, and we were driving that way.
> They assigned us to go to Church and
> Vesey.  We were going towards that area.  The
> cars are coming this way.  People are screaming
> and running, and we're going the opposite
> direction into the mess, into the belly of the
> beast of this thing.  I still can't believe I had
> the nerve to do that to this day.......
> 
> There is quite a distance between the Manhattan bridge and WTC.....
> 
> Q.   The building actually came down at that
> point?
> A.   The building wasn't down yet.  I was
> getting ready to pull out, and the transportation
> officer waved me over.  He wanted to tell me what
> hospital to go to.......
> 
> 
> It was just basically dark.  I had
> never been through anything -- I thought I was
> dying.  The only thing I could see was balls of
> fire, just balls of fire.  At one point I thought
> I was on fire because it was that close to me.  I
> could feel the heat.  I said to myself, wow, I'm
> on fire.  This is what it feels like to be on
> fire.



Not one mention of spontaneous combustion of ANYTHING yet you listed it as proof of such Typical.

NEXT!


----------



## TakeAStepBack

SHE never answered. And she did, she said "fire?" as if in disbelief. She saw it blow up.

Your again being dishonest and cannot figure out how to address eye witness account.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Keep trying.

Maybe post another dishonest photo of an I-beam or something. I'm done with you.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

So, would any sober individual, who has an honest disposition, like to try to account for the anomalies?


----------



## Gamolon

TakeAStepBack said:


> EMT, Patricia Ondrovic
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110048.PDF
> 
> Q: West Side Highway and Vesey?
> A: And Vesey, yeah. I was still on Vesey, cause the building that blew up on
> me was on Vesey, it was on the corner next to the West Side Highway. Cause I know I
> was running west, I didn't run that way. Thank God, I would have been dead had I run
> the other way. But I ran towards the West Side Highway, and I kept running up Vesey.
> As I was running up Vesey, the first car blew up on me on the corner of Vessey and the
> West Side Highway. That set my turnout coat on fire, that set my hair on fire, and that
> set my feet on fire. I kept running. I got news for you, those turn out coats need to be
> called burn out coats, cause this thing caught up in flames. They cut two inches off my
> hair in less that two minutes, my coat was completely engulfed, and that was the only
> way I could see where I was running at that point, because I had a glow from my coat.



Do you see where she says that there was no debris anywhere or fire on the car? It just blew up with nothing there to cause it?????

Get real. 

I want proof of things blowing up with NO DEBRIS anywhere. I want you to provide an eyewitness account of a car or person, not touched by debris, that just ignited on it''s own.

So far you haven't proven SQUAT.


----------



## Mr. Jones

TakeAStepBack said:


> So, would any sober individual, who has an honest disposition, like to try to account for the anomalies?


There is no way I can address this...It is another weird anomaly that has been swept under the rug. It is possible, given what you have posted and linked, that there were multiple forces of destruction, but the fact remains, that there is no way sporadic fires and asymmetrical damage caused the symmetrical straight down collapses of these 3 massive buildings, and I see that the fruit loopers are still doing what they do best. Now it appears they have been charged with resurrecting fading threads so the ones about the recent deception of OBL 10th reported death are diminished.


----------



## Gamolon

TakeAStepBack said:


> SHE never answered. And she did, she said "fire?" as if in disbelief. She saw it blow up.
> 
> Your again being dishonest and cannot figure out how to address eye witness account.



So your putting words into her mouth and interpreting what YOU think she meant. Am I understanding you right?

Hence you saying "AS IF IN DISBELIEF".

The fact remains is that there is no mention of existing debris or fire and you are ASSUMING what she saw and meant.

Typical of you idiots.


----------



## Gamolon

TakeAStepBack said:


> Address ALL of the witness accounts. All of them. Dont pick and fucking choose to what matches your liking.
> 
> 
> NEXT!





So I prove you worng in one of your pieces of "evidence" and you want me to address other ones because you didn't like it.


----------



## Gamolon

TakeAStepBack said:


> Why would he not mention cars being hit by debris, regardless of visibility. It would seem that he would say, " I heard debris slamming down onto cars and they blew up/"



Why don't you tell us why. You have a pretty good habit of interpreting what you think people mean and saw with 100% accuracy based on their verbal accounts. 

Not ONE of your witness accounts says anything about things spontaneously ignited with no help from debris. You can assume what they meant and why they didn't mention things all you want.

You're still assuming.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Mr. Jones said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, would any sober individual, who has an honest disposition, like to try to account for the anomalies?
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way I can address this...It is another weird anomaly that has been swept under the rug. It is possible, given what you have posted and linked, that there were multiple forces of destruction, but the fact remains, that there is no way sporadic fires and asymmetrical damage caused the symmetrical straight down collapses of these 3 massive buildings, and I see that the fruit loopers are still doing what they do best. Now it appears they have been charged with resurrecting fading threads so the ones about the recent deception of OBL 10th reported death are diminished.
Click to expand...


May Day! May Day! 

So predictable that this date would be chosen for OBL "death".

Way to ramp up those rating Obama!


----------



## Mr. Jones

TakeAStepBack said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, would any sober individual, who has an honest disposition, like to try to account for the anomalies?
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way I can address this...It is another weird anomaly that has been swept under the rug. It is possible, given what you have posted and linked, that there were multiple forces of destruction, but the fact remains, that there is no way sporadic fires and asymmetrical damage caused the symmetrical straight down collapses of these 3 massive buildings, and I see that the fruit loopers are still doing what they do best. Now it appears they have been charged with resurrecting fading threads so the ones about the recent deception of OBL 10th reported death are diminished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> May Day! May Day!
> 
> So predictable that this date would be chosen for OBL "death".
> 
> Way to ramp up those rating Obama!
Click to expand...


Indeed, and to the day of Bushs "mission accomplished" speech. You got to hand it to these psy op bastards, they are really good at the mind control, especially on such a massive scale. It is good to know that not everyone is falling for their BS, and a lot of folks are waking up, and when they do that they analyze what they are being told and shown, realizing all the times they have been duped and lied to, and the sensible person in them emerges.
The list of past deceptions is vast, the evidence is vast, all it takes is for a person to take an honest look at the big picture, including past and recent events, and it soon becomes clear to them just how much BS they have been told and believed.


----------



## Gamolon

TakeAStepBack said:


> Keep trying.
> 
> Maybe post another dishonest photo of an I-beam or something. I'm done with you.



Of course you're done with me. I just cut your legs out from under you and your "eyewitness proof of spontaneousness combustion that was NOT caused by debris" bullshit.

That's what you all do when you get proven wrong.


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> There is no way I can address this...



Truer words were never spoken by Fucktard Jones.  I think this is the first time I've ever actually seen him admit the truth!


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Why dont you run off and find another dishonest picture of a beam, gamolon. You proved nothing at all. Except that you're completely fucking ignorant and can't read and comprehend eye witness testimony.

Go fuck yourself and when you're done, *no family*


Last post of me addressing your dishonest ass.


----------



## Patriot911

TakeAStepBack said:


> Why dont you run off and find another dishonest picture of a beam, gamolon. You proved nothing at all. Except that you're completely fucking ignorant and can't read and comprehend eye witness testimony.
> 
> Go fuck yourself and when you're done, deleted
> 
> 
> Last post of me addressing your dishonest ass.



Really?  Now you have to pretend you're going to rape his mother?  Just more proof of the kind of lowlife scum truthtards are.


----------



## ROBESPIERRE

I hate to have to be the one who tell you; but your government lies to you every day.

Not a single day goes by, that your masters in, (and mostly behind), your government are not busy thinking up new ways to feed you new lies and manipulate your opinions.  Let the public beware !

It is our responibility not to allow too much BS to be forced down our throats at once. 

Your government knows this: Really big lies are much less likely to be challenged by the masses than small ones. Unfortunately, this is a fact about human nature which has been known about and exploited by governments for a long time.

_*Footnote: 
 And if you believe for one second that Osama Bin Laden was just recently captured and shot in the face, (then tested with biometrics), and then buried at sea, you are one gullible fool !*_


----------



## Gamolon

TakeAStepBack said:


> Why dont you run off and find another dishonest picture of a beam, gamolon. You proved nothing at all. Except that you're completely fucking ignorant and can't read and comprehend eye witness testimony.
> 
> Go fuck yourself and when you're done, *no family*
> 
> 
> Last post of me addressing your dishonest ass.



This will be the first time reporting someone like you ya prick.

I have no problems with people saying things about me, but when you stoop low enough like you just did, you deserve it.

I'm glad you posted this where everyone can see what type of people you idiots really are.

Welcome to ignore.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Triton said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Looks like a building fell on it.*
> 
> And if i remember right it was finally deconstructed a few months ago.
> 
> Due to the structural damage and contamination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I second this
Click to expand...


Really? Do tell us what happened then.....


----------



## SFC Ollie

Triton said:


> Or WTC 3 being almost cut in half and still not collapsing



And why should it collapse? Was it built the same as any of the other buildings? Did it burn the same way? Was it damaged the same way? It was later demolished because of the damages wasn't it?


----------



## Patriot911

SFC Ollie said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or WTC 3 being almost cut in half and still not collapsing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And why should it collapse? Was it built the same as any of the other buildings? Did it burn the same way? Was it damaged the same way? It was later demolished because of the damages wasn't it?
Click to expand...


Better yet, what would cause the collapse?  WTC 1 and 2 had large sections above the impact sites bearing down on the structure and this weight eventually caused the collapse.  WTC 7 had 40 stories above the structures that failed bearing down on the structures.

So what should have caused the collapse?  There was nothing weighing down on the structures of WTC 3, 4, 5, or 6 that would cause a collapse.


----------



## SFC Ollie

TakeAStepBack said:


> You trolls are so fucking dishonest.
> 
> I'm not address you anymore, Gamolon. You're a dishonest troll.



No he isn't you made a statement and have been unable to prove it. You got your ass kicked again.


----------



## SFC Ollie

TakeAStepBack said:


> SHE never answered. And she did, she said "fire?" as if in disbelief. She saw it blow up.
> 
> Your again being dishonest and cannot figure out how to address eye witness account.



And didn't say it blew up for no reason, she gave no reason and did not answer if it was on fire or not. Fire! (Fuck yes it was on fire) I saw it blow up"

Use your head for a change.....


----------



## SFC Ollie

Mr. Jones said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way I can address this...It is another weird anomaly that has been swept under the rug. It is possible, given what you have posted and linked, that there were multiple forces of destruction, but the fact remains, that there is no way sporadic fires and asymmetrical damage caused the symmetrical straight down collapses of these 3 massive buildings, and I see that the fruit loopers are still doing what they do best. Now it appears they have been charged with resurrecting fading threads so the ones about the recent deception of OBL 10th reported death are diminished.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May Day! May Day!
> 
> So predictable that this date would be chosen for OBL "death".
> 
> Way to ramp up those rating Obama!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, and to the day of Bushs "mission accomplished" speech. You got to hand it to these psy op bastards, they are really good at the mind control, especially on such a massive scale. It is good to know that not everyone is falling for their BS, and a lot of folks are waking up, and when they do that they analyze what they are being told and shown, realizing all the times they have been duped and lied to, and the sensible person in them emerges.
> The list of past deceptions is vast, the evidence is vast, all it takes is for a person to take an honest look at the big picture, including past and recent events, and it soon becomes clear to them just how much BS they have been told and believed.
Click to expand...


O Gee, and Hitlers death was announced on May Day too.....It must be a conspiracy....


----------



## Triton

sfc ollie said:


> triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> or wtc 3 being almost cut in half and still not collapsing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and why should it collapse? Was it built the same as any of the other buildings? Did it burn the same way? Was it damaged the same way? It was later demolished because of the damages wasn't it?
Click to expand...


lol


----------



## Triton

LOL tell you how it collapsed?????????



LMAO you guys are killing me with this humor!


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Good job. Send a mod in to cover you...You're still a dishonest troll with no meat.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Too much....these clowns cant even cover themselves


----------



## TakeAStepBack

You trolls suck/


----------



## SFC Ollie

TakeAStepBack said:


> Good job. Send a mod in to cover you...You're still a dishonest troll with no meat.



You have a problem with the rules? 

It's very simple. Even you can understand it. 

You don't fuck with anyone's family.

That is why the mods are there. To make sure we all follow a few simple rules.

Dumb ass.


----------



## Gamolon

SFC Ollie said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good job. Send a mod in to cover you...You're still a dishonest troll with no meat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a problem with the rules?
> 
> It's very simple. Even you can understand it.
> 
> You don't fuck with anyone's family.
> 
> That is why the mods are there. To make sure we all follow a few simple rules.
> 
> Dumb ass.
Click to expand...


Typical truthers. 

No rebuttals at all when they get their asses handed to them. They all revert to the "you're a troll" or "you're a shill/agent".

Happens every time.


----------



## Gamolon

Triton said:


> LOL tell you how it collapsed?????????
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO you guys are killing me with this humor!



Explain why the east penthouse collapsed first into the building itself. The perimeter facade didn't collapse until later a full 7 or 8 seconds later.

Yet you keep calling the collapse "totally symmetrical".

Why?


----------



## Gamolon

Patriot911 said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the cars that ignited in the parking lot were hit by debris?
> Because there are images available that show no debris, yet burning cars. You clearly havent done any homework and you are a liar to boot, Gamolon. The reason you're on ignore in the first place.
> 
> Go find your own images of the car park and FDR drive car explosion. I'm not here so you can waste my time with your dishonest posting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey TakeAShit.... if Gamolon is on ignore, why are you responding to what he wrote?    BUSTED AGAIN!!!!
> 
> And you're just like Triton; such a lazy fuck or so dishonest that you hope someone ELSE can do your work for you.    Why bother?  We all know you're a lying piece of shit!  You want to make a point?  Make a point.  Don't sit there jacking off and pretending your bullshit is real and then telling everyone else they have to prove it for themselves.
Click to expand...


Just thought I'd post this about the FDR drive cars igniting/on fire and what I just found...

Judy says this about toasted cars on FDR vs. being towed. 


			
				Judy Wood said:
			
		

> In the debate over toasted cars ignited by this article, some have argued that the wrecked vehicles on FDR drive were damaged at the WTC and were loaded up and transported and dumped on FDR drive for storage. First, there is no evidence that this was done.



I found this photo yesterday of car 2723 that I had never seen before. The red arrow on the right points to, what I eventually figured out, the words "The Millenium Hilton". Also notice the tree branch circled in red. 





Here is a Google Earth photo of the same area. Notice the tree branch on the left and the words "The Millenium Hilton" on the right.





Here are the photos Judy puts on her site for the car 2327 being burned at the FDR location.









Does this constitute the non existing evidence that the car was moved to the FDR location that she claims doesn't exist?

Thoughts?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Gamolon said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the cars that ignited in the parking lot were hit by debris?
> Because there are images available that show no debris, yet burning cars. You clearly havent done any homework and you are a liar to boot, Gamolon. The reason you're on ignore in the first place.
> 
> Go find your own images of the car park and FDR drive car explosion. I'm not here so you can waste my time with your dishonest posting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey TakeAShit.... if Gamolon is on ignore, why are you responding to what he wrote?    BUSTED AGAIN!!!!
> 
> And you're just like Triton; such a lazy fuck or so dishonest that you hope someone ELSE can do your work for you.    Why bother?  We all know you're a lying piece of shit!  You want to make a point?  Make a point.  Don't sit there jacking off and pretending your bullshit is real and then telling everyone else they have to prove it for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just thought I'd post this about the FDR drive cars igniting/on fire and what I just found...
> 
> Judy says this about toasted cars on FDR vs. being towed.
> 
> 
> 
> Judy Wood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the debate over toasted cars ignited by this article, some have argued that the wrecked vehicles on FDR drive were damaged at the WTC and were loaded up and transported and dumped on FDR drive for storage. First, there is no evidence that this was done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I found this photo yesterday of car 2723 that I had never seen before. The red arrow on the right points to, what I eventually figured out, the words "The Millenium Hilton". Also notice the tree branch circled in red.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a Google Earth photo of the same area. Notice the tree branch on the left and the words "The Millenium Hilton" on the right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the photos Judy puts on her site for the car 2327 being burned at the FDR location.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does this constitute the non existing evidence that the car was moved to the FDR location that she claims doesn't exist?
> 
> Thoughts?
Click to expand...




Wow. You actually took the time out to doctor a photo and repost it? You're so far beyond dishonest it's fucking great. Look at the door of both of those vehicles. Do they look similar. Drivers door? The trunk size vs. the back end of the car? Does it match up?

You're the most pathetic soul ever. In real life I would hand you your nuts so you dont reproduce.

Cite the source of your photo you agent fucking troll.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

This site is infiltrated with agents. If you have any fucking integrity here, show it now. I'm not coming here anymore. If you're the bulk of America, you're lost.


----------



## SFC Ollie

TakeAStepBack said:


> This site is infiltrated with agents. If you have any fucking integrity here, show it now. I'm not coming here anymore. If you're the bulk of America, you're lost.



Good riddance, we don't need your lies anyway.  By the way those pics are not doctored at all. That is the same car.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

cite the fucking source then you tragic fuck. The drivers doors look VERY different. You're another dishonest fucking agent troll. 

Loser trolls.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

cite the source. Show everyone how dishonest you are. C'mon, lets see agent.


----------



## candycorn

Thought you were leaving shitbrains.  Gee; another lie.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Cite the source, agent.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

You fucking pig fuckers really suck at this. Like, real bad. I hope you all DIAF after WMFYM, AYW. Soooo dishonest.


Cite the source.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

cite the source of the doctored photo. do it.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/car2723wtc.jpg

could it be Gamolon's photo bucket. 

You fuckers SUCK at this.


----------



## SFC Ollie

LOL

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmUZGdi7Ty4]YouTube - Just Do It, Do It!!![/ame]


----------



## TakeAStepBack

So cite it, bitches. Let's see.....


----------



## TakeAStepBack

You're a fucking moron, Ollie. I hope you DIAF. For real.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Yep I believe we have reached meltdown status.

Are you begging to be banned here or what?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

cite the source you dishonest troll.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Still waiting


Is this where you admit you're full of shit?


----------



## SFC Ollie

I don't know what his source is, but the cars certainly appear the same to me. Now I'm not an expert,  but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn before....


LOL 

I love meltdowns.....


----------



## TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey TakeAShit.... if Gamolon is on ignore, why are you responding to what he wrote?    BUSTED AGAIN!!!!
> 
> And you're just like Triton; such a lazy fuck or so dishonest that you hope someone ELSE can do your work for you.    Why bother?  We all know you're a lying piece of shit!  You want to make a point?  Make a point.  Don't sit there jacking off and pretending your bullshit is real and then telling everyone else they have to prove it for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just thought I'd post this about the FDR drive cars igniting/on fire and what I just found...
> 
> Judy says this about toasted cars on FDR vs. being towed.
> 
> 
> 
> Judy Wood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the debate over toasted cars ignited by this article, some have argued that the wrecked vehicles on FDR drive were damaged at the WTC and were loaded up and transported and dumped on FDR drive for storage. First, there is no evidence that this was done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I found this photo yesterday of car 2723 that I had never seen before. The red arrow on the right points to, what I eventually figured out, the words "The Millenium Hilton". Also notice the tree branch circled in red.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a Google Earth photo of the same area. Notice the tree branch on the left and the words "The Millenium Hilton" on the right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the photos Judy puts on her site for the car 2327 being burned at the FDR location.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does this constitute the non existing evidence that the car was moved to the FDR location that she claims doesn't exist?
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. You actually took the time out to doctor a photo and repost it? You're so far beyond dishonest it's fucking great. Look at the door of both of those vehicles. Do they look similar. Drivers door? The trunk size vs. the back end of the car? Does it match up?
> 
> You're the most pathetic soul ever. In real life I would hand you your nuts so you dont reproduce.
> 
> Cite the source of your photo you agent fucking troll.
Click to expand...


Do the driver doors and the police lights on top match?

You aren't getting out of this. Admit it.  Cite your source. Or admit you'r agent trolls. 

I'm not letting it go.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Those driver doors look the same? Dishonesty. I would behead you for your dishonor.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

cite the source.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

You're all fucking lost if you believe the trolls saying there is a match.
The war. it is on your mind.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Actually it appears that the drivers door may have been damaged more by a fork lift or similar piece of equipment used to move the car out of the way. But the burn marks and other details are identical. And I can't be positive about the door because they are at a different angle with different lighting.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

site the source of the photo.


----------



## Obamerican

TakeAStepBack said:


> You fucking pig fuckers really suck at this. Like, real bad. I hope you all DIAF after WMFYM, AYW. Soooo dishonest.
> 
> 
> Cite the source.


Only an illiterate asshole says, "like", you fuck. What are you 15 years old, shit stain? Leave than, you dishonest turd.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Cite the source of the photo you fucking inbred hick. Cite it.


----------



## Obamerican

TakeAStepBack said:


> Those driver doors look the same? Dishonesty. I would behead you for your dishonor.


Look at your avatar, you loser. You aren't "beheading" anything, you piece of shit.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just thought I'd post this about the FDR drive cars igniting/on fire and what I just found...
> 
> Judy says this about toasted cars on FDR vs. being towed.
> 
> 
> I found this photo yesterday of car 2723 that I had never seen before. The red arrow on the right points to, what I eventually figured out, the words "The Millenium Hilton". Also notice the tree branch circled in red.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a Google Earth photo of the same area. Notice the tree branch on the left and the words "The Millenium Hilton" on the right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the photos Judy puts on her site for the car 2327 being burned at the FDR location.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does this constitute the non existing evidence that the car was moved to the FDR location that she claims doesn't exist?
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. You actually took the time out to doctor a photo and repost it? You're so far beyond dishonest it's fucking great. Look at the door of both of those vehicles. Do they look similar. Drivers door? The trunk size vs. the back end of the car? Does it match up?
> 
> You're the most pathetic soul ever. In real life I would hand you your nuts so you dont reproduce.
> 
> Cite the source of your photo you agent fucking troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do the driver doors and the police lights on top match?
> 
> You aren't getting out of this. Admit it.  Cite your source. Or admit you'r agent trolls.
> 
> I'm not letting it go.
Click to expand...


Cite the source.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

I'm waiting.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. You actually took the time out to doctor a photo and repost it? You're so far beyond dishonest it's fucking great. Look at the door of both of those vehicles. Do they look similar. Drivers door? The trunk size vs. the back end of the car? Does it match up?
> 
> You're the most pathetic soul ever. In real life I would hand you your nuts so you dont reproduce.
> 
> Cite the source of your photo you agent fucking troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do the driver doors and the police lights on top match?
> 
> You aren't getting out of this. Admit it.  Cite your source. Or admit you'r agent trolls.
> 
> I'm not letting it go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cite the source.
Click to expand...


Look at the passenger rear view  mirror. Any thought?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey TakeAShit.... if Gamolon is on ignore, why are you responding to what he wrote?    BUSTED AGAIN!!!!
> 
> And you're just like Triton; such a lazy fuck or so dishonest that you hope someone ELSE can do your work for you.    Why bother?  We all know you're a lying piece of shit!  You want to make a point?  Make a point.  Don't sit there jacking off and pretending your bullshit is real and then telling everyone else they have to prove it for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just thought I'd post this about the FDR drive cars igniting/on fire and what I just found...
> 
> Judy says this about toasted cars on FDR vs. being towed.
> 
> 
> 
> Judy Wood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the debate over toasted cars ignited by this article, some have argued that the wrecked vehicles on FDR drive were damaged at the WTC and were loaded up and transported and dumped on FDR drive for storage. First, there is no evidence that this was done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I found this photo yesterday of car 2723 that I had never seen before. The red arrow on the right points to, what I eventually figured out, the words "The Millenium Hilton". Also notice the tree branch circled in red.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a Google Earth photo of the same area. Notice the tree branch on the left and the words "The Millenium Hilton" on the right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the photos Judy puts on her site for the car 2327 being burned at the FDR location.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does this constitute the non existing evidence that the car was moved to the FDR location that she claims doesn't exist?
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. You actually took the time out to doctor a photo and repost it? You're so far beyond dishonest it's fucking great. Look at the door of both of those vehicles. Do they look similar. Drivers door? The trunk size vs. the back end of the car? Does it match up?
> 
> You're the most pathetic soul ever. In real life I would hand you your nuts so you dont reproduce.
> 
> Cite the source of your photo you agent fucking troll.
Click to expand...


cite the source.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

So?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Cite the source.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

I meltdown, Ollie? Post eh fucking source you dumb hick troll. Let's ALL see it.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just thought I'd post this about the FDR drive cars igniting/on fire and what I just found...
> 
> Judy says this about toasted cars on FDR vs. being towed.
> 
> 
> I found this photo yesterday of car 2723 that I had never seen before. The red arrow on the right points to, what I eventually figured out, the words "The Millenium Hilton". Also notice the tree branch circled in red.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a Google Earth photo of the same area. Notice the tree branch on the left and the words "The Millenium Hilton" on the right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the photos Judy puts on her site for the car 2327 being burned at the FDR location.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does this constitute the non existing evidence that the car was moved to the FDR location that she claims doesn't exist?
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. You actually took the time out to doctor a photo and repost it? You're so far beyond dishonest it's fucking great. Look at the door of both of those vehicles. Do they look similar. Drivers door? The trunk size vs. the back end of the car? Does it match up?
> 
> You're the most pathetic soul ever. In real life I would hand you your nuts so you dont reproduce.
> 
> Cite the source of your photo you agent fucking troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> cite the source.
Click to expand...


?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Still waiting.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

You trolls really do suck at this.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. You actually took the time out to doctor a photo and repost it? You're so far beyond dishonest it's fucking great. Look at the door of both of those vehicles. Do they look similar. Drivers door? The trunk size vs. the back end of the car? Does it match up?
> 
> You're the most pathetic soul ever. In real life I would hand you your nuts so you dont reproduce.
> 
> Cite the source of your photo you agent fucking troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cite the source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ?
Click to expand...


I'm waiting.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

You dishonest agents. Even eh site runners suck at this.....


----------



## Patriot911

Wow.  TakeAShit has had a serious meltdown!    What a fucking loser.  No wonder everyone hates him.


----------



## Obamerican

TakeAStepBack said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do the driver doors and the police lights on top match?
> 
> You aren't getting out of this. Admit it.  Cite your source. Or admit you'r agent trolls.
> 
> I'm not letting it go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cite the source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at the passenger rear view  mirror. Any thought?
Click to expand...

Yeah, you sucking cock, bitch. Attack my so-called "government check" you fucking idiot.


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> Wow.  TakeAShit has had a serious meltdown!    What a fucking loser.  No wonder everyone hates him.



actually its you and your little retarded fiend everyone hates


----------



## TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. You actually took the time out to doctor a photo and repost it? You're so far beyond dishonest it's fucking great. Look at the door of both of those vehicles. Do they look similar. Drivers door? The trunk size vs. the back end of the car? Does it match up?
> 
> You're the most pathetic soul ever. In real life I would hand you your nuts so you dont reproduce.
> 
> Cite the source of your photo you agent fucking troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do the driver doors and the police lights on top match?
> 
> You aren't getting out of this. Admit it.  Cite your source. Or admit you'r agent trolls.
> 
> I'm not letting it go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cite the source.
Click to expand...


C'mon, fucks. Cite the source of the doctored photo. Put it out there for the whole board to see.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey TakeAShit.... if Gamolon is on ignore, why are you responding to what he wrote?    BUSTED AGAIN!!!!
> 
> And you're just like Triton; such a lazy fuck or so dishonest that you hope someone ELSE can do your work for you.    Why bother?  We all know you're a lying piece of shit!  You want to make a point?  Make a point.  Don't sit there jacking off and pretending your bullshit is real and then telling everyone else they have to prove it for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just thought I'd post this about the FDR drive cars igniting/on fire and what I just found...
> 
> Judy says this about toasted cars on FDR vs. being towed.
> 
> 
> 
> Judy Wood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the debate over toasted cars ignited by this article, some have argued that the wrecked vehicles on FDR drive were damaged at the WTC and were loaded up and transported and dumped on FDR drive for storage. First, there is no evidence that this was done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I found this photo yesterday of car 2723 that I had never seen before. The red arrow on the right points to, what I eventually figured out, the words "The Millenium Hilton". Also notice the tree branch circled in red.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a Google Earth photo of the same area. Notice the tree branch on the left and the words "The Millenium Hilton" on the right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the photos Judy puts on her site for the car 2327 being burned at the FDR location.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does this constitute the non existing evidence that the car was moved to the FDR location that she claims doesn't exist?
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. You actually took the time out to doctor a photo and repost it? You're so far beyond dishonest it's fucking great. Look at the door of both of those vehicles. Do they look similar. Drivers door? The trunk size vs. the back end of the car? Does it match up?
> 
> You're the most pathetic soul ever. In real life I would hand you your nuts so you dont reproduce.
> 
> Cite the source of your photo you agent fucking troll.
Click to expand...


cite the source. Do the driver doors and lights look the same?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

How about the passenger side rearview mirror? Look the same?

Cite the source.


You fucking rejects suck so bad at this. The least you could do is be honest. But if you were honest we would be in agreement. 

CITE THE SOURCE


----------



## candycorn

A man follows his words with actions; you said you were leaving shit brains; yet you're still here.  


Here's a prescription for 2 testicles; have it filled immediately.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

What's the matter, you fucking reject? 

Can't explain away the dishonesty so you're forced to attack me.

Cite the source of the photo. I'm not going to go away so you can continue your dishonest campaign. You fucking trolls really suck at this.


CITE THE SOURCE OF THE PHOTO. You know you're dishonest. Fess up, skid mark.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Just admit to the board you're a liar and a cheat so all can see it and I'll let it die.....


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Gamolon, Ollie, Patriot, Candycorn and everybody else not refuting the official claim. I call on you to provide concrete evidence that Gamolon's first photo ISN'T doctored and that the MASSIVE discrepancies within photo 1 and photo 3 and 4, make sense.
The driver doors.
The passenger rear view mirror.
The red and whites on the top of the police car in photo 1 vs. photo 3 and 4.
The alignment of the trunk of the car in photo 1, as it matches up to the back of the car in height and size as well.


If this is the type of honesty people are willing to display over such a massive cover up, don't think you're going to be excluded when the shit really hits the fan.

Fess up with us and yourself.


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  TakeAShit has had a serious meltdown!    What a fucking loser.  No wonder everyone hates him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually its you and your little retarded fiend everyone hates
Click to expand...


As usual, eots, you're wrong.    Funny.  It's been so long since you've ever gotten anything right, do you actually REMEMBER what it is like to get something right?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Why don't try actually addressing the information instead of insulting people?

Explain your buddy Gamolon's doctored photo. Explain the information I've presented you with.

I know why you dont. Would you like to just call it and fess up with the readers of this thread that you're a liar and a cheat? You're also a despicable asshole that apparently enjoys insulting people in every post to boast your own pathetic existence.

CITE THE SOURCE OF THE PHOTO.

You fucks have been defeated in this argument. You lie and derail in order to keep others at bay.

I have triumphed you at this juncture and find you obsolete. You will not be addressed again. Anyone reading this, you have been warned that the same will happen to you.

The worst of these fucking assholes is Gamolon. Who actually is pathetic enough to take the time out to doctor a photo. A terrible job at that. I hope you got paid for it. If not YOU are one sad fucking soul. 

WINNING!


----------



## Obamerican

TakeAStepBack said:


> Why don't try actually addressing the information instead of insulting people?
> 
> Explain your buddy Gamolon's doctored photo. Explain the information I've presented you with.
> 
> I know why you dont. Would you like to just call it and fess up with the readers of this thread that you're a liar and a cheat? You're also a despicable asshole that apparently enjoys insulting people in every post to boast your own pathetic existence.
> 
> CITE THE SOURCE OF THE PHOTO.
> 
> You fucks have been defeated in this argument. You lie and derail in order to keep others at bay.
> 
> I have triumphed you at this juncture and find you obsolete. You will not be addressed again. Anyone reading this, you have been warned that the same will happen to you.
> 
> The worst of these fucking assholes is Gamolon. Who actually is pathetic enough to take the time out to doctor a photo. A terrible job at that. I hope you got paid for it. If not YOU are one sad fucking soul.
> 
> WINNING!


Fucking loser.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PmjrJgwH_0&feature=related]YouTube - RATM Atom Bombs[/ame]


----------



## Patriot911

Oh look.  TakeAShit posts an irrelevant video as if that justifies his complete ignorance.  And then triton thanks him for being irrelevant, thus proving his own irrelevance.


----------



## Triton

9/11 was an inside job


TakeAStepBack has made you all look like fools


----------



## SFC Ollie

Triton said:


> 9/11 was an inside job
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack has made you all look like fools



Only to the foolish.


----------



## Mr. Jones

TakeAStepBack said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. You actually took the time out to doctor a photo and repost it? You're so far beyond dishonest it's fucking great. Look at the door of both of those vehicles. Do they look similar. Drivers door? The trunk size vs. the back end of the car? Does it match up?
> 
> You're the most pathetic soul ever. In real life I would hand you your nuts so you dont reproduce.
> 
> Cite the source of your photo you agent fucking troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cite the source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ?
Click to expand...


LOL, Busted the troll red handed


----------



## Mr. Jones

TakeAStepBack said:


> Gamolon, Ollie, Patriot, Candycorn and everybody else not refuting the official claim. I call on you to provide concrete evidence that Gamolon's first photo ISN'T doctored and that the MASSIVE discrepancies within photo 1 and photo 3 and 4, make sense.
> The driver doors.
> The passenger rear view mirror.
> The red and whites on the top of the police car in photo 1 vs. photo 3 and 4.
> The alignment of the trunk of the car in photo 1, as it matches up to the back of the car in height and size as well.
> 
> 
> If this is the type of honesty people are willing to display over such a massive cover up, don't think you're going to be excluded when the shit really hits the fan.
> 
> Fess up with us and yourself.


Wow, it's so obvious that this is a doctored photo, what a lying POS  The dishonesty in this group of trolls is astounding! But they'll all just quickly resort to the back up tactics of name calling and try to continue the fruit loop by changing the subject to something that has already been addressed.


----------



## Gamolon

Obamerican said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't try actually addressing the information instead of insulting people?
> 
> Explain your buddy Gamolon's doctored photo. Explain the information I've presented you with.
> 
> I know why you dont. Would you like to just call it and fess up with the readers of this thread that you're a liar and a cheat? You're also a despicable asshole that apparently enjoys insulting people in every post to boast your own pathetic existence.
> 
> CITE THE SOURCE OF THE PHOTO.
> 
> You fucks have been defeated in this argument. You lie and derail in order to keep others at bay.
> 
> I have triumphed you at this juncture and find you obsolete. You will not be addressed again. Anyone reading this, you have been warned that the same will happen to you.
> 
> The worst of these fucking assholes is Gamolon. Who actually is pathetic enough to take the time out to doctor a photo. A terrible job at that. I hope you got paid for it. If not YOU are one sad fucking soul.
> 
> WINNING!
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking loser.
Click to expand...


You bitches wanted the link/source where I got the photo? Here you go:
http://letsrollforums.com/911-birdys-gallery-t16679p2.html

Look at post #12. 

Hey Takeastepback. As far as me "doctoring a photo", you can kiss my ass.



Just goes to show what  bunch of low-life, dishonest bitches people like Takeastepback are. Accusing people of things they have no proof of only to look "righteous". 

Maybe you should pull your head out of your ass once in a while Takeastepback as you'd look less stupid. Let's see if you have the balls to retract your accusation of me doctoring the photo. I doubt it though...

What a loser.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Even so. That photo is doctored and can not be traced back to a photographer. Unless the red and whites on top of the car managed to become unburned AFTER it was supposedly moved from its location. The photo is CLEARLY doctored. 

+1 for at least not doctoring it yourself (maybe.)
-1,000 for not questioning the massive discrepancies in the photos.


----------



## SFC Ollie

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPStw1SzcQc]YouTube - DADDY DEWDROP- "CHICK-A-BOOM (DON&#39;T YA JES&#39; LOVE IT)"[/ame]


----------



## TakeAStepBack

And I have the balls to respond because I have nothing to hide. My agenda is only for the truth. And the truth is, two of the now 3 sets of car 2723, only one comes back to someones photography copyright.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

And finally it very well could be two 2723. The photos from FDR are from unit Intel 2723.

Where the other cars could have been 90 PCT or another unit. So it proves nothing at all. The discrepancies are clear. Those cars are not the same.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Here is one more that looks like the actual intel car from the previous photos. That's 4 now of the prop 2723 in the op from location to location. Boy, this  car got around.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

YOu guys win. There will NEVER be a real answer. This whole topic is disastrously fucked. I retract all prior comment up until this point. Offer an apology to EVERYONE, and walk away from this topic for good. It's over. No truth can be attained here.


2 planes crashed and 2 110 story buildings pulverized from that.


Peace everyone.


----------



## Patriot911

Promises promises.  Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.


----------



## Gamolon

TakeAStepBack said:


> Here is one more that looks like the actual intel car from the previous photos. That's 4 now of the prop 2723 in the op from location to location. Boy, this  car got around.



"Prop" that got around eh? You make yourself look more stupid with each post. So you think this photo shows that car in a "third" and different location? What we have is four photos now of the same car. Two from the car being moved to FDR drive and two from when it was on Church Street. Read below jackass.

Here's a clue. Look real close at the building in the background in the photo you just posted above. Look to the left through the window. See the word "Borders"? As in the Borders bookstore? Go search Google and look up the tenants for WTC5. 

Oh boy! Did you find Borders? On the plaza level of WTC5? Hmmm. I wonder what was across Church Street, on the opposite side from that Borders store in WTC5? 

Could it have been.... wait for it.... The Millennium Hilton?!?!?!?!?

I sure am glad you won't be posting in this thread anymore. It saves me the work of making you look like a COMPLETE and TOTAL idiot.

Prop!


----------



## TakeAStepBack

No, dumb shit. And truly this is it, the #4 photo. This photo has been seen too.






Apparently, this car was moving around and changing form after being destroyed by whatever.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Like I said, you WIN! Happy? Feel good?

I'm glad if so, because I'm out on this.


----------



## Gamolon

TakeAStepBack said:


> Like I said, you WIN! Happy? Feel good?
> 
> I'm glad if so, because I'm out on this.





BYE!


----------



## Gamolon

Look at all them scatter like rats on a sinking ship!



Truthers don't like having their asses handed to them.


----------



## Patriot911

Gamolon said:


> Look at all them scatter like rats on a sinking ship!
> 
> 
> 
> Truthers don't like having their asses handed to them.



It is more like cockroaches scattering when they see the light.  I know it is an insult to rats and cockroaches everywhere to be compared to piece of shit traitorous scum like truthtards.  Even though rats and cockroaches have more cognitive power than truthtards, they will eventually get over being insulted like that.


----------



## Mr. Jones

TakeAStepBack said:


> Like I said, you WIN! Happy? Feel good?
> 
> I'm glad if so, because I'm out on this.



What exactly are these scumbags cheering and clapping about??
What are they supposed to have "won"?
They managed to stay in a coincitard butt buddy gay fuckfest choo choo train or something??


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, you WIN! Happy? Feel good?
> 
> I'm glad if so, because I'm out on this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly are these scumbags cheering and clapping about??
> What are they supposed to have "won"?
> They managed to stay in a coincitard butt buddy gay fuckfest choo choo train or something??
Click to expand...


  Look at fucktard jones pretending he doesn't read our every word!    When are you going to quit pretending and go back to getting your ass kicked!  Oh wait.  That is why you "pretended" to put everyone on ignore.  You can't debate, so you run away like the scared little bitch you are.    What a piece of shit loser.


----------



## Gamolon

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, you WIN! Happy? Feel good?
> 
> I'm glad if so, because I'm out on this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly are these scumbags cheering and clapping about??
> What are they supposed to have "won"?
> They managed to stay in a coincitard butt buddy gay fuckfest choo choo train or something??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at fucktard jones pretending he doesn't read our every word!    When are you going to quit pretending and go back to getting your ass kicked!  Oh wait.  That is why you "pretended" to put everyone on ignore.  You can't debate, so you run away like the scared little bitch you are.    What a piece of shit loser.
Click to expand...


But Patriot!!!!

The police car was a prop that they moved from location to location and took photos!!!!!

It was toasted on FDR drive, BLOCKS away from the towers!!!!

DEW!!!!!!


----------



## eots

the government never lies to the masses  ..there are no black ops...there are no conspiracy's..no false news stories..the media seeks the truth and is not the forth branch of government...there is no socialist/ globalist agenda at work.. no wars of conquest
it is all just mom and apple pie, freedom lovin America and evil doers that hates us for our freedoms.. as we bring democracy and human rights to the people of the world...nothing to see her move along...


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> the government never lies to the masses  ..there are no black ops...there are no conspiracy's..no false news stories..the media seeks the truth and is not the forth branch of government...there is no socialist/ globalist agenda at work.. no wars of conquest
> it is all just mom and apple pie, freedom lovin America and evil doers that hates us for our freedoms.. as we bring democracy and human rights to the people of the world...nothing to see her move along...



Tell you what douchebag.

You show me where I've ever said ANY of the following:

1. The government NEVER lies
2. There are no black ops
3. There are no conspiracy theories
4. There are no false stories
5. The media seeks the truth and is not a fourth branch of the government
6. There is no socialist/globalist agenda
7. No wars of conquest

I already know the answer. You can't. Just wanted to make sure that folks reading this know what a lying prick you are.


----------



## eots

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> the government never lies to the masses  ..there are no black ops...there are no conspiracy's..no false news stories..the media seeks the truth and is not the forth branch of government...there is no socialist/ globalist agenda at work.. no wars of conquest
> it is all just mom and apple pie, freedom lovin America and evil doers that hates us for our freedoms.. as we bring democracy and human rights to the people of the world...nothing to see her move along...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell you what douchebag.
> 
> You show me where I've ever said ANY of the following:
> 
> 1. The government NEVER lies
> 2. There are no black ops
> 3. There are no conspiracy theories
> 4. There are no false stories
> 5. The media seeks the truth and is not a fourth branch of the government
> 6. There is no socialist/globalist agenda
> 7. No wars of conquest
> 
> I already know the answer. You can't. Just wanted to make sure that folks reading this know what a lying prick you are.
Click to expand...


show me where I claimed to represent your opinion...you cant I just wanted  to make sure the folks reading know what a crude and irrational person you are


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> the government never lies to the masses  ..there are no black ops...there are no conspiracy's..no false news stories..the media seeks the truth and is not the forth branch of government...there is no socialist/ globalist agenda at work.. no wars of conquest
> it is all just mom and apple pie, freedom lovin America and evil doers that hates us for our freedoms.. as we bring democracy and human rights to the people of the world...nothing to see her move along...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell you what douchebag.
> 
> You show me where I've ever said ANY of the following:
> 
> 1. The government NEVER lies
> 2. There are no black ops
> 3. There are no conspiracy theories
> 4. There are no false stories
> 5. The media seeks the truth and is not a fourth branch of the government
> 6. There is no socialist/globalist agenda
> 7. No wars of conquest
> 
> I already know the answer. You can't. Just wanted to make sure that folks reading this know what a lying prick you are.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> show me where I claimed to represent your opinion...you cant I just wanted  to make sure the folks reading know what a crude and irrational person you are
Click to expand...


What was your purpose in posting that then other than to make people think WE think that "all is right with the world" and that we don't think that "anything should be questioned"?


----------



## eots

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell you what douchebag.
> 
> You show me where I've ever said ANY of the following:
> 
> 1. The government NEVER lies
> 2. There are no black ops
> 3. There are no conspiracy theories
> 4. There are no false stories
> 5. The media seeks the truth and is not a fourth branch of the government
> 6. There is no socialist/globalist agenda
> 7. No wars of conquest
> 
> I already know the answer. You can't. Just wanted to make sure that folks reading this know what a lying prick you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> show me where I claimed to represent your opinion...you cant I just wanted  to make sure the folks reading know what a crude and irrational person you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was your purpose in posting that then other than to make people think WE think that "all is right with the world" and that we don't think that "anything should be questioned"?
Click to expand...


so what is it you question ?


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> show me where I claimed to represent your opinion...you cant I just wanted  to make sure the folks reading know what a crude and irrational person you are
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was your purpose in posting that then other than to make people think WE think that "all is right with the world" and that we don't think that "anything should be questioned"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so what is it you question ?
Click to expand...


Answer my question first.

Why did you post that paragraph other than to make it look like anyone on the other side of the fence from you believes "all is right with the world" and that "we think nothing should be investigated"?

Or are you going to avoid that?


----------



## Gamolon

What's the matter eots? Having trouble picking the right words to answer my question and not look like a dishonest asshole?

Just admit you posted that crap to make it look like we think all that. There can be no other reason and you can't spin it any other way.


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> the government never lies to the masses  ..there are no black ops...there are no conspiracy's..no false news stories..the media seeks the truth and is not the forth branch of government...there is no socialist/ globalist agenda at work.. no wars of conquest
> it is all just mom and apple pie, freedom lovin America and evil doers that hates us for our freedoms.. as we bring democracy and human rights to the people of the world...nothing to see her move along...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell you what douchebag.
> 
> You show me where I've ever said ANY of the following:
> 
> 1. The government NEVER lies
> 2. There are no black ops
> 3. There are no conspiracy theories
> 4. There are no false stories
> 5. The media seeks the truth and is not a fourth branch of the government
> 6. There is no socialist/globalist agenda
> 7. No wars of conquest
> 
> I already know the answer. You can't. Just wanted to make sure that folks reading this know what a lying prick you are.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> show me where I claimed to represent your opinion...you cant I just wanted  to make sure the folks reading know what a crude and irrational person you are
Click to expand...


And this shows just what a bunch of dishonest fucks the truthtards are.  eots pretends he wasn't talking about Gamolon, yet in the SAME SENTENCE he claims he did it to show what a crude and irrational person Gamolon is.  

If ANYONE had any doubts as to the dishonest and seriously fucked up nature of truthtards, eots' blatant dishonesty should dispell them.


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell you what douchebag.
> 
> You show me where I've ever said ANY of the following:
> 
> 1. The government NEVER lies
> 2. There are no black ops
> 3. There are no conspiracy theories
> 4. There are no false stories
> 5. The media seeks the truth and is not a fourth branch of the government
> 6. There is no socialist/globalist agenda
> 7. No wars of conquest
> 
> I already know the answer. You can't. Just wanted to make sure that folks reading this know what a lying prick you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> show me where I claimed to represent your opinion...you cant I just wanted  to make sure the folks reading know what a crude and irrational person you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this shows just what a bunch of dishonest fucks the truthtards are.  eots pretends he wasn't talking about Gamolon, yet in the SAME SENTENCE he claims he did it to show what a crude and irrational person Gamolon is.
> 
> If ANYONE had any doubts as to the dishonest and seriously fucked up nature of truthtards, eots' blatant dishonesty should dispell them.
Click to expand...


keep up the good work and keep proving my point


----------



## eots

Gamolon said:


> *What's the matter eots? Having trouble picking the right words to answer my question and not look like a dishonest asshole?*
> 
> Just admit you posted that crap to make it look like we think all that. There can be no other reason and you can't spin it any other way.



no actually, I  went to the store to buy coffee...lol


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> show me where I claimed to represent your opinion...you cant I just wanted  to make sure the folks reading know what a crude and irrational person you are
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this shows just what a bunch of dishonest fucks the truthtards are.  eots pretends he wasn't talking about Gamolon, yet in the SAME SENTENCE he claims he did it to show what a crude and irrational person Gamolon is.
> 
> If ANYONE had any doubts as to the dishonest and seriously fucked up nature of truthtards, eots' blatant dishonesty should dispell them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> keep up the good work and keep proving my point
Click to expand...


Your point being you are a dishonest fuck and a really sad excuse for a human being?  You've made the point many times over.  You can't defend your bullshit claims so all you do is troll nowdays.


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this shows just what a bunch of dishonest fucks the truthtards are.  eots pretends he wasn't talking about Gamolon, yet in the SAME SENTENCE he claims he did it to show what a crude and irrational person Gamolon is.
> 
> If ANYONE had any doubts as to the dishonest and seriously fucked up nature of truthtards, eots' blatant dishonesty should dispell them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> keep up the good work and keep proving my point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your point being you are a dishonest fuck and a really sad excuse for a human being?  You've made the point many times over.  You can't defend your bullshit claims so all you do is troll nowdays.
Click to expand...


???????????


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What's the matter eots? Having trouble picking the right words to answer my question and not look like a dishonest asshole?*
> 
> Just admit you posted that crap to make it look like we think all that. There can be no other reason and you can't spin it any other way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no actually, I  went to the store to buy coffee...lol
Click to expand...


Riiiggghhhttt...



So why did you post that paragraph?


----------



## eots

gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> *what's the matter eots? Having trouble picking the right words to answer my question and not look like a dishonest asshole?*
> 
> just admit you posted that crap to make it look like we think all that. There can be no other reason and you can't spin it any other way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no actually, i  went to the store to buy coffee...lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> riiiggghhhttt...
> 
> 
> 
> So why did you post that paragraph?
Click to expand...


so this is what you question ?....the coffee conspiracy ?


----------



## eots

gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> *what's the matter eots? Having trouble picking the right words to answer my question and not look like a dishonest asshole?*
> 
> just admit you posted that crap to make it look like we think all that. There can be no other reason and you can't spin it any other way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no actually, i  went to the store to buy coffee...lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> riiiggghhhttt...
> 
> 
> 
> *so why did you post that paragraph*?
Click to expand...


to see if anyone agrees and if not then what they do question


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> no actually, i  went to the store to buy coffee...lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> riiiggghhhttt...
> 
> 
> 
> *so why did you post that paragraph*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> to see if anyone agrees and if not then what they do question
Click to expand...




Spin away eots. Spin away.

We both know you're full of shit. Just read your words again.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey TakeAShit.... if Gamolon is on ignore, why are you responding to what he wrote?    BUSTED AGAIN!!!!
> 
> And you're just like Triton; such a lazy fuck or so dishonest that you hope someone ELSE can do your work for you.    Why bother?  We all know you're a lying piece of shit!  You want to make a point?  Make a point.  Don't sit there jacking off and pretending your bullshit is real and then telling everyone else they have to prove it for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just thought I'd post this about the FDR drive cars igniting/on fire and what I just found...
> 
> Judy says this about toasted cars on FDR vs. being towed.
> 
> 
> 
> Judy Wood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the debate over toasted cars ignited by this article, some have argued that the wrecked vehicles on FDR drive were damaged at the WTC and were loaded up and transported and dumped on FDR drive for storage. First, there is no evidence that this was done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I found this photo yesterday of car 2723 that I had never seen before. The red arrow on the right points to, what I eventually figured out, the words "The Millenium Hilton". Also notice the tree branch circled in red.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a Google Earth photo of the same area. Notice the tree branch on the left and the words "The Millenium Hilton" on the right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the photos Judy puts on her site for the car 2327 being burned at the FDR location.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does this constitute the non existing evidence that the car was moved to the FDR location that she claims doesn't exist?
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. You actually took the time out to doctor a photo and repost it? You're so far beyond dishonest it's fucking great. Look at the door of both of those vehicles. Do they look similar. Drivers door? The trunk size vs. the back end of the car? Does it match up?
> 
> You're the most pathetic soul ever. In real life I would hand you your nuts so you dont reproduce.
> 
> Cite the source of your photo you agent fucking troll.
Click to expand...




TakeAStepBack said:


> Here is one more that looks like the actual intel car from the previous photos. That's 4 now of the prop 2723 in the op from location to location. Boy, this  car got around.



So, what you're saying is that this car was moving around Church street, Gamolon? Where was its starting point? Did it start down the street facing the opposite direction, then get moved in front of the Border's Books? And then over to FDR? The one photo I posted that doesn't even look similar? That one was from church street? Was this car on fire while being moved and then suffered less damage after it found its final destination? 

This is a photo op prop for the psy-op. 

But anyway. You can still claim victory. Thanks to FEMA, the fact still remains that a steel Ibeam shriveled and crimp pinched from falling debris among other anomalies. 

I bet you missed me.


----------



## Mr. Jones

TakeAStepBack said:


> Thanks to FEMA, the fact still remains that a steel Ibeam shriveled and crimp pinched from falling debris among other anomalies.


 Many anomalies is right. It's difficult to keep track of them, then when the reasons for them are presented it can be disproved, and much reasonable doubt is created to their accuracy and probability. The first and most important of things to ponder is where the information comes from. The US government and its entities have all been proven to be liars, and their version full of holes.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Proof gentlemen, The US Government already proved their version in a court of Law.

What have you got? Opinion? Not going to cut it.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

SFC Ollie said:


> Proof gentlemen, The US Government already proved their version in a court of Law.
> 
> What have you got? Opinion? Not going to cut it.



I do have opinion. Here is one.

You got dropped on your head several times as an infant.


----------



## SFC Ollie

TakeAStepBack said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof gentlemen, The US Government already proved their version in a court of Law.
> 
> What have you got? Opinion? Not going to cut it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do have opinion. Here is one.
> 
> You got dropped on your head several times as an infant.
Click to expand...


Why are you still here?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Because you would prefer i leave. 

Let's talk about 9/11. The steel I-Beam from Banker's Trust. Shriveled and pinch crimped?

Thoughts?


----------



## SFC Ollie

A 110 story building fell on it.

Not difficult.


----------



## Patriot911

Fucktards like TakeAShit and Jones are pathological and habitual liars.  You can't take a damn thing they say seriously.  You should have known that by now!


----------



## TakeAStepBack

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJb-GPtb2I0&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News[/ame]

No, dip shit. Look how much material remained. It Pulverized. Explain the energy needed for that.


----------



## SFC Ollie

TakeAStepBack said:


> YouTube - Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News
> 
> No, dip shit. Look how much material remained. It Pulverized. Explain the energy needed for that.



So now reporters are your experts? Really?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Explain the Bankers Trust IBeam from the FEMA photo.


----------



## eots

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> riiiggghhhttt...
> 
> 
> 
> *so why did you post that paragraph*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to see if anyone agrees and if not then what they do question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spin away eots. Spin away.
> 
> We both know you're full of shit. Just read your words again.
Click to expand...


so what you are saying is you disagree with the statement but are unable to elaborate as to why ?


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News
> 
> No, dip shit. Look how much material remained. It Pulverized. Explain the energy needed for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now reporters are your experts? Really?
Click to expand...


the media reported it moron, the source was the E.P.A researchers


----------



## SFC Ollie

TakeAStepBack said:


> Explain the Bankers Trust IBeam from the FEMA photo.



I did, a 110 story building fell on it.

You see i know that I am not an expert at building high rise buildings or physics and i freely admit that. But i do have some common sense. So flat out we all saw it, a 110 story building fell on it.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Try something plausible. Use science and not stupidity.


----------



## candycorn

SFC Ollie said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain the Bankers Trust IBeam from the FEMA photo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did, a 110 story building fell on it.
> 
> You see i know that I am not an expert at building high rise buildings or physics and i freely admit that. But i do have some common sense. So flat out we all saw it, a 110 story building fell on it.
Click to expand...


I thought Take a shit bath was leaving?  Gee, another lie from another twoofer; the common denominator of all twoofers; basic dishonesty and bad breath.


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> to see if anyone agrees and if not then what they do question
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spin away eots. Spin away.
> 
> We both know you're full of shit. Just read your words again.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so what you are saying is you disagree with the statement but are unable to elaborate as to why ?
Click to expand...


You said you didn't it didn't represent my opinion right? You want people to respond that agree with all that you said. That "everything is right with the world and the US government".

Since it wasn't directed at me, and you said it didn't represent my opinion, then why would I respond?


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> to see if anyone agrees and if not then what they do question
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spin away eots. Spin away.
> 
> We both know you're full of shit. Just read your words again.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so what you are saying is you disagree with the statement but are unable to elaborate as to why ?
Click to expand...




eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News
> 
> No, dip shit. Look how much material remained. It Pulverized. Explain the energy needed for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now reporters are your experts? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the media reported it moron, the source was the E.P.A researchers
Click to expand...


eots, you and I both know that your'e not changing what you believe to be true and neither am I.

It's fruitless to come in here and discuss the claims and evidence either side brings to the table. It always turns into name calling and derogatory remarks (which I am guilty of also) and nothing gets accomplished.

At this point, nothing is going to change how people view each other on this forum and what their "agenda" supposedly is. That takes away even MORE chance of a legitimate debate as people are already jaded that I (we) are agents and are pushing lies to avoid the truth. 

I would be all for an investigation, but not for the same reasons you have. I think people fucked up procedurally during 9/11 and are trying to cover their asses from mistakes made. I DON'T think the government was behind 9/11. I don't think the buildings were demoed. I don't think holographic planes were used. I don't believe DEWs, nukes, thermite, explosives, missiles, or anything else was used. I don't think it was to control the oil because if it was, 10 years later, I wouldn't be paying over $4.00 for a friggin' gallon of gas.

This country was attacked as they say it was. We got caught with our pants down. 

The other side of this is that there are many "conspiracy theories" that people have supposed "rock hard" evidence of. The problem is, only one can be true. That makes quite a few people VERY stupid looking for believing bullshit. 

In closing, you and I have been here debating for some time and neither has budged.  Neither has Creativedreams, Candycorn, Ollie, Takeastepback, Terrell, 9/11, and others, to name a few.

So tell me. What good does it do if we know that neither side will ever change their thinking? What good does it do that there are many different conspiracy theories out there, all with people touting their facts, sticking their chests out, fist raised in defiance, and saying "I'm right and everyone else is wrong!" Even the "truthers" argue amongst themselves. What does that say? 

You guys/gals are just like that which you hate (The US government). How ironic. There's the "DEW party", the "Thermite party", the "Nuke party", the "Hologaphic Planes" party, the "North of the Citgo party", the "Explosives party", the "Missile party", the "No plane and Shanksville" party, etc. All vieing to be king of the hill. But, as the Highlander once said, "There can be only one!"

I think it's hypocritical when any of you say your "just trying to find the truth", yet all you argue against is the "Official Story". You never speak out against any other conspiracy. Ever. Like I've said before, as long as everyone on yur side fights against the common foe (The US government), you could care less if someone else on your side is blatantly wrong. As long as you stand together in defiance.

So what good will come of debating further?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Actually, I push against the controlled demolition theory all the time.

Ultimately, that's the most insightful post I've seen from you yet, Gamolon. Well said. And I have to agree.

But then again, I truly am only after the truth. No matter what conclusion that brings us to. Unfortunately, in the end, like you point out, there is way too much "shit" in the toilet on this topic and somewhere underneath it all is a truth that will likely go unnoticed. It's a tragic ending to this tale.


----------



## Gamolon

TakeAStepBack said:


> Actually, I push against the controlled demolition theory all the time.
> 
> Ultimately, that's the most insightful post I've seen from you yet, Gamolon. Well said. And I have to agree.
> 
> But then again, I truly am only after the truth. No matter what conclusion that brings us to. Unfortunately, in the end, like you point out, there is way too much "shit" in the toilet on this topic and somewhere underneath it all is a truth that will likely go unnoticed. It's a tragic ending to this tale.



Is there a way to have a real debate about the topics at hand even if we (including the others here in this forum) are at opposite ends of the spectrum on what we believe at this point and time? 

Can we have a sensible debate with real proof and evidence and possibly come to an amicable conclusion? One that is reached without name calling and snide remarks?

I'm all for rational discussion. As I admitted above, I was part of the problem, but am willing to change that if others are.


----------



## Triton

There was no pulverized concrete, no dust, no molten steel, no total collapse, no free fall collapse, no symmetrical collapse!


It was the 19 cavemen with boxcutters who couldn't fly a Cessna who did it!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Triton

TakeAStepBack said:


> Actually, I push against the controlled demolition theory all the time.
> 
> Ultimately, that's the most insightful post I've seen from you yet, Gamolon. Well said. And I have to agree.
> 
> But then again, I truly am only after the truth. No matter what conclusion that brings us to. Unfortunately, in the end, like you point out, there is way too much "shit" in the toilet on this topic and somewhere underneath it all is a truth that will likely go unnoticed. It's a tragic ending to this tale.





Interesting, If you are willing to withstand the onslaught from our fellow posters, perhaps you can explain what you believe caused the collapse of the towers?


----------



## Patriot911

Triton said:


> There was no pulverized concrete, no dust, no molten steel, no total collapse, no free fall collapse, no symmetrical collapse!
> 
> 
> It was the 19 cavemen with boxcutters who couldn't fly a Cessna who did it!!!!!!!!!



Ah, more bullshit lies from Triton.  I realize you fuckers like to pretend you're actually telling the truth, but the reality of the situation is that they COULD fly and in more than just a Cessna.  Then again, you shitheads like to ignore the truth in order to push your bullshit lies and agendas. 

Don't let me stop you from making a fool out of yourself, though.  I rather enjoy watching you lame fucks tripping all over yourselves with all your mistakes that you then run away from when called on them.    Shall I go over the rather lengthy list of bullshit you tried to pass off as fact and got your ass handed to you?


----------



## Triton

You claim fire melts steel.....

Oh wait nevermind, thats not right, you didn't make that claim because you said there was no molten steel.

Because you said there was no molten steel there was no molten steel, You were using "Candycorn Logic" I forgot.

You stick to that "progressive' collapse theory


----------



## Patriot911

Triton said:


> You claim fire melts steel.....


I've never made that claim.  That is usually done by fucktard truthers like you who don't know the difference.



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> Oh wait nevermind, thats not right, you didn't make that claim because
> you said there was no molten steel.


Wrong yet again, shit for brains.  I said fucking idiots like you who like to pretend they can tell the metalurgical makeup of a molten metal is actually molten steel just by glancing at it, or that anyone else can, are retarded.  



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> Because you said there was no molten steel there was no molten steel, You were using "Candycorn Logic" I forgot.


Wrong again, shit for brains.  See, when you start with lies, you end up with lies.  



			
				Triton said:
			
		

> You stick to that "progressive' collapse theory


Why would I not stick with the truth?  Stupid fucks like you pretend it was a controlled demolition, yet can't answer even the most basic of questions raised if your bullshit were true.... like where were the explosions?   

So go ahead and continue with the mindless bullshit, Triton.  I am sure nobody other than 9/11 inside job is impressed, and the only reason 9/11 inside job is impressed is because he wants to suck up to you for some unknown and unholy reason.


----------



## Triton

The progressive collapse theory regarding WTC7's collapse is complete hogwash.


Pretty much just like everything you type Patriot911.



Why not change your handle to "FucktardTwooferH8tr" or something of that nature, it would make your posts even more hilarious.


----------



## eots

> I think it's hypocritical when any of you say your "just trying to find the truth", yet all you argue against is the "Official Story". You never speak out against any other conspiracy. Ever. Like I've said before, as long as everyone on yur side fights against the common foe (The US government), you could care less if someone else on your side is blatantly wrong. As long as you stand together in defiance.



just more of your editorial ramblings exaggerations and distortions





> So what good will come of debating further?



it will counter balance trolls such as yourself and keep the questions from disappearing down the rabbit hole


----------



## eots

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spin away eots. Spin away.
> 
> We both know you're full of shit. Just read your words again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so what you are saying is you disagree with the statement but are unable to elaborate as to why ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now reporters are your experts? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the media reported it moron, the source was the E.P.A researchers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots, you and I both know that your'e not changing what you believe to be true and neither am I.
> 
> It's fruitless to come in here and discuss the claims and evidence either side brings to the table. It always turns into name calling and derogatory remarks (which I am guilty of also) and nothing gets accomplished.
> 
> At this point, nothing is going to change how people view each other on this forum and what their "agenda" supposedly is. That takes away even MORE chance of a legitimate debate as people are already jaded that I (we) are agents and are pushing lies to avoid the truth.
> 
> I would be all for an investigation, but not for the same reasons you have. I think people fucked up procedurally during 9/11 and are trying to cover their asses from mistakes made. I DON'T think the government was behind 9/11. I don't think the buildings were demoed. I don't think holographic planes were used. I don't believe DEWs, nukes, thermite, explosives, missiles, or anything else was used. I don't think it was to control the oil because if it was, 10 years later, I wouldn't be paying over $4.00 for a friggin' gallon of gas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you" logic" is if 9/11 was a staged event a new pearl harbor allowed to happen or assisted in happening the motivation would be to control oil to sell you cheap gas and seeing as gas is expensive the there can be no prior knowledge  or assistance in the attacks of 9/11
Click to expand...


----------



## Mr. Jones

Patriot911 said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no pulverized concrete, no dust, no molten steel, no total collapse, no free fall collapse, no symmetrical collapse!
> 
> It was the 19 cavemen with boxcutters who couldn't fly a Cessna who did it!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Ah, more bullshit lies from Triton. * I realize you fuckers like to pretend you're actually telling the truth, but the reality of the situation is that they COULD fly and in more than just a Cessna.  Then again, you shitheads like to ignore the truth in order to push your bullshit lies and agendas.
> 
> Don't let me stop you from making a fool out of yourself, though.  I rather enjoy watching you lame fucks tripping all over yourselves with all your mistakes that you then run away from when called on them.    Shall I go over the rather lengthy list of bullshit you tried to pass off as fact and got your ass handed to you?
Click to expand...

Why do you have to make a statement like that about Triton?
We can go back  and see just how many times you have said and posted this same sentence, just insert a different name, and you post absolutely NOTHING that reinforces your statement.

He obviously heard about the lack of flying skills from sources that if things were turned around, I have no doubt you'd be siding with.
The flight instructors themselves said they were shit pilots for Christ sake!
Why don't you go ahead and post all the facts we get wrong then with actual references to back it up?
You hardly ever do, and you honestly expect people to take your word for it!? 

One side of this argument has facts backed up by science and credible sources with no self interest or benefits to gain from truthfully trying to explain what they know, while the side that Parrot 9-11 is for, namely the government, its agencies, and people who depend on one of those 2 for their livelihood, have been caught numerous times changing their story, stonewalling investigations, ignoring witnesses and evidence, and basically shitting on the people they swore to protect and work for. Us, the public footing the bill for the "war on terror" 

Actually folks should not listen to people like him, or so called truthers, they should research this 9-11 topic, and others, that have affected their lives, and then make up their own minds as to which side has the more credible hypothesis.

In all honesty these forums are only good for obtaining interesting links and videos to help them along.

Regarding what Gamolon has posted, I'm rather shocked but would take him up on his offer to discuss/debate topics in a sane manner, as I have to agree that the name calling and personal attacks accomplishes nothing, and just further alienates us and any new comers to the site, which based on your postings, folks can't help but think is your intended goal.

I have done this as well, BUT only in my own defense when someone starts shit with me first.  Go ahead and look all those times up if you want to.
 Regardless, I have always said that I initially believed the government and the media when 9-11 first happened, and it was the government and the media who gave me reasons to start doubting it, and ultimately confirmed for me they are covering things up and lying about much of it. 

I cannot even begin to understand that even with all the land mines of lies, obstructions, and distortions, and in such great quantities, that the government has placed in the path of the truth about 9-11, you people don't seem upset with _them_.
Instead you get all bent out of shape and foam at the mouth at people who are just pointing out all the discrepancies!
Who can be blamed for thinking you all are what many have accused you of being?

Takestepback is just one example of someone who has a different opinion on how the WTC collapses occurred, but we agree they sure as hell couldn't have been destroyed the way _they_ told us they did. Then you try to use this difference to ridicule ALL who don't believe as you do? That WE can't get OUR story straight?!

The governments version of the conspiracy theory has gone through its share of additions, subtractions, retractions, and changes, so how in the hell were WE supposed to know what exactly to look into, when parts of the story changes ?

Just like you try to lump all the skeptics of the 9-11 official version, with those who say their were no planes etc..
 Clearly a strawman that you are so proud to easily knock down. 
Anybody with any sense can see right through your fallacies and that you create your own PHONY arguments to further muddy the discussion!

I could go on and on and even repost the nutty fruit loop way some of you* debate* but it's a waste of time as it will lead to more of the same. 

One other thing that I will state, that many of you ignore is that sometimes the 2 opposing opinions appeal to be correct will be decided solely on the credibility of the authoritative agency or people making the thesis, point or statements, and in that case I would argue that the government and their agencies are at a huge disadvantage based on that. 
 What it comes down to for me is that YOU believe the known, proven liars and their entities, who have ALL the power and connections, by which they are able to control and intimidate witnesses, public opinion through the media, and are in charge of the courts who then decide what is considered truth and evidence, where as I choose to NOT believe these liars and those they influence and control based on their less then honorable reputation.
The deck is stacked, it's as simple as that.


----------



## Mr. Jones

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> so what you are saying is you disagree with the statement but are unable to elaborate as to why ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots, you and I both know that your'e not changing what you believe to be true and neither am I.
> 
> It's fruitless to come in here and discuss the claims and evidence either side brings to the table. It always turns into name calling and derogatory remarks (which I am guilty of also) and nothing gets accomplished.
> 
> At this point, nothing is going to change how people view each other on this forum and what their "agenda" supposedly is. That takes away even MORE chance of a legitimate debate as people are already jaded that I (we) are agents and are pushing lies to avoid the truth.
> 
> I would be all for an investigation, but not for the same reasons you have. I think people fucked up procedurally during 9/11 and are trying to cover their asses from mistakes made. I DON'T think the government was behind 9/11. I don't think the buildings were demoed. I don't think holographic planes were used. I don't believe DEWs, nukes, thermite, explosives, missiles, or anything else was used. I don't think it was to control the oil because if it was, 10 years later, I wouldn't be paying over $4.00 for a friggin' gallon of gas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you" logic" is if 9/11 was a staged event a new pearl harbor allowed to happen or assisted in happening the motivation would be to control oil to sell you cheap gas and seeing as gas is expensive the there can be no prior knowledge  or assistance in the attacks of 9/11
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course because we all know that if US oil companies really had control of the oil, we would all get the company discount!  Because we're Americans and they really really like us, silly!
Click to expand...


----------



## Mr. Jones

Patriot911 said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim fire melts steel.....
> 
> 
> 
> [quote Patriot911]I've never made that claim.  That is usually done by fucktard truthers like you who don't know the difference.
Click to expand...

LOL, what a bald face liar you are. You just got busted you lying POS!   "Fucktard Truthers" the lying scum says 
So called experts and the media that support the official government version like you, started spreading this melting steel story around! Like these sources-

*Stanford scientist compares impact of World Trade Center attack to a nuclear bomb explosion*
And you claim there were no explosions? 
Stanford Professor Steven Block, an expert on national security and terrorism, spoke with the press Tuesday to answer technical questions surrounding the World Trade Center disaster. 
"The intense heat could have melted the buildings cores, allowing for the collapses, he suggested."
Stanford scientist compares impact of World Trade Center attack to a nuclear bomb explosion: 9/01

*Twin towers' steel under scrutiny*
An engineer from Newcastle...Professor of Structural Engineering at the University of Newcastle, John Knapton,
"The buildings survived the impact and the explosion but not the fire, and that is the problem.
"The 35 tonnes of aviation fuel will have melted the steel... 

BBC News | ENGLAND | Twin towers' steel under scrutiny

*Design choice for towers saved lives *
"A lucky choice of design for the World Trade Center towers reduced the death toll caused by their destruction, say engineers.
Each tower was struck by a passenger aeroplane, hijacked by suicidal terrorists, but remained upright for nearly an hour. Eventually raging fires melted the supporting steel struts, but the time delay allowed hundreds of people to escape. --
Many skyscrapers have vertical columns up to six metres apart and rely on combined diagonal struts to bear loads. Destroying these structures would probably collapse a building immediately."

Wow what a contradiction we have here! Some of you say the towers were designed so differently that you site that as a flaw that led to their demise! They even go on to say-
"Classic demolition-
The collapse of the WTC towers looked like a classic controlled demolition, said Mike Taylor of the National Association of Demolition Contractors in Doylestown, Pennsylvania.

"If there's any good thing about this it's that the towers tended not to weaken to one side," said Taylor. "They could have tipped onto other buildings or into the river across the West Side highway."

The collapse of the WTC towers mirrored the strategy used by demolition experts. In controlled demolitions, explosives are placed not just on the lowest three floors but also on several consecutive floors about a third of the way up the building.

The explosions at the higher floors enable the collapse to gain downward momentum as gravity pulls the full weight of unsupported higher floors down into lower floors in a snowballing effect.

On Tuesday, the impacts of aeroplanes on the higher floors replaced the explosives. The collapse of the higher floors caused the floors below to be crushed. "It cascaded down like an implosion," says Taylor.
Wow those guys must be "lying truthtards" because YOU say it didn't look like a CD, Isn't that right Parrot? 
Design choice for towers saved lives - 12 September 2001 - New Scientist

*How the World Trade Center fell*
"It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning," said structural engineer Chris Wise. 
The buildings' construction manager, Hyman Brown, agreed that nothing could have saved them from the inferno.

"The buildings would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said.

I would have given the order to get out - you would have thought someone with technical expertise would have been advising them
Professor John Knapton, Newcastle University
"But steel melts, and 24,000 gallons (91,000 litres) of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire." 
BBC News | AMERICAS | How the World Trade Center fell

So why can't you coincitard conspiracy theorists get your story straight? Your experts said this shit about melting steel, not your so called 'Fucktard Truthers" 
The very ones that support YOUR version went around to the worlds news and media espousing this shit, even saying how coincidentally similar to a controlled demolition the collapses looked too!?
Looks like you went a bit too far and got caught red handed in another one of your lies, scumbag!



> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wait nevermind, thats not right, you didn't make that claim because
> you said there was no molten steel.
> 
> 
> 
> [quotePatriot911]Wrong yet again, shit for brains.  I said fucking idiots like you who like to pretend they can tell the metalurgical makeup of a molten metal is actually molten steel just by glancing at it, or that anyone else can, are retarded.
Click to expand...

 Maybe you coincitards should have stuck to the steel melting caused the collapse story, then you could explain the very real molten steel/metal that was witnessed by those at GZ, and by Nasa thermal imaging. You have sided with the "no molten steel" side of this debate, now you are nitpicking as to the _type_ of metal it was you lying troll!? The fact remains it was fucking molten!

_"The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF. The surface was so hot that standing too long in one spot softened (and even melted) the soles of our safety shoes. Steel toes would often heat up and become intolerable. This heat was also a concern for the search-and-rescue dogs used at the site. Many were not outfitted with protective booties (Photo 13). More than one suffered serious injuries and at least three died while working at Ground Zero. The underground fire burned for exactly 100 days and was finally declared extinguished on Dec. 19, 2001."_
_SH&E professionals from Bechtel Group Inc._




> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you said there was no molten steel there was no molten steel, You were using "Candycorn Logic" I forgot.
> 
> 
> 
> [quotePatriot911]Wrong again, shit for brains.  See, when you start with lies, you end up with lies.
Click to expand...

You would know, since you have shown to be the biggest liar on here! 



> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You stick to that "progressive' collapse theory
> 
> 
> 
> [quotePatriot911]Why would I not stick with the truth?  Stupid fucks like you pretend it was a controlled demolition, yet can't answer even the most basic of questions raised if your bullshit were true.... like where were the explosions?
Click to expand...

 And just how many times does one have to post and link for you the many witnesses that claim explosions? You like to play the fruit loop version of the disinformation game don't you? 
Lying Parrot 9-11 will have people believe office supplies like dustbuster and Lemon Pledge caused all those explosions, and witnesses like FDNY, and media people who were told to move away are all just "truthtards" 



> [quotePatriot911]So go ahead and continue with the mindless bullshit, Triton.  I am sure nobody other than 9/11 inside job is impressed, and the only reason 9/11 inside job is impressed is because he wants to suck up to you for some unknown and unholy reason.


 I just busted your lying ass with proof for all to see!
BTW...IMHO I think it is you and "Candy"corn that have some kind of unnatural alliance thing going on, considering all the sick sexual innuendos you 2 always post. Did you 2 change positions today??
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3652595-post580.html


----------



## SFC Ollie

Mr. Jones said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no pulverized concrete, no dust, no molten steel, no total collapse, no free fall collapse, no symmetrical collapse!
> 
> It was the 19 cavemen with boxcutters who couldn't fly a Cessna who did it!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Ah, more bullshit lies from Triton. * I realize you fuckers like to pretend you're actually telling the truth, but the reality of the situation is that they COULD fly and in more than just a Cessna.  Then again, you shitheads like to ignore the truth in order to push your bullshit lies and agendas.
> 
> Don't let me stop you from making a fool out of yourself, though.  I rather enjoy watching you lame fucks tripping all over yourselves with all your mistakes that you then run away from when called on them.    Shall I go over the rather lengthy list of bullshit you tried to pass off as fact and got your ass handed to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you have to make a statement like that about Triton?
> We can go back  and see just how many times you have said and posted this same sentence, just insert a different name, and you post absolutely NOTHING that reinforces your statement.
> 
> He obviously heard about the lack of flying skills from sources that if things were turned around, I have no doubt you'd be siding with.
> The flight instructors themselves said they were shit pilots for Christ sake!
> Why don't you go ahead and post all the facts we get wrong then with actual references to back it up?
> You hardly ever do, and you honestly expect people to take your word for it!?
> 
> One side of this argument has facts backed up by science and credible sources with no self interest or benefits to gain from truthfully trying to explain what they know, while the side that Parrot 9-11 is for, namely the government, its agencies, and people who depend on one of those 2 for their livelihood, have been caught numerous times changing their story, stonewalling investigations, ignoring witnesses and evidence, and basically shitting on the people they swore to protect and work for. Us, the public footing the bill for the "war on terror"
> 
> Actually folks should not listen to people like him, or so called truthers, they should research this 9-11 topic, and others, that have affected their lives, and then make up their own minds as to which side has the more credible hypothesis.
> 
> In all honesty these forums are only good for obtaining interesting links and videos to help them along.
> 
> Regarding what Gamolon has posted, I'm rather shocked but would take him up on his offer to discuss/debate topics in a sane manner, as I have to agree that the name calling and personal attacks accomplishes nothing, and just further alienates us and any new comers to the site, which based on your postings, folks can't help but think is your intended goal.
> 
> I have done this as well, BUT only in my own defense when someone starts shit with me first.  Go ahead and look all those times up if you want to.
> Regardless, I have always said that I initially believed the government and the media when 9-11 first happened, and it was the government and the media who gave me reasons to start doubting it, and ultimately confirmed for me they are covering things up and lying about much of it.
> 
> I cannot even begin to understand that even with all the land mines of lies, obstructions, and distortions, and in such great quantities, that the government has placed in the path of the truth about 9-11, you people don't seem upset with _them_.
> Instead you get all bent out of shape and foam at the mouth at people who are just pointing out all the discrepancies!
> Who can be blamed for thinking you all are what many have accused you of being?
> 
> Takestepback is just one example of someone who has a different opinion on how the WTC collapses occurred, but we agree they sure as hell couldn't have been destroyed the way _they_ told us they did. Then you try to use this difference to ridicule ALL who don't believe as you do? That WE can't get OUR story straight?!
> 
> The governments version of the conspiracy theory has gone through its share of additions, subtractions, retractions, and changes, so how in the hell were WE supposed to know what exactly to look into, when parts of the story changes ?
> 
> Just like you try to lump all the skeptics of the 9-11 official version, with those who say their were no planes etc..
> Clearly a strawman that you are so proud to easily knock down.
> Anybody with any sense can see right through your fallacies and that you create your own PHONY arguments to further muddy the discussion!
> 
> I could go on and on and even repost the nutty fruit loop way some of you* debate* but it's a waste of time as it will lead to more of the same.
> 
> One other thing that I will state, that many of you ignore is that sometimes the 2 opposing opinions appeal to be correct will be decided solely on the credibility of the authoritative agency or people making the thesis, point or statements, and in that case I would argue that the government and their agencies are at a huge disadvantage based on that.
> What it comes down to for me is that YOU believe the known, proven liars and their entities, who have ALL the power and connections, by which they are able to control and intimidate witnesses, public opinion through the media, and are in charge of the courts who then decide what is considered truth and evidence, where as I choose to NOT believe these liars and those they influence and control based on their less then honorable reputation.
> The deck is stacked, it's as simple as that.
Click to expand...


So with all your little speech here, what you really mean is that it doesn't matter what evidence is brought out, or what anyone says, if it originated with a government agency it's a lie. 

Thank you for playing. You have a wonderfully open mind. NOT!.


----------



## Patriot911

OH GOOD!   Fucktard Jones is about to go down in flames YET AGAIN because he is a lying piece of shit who can't go a post without lying his ass off!  



Mr. Jones said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim fire melts steel.....
> 
> 
> 
> [quote Patriot911]I've never made that claim.  That is usually done by fucktard truthers like you who don't know the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, what a bald face liar you are. You just got busted you lying POS!   "Fucktard Truthers" the lying scum says
> So called experts and the media that support the official government version like you, started spreading this melting steel story around! Like these sources-
> 
> *Stanford scientist compares impact of World Trade Center attack to a nuclear bomb explosion*
> And you claim there were no explosions?
Click to expand...


And here we have BLATANT LIE NUMBER ONE from Fucktard Jones!  I've never said there were no explosions.  I've said there were plenty of explosions as one would expect during a major fire.  What I've claimed is that you stupid fucks pretending every explosion is caused by explosives.  Now, one period of time we KNOW there were no explosions was right before and during the collapse of WTC 7, which makes all you stupid fucks lying jackasses when you claim WTC 7 was brought down by explosives.  

BTW, the Standford scientist is talking about the impact of the planes.    You STILL can't manage to post relevant information!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Stanford Professor Steven Block, an expert on national security and terrorism, spoke with the press Tuesday to answer technical questions surrounding the World Trade Center disaster.
> "The intense heat could have melted the buildings cores, allowing for the collapses, he suggested."
> Stanford scientist compares impact of World Trade Center attack to a nuclear bomb explosion: 9/01


And he was wrong.  He isn't an expert in engineering or fires.  He is an expert on national security and terrorism.  Thus you, in your extreme ignorance, are trying to use the opinion of a non-expert as an expert opinion.  Once again you end up covered in shit when you try and prove something with irrelevant and incorrect information.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> *Twin towers' steel under scrutiny*
> An engineer from Newcastle...Professor of Structural Engineering at the University of Newcastle, John Knapton,
> "The buildings survived the impact and the explosion but not the fire, and that is the problem.
> "The 35 tonnes of aviation fuel will have melted the steel...
> 
> BBC News | ENGLAND | Twin towers' steel under scrutiny


And he was wrong or misspoke.  Jet fuel won't melt the beams because it can neither get hot enough nor burn long enough.  These are the facts.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> *Design choice for towers saved lives *
> "A lucky choice of design for the World Trade Center towers reduced the death toll caused by their destruction, say engineers.
> Each tower was struck by a passenger aeroplane, hijacked by suicidal terrorists, but remained upright for nearly an hour. Eventually raging fires melted the supporting steel struts, but the time delay allowed hundreds of people to escape. --
> Many skyscrapers have vertical columns up to six metres apart and rely on combined diagonal struts to bear loads. Destroying these structures would probably collapse a building immediately."
> 
> Wow what a contradiction we have here! Some of you say the towers were designed so differently that you site that as a flaw that led to their demise! They even go on to say-


Funny how you have to rely on exerpts from the DAY AFTER 9/11 to try and prove your claim.    How desperate you little bitches are getting!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> "Classic demolition-
> The collapse of the WTC towers looked like a classic controlled demolition, said Mike Taylor of the National Association of Demolition Contractors in Doylestown, Pennsylvania.


Really?  So a top down collapse looks like a controlled demolition that always goes from the bottom up?    Keep dreaming you stupid fuck!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> "If there's any good thing about this it's that the towers tended not to weaken to one side," said Taylor. "They could have tipped onto other buildings or into the river across the West Side highway."


Wrong again.  This is what happens when you listen to a demolitions expert that isn't a structural engineer and doesn't understand the dynamics of buildings many times larger than what are commonly demolished.  With the kinds of weights you're dealing with in the towers, there is NO WAY IN HELL the supports on one side could keep up the entire weight of the building long enough for the tower to tip.  Not to mention the fact the load bearing structures in the tower were in the core in the center of the tower, not on the edges as one would have to have to be able to "weaken on one side".



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> The collapse of the WTC towers mirrored the strategy used by demolition experts. In controlled demolitions, explosives are placed *not just on the lowest three floors* but also on several consecutive floors about a third of the way up the building.


Yet there were no explosions on the lower floors like what happens in a controlled demolition.  We know this because we had survivors on the lower floors and they both survived and didn't hear the massive explosions that would happen RIGHT WHERE THEY WERE.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> The explosions at the higher floors enable the collapse to gain downward momentum as gravity pulls the full weight of unsupported higher floors down into lower floors in a snowballing effect.


But wait!  This is what you stupid truthtards pretend was IMPOSSIBLE!  That the collapse couldn't have started on those floors and collapse the entire building!  Yet here you have an expert saying it would be necessary!    Way to debunk yourself, asshole!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> On Tuesday, the impacts of aeroplanes on the higher floors replaced the explosives. The collapse of the higher floors caused the floors below to be crushed. "It cascaded down like an implosion," says Taylor.
> Wow those guys must be "lying truthtards" because YOU say it didn't look like a CD, Isn't that right Parrot?


Care to find a top down controlled demolition?    Notice he says it was LIKE an implosion, not that it was.  Once again you have an expert refuting your claims, yet you insist on pretending that if you twist his words to say something he isn't saying that he somehow becomes credible. 



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> *How the World Trade Center fell*
> "It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning," said structural engineer Chris Wise.
> The buildings' construction manager, Hyman Brown, agreed that nothing could have saved them from the inferno.
> 
> "The buildings would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said.
> 
> I would have given the order to get out - you would have thought someone with technical expertise would have been advising them
> Professor John Knapton, Newcastle University
> "But steel melts, and 24,000 gallons (91,000 litres) of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."
> BBC News | AMERICAS | How the World Trade Center fell


Same shit, different article.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> So why can't you coincitard conspiracy theorists get your story straight? Your experts said this shit about melting steel, not your so called 'Fucktard Truthers"


  So you think posting articles from the days directly after 9/11 where the experts didn't clarify the steel didn't have to become molten for a collapse to start somehow means all the steel had to melt?    Talk about fucked up!  First you fucktards are saying there is no way the fires could have been hot enough to even initiate a collapse, now you're saying everything melted!  You need to seriously figure out what story you're going to go with!

For the record, the experts have clarified that the steel didn't have to melt to the point of being molten.  They clarified that steel exposed to the kinds of fires seen in an office fire like in the towers will lose more than half of it's strength and eventually fail.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> The very ones that support YOUR version went around to the worlds news and media espousing this shit, even saying how coincidentally similar to a controlled demolition the collapses looked too!?


So according to stupid fucks like you, nobody can make a mistake or everything they say should be taken as absolute and not allow for any clarification?  Good to know.  It destroys your credibility even more!  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Looks like you went a bit too far and got caught red handed in another one of your lies, scumbag!


Wrong again, fucktard!  I've never claimed the steel was melted and you've presented ZERO PROOF the steel was melted.  Taking a couple people in the days after 9/11 using incorrect terms doesn't cut it.  Why can't you present some of this melted steel?  The closest you stupid fucks have come is presenting a small blob that is obviously compressed into many layers, but was never molten and you can't even say what the composition of the blob is.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Maybe you coincitards should have stuck to the steel melting caused the collapse story, then you could explain the very real molten steel/metal that was witnessed by those at GZ, and by Nasa thermal imaging.


Which is it?  Steel or metal?  There are several metals that can melt at the temperatures seen at GZ.  Steel is not among them.  When you lying fucks say it was molten steel, you're PRETENDING you know the exact composition of the metal.  I know you're lying.  You know you're lying.  Everyone ELSE knows you're lying.   Better wipe all that shit off your face before it dries.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> You have sided with the "no molten steel" side of this debate, now you are nitpicking as to the _type_ of metal it was you lying troll!? The fact remains it was fucking molten!


The only part I've been debating is the composition.  I've been doing that from the start.  So pretending I've changed that now is just flat out dishonest, but what else can one expect from a known proven liar like you?  I even CLEARLY expressed exactly what my position was in the post you quoted.  Funny how you left that part off.    Why was that?  Because you knew if taken in context you would look like a complete jackass?  Yeah, I thought so.  

As for the thermal imaging, they never recorded temperatures over 1400F, far short of what one would expect from molten steel, yet well within the temperature range for an office fire.    Man, when you step in it, you REALLY step in it!!!!

Thermal images that prove Fucktard Jones is a piece of shit liar.... AGAIN!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> _"The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF. The surface was so hot that standing too long in one spot softened (and even melted) the soles of our safety shoes. Steel toes would often heat up and become intolerable. This heat was also a concern for the search-and-rescue dogs used at the site. Many were not outfitted with protective booties (Photo 13). More than one suffered serious injuries and at least three died while working at Ground Zero. The underground fire burned for exactly 100 days and was finally declared extinguished on Dec. 19, 2001."_
> _SH&E professionals from Bechtel Group Inc._
> Why can't you post the original article?  I found lots of this exact quote all over the web, but attributed to several groups and none of them with links.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would know, since you have shown to be the biggest liar on here!
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you still haven't proven a single lie you claim I have made.  In the mean time, I've exposed plenty of yours.  Don't you hate it when someone like me makes you look like the complete fool that you are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [quotePatriot911]Why would I not stick with the truth?  Stupid fucks like you pretend it was a controlled demolition, yet can't answer even the most basic of questions raised if your bullshit were true.... like where were the explosions?
> 
> 
> 
> And just how many times does one have to post and link for you the many witnesses that claim explosions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In a controlled demolition you have explosions just prior to and during the collapse.  VIDEO AND AUDIO EVIDENCE proves there were no explosions just prior to or during the collapse.  There were two witnesses to "explosions" during the collapse.  One is a known, proven liar as he also claimed there was a countdown on a red cross radio, yet review of the tapes show no countdown.  The other one was so close to the collapse he probably confused structures snapping for explosions as he doesn't hear the explosions until AFTER the building has already started the collapse.  He was caught completely unaware of the collapse until it had already started and someone had to point it out.
> 
> So we have conclusive hard evidence and two witnesses, one with zero credibility and one who heard them at the wrong time and with a plausible explanation.
> 
> So what other witnesses do you have?    And how do you refute the hard evidence from multiple sources?  Oh right.  You're constantly running from the hard evidence like a little bitch afraid of the boogieman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You like to play the fruit loop version of the disinformation game don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  That's just another one of your lies.  I don't post disinformation.  If I did, you would be able to actually refute it, not this pathetic piece of garbage I am sure you like to pretend is a refutation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lying Parrot 9-11 will have people believe office supplies like dustbuster and Lemon Pledge caused all those explosions, and witnesses like FDNY, and media people who were told to move away are all just "truthtards"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More lies from you.  Why do you constantly feel the need to lie?  Is it pathological or are you just mentally deranged?  There are plenty of things that can explode in a fire.  How do you explain the FACT not a single FDNY fire fighter present on 9/11 claims the explosions were caused by explosives?  Don't you think they are credible?  They have a legal and moral obligation to investigate what they consider an explosion caused by explosives as it would raise questions as to what happened.
> 
> Again the fucking liar known as Jones would have everyone believe that every explosion is caused by explosives, yet he can't explain why no evidence of explosives were ever found, nor why high explosives which leave a distinctive trace on seismographs failed to do so.  The logical explanation is the explosions were not caused by high explosives.
> 
> BTW, fucktard Jones.... wasn't it you pretending the buildings acted like huge mufflers and this prevented everyone from hearing them?    You have LOTS of excuses why people didn't hear explosions at the right times, yet those excuses directly contradict your claim that all the other explosions heard were from explosives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So go ahead and continue with the mindless bullshit, Triton.  I am sure nobody other than 9/11 inside job is impressed, and the only reason 9/11 inside job is impressed is because he wants to suck up to you for some unknown and unholy reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just busted your lying ass with proof for all to see!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, all you did was end up drenched in shit and got caught making more numerous lies.  We all know what kind of egomaniac you are and have to try and pretend you've actually accomplished anything.  It makes me shudder to think what a complete failure in life you must be to have to stoop to this level to try and prove you are actually worth anything.  You're not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW...IMHO I think it is you and "Candy"corn that have some kind of unnatural alliance thing going on, considering all the sick sexual innuendos you 2 always post. Did you 2 change positions today??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More meaningless homophobic bullshit from you.    Grats on proving your irrelevance!
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> Why do you have to make a statement like that about Triton?
> We can go back  and see just how many times you have said and posted this same sentence, just insert a different name, and you post absolutely NOTHING that reinforces your statement.


If you stupid piece of shit liars didn't lie your asses off on a continuous basis, I wouldn't have to make claims like that, yet you do, so I do.  Get it?  Probably not.  Go have someone in grade school explain it to you.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> He obviously heard about the lack of flying skills from sources that if things were turned around, I have no doubt you'd be siding with.


No, I am not an ignorant fuck like you.  There is documented evidence of numerous solo long distance flights by Hanjour.  There is also evidence that he had a COMMERCIAL pilots license back in 1999.  He may not have been the best pilot in the world, but when lying piece of shit truthtards make the claim he couldn't even fly a Cessna when there is CLEAR DOCUMENTED PROOF that he did on numerous occasions, well, that is called a LIE.  

Or what do you pretend it is called when someone blatantly states something as fact that is not true?  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> The flight instructors themselves said they were shit pilots for Christ sake!


No, they said HANJOUR was a bad pilot.  See?  You can't go a couple paragraphs without lying your ass off!  And being a bad pilot is STILL BEING A PILOT.  Yet Triton has made the claim he couldn't even fly a Cessna.  And here you are defending his blatant lies.

Do you have evidence he couldn't fly a Cessna?  Do you have evidence all the flight logs and plane rentals made by Hanjour are all false?



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Why don't you go ahead and post all the facts we get wrong then with actual references to back it up?


We do.  All the time.  You stupid fucks ignore them and regurgitate the same lies over and over again.  So where is Triton's references that Hanjour couldn't even fly a Cessna? 



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> You hardly ever do, and you honestly expect people to take your word for it!?


Wrong yet again.  It's just lie after lie after lie from you.    When people demand links, I link my sources.  You?  You're not worth pissing on if you were on fire, so I usually don't bother to link stuff unless it really goes a long way towards proving you're a piece of shit liar, which, ironically, means I link a lot of stuff.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> One side of this argument has facts backed up by science and credible sources with no self interest or benefits to gain from truthfully trying to explain what they know


And that would be our side.  Your side has no science, no credible sources that aren't out to rape you silly fucks out of everything they can get from you, and no evidence to back up your claims.  I find it hilarious you claim these people have no self interest in promoting 9/11 as they make their livings off you silly fucks!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> while the side that Parrot 9-11 is for, namely the government, its agencies, and people who depend on one of those 2 for their livelihood, have been caught numerous times changing their story, stonewalling investigations, ignoring witnesses and evidence, and basically shitting on the people they swore to protect and work for.


Wrong yet again, you lying fuck!  Has the story changed?  Absolutely.  That is what one would expect when new evidence is uncovered.  Did people lie and stonewall the investigations?  Yep!  But why would they do that if it was some big conspiracy?  The people doing the investigation are satisfied they got to the truth despite the lies from fucks like you.  

And you and your fellow truthtards are so full of shit when you say witnesses were ignored, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU IGNORE MOST OF THE EVIDENCE INCLUDING WITNESSES!    See, when one guy says something different from everyone else and the evidence supports what everyone else saw, then that witness is found to be lacking credibility.  Besides, you piece of shit liars usually have to either draw conclusions not stated by the witness or directly change the meaning of what the witness said in order to make your point.   A good example is when a firefighter witnessed an explosion and YOU pretend it was caused by explosives.  The firefighter never said it was from explosives which he would have done if he thought it was from explosives.  Another example is when witnesses use the word like and you dishonest fucks pretend the word like was never used.

For example if someone says it looked LIKE a controlled demolition, you dishonest fucks pretend the witness thought it WAS a controlled demolition.  Wouldn't they then say it WAS a controlled demolition instead of using the word like?  By using the word LIKE, one directly refutes that it IS.  For instance, if I say you are LIKE a piece of shit liar, it means you are similar to, but are not a piece of shit liar.  That is why I don't use the word LIKE when I call you a piece of shit liar.  Get it?  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Us, the public footing the bill for the "war on terror"


It's doubtful you make enough money to pay taxes, so quit pretending you are under such a burden.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Actually folks should not listen to people like him, or so called truthers, they should research this 9-11 topic, and others, that have affected their lives, and then make up their own minds as to which side has the more credible hypothesis.


If people have actual questions, I've always been more than happy to present them with all the evidence at my disposal.  Unfortunately for stupid fucks like you, you have no actual evidence and have to rely on opinions and bullshit lies to try and sway opinion.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> In all honesty these forums are only good for obtaining interesting links and videos to help them along.


Wrong yet again.  Don't you get tired of being proven wrong time and time again?  If someone wants information on a specific point, all they need to do is ask.  It is when ignorant fucks like you pretend your theories are fact and ask people to act on your bullshit that you get treated like the shit you are.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Regarding what Gamolon has posted, I'm rather shocked but would take him up on his offer to discuss/debate topics in a sane manner, as I have to agree that the name calling and personal attacks accomplishes nothing, and just further alienates us and any new comers to the site, which based on your postings, folks can't help but think is your intended goal.


Yet you constantly revert back to name calling once you've had your ass handed to you yet again.    You're such a self serving, egotistical hypocrite!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> I have done this as well, BUT only in my own defense when someone starts shit with me first.  Go ahead and look all those times up if you want to.


I have.  You're lying, as usual.   



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Regardless, I have always said that I initially believed the government and the media when 9-11 first happened, and it was the government and the media who gave me reasons to start doubting it, and ultimately confirmed for me they are covering things up and lying about much of it.


Who gives a shit what you claim?  You're a proven liar who continues to lie on a regular basis and can't defend his bullshit claims as he traitorously tries to spread sedition.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> I cannot even begin to understand that even with all the land mines of lies, obstructions, and distortions, and in such great quantities, that the government has placed in the path of the truth about 9-11, you people don't seem upset with _them_.


Do I believe we have the entire truth?  No.  Are they completely wrong on every fact as you try so pathetically to pretend?  No.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Instead you get all bent out of shape and foam at the mouth at people who are just pointing out all the discrepancies!


Wrong yet again, you piece of shit liar!  You don't "point out discrepancies".  You make claims as though they are fact.  All one has to do is read your posts to know the truth of this.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Who can be blamed for thinking you all are what many have accused you of being?


Well, let's see.... you've just got done lying about what you do here by pretending you're just "pointing out discrepancies", yet we all know you do far more than that, specifically presenting theory after theory as to what you claim happened, yet have no evidence for, nor can you explain fully.  We point out your bullshit and lies, and in retaliation, you try to cast dispersions by claiming we're paid trolls.    Sounds pretty pathetic on your part!  Maybe if you stuck to the facts and actually looked at all the evidence people wouldn't think you were such a disgusting human being.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Takestepback is just one example of someone who has a different opinion on how the WTC collapses occurred, but we agree they sure as hell couldn't have been destroyed the way _they_ told us they did.


TakeAShit, like all the rest of the truthtards, comes up with theories that have no evidence and don't fit the facts.  The reality is none of you truthtards can actually agree on who did it (government/Jews/Illuminati/aliens/boogiemen), what happened (explosives, DEW, nuclear weapons, 93 shot down, 93 landed elsewhere, Pentagon hit by missile, Pentagon hit by global hawk, etc. etc. etc), or how it was done (remote planes, holograms, high explosives, thermite, DEW etc. etc.).  Yet we're suppose to take all you ignorant dipshits seriously and ignore all the evidence like you do in order to make your bullshit fit.  Um.... no.  I have integrity, unlike you.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Then you try to use this difference to ridicule ALL who don't believe as you do? That WE can't get OUR story straight?!


WOW!  You finally got something right!  See, the TRUTH is one thing.  It isn't a bunch of different theories, many of which directly conflict with other theories.  The TRUTH fits the EVIDENCE.  The TRUTH doesn't care about opinion or assumptions.  When you have to ignore the facts in order to get your theory to work, you're no longer working with the TRUTH.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> The governments version of the conspiracy theory has gone through its share of additions, subtractions, retractions, and changes, so how in the hell were WE supposed to know what exactly to look into, when parts of the story changes ?


The story changes as new evidence comes to light.  This is the way it is SUPPOSE to work!  You don't stick to your original story like a retarded truthter when evidence comes to light that disqualifies the theory from being true.  When you claim high explosives were used to bring down WTC 7 because of the speed of the collapse, yet no evidence of high explosives are found, most notably audio recordings of the collapse show no signs of the explosions themselves, one can correctly deduce that the claim of high explosives is WRONG.  Do you change your theory?  For a little bit.  Then you come back to high explosives when all your other theories don't fit the known facts.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Just like you try to lump all the skeptics of the 9-11 official version, with those who say their were no planes etc..


No, I know all you truthtards don't agree.  That's what is so funny about you lying fucks!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Clearly a strawman that you are so proud to easily knock down.


You mean another lie by you that's been exposed!  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Anybody with any sense can see right through your fallacies and that you create your own PHONY arguments to further muddy the discussion!


Wrong again.  See, if it is a phony argument, you should be able to refute it, yet you can't.  I can present evidence.  You can't.  So anyone that picks the theory based on lies and opinions with no evidence to back it up has to be seriously retarded.  Hence truthtards.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> I could go on and on and even repost the nutty fruit loop way some of you* debate* but it's a waste of time as it will lead to more of the same.


What.... you ending up with shit all over you?  For once we agree.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> One other thing that I will state, that many of you ignore is that sometimes the 2 opposing opinions appeal to be correct will be decided solely on the credibility of the authoritative agency or people making the thesis, point or statements, and in that case I would argue that the government and their agencies are at a huge disadvantage based on that.


Really?  Because you truthtards have no credibility and no evidence.  So once again you've been caught lying your ass off trying to make you and your fellow fucks seem credible when the truth is you're not.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> What it comes down to for me is that YOU believe the known, proven liars and their entities, who have ALL the power and connections, by which they are able to control and intimidate witnesses, public opinion through the media, and are in charge of the courts who then decide what is considered truth and evidence, where as I choose to NOT believe these liars and those they influence and control based on their less then honorable reputation.


In other words, you have to come up with excuses to dismiss all the evidence instead of actually being able to refute the evidence.  You pretend everything is manipulated while ignoring reality which is you can't completely control something as massive as the coverup behind your bullshit would have to be.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> The deck is stacked, it's as simple as that.


Yup.  We have the truth and you have lies.  It doesn't come more stacked than that!


----------



## Gamolon

I assume you're being sarcastic, so I'll respond to each as to what I believe.



Triton said:


> There was no pulverized concrete,


There was pulverized concrete. Was ALL concrete totally pulverized to fine powder? No. 



Triton said:


> no dust,


There was dust. What's your point? Do you realize how much gypsum planking was in the towers? How much dust would that create upon collapse?



Triton said:


> no molten steel,


Nobody know this for sure. It could have been molten aluminum. This cannot be identified visually. That's a fact. Unless you have tests of this molten substance showing otherwise. The fact remains that nobody knows what it actually was.



Triton said:


> no total collapse,


There was total collapse.



Triton said:


> no free fall collapse,


Parts of the buildings fell at free fall. None of the buildings fell at total free fall. If you want to argue this point, I'll ask you to provide me the following. Take the height of each building and tell me the total time it should have taken each building to collapse completely to the ground. Then we'll discuss it.



Triton said:


> no symmetrical collapse!


Nope. No symmetrical collapse. None of the three buildings collapsed like this. We've been over this before. I even posted a video of both a symmetrical collapse and a non-symmetrical collapse. You even agreed that the one video was non-symmetrical.


----------



## Triton

No explosions!!

 It was the 19 cavemen!! They had boxcutters!!! and  couldn't fly a Cessna!


Had to pass the freedom loving Patriot Act and invade the middle east to get the cavemen and protect our freedom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I best not grill tonight because I might melt my grill or cause it to collapse because thats how the towers fell!

Why, because my government loves me and wants to protect me! And you!


----------



## Patriot911

Triton said:


> No explosions!!
> 
> It was the 19 cavemen!! They had boxcutters!!! and  couldn't fly a Cessna!
> 
> 
> Had to pass the freedom loving Patriot Act and invade the middle east to get the cavemen and protect our freedom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> I best not grill tonight because I might melt my grill or cause it to collapse because thats how the towers fell!
> 
> Why, because my government loves me and wants to protect me! And you!



What a fucking moron.  No wonder truthtards are held in such low regard.  They're all worthless scum.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Patriot911 said:


> OH GOOD!   Fucktard Jones is about to go down in flames YET AGAIN because he is a lying piece of shit who can't go a post without lying his ass off!
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [quote Patriot911]I've never made that claim.  That is usually done by fucktard truthers like you who don't know the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, what a bald face liar you are. You just got busted you lying POS!   "Fucktard Truthers" the lying scum says
> So called experts and the media that support the official government version like you, started spreading this melting steel story around! Like these sources-
> 
> *Stanford scientist compares impact of World Trade Center attack to a nuclear bomb explosion*
> And you claim there were no explosions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here we have BLATANT LIE NUMBER ONE from Fucktard Jones!  I've never said there were no explosions.  I've said there were plenty of explosions as one would expect during a major fire.  What I've claimed is that you stupid fucks pretending every explosion is caused by explosives.  Now, one period of time we KNOW there were no explosions was right before and during the collapse of WTC 7, which makes all you stupid fucks lying jackasses when you claim WTC 7 was brought down by explosives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BTW, the Standford scientist is talking about the impact of the planes.    You STILL can't manage to post relevant information!
> 
> 
> And he was wrong.  He isn't an expert in engineering or fires.  He is an expert on national security and terrorism.  Thus you, in your extreme ignorance, are trying to use the opinion of a non-expert as an expert opinion.  Once again you end up covered in shit when you try and prove something with irrelevant and incorrect information.
> 
> 
> And he was wrong or misspoke.  Jet fuel won't melt the beams because it can neither get hot enough nor burn long enough.  These are the facts.
> 
> 
> Funny how you have to rely on exerpts from the DAY AFTER 9/11 to try and prove your claim.    How desperate you little bitches are getting!
> 
> 
> Really?  So a top down collapse looks like a controlled demolition that always goes from the bottom up?    Keep dreaming you stupid fuck!
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  This is what happens when you listen to a demolitions expert that isn't a structural engineer and doesn't understand the dynamics of buildings many times larger than what are commonly demolished.  With the kinds of weights you're dealing with in the towers, there is NO WAY IN HELL the supports on one side could keep up the entire weight of the building long enough for the tower to tip.  Not to mention the fact the load bearing structures in the tower were in the core in the center of the tower, not on the edges as one would have to have to be able to "weaken on one side".
> 
> 
> Yet there were no explosions on the lower floors like what happens in a controlled demolition.  We know this because we had survivors on the lower floors and they both survived and didn't hear the massive explosions that would happen RIGHT WHERE THEY WERE.
> 
> 
> But wait!  This is what you stupid truthtards pretend was IMPOSSIBLE!  That the collapse couldn't have started on those floors and collapse the entire building!  Yet here you have an expert saying it would be necessary!    Way to debunk yourself, asshole!
> 
> 
> Care to find a top down controlled demolition?    Notice he says it was LIKE an implosion, not that it was.  Once again you have an expert refuting your claims, yet you insist on pretending that if you twist his words to say something he isn't saying that he somehow becomes credible.
> 
> 
> Same shit, different article.
> 
> 
> So you think posting articles from the days directly after 9/11 where the experts didn't clarify the steel didn't have to become molten for a collapse to start somehow means all the steel had to melt?    Talk about fucked up!  First you fucktards are saying there is no way the fires could have been hot enough to even initiate a collapse, now you're saying everything melted!  You need to seriously figure out what story you're going to go with!
> 
> For the record, the experts have clarified that the steel didn't have to melt to the point of being molten.  They clarified that steel exposed to the kinds of fires seen in an office fire like in the towers will lose more than half of it's strength and eventually fail.
> 
> 
> So according to stupid fucks like you, nobody can make a mistake or everything they say should be taken as absolute and not allow for any clarification?  Good to know.  It destroys your credibility even more!
> 
> 
> Wrong again, fucktard!  I've never claimed the steel was melted and you've presented ZERO PROOF the steel was melted.  Taking a couple people in the days after 9/11 using incorrect terms doesn't cut it.  Why can't you present some of this melted steel?  The closest you stupid fucks have come is presenting a small blob that is obviously compressed into many layers, but was never molten and you can't even say what the composition of the blob is.
> 
> 
> Which is it?  Steel or metal?  There are several metals that can melt at the temperatures seen at GZ.  Steel is not among them.  When you lying fucks say it was molten steel, you're PRETENDING you know the exact composition of the metal.  I know you're lying.  You know you're lying.  Everyone ELSE knows you're lying.   Better wipe all that shit off your face before it dries.
> 
> 
> The only part I've been debating is the composition.  I've been doing that from the start.  So pretending I've changed that now is just flat out dishonest, but what else can one expect from a known proven liar like you?  I even CLEARLY expressed exactly what my position was in the post you quoted.  Funny how you left that part off.    Why was that?  Because you knew if taken in context you would look like a complete jackass?  Yeah, I thought so.
> 
> As for the thermal imaging, they never recorded temperatures over 1400F, far short of what one would expect from molten steel, yet well within the temperature range for an office fire.    Man, when you step in it, you REALLY step in it!!!!
> 
> Thermal images that prove Fucktard Jones is a piece of shit liar.... AGAIN!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF. The surface was so hot that standing too long in one spot softened (and even melted) the soles of our safety shoes. Steel toes would often heat up and become intolerable. This heat was also a concern for the search-and-rescue dogs used at the site. Many were not outfitted with protective booties (Photo 13). More than one suffered serious injuries and at least three died while working at Ground Zero. The underground fire burned for exactly 100 days and was finally declared extinguished on Dec. 19, 2001."_
> _SH&E professionals from Bechtel Group Inc._
> Why can't you post the original article?  I found lots of this exact quote all over the web, but attributed to several groups and none of them with links.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would know, since you have shown to be the biggest liar on here!
> In a controlled demolition you have explosions just prior to and during the collapse.  VIDEO AND AUDIO EVIDENCE proves there were no explosions just prior to or during the collapse.  There were two witnesses to "explosions" during the collapse.  One is a known, proven liar as he also claimed there was a countdown on a red cross radio, yet review of the tapes show no countdown.  The other one was so close to the collapse he probably confused structures snapping for explosions as he doesn't hear the explosions until AFTER the building has already started the collapse.  He was caught completely unaware of the collapse until it had already started and someone had to point it out.
> 
> So we have conclusive hard evidence and two witnesses, one with zero credibility and one who heard them at the wrong time and with a plausible explanation.
> 
> So what other witnesses do you have?    And how do you refute the hard evidence from multiple sources?  Oh right.  You're constantly running from the hard evidence like a little bitch afraid of the boogieman.
> 
> 
> Nope.  That's just another one of your lies.  I don't post disinformation.  If I did, you would be able to actually refute it, not this pathetic piece of garbage I am sure you like to pretend is a refutation.
> 
> 
> More lies from you.  Why do you constantly feel the need to lie?  Is it pathological or are you just mentally deranged?  There are plenty of things that can explode in a fire.  How do you explain the FACT not a single FDNY fire fighter present on 9/11 claims the explosions were caused by explosives?  Don't you think they are credible?  They have a legal and moral obligation to investigate what they consider an explosion caused by explosives as it would raise questions as to what happened.
> 
> Again the fucking liar known as Jones would have everyone believe that every explosion is caused by explosives, yet he can't explain why no evidence of explosives were ever found, nor why high explosives which leave a distinctive trace on seismographs failed to do so.  The logical explanation is the explosions were not caused by high explosives.
> 
> BTW, fucktard Jones.... wasn't it you pretending the buildings acted like huge mufflers and this prevented everyone from hearing them?    You have LOTS of excuses why people didn't hear explosions at the right times, yet those excuses directly contradict your claim that all the other explosions heard were from explosives.
> 
> 
> No, all you did was end up drenched in shit and got caught making more numerous lies.  We all know what kind of egomaniac you are and have to try and pretend you've actually accomplished anything.  It makes me shudder to think what a complete failure in life you must be to have to stoop to this level to try and prove you are actually worth anything.  You're not.
> 
> 
> More meaningless homophobic bullshit from you.    Grats on proving your irrelevance!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah sure, so irrelevant that you have to take the time to post a page long response to YOU being caught in another huge LIE!!
> You so know that the people who have the same belief in the official BS version of events as YOU do are the very ones that put this false information out to the public through the news media outlets, and MY point that you are a LIAR when you say it started with the "Fucktards Truthers" is valid. You are a liar for saying that, among other things you make up and twist to support your own made up arguments
> And no it wasn't me that pretended anything about mufflers, you are wrong or lying again!
> What should be most troubling to people who may be reading along, is your total lack or willingness to post links that support your point of view. Given how many times you have been caught stretching the truth and outright lying on these forums, it is a must you confirm your sources.
> Your word means absolutely nothing Parrot
> I have provided links that folks can actually READ themselves, and decide what is real and what and who is credible.
> Again, the point is that you ridicule others for statements about "melting steel" when all along it was the very people and "experts" that believe the "official version" just like YOU do.
> 
> Reasonable people know you are one of if not the most disgusting lying trolls on the USMB. Evidence of you squirming to try and explain yourself when you get caught lying is hilarious
> 
> All you ever post is crap like-"Nope, you're a liar" or "You lie again" etc etc repeat ad nauseam
> While we also notice how you have not posted a single link to prove your counter allegations, we can only presume because you either have none, or you are just as much lazy as you are a huge lying POS!
> And you have the gall to ask me-"Why can't you post the original article? I found lots of this exact quote all over the web, but attributed to several groups and none of them with links."!!!!
> 
> I found it just fine, but it takes effort to read a lot , something we all know you are incapable of extracting the effort to do.
> 
> Remember this statement in the only thread of yours?
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3060027-post1.html
> What a joke, looks like the only one who is crying is YOU after being exposed as the lying troll you truly are
> 
> People do yourself a favor and save yourself time and aggravation and research this topic yourself, you wont find anything of real value listening to trolls such as Parrot911. His job is to mislead you and confuse you on this and various other internet message boards.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Mr. Jones

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you have to make a statement like that about Triton?
> We can go back  and see just how many times you have said and posted this same sentence, just insert a different name, and you post absolutely NOTHING that reinforces your statement.
> 
> 
> 
> If you stupid piece of shit liars didn't lie your asses off on a continuous basis, I wouldn't have to make claims like that, yet you do, so I do.  Get it?  Probably not.  Go have someone in grade school explain it to you.
Click to expand...

 You just got caught spreading lies about who started the "collapse was caused by fires that melted the steel"
propaganda, and you call others liars!?? What a hypocritical lying scumbag you are! 



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> He obviously heard about the lack of flying skills from sources that if things were turned around, I have no doubt you'd be siding with.





> Patriot911-No, I am not an ignorant fuck like you.  There is documented evidence of numerous solo long distance flights by Hanjour.  There is also evidence that he had a COMMERCIAL pilots license back in 1999.  He may not have been the best pilot in the world, but when lying piece of shit truthtards make the claim he couldn't even fly a Cessna when there is CLEAR DOCUMENTED PROOF that he did on numerous occasions, well, that is called a LIE.


 There is documented evidence that the flight school instructors say he was a shit pilot. That is no lie 




> Patriot911-No, they said HANJOUR was a bad pilot.  See?  You can't go a couple paragraphs without lying your ass off!  And being a bad pilot is STILL BEING A PILOT.  Yet Triton has made the claim he couldn't even fly a Cessna.  And here you are defending his blatant lies.


 Again experts in aviation doubted his ability, and even his instructors said this about him. Again that is not a lie, we got the info from them.



> Patriot911-Do you have evidence he couldn't fly a Cessna?  Do you have evidence all the flight logs and plane rentals made by Hanjour are all false?


This is about his ability to fly a commercial airliner asshole, stop trying to create your own arguments.




> Patriot911We do.  All the time.  You stupid fucks ignore them and regurgitate the same lies over and over again.  So where is Triton's references that Hanjour couldn't even fly a Cessna?


You do not ever post any links to back up your assertions and make any credible counter argument points. All you do is call people liars when I have proven and posted evidence that YOU are a lying troll!!




> Patriot911-Wrong yet again.  It's just lie after lie after lie from you.   When people demand links, I link my sources.  You?  You're not worth pissing on if you were on fire, so I usually don't bother to link stuff unless it really goes a long way towards proving you're a piece of shit liar, which, ironically, means I link a lot of stuff.  :lol


See what I mean folks? We demand links for him to prove his information is correct and valid, and he runs away like a chicken shit lying troll does!!




> Patriot911--And that would be our side.  Your side has no science, no credible sources that aren't out to rape you silly fucks out of everything they can get from you, and no evidence to back up your claims.  I find it hilarious you claim these people have no self interest in promoting 9/11 as they make their livings off you silly fucks!


 No we know which side has been caught lying and obstructing the search for truth about what really happened. We all know who stood to make the most money and profit from the lies that resulted in responses and wars based on those lies. If the math were done we would see just how many trillions have been made as opposed to what ever truthers have made selling their versions.




> Patriot911--Wrong yet again, you lying fuck!  Has the story changed?  Absolutely.  That is what one would expect when new evidence is uncovered.  Did people lie and stonewall the investigations?  Yep!  But why would they do that if it was some big conspiracy?  The people doing the investigation are satisfied they got to the truth despite the lies from fucks like you.


 No they are not satisfied you lying POS! Precisely because of this the 9-11 Omission panelists came out and said so.
Despite all of this lying, and discrepancies and stonewalling, you still side with the ones who are guilty of doing this!?
They can't be trusted and because you side with them, neither can you..see how that works? Liars beget liars.



> Patriot911--And you and your fellow truthtards are so full of shit when you say witnesses were ignored, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU IGNORE MOST OF THE EVIDENCE INCLUDING WITNESSES!


No it's true look it up sometime it's common knowledge. Look up 9-11 whistle blowers too while your at it. You might learn something, that you'll just ignore anyway, so forget it.



> Patriot911--See, when one guy says something different from everyone else and the evidence supports what everyone else saw, then that witness is found to be lacking credibility.


 Right like the many liars in an official government capacity that have been guilty of this.


> Patriot911--
> Besides, you piece of shit liars usually have to either draw conclusions not stated by the witness or directly change the meaning of what the witness said in order to make your point.


Wrong you are Parrot, prove it, links?



> Patriot911-- A good example is when a firefighter witnessed an explosion and YOU pretend it was caused by explosives.  The firefighter never said it was from explosives which he would have done if he thought it was from explosives.  Another example is when witnesses use the word like and you dishonest fucks pretend the word like was never used.


Of course any reasonable person would. Given the reported facts of Israelis in vans linked to explosives and all  You are the one who is trying to make up excuses for the many explosions heard that day, and what the witnesses might have thought! 



> Patriot911--For example if someone says it looked LIKE a controlled demolition, you dishonest fucks pretend the witness thought it WAS a controlled demolition.


 No one has to tell the majority of people that the WTC collapses looked like CDs, because they did you disingenuous asswipe! What do you think the argument is about you moron?



> Patriot911-- Wouldn't they then say it WAS a controlled demolition instead of using the word like?  By using the word LIKE, one directly refutes that it IS.  For instance, if I say you are LIKE a piece of shit liar, it means you are similar to, but are not a piece of shit liar.  That is why I don't use the word LIKE when I call you a piece of shit liar.  Get it?


No credible, viable investigation was ever done concerning the possibility of CD at the WTC. Nist has stated as much. They want us to take their word for it that it happened the way THEY said it did.
And instead of being an opened minded good citizen, considering all the anomalies, you readily believe what any proven liar tells you, as long as they are the government or affiliated with it, that is good enough for you!! Then you get mad at people who aren't as stupid and gullible as yourself, and you go on message forums to show what an ignorant fool you are..Hilarious 




> Patriot911--It's doubtful you make enough money to pay taxes, so quit pretending you are under such a burden.


You don't know shit boy, and it's good comedy watching you pretend as though you do. The entire economy is doomed and the hardship these wars have cause is felt by everyone, except you.



> Patriot911--If people have actual questions, I've always been more than happy to present them with all the evidence at my disposal.  Unfortunately for stupid fucks like you, you have no actual evidence and have to rely on opinions and bullshit lies to try and sway opinion.


 No you don't. If you ever do, and someone shoots your shit down, which is often, you throw a fit and act like a spoiled child.




> Patriot911--Wrong yet again.  Don't you get tired of being proven wrong time and time again?  If someone wants information on a specific point, all they need to do is ask.


 They would be foolish to think they would learn anything from you, seriously your reputation as being honest and credible, and your government sources are all washed up.



> Patriot911--It is when ignorant fucks like you pretend your theories are fact and ask people to act on your bullshit that you get treated like the shit you are.


 On the contrary, you want reasonable people to believe you and your sources despite the very well known fact that you are a liar, who passes on lies, from lying sources. This can be proven.



> Patriot911--Yet you constantly revert back to name calling once you've had your ass handed to you yet again.    You're such a self serving, egotistical hypocrite!


 Hey you start the shit, people have the right to defend themselves from your bullying tactics. Tough shit if you don't like it, don't dish it out you crybaby.



> Patriot911--I have.  You're lying, as usual.


 No you haven't, prove it, link it. Find a time when I started personal attacks. You are challenged...you wont produce it..because you are a liar!!



> Patriot911--Who gives a shit what you claim?  You're a proven liar who continues to lie on a regular basis and can't defend his bullshit claims as he traitorously tries to spread sedition.


 You do. That is why you respond to my posts all the time, even to the point of stalking.




> Patriot911---Do I believe we have the entire truth?  No.  Are they completely wrong on every fact as you try so pathetically to pretend?  No.


 Are you concerned that we don't have the entire truth?? Nope. Have you ever posted anything that even hints that you are concerned about the nation? Nope.
Here is your mission statement, that explains why you are here, and your goals.
It is NOT a search for the truth, or to show concern about your country.
"Hi. I am new here. I am on several other sites as Patriot911 and I enjoy spending free time making truthers cry."
http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...-why-is-it-truthers-feel-the-need-to-lie.html

So you admit that the government has been less then forth coming, and we don't have the truth, but you don't a shit and are only here to troll.




> Patriot911---Wrong yet again, you piece of shit liar!  You don't "point out discrepancies".  You make claims as though they are fact.  All one has to do is read your posts to know the truth of this.


 I point out discrepancies, and post facts that prove the discrepancies, with links too. Unlike you Patrio911 troll!  




> Patriot911--Well, let's see.... you've just got done lying about what you do here by pretending you're just "pointing out discrepancies", yet we all know you do far more than that, specifically presenting theory after theory as to what you claim happened, yet have no evidence for, nor can you explain fully.


This sounds soo much like the OCTAS theory and you, it fits like a glove.



> Patriot911-- We point out your bullshit and lies, and in retaliation, you try to cast dispersions by claiming we're paid trolls.


The truth is you call everything anyone posts that is against the OCT version, BS and lies. This as we point out and catch YOU doing what you accuse others of doing. And to top it all off, you don't provide links or any kind of substantiated proof to back up your claims!!



> Patriot911-- Sounds pretty pathetic on your part!  Maybe if you stuck to the facts and actually looked at all the evidence people wouldn't think you were such a disgusting human being.


Are you referring to the "evidence" and "facts" in the OCT that has been shown to be less then honest, and full of more reasonable explanations?




> Patriot911---TakeAShit, like all the rest of the truthtards, comes up with theories that have no evidence and don't fit the facts.


 Yes they do, they just don't fit y_our_ facts and the OCT _facts_, that again..have been shown to be less then honest, and proven to be lies.




> Patriot911--The reality is none of you truthtards can actually agree on who did it (government/Jews/Illuminati/aliens/boogiemen), what happened (explosives, DEW, nuclear weapons, 93 shot down, 93 landed elsewhere, Pentagon hit by missile, Pentagon hit by global hawk, etc. etc. etc), or how it was done (remote planes, holograms, high explosives, thermite, DEW etc. etc.).  Yet we're suppose to take all you ignorant dipshits seriously and ignore all the evidence like you do in order to make your bullshit fit.  Um.... no.  I have integrity, unlike you.


What a joke of a statement this is, pure pigshit, using numerous fallacy argument points, including guilt by association strawman tactics.....Halograms??
With that exception, that  was started  to be used as a strawman to discredit real skeptics, there are good points and facts to back up a lot of the different theories, that are more credible then the OCT.
That is why they are around and to be in the first place.



> Patriot911--WOW!  You finally got something right!  See, the TRUTH is one thing.  It isn't a bunch of different theories, many of which directly conflict with other theories.  The TRUTH fits the EVIDENCE.


In the case of 9-11 and other conspiracies, the evidence is made to fit the conspirators version of the truth, like the "magic bullet" in the JFK conspiracy, 9-11 has the undamaged passport or license.
It's easy to do when they have all the power, control, and resources at their disposal. But you know this already and use it to spread misinformation, propaganda and lies. We can see right through you troll.



> Patriot911-- The TRUTH doesn't care about opinion or assumptions.  When you have to ignore the facts in order to get your theory to work, you're no longer working with the TRUTH.


Sort of like the NIST report?   




> Patriot911--The story changes as new evidence comes to light.  This is the way it is SUPPOSE to work!


 Ah but it only works for the OCT version, seeing as they ignore, ridicule or censor evidence and witnesses that contradict the OCT. And you help them right along, as stated in your mission statement-
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3060027-post1.html
No mention of being concerned about your admitted lack of truthfulness on the part of the government! 




> Patriot911--You don't stick to your original story like a retarded truthter when evidence comes to light that disqualifies the theory from being true.


Get your story straight you lying asswipe troll! Which is it, we always change our story and can't come up with one scenario, or like now, "You don't stick to your original story like a retarded truthter when evidence comes to light...."
 LOL, Busted and caught yet again in a cobweb of deciet and lies...Oh man you sure are entertaining!!  




> Patriot911--When you claim high explosives were used to bring down WTC 7 because of the speed of the collapse, yet no evidence of high explosives are found, most notably audio recordings of the collapse show no signs of the explosions themselves, one can correctly deduce that the claim of high explosives is WRONG.


 Oh sure, especially given the facts that NO investigation was done on explosives or incendiaries being used, as the fact they got rid of most of the steel also proves!! Keep going, you're on a roll lying troll!!



> Patriot911-- Do you change your theory?  For a little bit.  Then you come back to high explosives when all your other theories don't fit the known facts.


Again this goes against what you just said in the above statement of yours!! Wow you are spinning yourself to death and crashing and burning in your own lies, this is great!!



> Patriot911--No, I know all you truthtards don't agree.  That's what is so funny about you lying fucks!


 Like you don't agree with the OCT experts that said the fires from jetfuel "melted the steel" 




> Patriot911--You mean another lie by you that's been exposed!


 No but just at all the times you have been caught lying in this post and thread overall!!!
Patriot911 a known, proven and caught lying troll!!! With proof created by himself!! 




> Patriot911--Wrong again.  See, if it is a phony argument, you should be able to refute it, yet you can't.  I can present evidence.  You can't.  So anyone that picks the theory based on lies and opinions with no evidence to back it up has to be seriously retarded.  Hence truthtards.


 You OCT is flawed, exposed as lies, and there is much proof that has been presented to back it up. If anyone researches they will find that the counter theories make so much more sense, and this person known as Patriot911 is nothing but a BS artist, classic troll complete with every known fallacy argument known to mankind.



> Patriot911--Really?  Because you truthtards have no credibility and no evidence.  So once again you've been caught lying your ass off trying to make you and your fellow fucks seem credible when the truth is you're not.


 LOL, People research the counter theories, and connections about 9-11, and you too will discover what a deliberate, deceitful plan with cover up it was.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> What it comes down to for me is that YOU believe the known, proven liars and their entities, who have ALL the power and connections, by which they are able to control and intimidate witnesses, public opinion through the media, and are in charge of the courts who then decide what is considered truth and evidence, where as I choose to NOT believe these liars and those they influence and control based on their less then honorable reputation.





> Patriot911--In other words, you have to come up with excuses to dismiss all the evidence instead of actually being able to refute the evidence.  You pretend everything is manipulated while ignoring reality which is you can't completely control something as massive as the coverup behind your bullshit would have to be.


 Again your opinion is BS, and it is the OCT apologists that are the ones who dismiss evidence, and the government IS manipulating you.



> Patriot911--Yup.  We have the truth and you have lies.  It doesn't come more stacked than that!


 No you have the lies, and you know it. You admitted it in your post above about us not having the entire truth. A lie by omission is still a lie. Research all the things you want to know about 9-11, with an open mind and don't become like this sad lying troll, that is clearly only here to disrupt and spread lies that come from known lying entities.
People like him do not care about their nation or Americans. or about getting to the truth about something that has caused many deaths, treasure and eroded our civil rights.

Thanks for proving and showing us all who you really are, what you are doing here, and once and for all proven by your own words that you are nothing but a lying troll.


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Ah, more bullshit lies from Triton. * I realize you fuckers like to pretend you're actually telling the truth, but the reality of the situation is that they COULD fly and in more than just a Cessna.  Then again, you shitheads like to ignore the truth in order to push your bullshit lies and agendas.
> 
> Don't let me stop you from making a fool out of yourself, though.  I rather enjoy watching you lame fucks tripping all over yourselves with all your mistakes that you then run away from when called on them.    Shall I go over the rather lengthy list of bullshit you tried to pass off as fact and got your ass handed to you?
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you have to make a statement like that about Triton?
> We can go back  and see just how many times you have said and posted this same sentence, just insert a different name, and you post absolutely NOTHING that reinforces your statement.
> 
> He obviously heard about the lack of flying skills from sources that if things were turned around, I have no doubt you'd be siding with.
> The flight instructors themselves said they were shit pilots for Christ sake!
> Why don't you go ahead and post all the facts we get wrong then with actual references to back it up?
> You hardly ever do, and you honestly expect people to take your word for it!?
> 
> One side of this argument has facts backed up by science and credible sources with no self interest or benefits to gain from truthfully trying to explain what they know, while the side that Parrot 9-11 is for, namely the government, its agencies, and people who depend on one of those 2 for their livelihood, have been caught numerous times changing their story, stonewalling investigations, ignoring witnesses and evidence, and basically shitting on the people they swore to protect and work for. Us, the public footing the bill for the "war on terror"
> 
> Actually folks should not listen to people like him, or so called truthers, they should research this 9-11 topic, and others, that have affected their lives, and then make up their own minds as to which side has the more credible hypothesis.
> 
> In all honesty these forums are only good for obtaining interesting links and videos to help them along.
> 
> Regarding what Gamolon has posted, I'm rather shocked but would take him up on his offer to discuss/debate topics in a sane manner, as I have to agree that the name calling and personal attacks accomplishes nothing, and just further alienates us and any new comers to the site, which based on your postings, folks can't help but think is your intended goal.
> 
> I have done this as well, BUT only in my own defense when someone starts shit with me first.  Go ahead and look all those times up if you want to.
> Regardless, I have always said that I initially believed the government and the media when 9-11 first happened, and it was the government and the media who gave me reasons to start doubting it, and ultimately confirmed for me they are covering things up and lying about much of it.
> 
> I cannot even begin to understand that even with all the land mines of lies, obstructions, and distortions, and in such great quantities, that the government has placed in the path of the truth about 9-11, you people don't seem upset with _them_.
> Instead you get all bent out of shape and foam at the mouth at people who are just pointing out all the discrepancies!
> Who can be blamed for thinking you all are what many have accused you of being?
> 
> Takestepback is just one example of someone who has a different opinion on how the WTC collapses occurred, but we agree they sure as hell couldn't have been destroyed the way _they_ told us they did. Then you try to use this difference to ridicule ALL who don't believe as you do? That WE can't get OUR story straight?!
> 
> The governments version of the conspiracy theory has gone through its share of additions, subtractions, retractions, and changes, so how in the hell were WE supposed to know what exactly to look into, when parts of the story changes ?
> 
> Just like you try to lump all the skeptics of the 9-11 official version, with those who say their were no planes etc..
> Clearly a strawman that you are so proud to easily knock down.
> Anybody with any sense can see right through your fallacies and that you create your own PHONY arguments to further muddy the discussion!
> 
> I could go on and on and even repost the nutty fruit loop way some of you* debate* but it's a waste of time as it will lead to more of the same.
> 
> One other thing that I will state, that many of you ignore is that sometimes the 2 opposing opinions appeal to be correct will be decided solely on the credibility of the authoritative agency or people making the thesis, point or statements, and in that case I would argue that the government and their agencies are at a huge disadvantage based on that.
> What it comes down to for me is that YOU believe the known, proven liars and their entities, who have ALL the power and connections, by which they are able to control and intimidate witnesses, public opinion through the media, and are in charge of the courts who then decide what is considered truth and evidence, where as I choose to NOT believe these liars and those they influence and control based on their less then honorable reputation.
> The deck is stacked, it's as simple as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So with all your little speech here, what you really mean is that it doesn't matter what evidence is brought out, or what anyone says, if it originated with a government agency it's a lie.
> 
> Thank you for playing. You have a wonderfully open mind. NOT!.
Click to expand...


Wow if that is all you understood from my post, it is you who has the closed mind 
Almost everything that the OCT has to offer as a viable explanation has been shot down and discredited, that is why people are not believing everything they hear from them. Except of course dupes like yourself that can't even remember what it is they read or comprehend anything anymore.


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> Yeah sure, so irrelevant that you have to take the time to post a page long response to YOU being caught in another huge LIE!!


Wrong yet again, dickhead.  You are terribly irrelevant, but people need to be made aware just how big a piece of shit you are.... so I respond.  Did you forget I'm not trying to convince you of anything?  I am convincing those who might somehow believe that you are telling the truth that you are a dishonest piece of shit.  You make it soooo easy!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> You so know that the people who have the same belief in the official BS version of events as YOU do are the very ones that put this false information out to the public through the news media outlets, and MY point that you are a LIAR when you say it started with the "Fucktards Truthers" is valid. You are a liar for saying that, among other things you make up and twist to support your own made up arguments


Wrong yet again, fuckface.  When are you going to stop with the lies?  Your bullshit is only true if one first swallows your bullshit theories which you can't even defend.  If one accepts the truth, your claims about the media are meaingless.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> And no it wasn't me that pretended anything about mufflers, you are wrong or lying again!


You're right.  It was creativedreams.  All you fucks are so stupid it is hard to keep all your bullshit lies straight as to which one had the most retarded.  Fortunately Gamolon keeps them recorded for easy access.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> What should be most troubling to people who may be reading along, is your total lack or willingness to post links that support your point of view.


I do all the time, especially when asked.  Why do you insist on lying about this when it is so easy to see the truth?  Oh right.  You're a pathological liar.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Given how many times you have been caught stretching the truth and outright lying on these forums, it is a must you confirm your sources.


  Yeah right.  When you silly fucks don't even bother to back up your bullshit.  When asked I back up my claims with sources.  You're not worth the oxygen needed to keep you alive.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Your word means absolutely nothing Parrot


Many people would disagree with you.  And since you have the credibility of a pathological liar, why would anyone start believing you now?  My words speak for themselves.  You can't refute them so you pretend they mean nothing.  Pretty shitty tactic, but can anyone expect anything more from you?  I doubt it.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> I have provided links that folks can actually READ themselves, and decide what is real and what and who is credible.


And I have refuted your links while posting my own where applicable.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Again, the point is that you ridicule others for statements about "melting steel" when all along it was the very people and "experts" that believe the "official version" just like YOU do.


And?  That means nothing.  You had to go to articles written just after 9/11 to find people mistakenly saying melted steel.  Yet many of you silly fucktards still believe the steel had to melt before a collapse could happen.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Reasonable people know you are one of if not the most disgusting lying trolls on the USMB.


The only ones believing that are you scum truthtards and only because I make a complete mockery of your bullshit theories.  If that is your definition of "reasonable people", well, then reasonable people can all go to hell.  Given the reps and thanks I've gotten, I'm guessing that once again you are pulling "facts" out of your ass and pretending they are gold.  The smell and flies give away the fact your claims are nothing but shit.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Evidence of you squirming to try and explain yourself when you get caught lying is hilarious


Wrong again.  You couldn't address them so went on an insult spree.    A sure sign of someone who got their ass kicked and is hoping nobody sees the tears welling up in their eyes.    You stupid, stupid fuck.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> All you ever post is crap like-"Nope, you're a liar" or "You lie again" etc etc repeat ad nauseam


Wrong yet again.  All you have to do is go up and read what I wrote to see I did a lot more than post "Nope, you're a liar".  Once again you lie your ass off and expect everyone reading your shit to be a complete moron in order to believe you.  I think you severely underestimate the people reading this.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> While we also notice how you have not posted a single link to prove your counter allegations, we can only presume because you either have none, or you are just as much lazy as you are a huge lying POS!


Yet another blatant lie easily proven as a lie.  I didn't post a single link?  Wow.  Maybe you missed this one.....


Thermal images that prove Fucktard Jones is a piece of shit liar.... AGAIN!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> And you have the gall to ask me-"Why can't you post the original article? I found lots of this exact quote all over the web, but attributed to several groups and none of them with links."!!!!


You got it.  Why can't you back up your quotes?  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> I found it just fine, but it takes effort to read a lot , something we all know you are incapable of extracting the effort to do.


Yet you still can't post the link.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Remember this statement in the only thread of yours?
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3060027-post1.html
> What a joke, looks like the only one who is crying is YOU after being exposed as the lying troll you truly are


Wrong yet again.  The only thing you've proven is you lie a LOT and that I own your sorry ass.    Congratulations!  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> People do yourself a favor and save yourself time and aggravation and research this topic yourself, you wont find anything of real value listening to trolls such as Parrot911. His job is to mislead you and confuse you on this and various other internet message boards.


Yes, this is the ONLY way Fucktard Jones will ever be able to convince anyone of anything is if they don't read any dissenting posts.    Once your lies are exposed, you end up just being another fucking piece of shit traitor to this great nation of ours.  In other words, completely worthless as a human being.


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you have to make a statement like that about Triton?
> We can go back  and see just how many times you have said and posted this same sentence, just insert a different name, and you post absolutely NOTHING that reinforces your statement.
> 
> 
> 
> If you stupid piece of shit liars didn't lie your asses off on a continuous basis, I wouldn't have to make claims like that, yet you do, so I do.  Get it?  Probably not.  Go have someone in grade school explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just got caught spreading lies about who started the "collapse was caused by fires that melted the steel"
> propaganda, and you call others liars!?? What a hypocritical lying scumbag you are!
Click to expand...

Really?  Then you will have no problem posting me saying Truthtards started the lies about the steel having to melt before a collapse can happen, right?  Now run away little bitch.  We BOTH know you can't because I've never made such a claim.  Just MORE evidence of the lengths you will go to to lie about those who make you look like a jackass. 



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> There is documented evidence that the flight school instructors say he was a shit pilot. That is no lie


And where have I said differently?  A shit pilot can still fly which is what I was addressing.  Still having to make up lies about what I say in order to make your pitiful points?    Figures.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Again experts in aviation doubted his ability, and even his instructors said this about him. Again that is not a lie, we got the info from them.


Where did I ever make a claim to the contrary?  Being a bad pilot doesn't exclude him from being able to pull off that rather simple maneuver.  Now, if you want to get into some of the bullshit lies truthtards make about the maneuver, I would be glad to expose the lies yet again.

But seriously.  Enough lying about what I said already.  You're embarassing yourself!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> This is about his ability to fly a commercial airliner asshole, stop trying to create your own arguments.


No, the argument was made he couldn't even fly a Cessna.  That has been proven a lie.  Now YOU are trying to pretend it is about a commercial airliner.    Funny how you dishonest fucks have to keep moving goalposts to keep up the illusion of relevance.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> You do not ever post any links to back up your assertions and make any credible counter argument points. All you do is call people liars when I have proven and posted evidence that YOU are a lying troll!!


All you had to do is ask, you lying asshole!  FBI investigation into Hanjour including all rentals and solo flights

Your mistake is assuming I CAN'T link when dealing with an asshole like you where linking is pretty much useless.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> See what I mean folks? We demand links for him to prove his information is correct and valid, and he runs away like a chicken shit lying troll does!!


Wrong yet again, dumbfuck!  You demanding a link and then IN THE SAME POST whining about me not linking is about as dishonest as you can get, yet you do it on a regular basis.  Par for the course for fucks like you.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> No we know which side has been caught lying and obstructing the search for truth about what really happened.


Really?  They put you truthtards on the stand?    What a fucking moron!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> We all know who stood to make the most money and profit from the lies that resulted in responses and wars based on those lies.


Really?  Where are all the oil fields we're suppose to control now?  Meanwhile all the truthtard leaders are making their living off of simple sheep like you.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> If the math were done we would see just how many trillions have been made as opposed to what ever truthers have made selling their versions.


So show us the balance sheets of the companies who netted trillions.  Go ahead dumbfuck!  You made the claim, now back it up.  Halliburton has netted trillions?  Lockheed?  BP?  Come on.  You made the claim.  Back it up.

On that note, I will finish kicking your ass when I am done spending some time with my lovely wife.  Suck shit and die, Jones.  You'll be doing everyone a HUGE favor.


----------



## Triton

Patriot911 said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> No explosions!!
> 
> It was the 19 cavemen!! They had boxcutters!!! and  couldn't fly a Cessna!
> 
> 
> Had to pass the freedom loving Patriot Act and invade the middle east to get the cavemen and protect our freedom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> I best not grill tonight because I might melt my grill or cause it to collapse because thats how the towers fell!
> 
> Why, because my government loves me and wants to protect me! And you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a fucking moron.  No wonder truthtards are held in such low regard.  They're all worthless scum.
Click to expand...



The cavemen! The cavemen did it!!!


Now go suck on some Guano patriot911


----------



## Triton

Couldn't fly a cessna! couldn't fly a cessna!! but  he'll fly that commercial airplane into the pentagon and leave a 15ft hole with hardly any debris! oh yea!

Couldn't fly a cessna!! couldn't fly a cessna!! but on that commercial airliner oh that Hani Hanjour had the training and the skills to fly it right into the pentagon! oh yea!

WTC 7.....oh yea!  a building fell on it and there were fires so it fell symmetrically down with no resistance into its own foundation. that's how it came down! that's how!! oh yea!


RIP Macho Man


----------



## Patriot911

Anyone else need more proof Triton is nothing more than a pathetic little boy who has seriously lost it?    Man, you dumbshits call me an agent while ignoring people like Triton that make you all look like a bunch of morons and ignorant asses.  Of course you ARE a bunch of morons and ignorant asses, but still.....   Good job Triton!


----------



## Triton

Patriot911 says fire causes steel framed buildings to have total symmetrical free fall collapses.


----------



## Triton

twoofers


----------



## Triton

truthtards


----------



## Triton

I lost it, huh.



Yea I lost it with the rest of the pentagon surveillance cameras




Couldn't fly a cessna! Oh yea!


----------



## Obamerican

Triton said:


> No explosions!!
> 
> It was the 19 cavemen!! They had boxcutters!!! and  couldn't fly a Cessna!
> 
> 
> Had to pass the freedom loving Patriot Act and invade the middle east to get the cavemen and protect our freedom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> I best not grill tonight because I might melt my grill or cause it to collapse because thats how the towers fell!
> 
> Why, because my government loves me and wants to protect me! And you!


Keep proving to the WORLD that YOU are a fucking idiot.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Patriot911 said:


> Yes, this is the ONLY way Fucktard Jones will ever be able to convince anyone of anything is if they don't read any dissenting posts.    Once your lies are exposed, you end up just being another fucking piece of shit traitor to this great nation of ours.  In other words, completely worthless as a human being.


 lol, It is you that is trying to make people believe what they saw with their own eyes didn't happen. It is you desperately trying to convince people that the OCT is true, despite there being evidence and facts to the contrary, from many credible sources and people, and it is you that desperately comes on this forum calling everyone who disagrees with you a liar, this in the face of you lying yourself!



Patriot911 said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim fire melts steel.....
> 
> 
> 
> I've never made that claim.  That is usually done by fucktard truthers like you who don't know the difference.
Click to expand...


The traitor is you fuckball, you have admitted that we haven't been told everything about 9-11 from the government, and you have admitted the NIST report could be wrong, but you never ever have shown any willingness to question them, or speak as though they should be held accountable to the American people and conduct a real investigation not based on politics.
You instead bash anyone who questions or doubts the government or NIST, so spare us the phony lying "Patriot911" BS, and go back to spending quality time with your dominant hand, you sorry sack of shit.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Triton said:


> Patriot911 says fire causes steel framed buildings to have total symmetrical free fall collapses.



Yeah and he wants people to think he's some sort of _real_ patriot, because HE believes the outrageous lies they tell him to believe. What's sad is he doesn't seem to know the first thing the founding fathers said about being a true patriot, and how we must be ever vigilant, and the responsibility we have as citizens.
He should change his name to antiPatriot911. All I see is a scared little sheep that needs big brother to lead him around like a bitch and tell him what to think, say do etc...


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Triton said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I push against the controlled demolition theory all the time.
> 
> Ultimately, that's the most insightful post I've seen from you yet, Gamolon. Well said. And I have to agree.
> 
> But then again, I truly am only after the truth. No matter what conclusion that brings us to. Unfortunately, in the end, like you point out, there is way too much "shit" in the toilet on this topic and somewhere underneath it all is a truth that will likely go unnoticed. It's a tragic ending to this tale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, If you are willing to withstand the onslaught from our fellow posters, perhaps you can explain what you believe caused the collapse of the towers?
Click to expand...


Hi Triton. My theory, and that is all it is, I make no claim to concrete evidence, besides the anomalies I've posted here to this theory, that a technology exists utilizing Direct Energy Weaponry (DEW), not unlike that which the Navy is currently testing on its ships, that destroyed the towers. If you have understanding of electromagnetics, energy, and what has been coined as "the Hutchinson effect", by scientist John Hutchinson, it is the most plausible explanation I can muster. 

Controlled demolition takes just that; control. The scenario that unfolded on 9/11 was way too out of the control field for controlled demolition to take place. Unless some radical new demolition technology was used that is above the knowledge of control demolition experts. 

I realize that putting forth this theory will make those who find it too fantastical, dismiss the claim without any due diligence. And maybe rightly so. Since, it isnt as if the people who MAY have this technology, are going to come out and admit it exists and that it was employed on 9/11.

You simply have to look at the scientific anomalies left behind at the seen: The spontaneous combustion of cars, the unreported hurricane Erin, the eye witness testimony, the "dustification" of some 80% of all building material from WTC 1 +2, the steel beam from bankers trust, etc...etc....


I know, I'm totally


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is the ONLY way Fucktard Jones will ever be able to convince anyone of anything is if they don't read any dissenting posts.    Once your lies are exposed, you end up just being another fucking piece of shit traitor to this great nation of ours.  In other words, completely worthless as a human being.
> 
> 
> 
> lol, It is you that is trying to make people believe what they saw with their own eyes didn't happen.
Click to expand...

  You fucking idiot!  It isn't what they saw but their OPINION of what they saw that is in question.  Stupid liars like you want to pretend it was some big conspiracy even though you have no evidence to back up your bullshit and you turn your back on the real evidence.  What kind of piece of shit loser does that?



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> It is you desperately trying to convince people that the OCT is true, despite there being evidence and facts to the contrary, from many credible sources and people, and it is you that desperately comes on this forum calling everyone who disagrees with you a liar, this in the face of you lying yourself!


And there you go pretending there is evidence again.  Yet time after time after time you've been asked to produce ONE GOOD PIECE of evidence that would actually stand up in a court of law that backs up your claims.  And it's not just you.  EVERY truthtard has been asked the same question.  To date, not ONE of you dishonest fucks has been able to produce a single shred!  THAT speaks volumes about your dishonesty and complete lack of integrity and honor.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim fire melts steel.....
> 
> 
> 
> I've never made that claim.  That is usually done by fucktard truthers like you who don't know the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The traitor is you fuckball, you have admitted that we haven't been told everything about 9-11 from the government, and you have admitted the NIST report could be wrong, but you never ever have shown any willingness to question them, or speak as though they should be held accountable to the American people and conduct a real investigation not based on politics.
Click to expand...

So show me ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that the government theory isn't solid and that it was, as you claim, completely wrong and happened in an entirely different way.  Go ahead you piece of shit liar!  YOU claim they are completely wrong.  I claim we haven't been told the whole truth.  Those are NOT the same thing.  If there were evidence that implicated the government, this would be a different case, but there isn't any.  

As for the NIST report, the NIST is a world recognized agency for investigating things like structural failures.  They're not political.  They're not trying to cover up massive explosions you claim happened, yet nobody could hear except for proven liars.  

So go ahead and keep on whining like a little bitch.  I doubt anyone is buying it.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> You instead bash anyone who questions or doubts the government or NIST



Wrong again you stupid fuck.  I don't bash those who asks questions.  YOU don't ask questions and EVERYONE knows that.  You CLAIM you know exactly what happened and who was behind it all.  So fuck off, liar!  You call others liars, yet you lie your ass off in every post.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> so spare us the phony lying "Patriot911" BS, and go back to spending quality time with your dominant hand, you sorry sack of shit.


Ahhh.... All the little bitch fucktard Jones has left is to toss insults around.   You see it a lot from people who've been beat down and know it.   

So how about some of that evidence you claim you have, yet can never seem to actually produce.....


----------



## Patriot911

TakeAStepBack said:


> I know, I'm totally



TakeAShit finally admits the truth.   

I especially like the "dustification of 80% of the towers".  Straight from Judy Woods' DEW claims.  TakeAShit follows her around like a boy desperate for his first pussy.    PATHETIC!

If 80% were "dustified", how is it 1.5 million tons was removed?  By most estimates, the two towers were a million tons between them.  There weren't enough other buildings demolished to make up that 800,000 tons of material you claim was "dustified".  

Maybe you need to go back to school and learn some real world math and science.  Then you wouldn't be such an ignorant prick.


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 says fire causes steel framed buildings to have total symmetrical free fall collapses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and he wants people to think he's some sort of _real_ patriot, because HE believes the outrageous lies they tell him to believe. What's sad is he doesn't seem to know the first thing the founding fathers said about being a true patriot, and how we must be ever vigilant, and the responsibility we have as citizens.
> He should change his name to antiPatriot911. All I see is a scared little sheep that needs big brother to lead him around like a bitch and tell him what to think, say do etc...
Click to expand...


Ahh..... more bullshit lies from Fucktard Jones.  Here's a hint, you stupid fuck..... when someone is having a psychotic episode like Triton is, don't quote him.  You end up with shit all over you.  Not that anyone can tell from all the other shit you've had on you lately.  

As for being a patriot, I know enough to stand up against traitorous fucks like you trying to spread SEDITION.  You have no evidence yet you make outrageous claims you want others to act upon.  How fucking traitorous is that?  You make people like Benedict Arnold look like a saint.  Does it make you proud that you continue the work started by Al Qaeda?  Maybe you should worry about a visit from SEAL team 6.    Watch out.  They don't like traitors who spread lies based on paranoid delusions.


----------



## candycorn

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 says fire causes steel framed buildings to have total symmetrical free fall collapses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and he wants people to think he's some sort of _real_ patriot, because HE believes the outrageous lies they tell him to believe. What's sad is he doesn't seem to know the first thing the founding fathers said about being a true patriot, and how we must be ever vigilant, and the responsibility we have as citizens.
> He should change his name to antiPatriot911. All I see is a scared little sheep that needs big brother to lead him around like a bitch and tell him what to think, say do etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh..... more bullshit lies from Fucktard Jones.  Here's a hint, you stupid fuck..... when someone is having a psychotic episode like Triton is, don't quote him.  You end up with shit all over you.  Not that anyone can tell from all the other shit you've had on you lately.
> 
> As for being a patriot, I know enough to stand up against traitorous fucks like you trying to spread SEDITION.  You have no evidence yet you make outrageous claims you want others to act upon.  How fucking traitorous is that?  You make people like Benedict Arnold look like a saint.  Does it make you proud that you continue the work started by Al Qaeda?  Maybe you should worry about a visit from SEAL team 6.    Watch out.  They don't like traitors who spread lies based on paranoid delusions.
Click to expand...


Agreed; the best case scenario for the future of this country is that people like him and trite end up in very small cells for a very long time.  Nothing is wrong with asking questions; making totally baseless allegations is libelous and should be treated that way.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack said:


> YouTube - Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News
> 
> No, dip shit. Look how much material remained. It Pulverized. Explain the energy needed for that.



Right here Patriot. You really need a different angle. Come to NYC. I have friends here that can show you new angles....


----------



## Patriot911

TakeAStepBack said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News
> 
> No, dip shit. Look how much material remained. It Pulverized. Explain the energy needed for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right here Patriot. You really need a different angle. Come to NYC. I have friends here that can show you new angles....
Click to expand...


  Bite me, you piece of shit liar!  You've lied about everything so far, especially about being an engineer as you've fucked up so many times with things an engineer SHOULD know, and had to turn to Judy Woods for answers that were wrong.   

As for your video "proof", did you miss the part where they said the vast majority of the cloud was gypsum dust and concrete?  What happened to the 80% "dustification" you so blatantly lied about? 200,000 tons of structural steel per tower that weighs 500,000 tons means at LEAST 100,000 tons of steel would have to be "dustified" in order to meet your 80% and that is IF every other last speck was "dustified", which it clearly wasn't.

In other words, you once again lied your disgusting ass off in a pathetic attempt to sound intelligent.  You ended up with shit all over you and looking like a retarded fool.  

As for coming to NYC, I've been there.  Even talked to some FDNY.  They think you're all a bunch of very sick human beings (and I use the term human being loosely).  So what are you going to provide?  You're going to pretend you and your imaginary friends can "show me new angles"?  I find it hard to believe a fucked up piece of shit like you could find anyone to even talk to them, much less be a friend.    I love it when retards pretend online threats mean anything.  Just shows how immature and retarded they really are.


----------



## eots

candycorn said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and he wants people to think he's some sort of _real_ patriot, because HE believes the outrageous lies they tell him to believe. What's sad is he doesn't seem to know the first thing the founding fathers said about being a true patriot, and how we must be ever vigilant, and the responsibility we have as citizens.
> He should change his name to antiPatriot911. All I see is a scared little sheep that needs big brother to lead him around like a bitch and tell him what to think, say do etc...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh..... more bullshit lies from Fucktard Jones.  Here's a hint, you stupid fuck..... when someone is having a psychotic episode like Triton is, don't quote him.  You end up with shit all over you.  Not that anyone can tell from all the other shit you've had on you lately.
> 
> As for being a patriot, I know enough to stand up against traitorous fucks like you trying to spread SEDITION.  You have no evidence yet you make outrageous claims you want others to act upon.  How fucking traitorous is that?  You make people like Benedict Arnold look like a saint.  Does it make you proud that you continue the work started by Al Qaeda?  Maybe you should worry about a visit from SEAL team 6.    Watch out.  They don't like traitors who spread lies based on paranoid delusions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed; the best case scenario for the future of this country is that people like him and trite end up in very small cells for a very long time.  Nothing is wrong with asking questions; making totally baseless allegations is libelous and should be treated that way.
Click to expand...


I would love to have George Bush to sue  for libel for saying he had prior knowledge and involvement in the attacks of 9/11


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Keep ad honinem  as your argument, you hick fucking twat waffle. It's fine.


----------



## Patriot911

TakeAStepBack said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News
> 
> No, dip shit. Look how much material remained. It Pulverized. Explain the energy needed for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right here Patriot. You really need a different angle. Come to NYC. I have friends here that can show you new angles....
Click to expand...


Awww.... the piece of shit truthtard TakeAShit can't make any kind of sense online so he has to have his buddies do something he can't accomplish.    What a loser!


----------



## Patriot911

TakeAStepBack said:


> Keep ad honinem  as your argument, you hick fucking twat waffle. It's fine.



TakeAShit has nothing so has to rely on such classics as "hick fucking twat waffle."     Anyone else need proof he is a loser?  He can't defend his own theories, has to plagerize someone else's work because he can't think for himself,  and can't refute what I've written.  What a loser!  AGAIN!


----------



## Triton

Obamerican, let me guess, you believe that WTC 7 did not have a total symmetrical free fall collapse.

It was the fires right?

a "progressive collapse"?

Yea, watch that stove, the burners might do some serious damage to your frying pan.

How about the military exercises simulating the events that transpired, they probably didn't exist either.



All is well, God Bless the Patriot Act.


----------



## Triton

Interesting theory, I will have to investigate this in greater detail even though we all know it was really just fire like the government said because they never lie and always have our best interests in mind.


----------



## Fizz

instead of dwelling on trivial minutia.... when is even ONE of you stupid fucking twoofers ever come up with EVIDENCE to support an alternative explanation other than the official story?

come on, retards.... it's only been TEN FUCKING YEARS!!! 

saying stupid shit like "building seven couldnt have collapsed from fires" (when in fact it was on fire and did collapse) does nothing but make you look like the complete fucking imbeciles you really are....


----------



## Triton

Fizz said:


> instead of dwelling on trivial minutia.... when is even ONE of you stupid fucking twoofers ever come up with EVIDENCE to support an alternative explanation other than the official story?
> 
> come on, retards.... it's only been TEN FUCKING YEARS!!!
> 
> saying stupid shit like "building seven couldnt have collapsed from fires" (when in fact it was on fire and did collapse) does nothing but make you look like the complete fucking imbeciles you really are....





Yes, you're right, the Twoofers have absolutely no evidence that contradicts the official story at all, after all these years.

It was the 19 cavemen with boxcutters.

The one who could barely fly a cessna pulled an almost impossible maneuver into the pentagon leaving a 15 ft hole while all the cameras were confiscated because only a few frames or some low res inconclusive footage is sufficient.

Case closed


----------



## Patriot911

Triton said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> 
> instead of dwelling on trivial minutia.... when is even ONE of you stupid fucking twoofers ever come up with EVIDENCE to support an alternative explanation other than the official story?
> 
> come on, retards.... it's only been TEN FUCKING YEARS!!!
> 
> saying stupid shit like "building seven couldnt have collapsed from fires" (when in fact it was on fire and did collapse) does nothing but make you look like the complete fucking imbeciles you really are....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you're right, the Twoofers have absolutely no evidence that contradicts the official story at all, after all these years.
> 
> It was the 19 cavemen with boxcutters.
> 
> The one who could barely fly a cessna pulled an almost impossible maneuver into the pentagon leaving a 15 ft hole while all the cameras were confiscated because only a few frames or some low res inconclusive footage is sufficient.
> 
> Case closed
Click to expand...


  I see the shittard Triton is still having his little mental meltdown and spouting the proven lies.  So if you get so pissed off about people claiming you have no evidence, why don't you for once present us with evidence your bullshit is actually real and not pulled from the depths of your bowels that even a proctologist couldn't reach?


----------



## Triton

Patriot911, I am on your side now, I agree with you!

I believe fire causes symmetrical total free fall  collapses of steel framed buildings.

Oh wait..... I forgot that's just a twoofer theory. They weren't symmetrical, it was pancaked and there was plenty of resistance.




The debris field in shanksville is a textbook land-based airliner crash as well with the precise kind of debris field to support it unlike those stupid twoofer claims.





I have seen the light of truth. You, candycorn, Ollie, Gamalon, Obamamerican, et al have convinced me now.

The fuckwad truthtards and all their stupid idiot engineers and pilots for 9/11 "Truth" are a bunch of non-credible nutjobs spewing disinfo to fool the masses. I see this now thanks to experts like you, Patriot911.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Triton said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> 
> instead of dwelling on trivial minutia.... when is even ONE of you stupid fucking twoofers ever come up with EVIDENCE to support an alternative explanation other than the official story?
> 
> come on, retards.... it's only been TEN FUCKING YEARS!!!
> 
> saying stupid shit like "building seven couldnt have collapsed from fires" (when in fact it was on fire and did collapse) does nothing but make you look like the complete fucking imbeciles you really are....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you're right, the Twoofers have absolutely no evidence that contradicts the official story at all, after all these years.
> 
> It was the 19 cavemen with boxcutters.
> 
> The one who could barely fly a cessna pulled an almost impossible maneuver into the pentagon leaving a 15 ft hole while all the cameras were confiscated because only a few frames or some low res inconclusive footage is sufficient.
> 
> Case closed
Click to expand...


The one who could barely fly a Cessna yet managed to have a commercial pilots license?


----------



## candycorn

Fizz said:


> instead of dwelling on trivial minutia.... when is even ONE of you stupid fucking twoofers ever come up with EVIDENCE to support an alternative explanation other than the official story?
> 
> come on, retards.... it's only been TEN FUCKING YEARS!!!
> 
> saying stupid shit like "building seven couldnt have collapsed from fires" (when in fact it was on fire and did collapse) does nothing but make you look like the complete fucking imbeciles you really are....


 
Ahhh perspective!


----------



## Triton

Oh yes, his license, the one not really certified by the FAA:




*Hani Hanjour*





Couldn't pull it off, no way. 

Release the videos to prove it, they won't.


----------



## Patriot911

Triton said:


> Oh yes, his license, the one not really certified by the FAA:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hani Hanjour*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't pull it off, no way.
> 
> Release the videos to prove it, they won't.



Ahhh, the shittard Triton tries to be relevant and FAILS!    So what have you proven?  That Hani Hanjour was tested by licensed testers who verified he was qualified.    The fact they were allowed to certify pilots for the FAA doesn't mean the people they certify aren't certified by the FAA.  Just another bullshit claim by the truthtards.  Here's a hint, dipshit.... if his license checks out with the FAA, which it did, then he was cerified by the FAA.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Triton said:


> Oh yes, his license, the one not really certified by the FAA:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hani Hanjour*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't pull it off, no way.
> 
> Release the videos to prove it, they won't.



I wonder why when I check the originating link for this story all I get is:



> Page Unavailable
> 
> The page you've requested either does not exist or is currently unavailable.


----------



## candycorn

SFC Ollie said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes, his license, the one not really certified by the FAA:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hani Hanjour*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't pull it off, no way.
> 
> Release the videos to prove it, they won't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder why when I check the originating link for this story all I get is:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Page Unavailable
> 
> The page you've requested either does not exist or is currently unavailable.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The link worked for me which doesn't work for Triton; he claims the FAA gave him false credentials...yet credentialed him only in a Cessna.  Wouldn't they want him credentialed to Top Gun status if they were going to pas him off as a great pilot?  

Someday twoofers will run out of toes or bullets; I hope they all save one for their heads.


----------



## candycorn

SFC Ollie said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes, his license, the one not really certified by the FAA:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hani Hanjour*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't pull it off, no way.
> 
> Release the videos to prove it, they won't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder why when I check the originating link for this story all I get is:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Page Unavailable
> 
> The page you've requested either does not exist or is currently unavailable.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Oh, I see...you meant the link that supposedly goes to ABC News.  It worked too..The web page says:


----------



## SFC Ollie

candycorn said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes, his license, the one not really certified by the FAA:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hani Hanjour*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't pull it off, no way.
> 
> Release the videos to prove it, they won't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder why when I check the originating link for this story all I get is:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Page Unavailable
> 
> The page you've requested either does not exist or is currently unavailable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I see...you meant the link that supposedly goes to ABC News.  It worked too..The web page says:
Click to expand...


That's the one......


----------



## Patriot911

The text in its entirety.



> D A L L A S, June 13  A suspected Saudi terrorist believed to have piloted the plane that crashed into the Pentagon bypassed the Federal Aviation Administration for his flight licenses, according to a published report today. Sources and agency records cited by The Dallas Morning News showed that Hani Saleh Hanjour obtained certification by using private examiners who independently contract with the FAA. That certification allowed him to begin passenger jet training at an Arizona flight school despite having what instructors later described as limited flying skills and an even more limited command of English. The jet training enabled the 30-year-old Hanjour to take the controls of American Airlines Flight 77 on the morning of Sept. 11 and crash it into the Pentagon, killing 188 people including all passengers aboard. Certification of Hanjour illustrates a flaw in the federal system, one official said. An FAA inspector in California who spoke on condition of anonymity told the newspaper a pilot now "could go all the way through to become a 747 captain, if you will, having never gone before the FAA." Agency records show that Hanjour was certified as an "Airplane Multi-Engine Land/Commercial Pilot" on April 15, 1999, by Daryl Strong, a designated pilot examiner in Tempe, Ariz. It was the last of three certifications Hanjour obtained from private examiners. Strong, 71, said his flight logs confirm that he conducted a check ride with Mr. Hanjour in 1999 in a twin-engine Piper Apache but that he remembers nothing remarkable about him. Strong, with more than 50 years of flying experience that included a commercial crop duster, said until recently he conducted about 200 such check rides each year, at $200 per flight. FAA officials confirm one of their inspectors, John Anthony, was contacted by Pan Am International Flight Academy in Miami in January and February about Hanjour and, at the request of the school, checked Hanjour's commercial pilot's license to ensure it was valid. "There should have been a stop right then and there," said Michael Gonzales, an FAA inspector speaking as president of the Professional Airways Systems Specialists chapter in Scottsdale that represents FAA field inspectors. He said Hanjour should have been re-examined as a commercial pilot, as required by federal law. The Associated Press


----------



## SFC Ollie

Piper





757


----------



## SFC Ollie

Looks like it wouldn't take much to learn one if you knew the other.....


----------



## Patriot911

SFC Ollie said:


> Looks like it wouldn't take much to learn one if you knew the other.....



Not to mention the hard tasks of takeoff and landing were already taken care of for them.  It's really disgusting how some people try and twist the truth to push an agenda.


----------



## Triton

Couldn't be done! Couldn't be done!

Don't believe me just ask a Top Gun!

*"Commander Kolstad is especially critical of the account of American Airlines Flight 77 that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. He says, "At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757's and 767's and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described."

Commander Kolstad adds, "I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did. Something stinks to high heaven!"*



Hani Hanjour could not have pulled it off.

All his instructors said he sucked, plus the crash site is not conducive to a commercial jet crashing into it (15 ft hole, no shot of the wings, lack of debris)

Also


WHERES ALL THE CAMERAS AT?????????????????????????????????

WHERE DID THEY ALL GO?????????????????



Now maybe Ollie could do it  

But not Hani Hanjour oh hell NO!


----------



## Patriot911

Wow.  So that piece of shit pilot couldn't turn 330 degrees in just over 3 minutes and hit one of the largest buildings in the world?  He SUCKS!!!!!!  

So why is it this supposed expert can't do something I can do with zero training in a simulator good enough for pilots to practice with?  

Of course he is in good company over there at pilotsfor9/11.  There are a number of known, proven liars over there.  He's in good company.  Hope they all burn in hell when their time comes.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Maybe Commander Kolstad couldn't do it, But Hani Hanjour Probably did. Someone on that plane did it. And other than the original crew he was the next best pilot on board. Remember all he had to do was crash......He wasn't worried about damage to the plane or the stress or G forces......


----------



## Patriot911

SFC Ollie said:


> Maybe Commander Kolstad couldn't do it, But Hani Hanjour Probably did. Someone on that plane did it. And other than the original crew he was the next best pilot on board. Remember all he had to do was crash......He wasn't worried about damage to the plane or the stress or G forces......



I've run the calculations.  The plane never even hit 1 G.  It was going too fast for the altitude by the time of impact, but that was only for a couple seconds as it was accelerating the whole time after it came out of the spiral.

Some other "expert" over at pilots for 9/11 was trying to bullshit everyone saying it was a 5 to 8 G turn.    Physics don't lie, but apparently these traitorous scum pilots lie their asses off.  Just goes to show good Americans can go bad.


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Commander Kolstad couldn't do it, But Hani Hanjour Probably did. Someone on that plane did it. And other than the original crew he was the next best pilot on board. Remember all he had to do was crash......He wasn't worried about damage to the plane or the stress or G forces......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've run the calculations.  The plane never even hit 1 G.  It was going too fast for the altitude by the time of impact, but that was only for a couple seconds as it was accelerating the whole time after it came out of the spiral.
> 
> Some other "expert" over at pilots for 9/11 was trying to bullshit everyone saying it was a 5 to 8 G turn.    Physics don't lie, but apparently these traitorous scum pilots lie their asses off.  Just goes to show good Americans can go bad.
Click to expand...


lol....


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Commander Kolstad couldn't do it, But Hani Hanjour Probably did. Someone on that plane did it. And other than the original crew he was the next best pilot on board. Remember all he had to do was crash......He wasn't worried about damage to the plane or the stress or G forces......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've run the calculations.  The plane never even hit 1 G.  It was going too fast for the altitude by the time of impact, but that was only for a couple seconds as it was accelerating the whole time after it came out of the spiral.
> 
> Some other "expert" over at pilots for 9/11 was trying to bullshit everyone saying it was a 5 to 8 G turn.    Physics don't lie, but apparently these traitorous scum pilots lie their asses off.  Just goes to show good Americans can go bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol....
Click to expand...


Yet you couldn't refute the calculations.    That's the great thing about physics.  The rules are absolute and you can't debate them without looking like a fool.  You're use to that, right eots?


----------



## Patriot911

I couldn't resist.  I know eots got his ass handed to him so bad last time that he couldn't even respond, so I thought I would repost it here for him to stew over some more.

Original link



Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> to me the more concerning question me is why the mainstream media does not report one word on the petitions and statement of these highly qualified individuals who by any rational person understanding are highly skilled, credible and courageous patriots...would welcome any reasonable explanation..have yet o hear one
> 
> Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you're all a bunch of fucking liars.  Simple enough for you?  Do you need me to use smaller words?  Pictures?
> 
> Here.  Let me show you what I mean.  These are the type of people your "highly skilled and credible" people are.  They are fucking liars.  This quote is taken from the page you linked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's.  And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky.  I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, this ass says he is a pilot.  He should know about Gs and, since this quote was taken from 2007, he would know what the turn at the pentagon entailed.
> 
> So lets find out just what kind of piece of shit you're claiming is highly skilled and credible.
> 
> At it's narrowest, the spiral of flight 77 was four miles in diameter or 2 miles in radius.
> 
> At the start of the maneuver, the flight speed was 290 knots. High, but well within the design parameters of the plane at that altitude according to Boeing and most certainly not 100 knots over as claimed by your douche. As the plane executed the spiral, the speed decreased, which is normal in a turn, but for the sake of argument, let's say it stayed steady at 290 knots.
> 
> Given these two parameters, it is easy to calculate acceleration in the turn which would be measured in Gs. 32 feet per second per second acceleration is 1 G. Acceleration in a turn is calculated with the following formula: A = v2/r.
> 
> First we get knots into feet per second. Easy enough. One knot is equal to 1.6878098571012 feet per second. 290 knots = 489.4648586 feet per second. Velocity squared gives us 239575.8478.
> 
> Second, we need to determine the radius of the turn. 2 mile radius * 5280 feet per mile = 10560 feet.
> 
> So acceleration = 239575.8478 / 10560 = 22.6871068 feet per second per second acceleration or 0.708972087 Gs. Hardly 5 to 7 Gs.
> 
> So what would it take to get to 5 - 7 Gs? Well, keeping the diameter the same, the plane would have to be going 770 knots which is greater than the speed of sound which at sea level is 660 knots. Ironically, to hit 7Gs, the plane would have to be going 911 knots.
> 
> We all know the plane couldn't even achieve those speeds, so lets adjust the other parameter; the radius of the turn.
> 
> In order to pull 5Gs, the radius would have to be shortened from 10560 feet to 1497 feet, or from 2 miles to a little over a quarter mile. 7Gs is accomplished in a turn of just 1070 feet or about a fifth of a mile.
> 
> So, as anyone can see, there is NO WAY the plane was pulling anywhere near 5 to 7 Gs. An experienced pilot, especially one supposedly use to high speed maneuvers, would know what it takes to reach those G levels. Therefore I submit to you that eot's source is either a complete fraud who doesn't know what the hell he is talking about, or he is knowingly lying out his ass.
> 
> Feel free to debunk my math or the facts of the situation.  You won't be able to do either.
Click to expand...


So go ahead eots.  Show me where the math is wrong.  Show me where it is possible to do a 5, 6, 7, or 8 G turn given the information we have.  Show me where the math is wrong.  You're the one making a jackass out of yourself.  Let's see how far you're willing to go.


----------



## eots

where does the pilot ever say he is referring to the flight maneuvers of the pentagon specifically when he speaks of g forces ?????


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSokEXdFjaQ]YouTube - &#x202a;PILOT SAYS "NO WAY" TO 9/11 FAIRYTALE&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie

eots said:


> where does the pilot ever say he is referring to the flight maneuvers of the pentagon specifically when he speaks of g forces ?????
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;PILOT SAYS "NO WAY" TO 9/11 FAIRYTALE&#x202c;&rlm;



He did not have all the information. I'm certain he has since changed his tune. If he has been provided with facts and not buried in the myth.


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> where does the pilot ever say he is referring to the flight maneuvers of the pentagon specifically when he speaks of g forces ?????
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;PILOT SAYS "NO WAY" TO 9/11 FAIRYTALE&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He did not have all the information. I'm certain he has since changed his tune. If he has been provided with facts and not buried in the myth.
Click to expand...


you would be certain ?...lol


----------



## Triton

You're right, what am I thinking Patriot911!

A Pilot who has logged 6,000 hours on commercial airliners as well as a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor is nothing more than a Twooftard fuckwad nutjob along with the rest of those lying  pilots for 9/11 truth sons of bitches!

Now you on the other hand, patriot911, you've run the calculations therefore it must be so.

I'm convinced, and so should the rest of the world.


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> where does the pilot ever say he is referring to the flight maneuvers of the pentagon specifically when he speaks of g forces ?????
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;PILOT SAYS "NO WAY" TO 9/11 FAIRYTALE&#x202c;&rlm;



So what.... you're just going to repeat the ass kicking you got the LAST time you repeated this lameassed attempt to not look like a jackass?   

Here's a clue, fucktard.  The only plane that really made a turn of any significance, much less one that could be called a high speed, high bank turn is Flight 77.  If you go with any of the other flights, your pussy of a liar only becomes a greater liar.  

Now how about showing where I was wrong with the math?  Come on, chuckles.  If you're going to be an asshole and pretend I'm wrong, the least you can do is show me where I'm wrong.

Or admit you yourself are a world class liar and once again got caught with your pants down around your ankles.  Wait.  That would mean you have to be honest for once.  We all know that isn't going to happen.


----------



## Patriot911

Triton said:


> You're right, what am I thinking Patriot911!
> 
> A Pilot who has logged 6,000 hours on commercial airliners as well as a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor is nothing more than a Twooftard fuckwad nutjob along with the rest of those lying  pilots for 9/11 truth sons of bitches!
> 
> Now you on the other hand, patriot911, you've run the calculations therefore it must be so.
> 
> I'm convinced, and so should the rest of the world.



Damn straight!  Notice that fuckwad couldn't even say WHY it was impossible?  Just like a truthtard to make claims and not back them up.


----------



## Patriot911

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> where does the pilot ever say he is referring to the flight maneuvers of the pentagon specifically when he speaks of g forces ?????
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;PILOT SAYS "NO WAY" TO 9/11 FAIRYTALE&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He did not have all the information. I'm certain he has since changed his tune. If he has been provided with facts and not buried in the myth.
Click to expand...


The interview was in September of 2007.  The FDR information which detailed exactly what happened was released on 5/24/2006.  His name and quotes are still prominently displayed on pilots for 9/11 truth and he appears to still be a member.


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> He did not have all the information. I'm certain he has since changed his tune. If he has been provided with facts and not buried in the myth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you would be certain ?...lol
Click to expand...


Funny how you mock someone giving your star witness the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgITY-fLHtk]YouTube - &#x202a;9/11 - Flight175 (CBS dive bomber - full)&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## Triton

The towers were built to withstand multiple commercial airliner impacts


----------



## Patriot911

Triton said:


> The towers were built to withstand multiple commercial airliner impacts



Pure bullshit.  Here is an article written by the man who not only designed the towers, but did the actual calculations for the theoretical impact of a 707.  The effects of fire was never considered as neither the impact nor the fire were required studies, but were done as proof of concept.

link


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> YouTube - &#x202a;9/11 - Flight175 (CBS dive bomber - full)&#x202c;&rlm;



Apparently you are far too stupid to understand what a high speed, high bank TURN is.   Maybe you should have an adult explain it to you using pictures and very small words.


----------



## eots

patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> youtube - &#x202a;9/11 - flight175 (cbs dive bomber - full)&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> apparently you are far too stupid to understand what a high speed, high bank turn is.   Maybe you should have an adult explain it to you using pictures and very small words.
Click to expand...


so lets have your _calculations_ on that descent and turn....


----------



## Triton

No its not bullshit, there is plenty of testimony from structural engineers explaining how the towers coudl withstand multiple impacts from commercial jet airliners.


But wait, you say so, therefore it is bullshit


----------



## SFC Ollie

Patriot911 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> where does the pilot ever say he is referring to the flight maneuvers of the pentagon specifically when he speaks of g forces ?????
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;PILOT SAYS "NO WAY" TO 9/11 FAIRYTALE&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He did not have all the information. I'm certain he has since changed his tune. If he has been provided with facts and not buried in the myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The interview was in September of 2007.  The FDR information which detailed exactly what happened was released on 5/24/2006.  His name and quotes are still prominently displayed on pilots for 9/11 truth and he appears to still be a member.
Click to expand...


Then his brain has been poisoned by the dumb asses.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Triton said:


> No its not bullshit, there is plenty of testimony from structural engineers explaining how the towers coudl withstand multiple impacts from commercial jet airliners.
> 
> 
> But wait, you say so, therefore it is bullshit



Oh please point them out. Because we all saw that they must be wrong. The planes hit and the towers fell. And there is zero evidence of any bombs going off to help them fall.


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> youtube - &#x202a;9/11 - flight175 (cbs dive bomber - full)&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> apparently you are far too stupid to understand what a high speed, high bank turn is.   Maybe you should have an adult explain it to you using pictures and very small words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so lets have your _calculations_ on that descent and turn....
Click to expand...


Already gave them to you.  TWICE now and once just last page a couple of posts ago.    They directly refute your traitorous hero's claim that it was a 5, 6, 7 G turn.  It wasn't even over 1.  You couldn't refute them then and now you're pretending they don't exist.    Very predictable.


----------



## Patriot911

Triton said:


> No its not bullshit, there is plenty of testimony from structural engineers explaining how the towers coudl withstand multiple impacts from commercial jet airliners.
> 
> 
> But wait, you say so, therefore it is bullshit



The only person on record saying it was designed to withstand multiple impacts was CONSTRUCTION MANAGER DiMartini and it was his OPINION, not in the design.  So you lose.  AGAIN.  

BTW, who are we to believe?  A known, proven, delusional brain dead liar like you?  Or the guy who actually did the calculation and shows the energy values he came up with?  Hmmmm.  Sorry, but you're a piece of shit.  I'm going to go with the credible guy who actually did the work.


----------



## Gamolon

Triton said:


> No its not bullshit, there is plenty of testimony from structural engineers explaining how the towers coudl withstand multiple impacts from commercial jet airliners.
> 
> 
> But wait, you say so, therefore it is bullshit



They did withstand the IMPACTS. That's why the south tower stood for 56 minutes after IMPACT and the north tower stood for 102 minutes after IMPACT.

Do you understand what "designed" for an "impact" means? An "impact" calculation is based upon the force generated by a collision of entities. The force from an impact does not last an hour or two.

You are completely wrong.


----------



## Triton

Yes, you're right, i'm completely wrong.

There is no way the twin towers could have withstood the impact of a commercial jetliner.

In fact, the impact was so devastating to the structural integrity of the building and the fires were so powerful that only WonderWoman (pictured below) could be in the presence of the impact site prior to its total symmetrical free fall collapse into its own foundation.










oh those raging fires that melt steel


----------



## SFC Ollie

We have been presented with no proof that there was any melted or molten steel.


----------



## Patriot911

Triton said:


> Yes, you're right, i'm completely wrong.
> 
> There is no way the twin towers could have withstood the impact of a commercial jetliner.
> 
> In fact, the impact was so devastating to the structural integrity of the building and the fires were so powerful that only WonderWoman (pictured below) could be in the presence of the impact site prior to its total symmetrical free fall collapse into its own foundation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh those raging fires that melt steel



And this is proof of just how fucking sick and twisted the piece of shit Triton is.  Numerous people JUMPED TO THEIR DEATHS from the towers.  This fucktard is trying to pretend there was nothing wrong, and in doing so, dismisses the lives of those who jumped to their deaths.  For those who want to know why I hold people like Triton, Mr. Jones, eots et. al. in the lowest contempt possible, it is for shit like this.  They're making fun of people who lost their lives and using their deaths to push their bullshit agendas.  To me, there is no lower form of life that the fucked up retards known as truthers.

So tell us, Triton.  What reason would dozens of people have for jumping off what you're trying to pretend was a perfectly safe building?

BTW, the image was taken from the same side of the building that the wind was blowing from.  She would be receiving fresh air while the wind would push the heat and flames away from her.  Way to go, you disgusting excuse for a human being.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Patriot911 said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you're right, i'm completely wrong.
> 
> There is no way the twin towers could have withstood the impact of a commercial jetliner.
> 
> In fact, the impact was so devastating to the structural integrity of the building and the fires were so powerful that only WonderWoman (pictured below) could be in the presence of the impact site prior to its total symmetrical free fall collapse into its own foundation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh those raging fires that melt steel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is proof of just how fucking sick and twisted the piece of shit Triton is.  Numerous people JUMPED TO THEIR DEATHS from the towers.  This fucktard is trying to pretend there was nothing wrong, and in doing so, dismisses the lives of those who jumped to their deaths.  For those who want to know why I hold people like Triton, Mr. Jones, eots et. al. in the lowest contempt possible, it is for shit like this.  They're making fun of people who lost their lives and using their deaths to push their bullshit agendas.  To me, there is no lower form of life that the fucked up retards known as truthers.
> 
> So tell us, Triton.  What reason would dozens of people have for jumping off what you're trying to pretend was a perfectly safe building?
> 
> BTW, the image was taken from the same side of the building that the wind was blowing from.  She would be receiving fresh air while the wind would push the heat and flames away from her.  Way to go, you disgusting excuse for a human being.
Click to expand...


Actually he's making fun of you, but you twist it around to fit your needs.
And the poor soul in the pic and videos was indeed a wonder woman of sorts, bravely making her way to the edge of where the plane entered the tower. It is for her and the rest of the victims that the truth movement seeks a new investigation with the real truth, and real accountability, something you are totally against, EVEN WHILE ADMITTING the possibility of problems with the OCT and NIST.
 You don't give a damn about those people, or the truth you phony POS.


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJy7lhVK2xE&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - &#x202a;Richard Humenn P.E. - WTC Chief Electrical Design Engineer&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie

Electrical engineer? Really? And he knows buildings........


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> Actually he's making fun of you, but you twist it around to fit your needs.


No shit, sherlock!  But nothing says I can't take his sarcasm and turn it against him and expose him as the shit he is.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> And the poor soul in the pic and videos was indeed a wonder woman of sorts, bravely making her way to the edge of where the plane entered the tower. It is for her and the rest of the victims that the truth movement seeks a new investigation with the real truth, and real accountability, something you are totally against, EVEN WHILE ADMITTING the possibility of problems with the OCT and NIST.


The possibility exists that there are issues with the reports.  Until EVIDENCE comes out that proves the reports are fundamentally flawed, no investigation is going to be done for you dishonest fucks because you would just ignore the results anyway.  BTW, if REAL evidence does surface showing some major flaw, I will be demanding an investigation as well.  The difference is I don't believe your fucked up opinions are evidence.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> You don't give a damn about those people, or the truth you phony POS.


Wrong again you dishonest fuck.  Can't you be honest just for one post?    I know you can't.  It was a rhetorical question.  As for the truth, that is exactly what I am fighting for.  When dishonest liars like you try to pretend opinion is fact and have no evidence to back up your claims, you're NOT DEALING WITH THE TRUTH.  You want the truth?  Come up with a theory that fits all the EVIDENCE AND FACTS, not your bullshit opinions.  Until then, you have no right to talk about the truth since you routinely shit all over it.


----------



## eots

sfc ollie said:


> electrical engineer? Really? And he knows buildings........



he knows the wtc and he knows what he knows and it is considerably more than yourself


----------



## Triton

I would disagree, Patriot911 is a much more credible source of information.


----------



## eots

triton said:


> i would disagree, patriot911 is a much more credible source of information.



indeed...what was I  thinking


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> electrical engineer? Really? And he knows buildings........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he knows the wtc and he knows what he knows and it is considerably more than yourself
Click to expand...


Yet you dismiss what Leslie Robertson, the guy who actually DESIGNED THE BUILDINGS has to say on the matter.  What do you think that says about you?    You guys will listend and believe anyone who says what you want to hear and ignore everyone else.  I've never met more close minded people in my life than truthtards.


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> i would disagree, patriot911 is a much more credible source of information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> indeed...what was I  thinking
Click to expand...


About time you guys came around....  ;-)


----------



## eots

patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> i would disagree, patriot911 is a much more credible source of information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> indeed...what was i  thinking
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> about time you guys came around....  ;-)
Click to expand...


well with evidence like _you are truthtard and fucktard.._ It is hard to deny the O.C.T


----------



## SFC Ollie

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAdcNEa6PTQ]YouTube - &#x202a;LESLIE ROBERTSON AND STEVEN JONES DEBATE PT1&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## eots

that is hardly a debate...lol...its just one sided buddy rambling on and on, give me a break and I like the way he would not go near wtc 7...you should be embarrassed Ollie, but you clearly have no shame


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0fkDmi78Og&NR=1]YouTube - &#x202a;Lynn Margulis, PhD - Scientist&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie

eots said:


> that is hardly a debate...lol...its just one sided buddy rambling on and on, give me a break and I like the way he would not go near wtc 7...you should be embarrassed Ollie, but you clearly have no shame



Actually he admitted he couldn't talk about building 7 because he didn't know enough about the design.... Do try to keep up. Some people admit when they don't have the expertise to say anything.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Hey Lynn, Where's the audio of your high explosives?


----------



## Triton

No, there were no explosions at all, theres no evidence for explosions.


Nothing exploded, the fires brought'em down, the fires brought'em down!







*No Explosion*


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is hardly a debate...lol...its just one sided buddy rambling on and on, give me a break and I like the way he would not go near wtc 7...you should be embarrassed Ollie, but you clearly have no shame
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually he admitted he couldn't talk about building 7 because he didn't know enough about the design.... Do try to keep up. Some people admit when they don't have the expertise to say anything.
Click to expand...


well perhaps before he goes on a radio show to" debate "he should inform himself


----------



## Triton

Pull it Larry pull it!!!


Pull it Larry pull it!!!


*Pull it Larry pull it!!!*


----------



## SFC Ollie

Triton said:


> No, there were no explosions at all, theres no evidence for explosions.
> 
> 
> Nothing exploded, the fires brought'em down, the fires brought'em down!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *No Explosion*




That's right the sound of a building falling is not an explosion.

You do know that you are an idiot, right?


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is hardly a debate...lol...its just one sided buddy rambling on and on, give me a break and I like the way he would not go near wtc 7...you should be embarrassed Ollie, but you clearly have no shame
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually he admitted he couldn't talk about building 7 because he didn't know enough about the design.... Do try to keep up. Some people admit when they don't have the expertise to say anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well perhaps before he goes on a radio show to" debate "he should inform himself
Click to expand...


I love how fucktards completely ignore the fact Leslie Robertson is probably THE leading expert on the design of the towers bar none and understands from an engineering aspect what happened and what that would do.

Instead they pretend he should be like truthtards and brush up on a completely different building and pretend like he is now an expert on that building.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

:LMAO:

you turds are special......


----------



## Patriot911

TakeAStepBack said:


> :LMAO:
> 
> you turds are special......



Oh look!  TakeAShit shows just how irrelevant he is!    Go fuck yourself, ya piece of shit truthtard.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

ad hominem yet again. you don't even have a relevant point. Fucking butt monkey. 

ADDRESS THE MATERIAL OR GFY.


----------



## Patriot911

TakeAStepBack said:


> ad hominem yet again. you don't even have a relevant point. Fucking butt monkey.
> 
> ADDRESS THE MATERIAL OR GFY.



Says the fucktard who couldn't even come up with his own material so had to plagerize Judy Woods!    And just what the fuck have you been doing you dishonest piece of shit!  Nothing but ad hominem while bitching like a little schoolgirl about others doing what you are doing.    That's rich you hypocritical piece of trash!

BTW, unlike you, I did address the issue at hand.  Or would you like to rebut the fact you stupid truthtards run away from the facts laid out by world's leading expert on the towers?  Or the fact you silly bitches like to pretend that because he can't act as an authority on WTC 7 that he should be ignored?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

So, are you going to address the material or continue to make yourself look like an ass wipe?

Ad hominem doesn't count. The material is up for question, not me.

Address it.


----------



## Patriot911

TakeAStepBack said:


> So, are you going to address the material or continue to make yourself look like an ass wipe?
> 
> Ad hominem doesn't count. The material is up for question, not me.
> 
> Address it.



Thanks for proving your irrelevance yet again, TakeAShit.  Here's a hint.  When you're irrelevant, nobody gives a flying fuck what you think or what you demand.    So take your demands and shove them up your ass where your brain is.  Pretend Cobain is your role model and follow his example.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Patriot911 said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, are you going to address the material or continue to make yourself look like an ass wipe?
> 
> Ad hominem doesn't count. The material is up for question, not me.
> 
> Address it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving your irrelevance yet again, TakeAShit.  Here's a hint.  When you're irrelevant, nobody gives a flying fuck what you think or what you demand.    So take your demands and shove them up your ass where your brain is.  Pretend Cobain is your role model and follow his example.
Click to expand...


I wonder what material he would like us to address. This thread has been everywhere and we've pretty much destroyed anything they've come up with.


----------



## Patriot911

SFC Ollie said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, are you going to address the material or continue to make yourself look like an ass wipe?
> 
> Ad hominem doesn't count. The material is up for question, not me.
> 
> Address it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving your irrelevance yet again, TakeAShit.  Here's a hint.  When you're irrelevant, nobody gives a flying fuck what you think or what you demand.    So take your demands and shove them up your ass where your brain is.  Pretend Cobain is your role model and follow his example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder what material he would like us to address. This thread has been everywhere and we've pretty much destroyed anything they've come up with.
Click to expand...


He probably wants to know why nobody likes him and why everyone points and laughs whenever he walks into the room.....


----------



## Triton

SFC Ollie said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there were no explosions at all, theres no evidence for explosions.
> 
> 
> Nothing exploded, the fires brought'em down, the fires brought'em down!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *No Explosion*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right the sound of a building falling is not an explosion.
> 
> You do know that you are an idiot, right?
Click to expand...





You do know that you are mentally retarded when you claim the cause of WTC 7's total symmetrical free fall collapse is because " a building fell on it", right?


----------



## Triton

TakeAStepBack, I recently heard someone briefly mention your direct energy theory. I still haven't looked into it though.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Triton said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there were no explosions at all, theres no evidence for explosions.
> 
> 
> Nothing exploded, the fires brought'em down, the fires brought'em down!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *No Explosion*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right the sound of a building falling is not an explosion.
> 
> You do know that you are an idiot, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that you are mentally retarded when you claim the cause of WTC 7's total symmetrical free fall collapse is because " a building fell on it", right?
Click to expand...


You do know that either you are a fool or a liar every time you say there was a symmetrical free fall collapse, right?


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right the sound of a building falling is not an explosion.
> 
> You do know that you are an idiot, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that you are mentally retarded when you claim the cause of WTC 7's total symmetrical free fall collapse is because " a building fell on it", right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know that either you are a fool or a liar every time you say there was a symmetrical free fall collapse, right?
Click to expand...


On the contrary, the collapses were more symmetrical then not, especially when you take the sporadic fires and actual placement of the damage. In particular WTC 7.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that you are mentally retarded when you claim the cause of WTC 7's total symmetrical free fall collapse is because " a building fell on it", right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that either you are a fool or a liar every time you say there was a symmetrical free fall collapse, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the collapses were more symmetrical then not, especially when you take the sporadic fires and actual placement of the damage. In particular WTC 7.
Click to expand...


The only thing that looked at all symmetrical was the facade of Building 7. When you include the entire collapse you lose the symmetry and the free fall.


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that you are mentally retarded when you claim the cause of WTC 7's total symmetrical free fall collapse is because " a building fell on it", right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that either you are a fool or a liar every time you say there was a symmetrical free fall collapse, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the collapses were more symmetrical then not, especially when you take the sporadic fires and actual placement of the damage. In particular WTC 7.
Click to expand...


A collapse is either symmetrical or it is not.  The definition is specific.  The collapse of WTC 7 was NOT symmetrical.  Close, but no cigar.


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that either you are a fool or a liar every time you say there was a symmetrical free fall collapse, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the collapses were more symmetrical then not, especially when you take the sporadic fires and actual placement of the damage. In particular WTC 7.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A collapse is either symmetrical or it is not.  The definition is specific.  The collapse of WTC 7 was NOT symmetrical.  Close, but no cigar.
Click to expand...


so what you are saying is ...it was very close to symmetrical


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that either you are a fool or a liar every time you say there was a symmetrical free fall collapse, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the collapses were more symmetrical then not, especially when you take the sporadic fires and actual placement of the damage. In particular WTC 7.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing that looked at all symmetrical was the facade of Building 7. When you include the entire collapse you lose the symmetry and the free fall.
Click to expand...


Yes but taking a look if you will, at the insides of the buildings, the damage the planes and subsequent fires caused were random events. It is inconceivable that any random event like a plane crash fire, or random explosions would cause the *simultaneous failures *of all the critical columns in a hirise building to allow it to collapse in what can be described as more so a symmetrical collapse then not.
The towers collapse following the path of most resistance, is one of the first things to take notice of. We can say _near _symmetrical collapses if it makes you feel better.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the collapses were more symmetrical then not, especially when you take the sporadic fires and actual placement of the damage. In particular WTC 7.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that looked at all symmetrical was the facade of Building 7. When you include the entire collapse you lose the symmetry and the free fall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes but taking a look if you will, at the insides of the buildings, the damage the planes and subsequent fires caused were random events. It is inconceivable that any random event like a plane crash fire, or random explosions would cause the *simultaneous failures *of all the critical columns in a hirise building to allow it to collapse in what can be described as more so a symmetrical collapse then not.
> The towers collapse following the path of most resistance, is one of the first things to take notice of. We can say _near _symmetrical collapses if it makes you feel better.
Click to expand...


Um to be real the towers followed the only path allowed by gravity. Down.


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the collapses were more symmetrical then not, especially when you take the sporadic fires and actual placement of the damage. In particular WTC 7.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that looked at all symmetrical was the facade of Building 7. When you include the entire collapse you lose the symmetry and the free fall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes but taking a look if you will, at the insides of the buildings, the damage the planes and subsequent fires caused were random events. It is inconceivable that any random event like a plane crash fire, or random explosions would cause the *simultaneous failures *of all the critical columns in a hirise building to allow it to collapse in what can be described as more so a symmetrical collapse then not.
> The towers collapse following the path of most resistance, is one of the first things to take notice of. We can say _near _symmetrical collapses if it makes you feel better.
Click to expand...


And this is where truthtards fall over and show their true ignorance.  They pretend the collapse HAS to be caused by the failure of every single critical column at once.  Not once have these stupid fucks ever looked at the fact a progressive collapse can cause the collapse they see or that the sheer size of the towers is going to fail any and all structures below it.  

So what do they base all these bullshit claims on?   Their VIEWS of the collapse.    Meanwhile they ignore the experts.  They ignore the complete and total lack of evidence of what would have to be there for their bullshit claims to be true.  They ignore everything that doesn't fit their extremely myopic views of the events of 9/11.


----------



## Triton

SFC Ollie said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right the sound of a building falling is not an explosion.
> 
> You do know that you are an idiot, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that you are mentally retarded when you claim the cause of WTC 7's total symmetrical free fall collapse is because " a building fell on it", right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know that either you are a fool or a liar every time you say there was a symmetrical free fall collapse, right?
Click to expand...




You do know that using "Candycorn Logic" in saying that there was not a symmetrical free fall collapse therefore there was not a symmetrical free fall collapse is retarded, right?


----------



## SFC Ollie

Triton said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that you are mentally retarded when you claim the cause of WTC 7's total symmetrical free fall collapse is because " a building fell on it", right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that either you are a fool or a liar every time you say there was a symmetrical free fall collapse, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that using "Candycorn Logic" in saying that there was not a symmetrical free fall collapse therefore there was not a symmetrical free fall collapse is retarded, right?
Click to expand...


I'm sorry , I have to neg you for stupidity for that post. Now go watch the collapse all over again. It was a progressive collapse if you include the entire building instead of only the facade. You really can't be this stupid in real life can you?


----------



## Fizz

Triton said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that you are mentally retarded when you claim the cause of WTC 7's total symmetrical free fall collapse is because " a building fell on it", right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that either you are a fool or a liar every time you say there was a symmetrical free fall collapse, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that using "Candycorn Logic" in saying that there was not a symmetrical free fall collapse therefore there was not a symmetrical free fall collapse is retarded, right?
Click to expand...


you do know that the building collapse was not free fall.... right? 

a small portion of SOME of the building collapse was at free fall speed. saying the the building collapse was free fall is just plain LYING.


----------



## Triton

Fizz said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that either you are a fool or a liar every time you say there was a symmetrical free fall collapse, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that using "Candycorn Logic" in saying that there was not a symmetrical free fall collapse therefore there was not a symmetrical free fall collapse is retarded, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you do know that the building collapse was not free fall.... right?
> 
> a *small portion of SOME of the building collapse was at free fall* speed. saying the the building collapse was free fall is just plain LYING.
Click to expand...



WHAT! ROTFLMAO.

The entire building fell symmetrically with no resistance, how can you try to spin this?


----------



## Patriot911

Triton said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that using "Candycorn Logic" in saying that there was not a symmetrical free fall collapse therefore there was not a symmetrical free fall collapse is retarded, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you do know that the building collapse was not free fall.... right?
> 
> a *small portion of SOME of the building collapse was at free fall* speed. saying the the building collapse was free fall is just plain LYING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT! ROTFLMAO.
> 
> The entire building fell symmetrically with no resistance, how can you try to spin this?
Click to expand...


Well, because you're lying your slimey retarded ass off for one.....   But we already knew that.  You haven't told the truth with the exception of the few times you were trying to be cute.  Nobody was fooled and you're still a piece of shit.  Disgusting!

So, IF the building fell symmetrically, it would all fall exactly as one piece, yet we clearly do not see this in the videos.  First you see the penthouse collapsing, which in and of itself proves the collapse was not symmetrical.  Then we see the evidence of the internal collapse.  Can't have a collapse that happens in stages be symmetrical.  Then there is the collapse of the external portion of the building, but even that is not symmetrical as one can clearly see from the "kink" that occured in the building.  Even your fellow truthtards claim it wasn't purely symmetrical.  You should have listened to them instead of making an ignorant jackass out of yourself.

Second, the building fell with resistance.  If there were no resistance, as you so retardedly claim, the entire building would have fallen at free fall acceleration speeds from start to finish.  Instead the entire collapse took more than ten seconds.  Even the collapse of the external portion of the building was only in free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds of the collapse.

Two claims. 

Two lies.

More proof truthtards are full of shit.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Triton said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that using "Candycorn Logic" in saying that there was not a symmetrical free fall collapse therefore there was not a symmetrical free fall collapse is retarded, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you do know that the building collapse was not free fall.... right?
> 
> a *small portion of SOME of the building collapse was at free fall* speed. saying the the building collapse was free fall is just plain LYING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT! ROTFLMAO.
> 
> The entire building fell symmetrically with no resistance, how can you try to spin this?
Click to expand...


Because we have to unspin your stupidity.


----------



## Triton

yes you're right, it did not fall symmetrically nor anywhere near at free fall speed. It is clear to me now.



it was  a "progressive" collapse

nothing more than truthtard lies and anti-american propaganda.


----------



## Triton

considering you type about 3 words per post Ollie, and with nothing of substance, you should not be commenting on stupidity


----------



## Triton

just so much resistance, the initiation of the collapse means the building did not fall at free fall, nor was it symmetrical, those damn truthtards


----------



## SFC Ollie

Triton said:


> considering you type about 3 words per post Ollie, and with nothing of substance, you should not be commenting on stupidity



I try to keep my comments short so that simpletons like you can understand them. I do hope that wasn't to difficult to understand.


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A]YouTube - &#x202a;wtc 7 collapse&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie

And once again a truther shows us the video that has been edited to not show the beginning of the collapse about 8 seconds earlier.

You fools crack me up......


----------



## Triton

That wasn't symmetrical nor anywhere near free fall eots. Clearly it was a "progressive" collapse caused by fire.




I don't know what agenda you have but it is futile because all the truthtard claims and evidence can be refuted by a single sentence from SFC Ollie.


----------



## SFC Ollie

I really have to practice being more simplified in my comments so that idiots like Trimester can understand me.


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> And once again a truther shows us the video that has been edited to not show the beginning of the collapse about 8 seconds earlier.
> 
> You fools crack me up......



you have a video that shows a 17 sec collapse ?


----------



## eots

Washington's Blog



*
Top Experts Say Official Explanation Makes No Sense *

Numerous structural engineers - the people who know the most about office building vulnerabilities and accidents - say that the official explanation of why building 7 at the World Trade Center collapsed on 9/11 is "impossible", "defies common logic" and "violates the law of physics":

*Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann*) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here)

*Alfred Lee Lopez, with 48 years of experience in all types of buildings:*
I agree the fire did not cause the collapse of the three buildings. The most realistic cause of the collapse is that the buildings were imploded
John D. Pryor, with more than 30 years experience:
The collapse of WTC7 looks like it may have been the result of a controlled demolition. This should have been looked into as part of the original investigation

*Robert F. Marceau, with over 30 years of structural engineering experience:*
From videos of the collapse of building 7, the penthouse drops first prior to the collapse, and it can be noted that windows, in a vertical line, near the location of first interior column line are blown out, and reveal smoke from those explosions. This occurs in a vertical line in symmetrical fashion an equal distance in toward the center of the building from each end. When compared to controlled demolitions, one can see the similarities

*Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley and 30 years of engineering experience, says:*
Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite tro


----------



## SFC Ollie

eots said:


> Washington's Blog
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Top Experts Say Official Explanation Makes No Sense *
> 
> *Numerous structural engineers* - the people who know the most about office building vulnerabilities and accidents - say that the official explanation of why building 7 at the World Trade Center collapsed on 9/11 is "impossible", "defies common logic" and "violates the law of physics":
> 
> *Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann*)* said* that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here)
> 
> *Alfred Lee Lopez, with 48 years of experience in all types of buildings:*
> I agree the fire did not cause the collapse of the three buildings. The most realistic cause of the collapse is that the buildings were imploded (without any sounds of explosions)
> John D. Pryor, with more than 30 years experience:
> The collapse of WTC7* looks like* it may have been the result of a controlled demolition. This should have been looked into as part of the original investigation
> 
> *Robert F. Marceau, with over 30 years of structural engineering experience:*
> From videos of the collapse of building 7, the penthouse drops first prior to the collapse, and it can be noted that windows, in a vertical line, near the location of first interior column line are blown out, and *reveal smoke from those explosions. *This occurs in a vertical line in symmetrical fashion an equal distance in toward the center of the building from each end. When compared to controlled demolitions, *one can see the similarities*
> 
> *Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley and 30 years of engineering experience, says:*
> Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the *unexplainable *collapse of WTC 7,(This was explained) *evidence of thermite* ( Sorry no one has really proved this) in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite tro




Nice try, again, Still no real proof? Too bad....


----------



## SFC Ollie

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8]YouTube - &#x202a;9/11 Debunked: WTC 7&#39;s Collapse Explained&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> YouTube - &#x202a;9/11 Debunked: WTC 7's Collapse Explained&#x202c;&rlm;



olile you are shameless you know this video is in complete contradiction to the findings of the N.I.ST report..if anything it should be called NIST report debunked.....


----------



## SFC Ollie

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;9/11 Debunked: WTC 7's Collapse Explained&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> olile you are shameless you know this video is in complete contradiction to the findings of the N.I.ST report..if anything it should be called NIST report debunked.....
Click to expand...


And you know that I don't agree 100% with the NIST. But at least I know there were no controlled demos.

And the main thing was to show that the penthouse did fall 6 to 8 seconds before anything else.


----------



## eots

In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7&#8217;s Column 79&#8212;the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse&#8212;would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or *damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors.* The investigation team concluded that the column&#8217;s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.



NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;9/11 Debunked: WTC 7's Collapse Explained&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> olile you are shameless you know this video is in complete contradiction to the findings of the N.I.ST report..if anything it should be called NIST report debunked.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you know that I don't agree 100% with the NIST. But at least I know there were no controlled demos.
> 
> And the main thing was to show that the penthouse did fall 6 to 8 seconds before anything else.
Click to expand...


so you have the "Ollie theory"...I see...


----------



## Patriot911

Aaaah, poor eots.  Always trying to fight lost battles and never up to speed on the current issue.   

So where is your proof of a controlled demolition?  Remember, your retarded opinion of how the collapse looked is no more "evidence" of a controlled demolition than you claiming you've seen bigfoot is evidence of the existance of bigfoot.   But don't let that stop you from making a jackass out of yourself and your fellow truthtards.


----------



## eots

bigfoot what ? you babbling cretin


----------



## youngpatriot

I never really thought much about 9/11 until recently, and then I started investigating it on my own.  What drew me into looking into it myself was the talk about tower #7.  I hadn't even heard about tower #7 until about a year ago.  And, I'm sorry folks, a 47 story building doesn't fall in less than seven seconds into it's own footprint from spontaneous fires.  That's not even a remote possibility.


----------



## Patriot911

youngpatriot said:


> I never really thought much about 9/11 until recently, and then I started investigating it on my own.  What drew me into looking into it myself was the talk about tower #7.  I hadn't even heard about tower #7 until about a year ago.  And, I'm sorry folks, a 47 story building doesn't fall in less than seven seconds into it's own footprint from spontaneous fires.  That's not even a remote possibility.



Blah blah blah.  Which sock puppet is this one?  The same old story every truthtard tells.  I believed until blah blah blah!  Then they spout a bunch of lies that expose them for the ignorant retards they are.  The building 7 collapse was over ten seconds.  The fires were not spontanious.  The building didn't fall into it's own footprint as proven by the buildings damaged around it.  

Truthtards can't even come up with plausible bullshit anymore.


----------



## youngpatriot

Patriot911 said:


> youngpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never really thought much about 9/11 until recently, and then I started investigating it on my own.  What drew me into looking into it myself was the talk about tower #7.  I hadn't even heard about tower #7 until about a year ago.  And, I'm sorry folks, a 47 story building doesn't fall in less than seven seconds into it's own footprint from spontaneous fires.  That's not even a remote possibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah.  Which sock puppet is this one?  The same old story every truthtard tells.  I believed until blah blah blah!  Then they spout a bunch of lies that expose them for the ignorant retards they are.  The building 7 collapse was over ten seconds.  The fires were not spontanious.  The building didn't fall into it's own footprint as proven by the buildings damaged around it.
> 
> Truthtards can't even come up with plausible bullshit anymore.
Click to expand...


Actually I'm a new member.  Thanks for the warm welcome.  All the original videos of tower #7 show a collapse in under 7 seconds.  I didn't tell any lies.  You can look at any video of the collapse and it shows it happening in less than 7 seconds.  

BTW, it took NIST over 7 years to complete their investigation of tower #7.  It seems to me that if there weren't any asses to cover and a simple explanation could have been provided, it would have happened in less than 7 years.  

And yes, it did fall into it's own footrprint.  NIST obviously had to go to great lengths to whitewash this investigation.  

Your assertion that fires can bring down a skycraper in 7 or 10 seconds is laughable just as the NIST report is, which had to be altered six times before finally being completed.  

Reality just doesn't back up the government's bullshit story.  And you are obviously a moron if you believe otherwise.  

84% of Americans don't believe the 9/11 commission's report.  Time to wake up.


----------



## Meister

youngpatriot said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youngpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never really thought much about 9/11 until recently, and then I started investigating it on my own.  What drew me into looking into it myself was the talk about tower #7.  I hadn't even heard about tower #7 until about a year ago.  And, I'm sorry folks, a 47 story building doesn't fall in less than seven seconds into it's own footprint from spontaneous fires.  That's not even a remote possibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah.  Which sock puppet is this one?  The same old story every truthtard tells.  I believed until blah blah blah!  Then they spout a bunch of lies that expose them for the ignorant retards they are.  The building 7 collapse was over ten seconds.  The fires were not spontanious.  The building didn't fall into it's own footprint as proven by the buildings damaged around it.
> 
> Truthtards can't even come up with plausible bullshit anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I'm a new member.  Thanks for the warm welcome.  All the original videos of tower #7 show a collapse in under 7 seconds.  I didn't tell any lies.  You can look at any video of the collapse and it shows it happening in less than 7 seconds.
> 
> BTW, it took NIST over 7 years to complete their investigation of tower #7.  It seems to me that if there weren't any asses to cover and a simple explanation could have been provided, it would have happened in less than 7 years.
> 
> And yes, it did fall into it's own footrprint.  NIST obviously had to go to great lengths to whitewash this investigation.
> 
> Your assertion that fires can bring down a skycraper in 7 or 10 seconds is laughable just as the NIST report is, which had to be altered six times before finally being completed.
> 
> Reality just doesn't back up the government's bullshit story.  And you are obviously a moron if you believe otherwise.
> 
> 84% of Americans don't believe the 9/11 commission's report.  Time to wake up.
Click to expand...


Just because YOUR number of 84% don't believe the commission's report doesn't mean that 84% thinks it's a conspiracy.  That would be moronic if you thought that.

I also have question your number of 84%.


----------



## youngpatriot

[/QUOTE]

Just because YOUR number of 84% don't believe the commission's report doesn't mean that 84% thinks it's a conspiracy.  That would be moronic if you thought that.

I also have question your number of 84%.[/QUOTE]

CNN shows 65% believe it was an inside job.  CBS  shows 84% don't believe the NIST story.  There's a difference between doubting the story and believing it was an inside job.  But those are pretty damning statistics for the government.  America is waking up.


----------



## youngpatriot

Here are a few good tips for finding the truth about anything:

1.  Evaluate all of the physical and circumstantial evidence
2.  Judge the credibility of the source
3.  Follow the money trail

1.  The physical evidence of 9/11 hardly supports the story they are selling.  On so many levels.  I hardly know where to begin.  
2.  The credibility of the U.S. government is completely shot.  The CIA and black ops that have now been declassified and are public record now show that the government is more than willing to attack it's own citizens to further an agenda.  They've been caught lying so many times, I don't believe a damn thing they tell me anymore.  
3.  Oil, arms, drugs and of course Larry Silverstein collecting on a 7 billion dollar insurance payout on the buildings that he purchased 6 months prior to the attacks on 9/11


----------



## Fizz

Triton said:


> WHAT! ROTFLMAO.
> 
> The entire building fell symmetrically with no resistance, how can you try to spin this?



try not to look like a complete moron....

let's see your proof it fell with no resistance....


(i won't hold my breathe)


----------



## Fizz

youngpatriot said:


> I never really thought much about 9/11 until recently, and then I started investigating it on my own.  What drew me into looking into it myself was the talk about tower #7.  I hadn't even heard about tower #7 until about a year ago.  And, I'm sorry folks, a 47 story building doesn't fall in less than seven seconds into it's own footprint from spontaneous fires.  That's not even a remote possibility.



and the only people making the claim that it fell in less than 7 seconds into its own footprint is YOU STUPID FUCKING TWOOFERS.

so where is your proof it fell in LESS THAN 7 SECONDS?!! where is your proof it fell IN ITS OWN FOOTPRINT?!!


----------



## youngpatriot

Fizz said:


> youngpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never really thought much about 9/11 until recently, and then I started investigating it on my own.  What drew me into looking into it myself was the talk about tower #7.  I hadn't even heard about tower #7 until about a year ago.  And, I'm sorry folks, a 47 story building doesn't fall in less than seven seconds into it's own footprint from spontaneous fires.  That's not even a remote possibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the only people making the claim that it fell in less than 7 seconds into its own footprint is YOU STUPID FUCKING TWOOFERS.
> 
> so where is your proof it fell in LESS THAN 7 SECONDS?!! where is your proof it fell IN ITS OWN FOOTPRINT?!!
Click to expand...


Oh I know..........NIST said it fell in 10.3 seconds.............and why would we ever doubt the institute that changed it's story 6 times and took over 7 years to reach that conclusion?........we MUST be crazy................


----------



## candycorn

youngpatriot said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youngpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never really thought much about 9/11 until recently, and then I started investigating it on my own.  What drew me into looking into it myself was the talk about tower #7.  I hadn't even heard about tower #7 until about a year ago.  And, I'm sorry folks, a 47 story building doesn't fall in less than seven seconds into it's own footprint from spontaneous fires.  That's not even a remote possibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Blah blah blah.  Which sock puppet is this one?  The same old story every truthtard tells.  I believed until blah blah blah!  Then they spout a bunch of lies that expose them for the ignorant retards they are.  The building 7 collapse was over ten seconds.  The fires were not spontanious.  The building didn't fall into it's own footprint as proven by the buildings damaged around it.
> 
> Truthtards can't even come up with plausible bullshit anymore. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I'm a new member.  Thanks for the warm welcome.  All the original videos of tower #7 show a collapse in under 7 seconds.  I didn't tell any lies.  You can look at any video of the collapse and it shows it happening in less than 7 seconds.
> 
> BTW, it took NIST over 7 years to complete their investigation of tower #7.  It seems to me that if there weren't any asses to cover and a simple explanation could have been provided, it would have happened in less than 7 years.
> 
> And yes, it did fall into it's own footrprint.  NIST obviously had to go to great lengths to whitewash this investigation.
> 
> Your assertion that fires can bring down a skycraper in 7 or 10 seconds is laughable just as the NIST report is, which had to be altered six times before finally being completed.
> 
> Reality just doesn't back up the government's bullshit story.  And you are obviously a moron if you believe otherwise.
> 
> 84% of Americans don't believe the 9/11 commission's report.  Time to wake up.
Click to expand...



Oh brother....and you just automatically knew how to put up a picture immediately.  Nice try sock boy.  

Let us know when you start blaming the Jews, Turner Construction, giving up rooks on a chessboard or whatever it was you were talking about basspro.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Patriot911 said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, are you going to address the material or continue to make yourself look like an ass wipe?
> 
> Ad hominem doesn't count. The material is up for question, not me.
> 
> Address it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving your irrelevance yet again, TakeAShit.  Here's a hint.  When you're irrelevant, nobody gives a flying fuck what you think or what you demand.    So take your demands and shove them up your ass where your brain is.  Pretend Cobain is your role model and follow his example.
Click to expand...


You prove nothing as usual. You can't address the facts I present because they contradict your lie. You instead, must resort to using ad hominem as your argument in order to hide from the fact you can not explain the items I have presented.

You're boring and really bad at this, dude. You should find a hobby or something...maybe discuss a topic where you can actually properly debate the information instead of attacking people. But again, that would expose you as the liar that you are.....

Truly pathetic, the lot of you trolls....


----------



## Patriot911

youngpatriot said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youngpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never really thought much about 9/11 until recently, and then I started investigating it on my own.  What drew me into looking into it myself was the talk about tower #7.  I hadn't even heard about tower #7 until about a year ago.  And, I'm sorry folks, a 47 story building doesn't fall in less than seven seconds into it's own footprint from spontaneous fires.  That's not even a remote possibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah.  Which sock puppet is this one?  The same old story every truthtard tells.  I believed until blah blah blah!  Then they spout a bunch of lies that expose them for the ignorant retards they are.  The building 7 collapse was over ten seconds.  The fires were not spontanious.  The building didn't fall into it's own footprint as proven by the buildings damaged around it.
> 
> Truthtards can't even come up with plausible bullshit anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I'm a new member.  Thanks for the warm welcome.
Click to expand...

Uh huh.  



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> All the original videos of tower #7 show a collapse in under 7 seconds.


Wrong again.  Or are you going to ignore the collapse of the penthouse and pretend that didn't matter like all your other accounts do?



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> I didn't tell any lies.


Sure you have.  I outlined them above.



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> You can look at any video of the collapse and it shows it happening in less than 7 seconds.


Yet you insist on ignoring the penthouse.  Why is that?  Can't you even be honest with yourself or are you just hoping nobody will notice? 



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> BTW, it took NIST over 7 years to complete their investigation of tower #7.


Yet another lie.  It took over seven years for them to come out with the report, but that was because they did their report on the towers first.  It is no wonder truthtards have to make sock puppets.  Their credibility is shot so bad they have to make a puppet just to regurgitate the same bullshit.



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> It seems to me that if there weren't any asses to cover and a simple explanation could have been provided, it would have happened in less than 7 years.


Many layers of bullshit.    So the entire NIST along with the thousands of consultants that were used are all in on the conspiracy?  WOW!  Actually, if they were in on it, they would already have an explanation in hand, wouldn't they?  Or are you going to try and pretend the NIST was caught off guard and were ordered to fake it despite the fact they would knowingly be covering up the murder of 3000 people and subject to spending the rest of their lives in prison.    



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> And yes, it did fall into it's own footrprint.  NIST obviously had to go to great lengths to whitewash this investigation.


So we can either believe a now known, proven liar who is pretending to be an expert based on who knows what bullshit over the pictures of the damage to other buildings.  Hmmm.  That is a hard one!



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> Your assertion that fires can bring down a skycraper in 7 or 10 seconds is laughable just as the NIST report is, which had to be altered six times before finally being completed.


As new evidence came to light, they altered their theory to fit all the known evidence.  I would expect nothing less.  It is only complete idiots like truthtards that come up with a theory and then defend it to the death no matter how stupid or flawed it turns out to be.   



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> Reality just doesn't back up the government's bullshit story.  And you are obviously a moron if you believe otherwise.


Uh huh.  So I suppose you can actually produce something other than your retarded opinion to back this up, right?  How about some actual evidence of controlled demolition?  The video tapes conclusively show no explosions.  No explosive residue was ever found.  No explosive evidence like primers or wiring were ever found.  No steel cut by explosives was ever found.  No seismic evidence of explosives were recorded.  Yet you want to call others morons because they don't think like a retard like you?    Now THAT is funny!  



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> 84% of Americans don't believe the 9/11 commission's report.  Time to wake up.


Wrong again, fucktard.  When are you fucking liars going to quit misquoting polls?    Oh wait.  You're all a bunch of pathological liars with paranoid delusions.    You can't help it, right?


----------



## Patriot911

TakeAStepBack said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, are you going to address the material or continue to make yourself look like an ass wipe?
> 
> Ad hominem doesn't count. The material is up for question, not me.
> 
> Address it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving your irrelevance yet again, TakeAShit.  Here's a hint.  When you're irrelevant, nobody gives a flying fuck what you think or what you demand.    So take your demands and shove them up your ass where your brain is.  Pretend Cobain is your role model and follow his example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You prove nothing as usual. You can't address the facts I present because they contradict your lie.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, TakeAShit, your "formulas" were absolutely meaningless, especially since you refused to actually run the calculations.    Not to mention the fact you had to plagerize it word for word from Judy Woods, a known crackpot!

 You instead, must resort to using ad hominem as your argument in order to hide from the fact you can not explain the items I have presented.



			
				TakeAStepBack said:
			
		

> You're boring and really bad at this, dude. You should find a hobby or something...maybe discuss a topic where you can actually properly debate the information instead of attacking people. But again, that would expose you as the liar that you are.....


More meaningless ad hominem from the little bitch who whines about ad hominem!    Maybe TakeAShit should look up hypocrite!



			
				TakeAStepBack said:
			
		

> Truly pathetic, the lot of you trolls....


Yes, you fucking truthtards are very, VERY pathetic.  Especially ones like you that can't actually come up with anything on their own, so have to plagerize and pretend they know what it is they just posted.


----------



## youngpatriot

One thing that is always for certain when dealing with these truth debunkers, there is sure to be a lot of cheap trash talk and name calling to account for the lack of substance to their arguments.  When people get defensive it is proof positive that you have hit a nerve.  

Thermite was found by chemical engineer Mark Basile at WTC.  Of course he wasn't allowed to testify in front of the 9/11 commission, just as NONE of the eye witnesses that had conflicting accounts of what happened with the government's story were allowed to testify.  It really doesn't take a genius to doubt that fires were capable of bringing down a skyscraper in one fell swoop.  It really really doesn't.  Up until 9/11 no steel building had collapsed from fire.  And since 9/11 no steel building has collapsed from fire.  Skyscrapers aren't made out of toothpicks.  They are made of reinforced concrete and steel.  In order to account for the metal being melted into pools of molten lava, the steel would have had to have been heated up over 2800 degrees.  

If the building hadn't fallen straight down just like a demolition, the collapse would've been more believable.  For all resistance under the top of the building to be removed all at once and have the building fall straight down leaves no doubt in any layman's mind that it was a controlled demolition.

If you asked someone about an event and they changed their story 6 times, you would call bullshit.  But not when it comes to these truth debunkers.  They cling to NIST as the one and only credible source of info.  Any other info coming out must be by an overzealous "Twoofer."

You 9/11 deniers are long on insults and smiley faces, but short on substance and information.  It really is middle school physics here.  Not that complicated.  In order to believe NIST's report you have to be almost completely devoid of a functional brain.  NIST was obviously told to phony up a fraudulent lie.  9/11 goes all the way to the top.  Do you really think these guys are going to indict the president and all the other higher ups in their findings?  Of course not.  They enjoy being alive.


----------



## SFC Ollie

youngpatriot said:


> One thing that is always for certain when dealing with these truth debunkers, there is sure to be a lot of cheap trash talk and name calling to account for the lack of substance to their arguments.  When people get defensive it is proof positive that you have hit a nerve.
> Truth is that I normally make an attempt to be civil to new conspiracy posters.
> Thermite was found by chemical engineer Mark Basile at WTC.  Was it really? Kindly provide some proof of this find. Of course he wasn't allowed to testify in front of the 9/11 commission, just as NONE of the eye witnesses that had conflicting accounts of what happened with the government's story were allowed to testify.I believe there were 12 open or public hearings, God only knows how many eyewitness accounts were given in person to the commission or read by members of the commission  It really doesn't take a genius to doubt that fires were capable of bringing down a skyscraper in one fell swoop.  It really really doesn't.  Up until 9/11 no steel building had collapsed from fire.  And since 9/11 no steel building has collapsed from fire. First time for everything isn't there? Do you have any proof that it couldn't have been the fire? Skyscrapers aren't made out of toothpicks.  They are made of reinforced concrete and steel.  In order to account for the metal being melted into pools of molten lava, the steel would have had to have been heated up over 2800 degrees.  Again kindly provide proof that there was any molten steel.
> 
> If the building hadn't fallen straight down just like a demolition, the collapse would've been more believable.  For all resistance under the top of the building to be removed all at once and have the building fall straight down leaves no doubt in any layman's mind that it was a controlled demolition.Resistance was not removed all at once from building 7 ( at least I think that is what you are refering to)
> 
> If you asked someone about an event and they changed their story 6 times, you would call bullshit.  But not when it comes to these truth debunkers.  They cling to NIST as the one and only credible source of info.  Any other info coming out must be by an overzealous "Twoofer." Fact is I for one disagree with parts of the NIST report, but I'm no expert.
> 
> You 9/11 deniers are long on insults and smiley faces, but short on substance and information.  It really is middle school physics here.  Not that complicated.  In order to believe NIST's report you have to be almost completely devoid of a functional brain.  NIST was obviously told to phony up a fraudulent lie.  9/11 goes all the way to the top.  Do you really think these guys are going to indict the president and all the other higher ups in their findings?  Of course not.  They enjoy being alive.


Now look who's calling the kettle black.....


----------



## Meister

Meister:*Just because YOUR number of 84% don't believe the commission's report doesn't mean that 84% thinks it's a conspiracy.  That would be moronic if you thought that.

I also have question your number of 84%*.[/QUOTE]

Youngpartiot:CNN shows 65% believe it was an inside job.  CBS  shows 84% don't believe the NIST story.  There's a difference between doubting the story and believing it was an inside job.  But those are pretty damning statistics for the government.  America is waking up.[/QUOTE]

Meister:*I tried to track down your polls, all I came up with is conspiracy forums that claim those polls are correct, without any links to actual polls....just like what your doing.  I even went to CNN and CBS sites and couldn't bring it up.  You need to vet what has been told to you as fact.  Just sayin....*


----------



## Meister

Patriot911 said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving your irrelevance yet again, TakeAShit.  Here's a hint.  When you're irrelevant, nobody gives a flying fuck what you think or what you demand.    So take your demands and shove them up your ass where your brain is.  Pretend Cobain is your role model and follow his example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You prove nothing as usual. You can't address the facts I present because they contradict your lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the contrary, TakeAShit, your "formulas" were absolutely meaningless, especially since you refused to actually run the calculations.    Not to mention the fact you had to plagerize it word for word from Judy Woods, a known crackpot!
> 
> You instead, must resort to using ad hominem as your argument in order to hide from the fact you can not explain the items I have presented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're boring and really bad at this, dude. You should find a hobby or something...maybe discuss a topic where you can actually properly debate the information instead of attacking people. But again, that would expose you as the liar that you are.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More meaningless ad hominem from the little bitch who whines about ad hominem!    Maybe TakeAShit should look up hypocrite!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truly pathetic, the lot of you trolls....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you fucking truthtards are very, VERY pathetic.  Especially ones like you that can't actually come up with anything on their own, so have to plagerize and pretend they know what it is they just posted.
Click to expand...


What did he plagerize?  Please provide proof....as I looked I couldn't find it.


----------



## Patriot911

youngpatriot said:


> One thing that is always for certain when dealing with these truth debunkers, there is sure to be a lot of cheap trash talk and name calling to account for the lack of substance to their arguments.  When people get defensive it is proof positive that you have hit a nerve.


Wrong again, fucktard.  Sure there is a lot of trash talk, but I've also shown you've lied time and time again and you've failed miserably at responding to your failures.  So there is indeed substance to my posts, much to your dismay.



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> Thermite was found by chemical engineer Mark Basile at WTC.


Thermite is aluminum and rust.  You can find that just about anywhere, jackass!  Now, if you're talking about the Jones' report, they didn't even claim to have found thermite, but some unknown "thermitic material".  



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> Of course he wasn't allowed to testify in front of the 9/11 commission, just as NONE of the eye witnesses that had conflicting accounts of what happened with the government's story were allowed to testify.


Wrong again, fucktard.

Why wasn't he allowed to testify?  Because he supposedly found the "thermite" in 2010, years after the commission was closed.  



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> It really doesn't take a genius to doubt that fires were capable of bringing down a skyscraper in one fell swoop.


This coming from a fucktard who has no credentials and ignores the true professionals that understand the dynamics involved.

Here's a hint, ya piece of shit sock puppet.... if fires can't take down skyscrapers, why do they bother with fire retardant on any and all exposed steel?   



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> It really really doesn't.


But it does take a retard of epic proportions to believe fires can't cause a collapse and pretend they know more than the experts, doesn't it.  



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> Up until 9/11 no steel building had collapsed from fire.


Wrong again, fucktard.  You got your quotes messed up.  See, the rest of your truthtard butt buddies know there have been plenty of steel buildings that collapsed from fire, so they use the term skyscraper to make the claim semi-correct.  You really should talk to your superiors over in the truthtard bowel movement before making such a jackass out of yourself.



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> And since 9/11 no steel building has collapsed from fire.


Wrong yet again, fucktard.  The Windsor tower in Madrid Spain.  Fire collapsed the part of the structure that was steel framed, yet the concrete framed section survived.  Another one of your blatant lies exposed and another lie you will run away from without acknowledging.








			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> Skyscrapers aren't made out of toothpicks.  They are made of reinforced concrete and steel.


Neither the towers nor WTC 7 were made with reinforced concrete for structural support, but used concrete in the flooring.  Have you even bothered to look at the facts before making a jackass out of yourself, or are you just trying to remember what the other truthtards claimed while trying to look intelligent and failing?  



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> In order to account for the metal being melted into pools of molten lava, the steel would have had to have been heated up over 2800 degrees.


So show us evidence of molten steel.  Go ahead.  A metalurgists examination results would be good.  People seeing a molten substance and pretending it is steel doesn't cut it.  No big solid chunks of steel that were formerly melted into pools were ever found.  Not only that, but molten steel is not a byproduct of either high explosives used in controlled demolitions or in thermite.



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> If the building hadn't fallen straight down just like a demolition, the collapse would've been more believable.


Wrong again, fucktard.  It might be more believable to an ignorant fuck like you, but every structural engineer in the world would have been demanding an explanation.  Just because you are ignorant about structural engineering doesn't mean the world has to behave as you THINK it should.  



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> For all resistance under the top of the building to be removed all at once and have the building fall straight down leaves no doubt in any layman's mind that it was a controlled demolition.


Wrong again, fucktard.  Only the truly ignorant such as yourself believes all the resistance has to be removed for a building to fall straight down.  Thanks for proving your ignorance, but that is all you've proven.  In order for a building to fall to the side, it has to be destroyed at the base and the center of the tower has to go outside the footprint of the building.  The bigger the building, the more impossible this becomes before the structures that are normally just shaing the load keeping the building standing are suddenly demanded to carry the entire load of the building, and thus fail.



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> If you asked someone about an event and they changed their story 6 times, you would call bullshit.


Truthtards change their story all the time.  First you stupid fucks claimed it was high explosives in WTC 7.  When confronted with audio evidence truthtard claims were wrong, they changed it to thermite.  When confronted with evidence THIS was wrong, truthtards pretended it was a whole bunch of very small charges, or that the buildings muffled the blasts.  And, as has been explained to your sorry ignorant ass before, having an agency that alters the work in progress to continue to fit the facts as they become known is far more credible than one that has a theory and ignores everything else that comes up in the meantime.  



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> But not when it comes to these truth debunkers.  They cling to NIST as the one and only credible source of info.


Wrong again, fucktard.  While the NIST is a credible source as proven by the fact you truthtards have yet to come up with anything even coming close to debunking it, it is far from the only source I use.  But then again, you have to come up with SOMETHING to try and pretend you are somehow better, right?    Guess what, you piece of shit liar.... nobody is buying it.



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> Any other info coming out must be by an overzealous "Twoofer."


If there is evidence to back up the claim, I'll look at it.  You stupid fucks are always prancing around trying to pretend you have all kinds of evidence, but when asked to present it, you scatter like cockroaches when the lights are turned on.



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> You 9/11 deniers are long on insults and smiley faces, but short on substance and information.


No, that would be you stupid fucks.



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> It really is middle school physics here.


Yet you can't even get that right, can you.



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> Not that complicated.


It really isn't complicated.... unless you're a truthtard who pretends to know physics and is really just a jackass.



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> In order to believe NIST's report you have to be almost completely devoid of a functional brain.


If that were the case, you would be sucking up to the NIST like you do Alex Jones.  Instead, the only ones bashing the NIST are the truthtards.  The other experts around the world who set code based on findings from the NIST didn't find anything major wrong with the NIST report.  So who are we to believe?  Truthtard pieces of shit like you who constantly lie?  Or the NIST which has no reason to lie?  



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> NIST was obviously told to phony up a fraudulent lie.


Yet other structural agencies have not backed up your bullshit.  Why is that?  Oh right.  They're not braindead like you.



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> 9/11 goes all the way to the top.  Do you really think these guys are going to indict the president and all the other higher ups in their findings?


The NIST doesn't indict anyone, numbnuts!  They simply report what happened to cause the collapse.  You're so fucking ignorant you don't even know who does what!  



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> Of course not.  They enjoy being alive.


Uh huh.  Have you noticed the President who was in power on 9/11 is no longer in power, and has no ability to "silence" anyone.  And then, of course, there is the logical falacy of you ignorant fucks.  If you actually believed that anyone who speaks out about the government being behind 9/11 is at risk of losing their lives, we wouldn't hear peep one out of you pussies.   

Thanks for the laughs, fucktard!


----------



## JiggsCasey

Dude, you don't come here to laugh... that is obvious, and you're not fooling anyone...   you come here to pontificate and soothe your boiling wrath. You're such an easy instrument to play.

You may be the most insecure loser in the history of blogging forums. Every other word out of your mouth is a curse, and all of your posts amount to junior high screed.

You're such a mental midget, you spend countless hours over a holiday weekend arguing on the internet, and "countering" people you perpetually label as "dumb." Who does that? State your business and be done with it. But why return day after day after day repeating the same goofy pablum? We get it. Get out of the house and see if you can find a girl to kiss.

In short, get a life, "patriot"


----------



## Patriot911

Meister said:


> What did he plagerize?  Please provide proof....as I looked I couldn't find it.



It was a while ago.  It started with TASB pretending he is a structural engineer, yet he had no clue where the energy in a collapse comes from which is always taught in first year physics at the most.

So I gave him an education here.

His response can be found here

This post was directly lifted from Judy Woods' site here, or here, or here, yet no reference back to Judy Woods or that he was quoting someone else, thus hoping someone might think the work was his.  That, to me, is a classic case of plagerization.

Unfortunately for TASB, while the formula for Judy's bullshit are sound, you will notice neither she nor TASB ever attempt to put values in the formula, but instead rely on people being impressed by the formula themselves even when they are meaningless without values.


----------



## Patriot911

JiggsCasey said:


> Dude, you don't come here to laugh... that is obvious, and you're not fooling anyone...   you come here to pontificate and soothe your boiling wrath. You're such an easy instrument to play.
> 
> You may be the most insecure loser in the history of blogging forums. Every other word out of your mouth is a curse, and all of your posts amount to junior high screed.
> 
> You're such a mental midget, you spend countless hours over a holiday weekend arguing on the internet, and "countering" people you perpetually label as "dumb." Who does that? State your business and be done with it. But why return day after day after day repeating the same goofy pablum? We get it. Get out of the house and see if you can find a girl to kiss.
> 
> In short, get a life, "patriot"



I get this a lot from whiney little bitches who got their asses kicked.    Go cry somewhere else ya little baby!  Maybe someone cares in the romper room....


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> youngpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing that is always for certain when dealing with these truth debunkers, there is sure to be a lot of cheap trash talk and name calling to account for the lack of substance to their arguments.  When people get defensive it is proof positive that you have hit a nerve.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, fucktard.  Sure there is a lot of trash talk, but I've also shown you've lied time and time again and you've failed miserably at responding to your failures.  So there is indeed substance to my posts, much to your dismay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youngpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thermite was found by chemical engineer Mark Basile at WTC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thermite is aluminum and rust.  You can find that just about anywhere, jackass!  Now, if you're talking about the Jones' report, they didn't even claim to have found thermite, but some unknown "thermitic material".
> 
> 
> Wrong again, fucktard.
> 
> Why wasn't he allowed to testify?  Because he supposedly found the "thermite" in 2010, years after the commission was closed.
> 
> 
> This coming from a fucktard who has no credentials and ignores the true professionals that understand the dynamics involved.
> 
> Here's a hint, ya piece of shit sock puppet.... if fires can't take down skyscrapers, why do they bother with fire retardant on any and all exposed steel?
> 
> 
> But it does take a retard of epic proportions to believe fires can't cause a collapse and pretend they know more than the experts, doesn't it.
> 
> 
> Wrong again, fucktard.  You got your quotes messed up.  See, the rest of your truthtard butt buddies know there have been plenty of steel buildings that collapsed from fire, so they use the term skyscraper to make the claim semi-correct.  You really should talk to your superiors over in the truthtard bowel movement before making such a jackass out of yourself.
> 
> 
> Wrong yet again, fucktard.  The Windsor tower in Madrid Spain.  Fire collapsed the part of the structure that was steel framed, yet the concrete framed section survived.  Another one of your blatant lies exposed and another lie you will run away from without acknowledging.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither the towers nor WTC 7 were made with reinforced concrete for structural support, but used concrete in the flooring.  Have you even bothered to look at the facts before making a jackass out of yourself, or are you just trying to remember what the other truthtards claimed while trying to look intelligent and failing?
> 
> 
> So show us evidence of molten steel.  Go ahead.  A metalurgists examination results would be good.  People seeing a molten substance and pretending it is steel doesn't cut it.  No big solid chunks of steel that were formerly melted into pools were ever found.  Not only that, but molten steel is not a byproduct of either high explosives used in controlled demolitions or in thermite.
> 
> 
> Wrong again, fucktard.  It might be more believable to an ignorant fuck like you, but every structural engineer in the world would have been demanding an explanation.  Just because you are ignorant about structural engineering doesn't mean the world has to behave as you THINK it should.
> 
> 
> Wrong again, fucktard.  Only the truly ignorant such as yourself believes all the resistance has to be removed for a building to fall straight down.  Thanks for proving your ignorance, but that is all you've proven.  In order for a building to fall to the side, it has to be destroyed at the base and the center of the tower has to go outside the footprint of the building.  The bigger the building, the more impossible this becomes before the structures that are normally just shaing the load keeping the building standing are suddenly demanded to carry the entire load of the building, and thus fail.
> 
> 
> Truthtards change their story all the time.  First you stupid fucks claimed it was high explosives in WTC 7.  When confronted with audio evidence truthtard claims were wrong, they changed it to thermite.  When confronted with evidence THIS was wrong, truthtards pretended it was a whole bunch of very small charges, or that the buildings muffled the blasts.  And, as has been explained to your sorry ignorant ass before, having an agency that alters the work in progress to continue to fit the facts as they become known is far more credible than one that has a theory and ignores everything else that comes up in the meantime.
> 
> 
> Wrong again, fucktard.  While the NIST is a credible source as proven by the fact you truthtards have yet to come up with anything even coming close to debunking it, it is far from the only source I use.  But then again, you have to come up with SOMETHING to try and pretend you are somehow better, right?    Guess what, you piece of shit liar.... nobody is buying it.
> 
> 
> If there is evidence to back up the claim, I'll look at it.  You stupid fucks are always prancing around trying to pretend you have all kinds of evidence, but when asked to present it, you scatter like cockroaches when the lights are turned on.
> 
> 
> No, that would be you stupid fucks.
> 
> 
> Yet you can't even get that right, can you.
> 
> 
> It really isn't complicated.... unless you're a truthtard who pretends to know physics and is really just a jackass.
> 
> 
> If that were the case, you would be sucking up to the NIST like you do Alex Jones.  Instead, the only ones bashing the NIST are the truthtards.  The other experts around the world who set code based on findings from the NIST didn't find anything major wrong with the NIST report.  So who are we to believe?  Truthtard pieces of shit like you who constantly lie?  Or the NIST which has no reason to lie?
> 
> 
> Yet other structural agencies have not backed up your bullshit.  Why is that?  Oh right.  They're not braindead like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youngpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 goes all the way to the top.  Do you really think these guys are going to indict the president and all the other higher ups in their findings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The NIST doesn't indict anyone, numbnuts!  They simply report what happened to cause the collapse.  You're so fucking ignorant you don't even know who does what!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youngpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  They enjoy being alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh.  Have you noticed the President who was in power on 9/11 is no longer in power, and has no ability to "silence" anyone.  And then, of course, there is the logical falacy of you ignorant fucks.  If you actually believed that anyone who speaks out about the government being behind 9/11 is at risk of losing their lives, we wouldn't hear peep one out of you pussies.
> 
> Thanks for the laughs, fucktard!
Click to expand...

*
the moron post a picture of a standing building that burned like a roman candle for days and claims its collapsed..lol*


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8]YouTube - &#x202a;Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## youngpatriot

I'm glad I'm not the only one that noticed that the picture above posted by patriot911 shows a building that's still standing.......................I can see we're dealing with an ignorant little child who likes to use profanity laced posts to get his point across.  It's not really all that impressive.  Talk is cheap.  Especially over the internet.  

There's so much misinformation in patriot911's posts it's not even worth getting into.  Believe what you want patriot911.  If the government and the media say it is so, then it must be.  They both have solid track records to bank on.


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong yet again, fucktard.  The Windsor tower in Madrid Spain.  Fire collapsed the part of the structure that was steel framed, yet the concrete framed section survived.  Another one of your blatant lies exposed and another lie you will run away from without acknowledging.
> 
> 
> 
> the moron post a picture of a standing building that burned like a roman candle for days and claims its collapsed..lol[/B]
Click to expand...

Wow.  And here we have MORE evidence of just how fucking dishonest the piece of shit known as eots is.  Where did I claim the building collapsed?  I claimed the part of the building that was steel framed collapsed.  You can't even keep it honest for a single post, can you.    And you wonder why people laugh at you and think you're dishonest....


----------



## Patriot911

youngpatriot said:


> I'm glad I'm not the only one that noticed that the picture above posted by patriot911 shows a building that's still standing.......................I can see we're dealing with an ignorant little child who likes to use profanity laced posts to get his point across.  It's not really all that impressive.  Talk is cheap.  Especially over the internet.
> 
> There's so much misinformation in patriot911's posts it's not even worth getting into.  Believe what you want patriot911.  If the government and the media say it is so, then it must be.  They both have solid track records to bank on.



  And I'm not surprised you would follow behind eots sucking his ass.  I clearly stated what happened.  The FACT you choose to ignore what was written and instead post lies only shows you lack the honor, integrity and credibility of a decent human being.  

And yeah.... run away from what I wrote like the little bitch you are.  It isn't a surprise to me at all that you "claim" there is too much "misinformation" there for you to handle.  Truthtards can't handle the truth so they come up with convenient excuses and run away.  Now run along and play in traffic like a good little truthtard piece of shit!


----------



## youngpatriot

Patriot911 said:


> youngpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad I'm not the only one that noticed that the picture above posted by patriot911 shows a building that's still standing.......................I can see we're dealing with an ignorant little child who likes to use profanity laced posts to get his point across.  It's not really all that impressive.  Talk is cheap.  Especially over the internet.
> 
> There's so much misinformation in patriot911's posts it's not even worth getting into.  Believe what you want patriot911.  If the government and the media say it is so, then it must be.  They both have solid track records to bank on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm not surprised you would follow behind eots sucking his ass.  I clearly stated what happened.  The FACT you choose to ignore what was written and instead post lies only shows you lack the honor, integrity and credibility of a decent human being.
> 
> And yeah.... run away from what I wrote like the little bitch you are.  It isn't a surprise to me at all that you "claim" there is too much "misinformation" there for you to handle.  Truthtards can't handle the truth so they come up with convenient excuses and run away.  Now run along and play in traffic like a good little truthtard piece of shit!
Click to expand...


Sorry, I don't feel like making a post a mile long.  I'll leave that to you, since you don't seem to have anything better to do.  

Why don't you try making one point at a time, bitchboy?............THERE!  I said a bad word over the internet!  See!?  I can be a tough guy, too!


----------



## Patriot911

youngpatriot said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youngpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad I'm not the only one that noticed that the picture above posted by patriot911 shows a building that's still standing.......................I can see we're dealing with an ignorant little child who likes to use profanity laced posts to get his point across.  It's not really all that impressive.  Talk is cheap.  Especially over the internet.
> 
> There's so much misinformation in patriot911's posts it's not even worth getting into.  Believe what you want patriot911.  If the government and the media say it is so, then it must be.  They both have solid track records to bank on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm not surprised you would follow behind eots sucking his ass.  I clearly stated what happened.  The FACT you choose to ignore what was written and instead post lies only shows you lack the honor, integrity and credibility of a decent human being.
> 
> And yeah.... run away from what I wrote like the little bitch you are.  It isn't a surprise to me at all that you "claim" there is too much "misinformation" there for you to handle.  Truthtards can't handle the truth so they come up with convenient excuses and run away.  Now run along and play in traffic like a good little truthtard piece of shit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't feel like making a post a mile long.  I'll leave that to you, since you don't seem to have anything better to do.
Click to expand...

Run along junior.  Your betters are debating.  All you're good for is making claims you can't back up and then running away when your bullshit lies are exposed.



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> Why don't you try making one point at a time, bitchboy?............THERE!  I said a bad word over the internet!  See!?  I can be a tough guy, too!


Naw.  You're a pussy.  I know it.  You know it.  It's obvious.  As for making points, I am addressing the points you make, you ignorant fuck!  Which is why it isn't surprising when you go running to your mama like a little bitch when you get your ass handed to you instead of being a man and either admitting fault or standing up for what you pretend you believe in.   

Do you seriously think you are fooling anyone into believing you are either credible, knowledgeable or honest?  Outside of your fellow truthtards who have the same shitty levels of credibility, knowledge and honesty, you don't.


----------



## SFC Ollie

eots said:


> YouTube - &#x202a;Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!&#x202c;&rlm;



Why do you continue to pretend that other buildings were built the same as Blding7?

Why do you pretend that they had the same damages that Bldg 7 had?

Why do you continue to used edited videos that don't show the complete collapse of Building 7?

That's just plain dishonest.


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you continue to pretend that other buildings were built the same as Blding7?
> 
> Why do you pretend that they had the same damages that Bldg 7 had?
> 
> Why do you continue to used edited videos that don't show the complete collapse of Building 7?
> 
> That's just plain dishonest.
Click to expand...


why do you pretend there is only one building fire presented in this video ?


----------



## SFC Ollie

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you continue to pretend that other *buildings* were built the same as Blding7?
> 
> Why do you pretend that *they* had the same damages that Bldg 7 had?
> 
> Why do you continue to used edited videos that don't show the complete collapse of Building 7?
> 
> That's just plain dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why do you pretend there is only one building fire presented in this video ?
Click to expand...


WTF are you babbling about?


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you continue to pretend that other buildings were built the same as Blding7?
> 
> Why do you pretend that they had the same damages that Bldg 7 had?
> 
> Why do you continue to used edited videos that don't show the complete collapse of Building 7?
> 
> That's just plain dishonest.
Click to expand...


why do you pretend there is only one building fire presented in this video ?


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you continue to pretend that other buildings were built the same as Blding7?
> 
> Why do you pretend that they had the same damages that Bldg 7 had?
> 
> Why do you continue to used edited videos that don't show the complete collapse of Building 7?
> 
> That's just plain dishonest.
Click to expand...


why do you pretend that damage played a significant role in the collapse when NIST says it was not ?


----------



## eots

sfc ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do you continue to pretend that other *buildings* were built the same as blding7?
> 
> Why do you pretend that *they* had the same damages that bldg 7 had?
> 
> Why do you continue to used edited videos that don't show the complete collapse of building 7?
> 
> That's just plain dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why do you pretend there is only one building fire presented in this video ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wtf are you babbling about?
Click to expand...


there are several buildings in this video and none of them collapsed


----------



## SFC Ollie

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you continue to pretend that other buildings were built the same as Blding7?
> 
> Why do you pretend that they had the same damages that Bldg 7 had?
> 
> Why do you continue to used edited videos that don't show the complete collapse of Building 7?
> 
> That's just plain dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why do you pretend that damage played a significant role in the collapse when NIST says it was not ?
Click to expand...


So I need to make a note to myself that only nutcase truthers are permitted to disagree with any part of the NIST's report. Got it.


----------



## eots

wtc 7 is the first know instance of a building collapsing mainly due to fire according to nist


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you continue to pretend that other buildings were built the same as Blding7?
> 
> Why do you pretend that they had the same damages that Bldg 7 had?
> 
> Why do you continue to used edited videos that don't show the complete collapse of Building 7?
> 
> That's just plain dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why do you pretend that damage played a significant role in the collapse when NIST says it was not ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I need to make a note to myself that only nutcase truthers are permitted to disagree with any part of the NIST's report. Got it.
Click to expand...


the only part of the nist report you believe is that it was not controlled demolition ..you contradict everything else ..yet you call them them experts when someone questions their failures and proposes the most logical theory of explosives...why do you think NIST got it all wrong ? a conspiracy or stupidity ??


----------



## SFC Ollie

I simply believe they did not give enough credence to the damage done to the building. The collapse more than likely happened mostly the way they said. But since we can't see inside the building there is no way to be 100% positive. What we do know 100% is that there were no explosives found or explosions that could have been a controlled demolition recorded.

But you may feel free to keep denying that...


----------



## Patriot911

Truthtards are binary people, Ollie.  Either a source is right or it is wrong.  There is no gray.  There is no such thing as there might be something a little wrong.  Unless, of course, it is to their benefit in which case no amount of error is ever going to make their source doubtful.    All on or all off.  Anyone who thinks differently will be mocked.  I am pretty sure that is in the truthtard handbook.


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> I simply believe they did not give enough credence to the damage done to the building. The collapse more than likely happened mostly the way they said. But since we can't see inside the building there is no way to be 100% positive. What we do know 100% is that there were no explosives found or explosions that could have been a controlled demolition recorded.
> 
> But you may feel free to keep denying that...



and you are not smart enough to figure out that means the computer model is junk and that is what they cite as the evidence their theory is correct... if something as critical as that is incorrect then whole the theory falls apart and it is back to the drawing board...fail...do not pass go


----------



## SFC Ollie

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I simply believe they did not give enough credence to the damage done to the building. The collapse more than likely happened mostly the way they said. But since we can't see inside the building there is no way to be 100% positive. What we do know 100% is that there were no explosives found or explosions that could have been a controlled demolition recorded.
> 
> But you may feel free to keep denying that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you are not smart enough to figure out that means the computer model is junk and that is what they cite as the evidence their theory is correct... if something as critical as that is incorrect then whole the theory falls apart and it is back to the drawing board...fail...do not pass go
Click to expand...


No Eots. it simply means exactly what I said. Their model still works nearly the same way. But i never claimed to be smarter than the average American. Some day if you study hard and really work at it you can say that too.


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I simply believe they did not give enough credence to the damage done to the building. The collapse more than likely happened mostly the way they said. But since we can't see inside the building there is no way to be 100% positive. What we do know 100% is that there were no explosives found or explosions that could have been a controlled demolition recorded.
> 
> But you may feel free to keep denying that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you are not smart enough to figure out that means the computer model is junk and that is what they cite as the evidence their theory is correct... if something as critical as that is incorrect then whole the theory falls apart and it is back to the drawing board...fail...do not pass go
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Eots. it simply means exactly what I said. Their model still works nearly the same way. But i never claimed to be smarter than the average American. Some day if you study hard and really work at it you can say that too.
Click to expand...


no it does not work almost the same way..thats why it was deemed irrelevant ..if they could of factored it in they would have..like you try to..because it makes the story more believable


----------



## youngpatriot

SFC Ollie said:


> I simply believe they did not give enough credence to the damage done to the building. The collapse more than likely happened mostly the way they said. But since we can't see inside the building there is no way to be 100% positive. What we do know 100% is that there were no explosives found or explosions that could have been a controlled demolition recorded.
> 
> But you may feel free to keep denying that...



Since I haven't reached the 15 post count required to post a video, I can tell you that police found a suspicious device in one of the towers inside a van that they believed was a secondary device.  Of course this evidence all disappeared just like the witnesses who were speaking out and singing a different tune than the government was.  

Just go to Youtube and enter "Police find secondary device 9/11."

Now where and when has a van with an explosive device been used before?  '93 WTC bombing, where the bombers were CIA assets and the ring leader was an FBI informant who was told by the FBI to make the bomb real.

The dirty deeds of the CIA are well known and well documented along with declassified government documents from decades ago.  Look up Operation Ajax, Operation Northwoods, U.S.S. Liberty, Bay of Pigs, Gulf of Tonkin.  False flag operations have been going on for a long time by our intelligence agencies.  That's why it's much easier for us "Twoofers" of "truthtards" to believe our government staged 9/11 than a gang of goat herders with box cutters out foxing the DOD and NORAD and blowing up the WTC and smashing a hole in the Pentagon with some ace piloting that has baffled seasoned commercial airline pilots.  Not to mention the fact that flying a cessna and flying a boeing a 737 are two different things entirely.  As they say on AIRPLANE, "It's an entirely different kind of flying altogether."

I do give you credit for not being a nasty little *XXXX* like patriot911.  He obviously feels the need to get as many expletives into a post as he can in an attempt to make himself feel like a really big boy.  Just look at the whole thing objectively and not defensively and you'll see holes in the government story all over the place.


----------



## candycorn

youngpatriot said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I simply believe they did not give enough credence to the damage done to the building. The collapse more than likely happened mostly the way they said. But since we can't see inside the building there is no way to be 100% positive. What we do know 100% is that there were no explosives found or explosions that could have been a controlled demolition recorded.
> 
> But you may feel free to keep denying that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since I haven't reached the 15 post count required to post a video, I can tell you that police found a suspicious device in one of the towers inside a van that they believed was a secondary device.  Of course this evidence all disappeared just like the witnesses who were speaking out and singing a different tune than the government was.
> 
> Just go to Youtube and enter "Police find secondary device 9/11."
> 
> Now where and when has a van with an explosive device been used before?  '93 WTC bombing, where the bombers were CIA assets and the ring leader was an FBI informant who was told by the FBI to make the bomb real.
> 
> The dirty deeds of the CIA are well known and well documented along with declassified government documents from decades ago.  Look up Operation Ajax, Operation Northwoods, U.S.S. Liberty, Bay of Pigs, Gulf of Tonkin.  False flag operations have been going on for a long time by our intelligence agencies.  That's why it's much easier for us "Twoofers" of "truthtards" to believe our government staged 9/11 than a gang of goat herders with box cutters out foxing the DOD and NORAD and blowing up the WTC and smashing a hole in the Pentagon with some ace piloting that has baffled seasoned commercial airline pilots.  Not to mention the fact that flying a cessna and flying a boeing a 737 are two different things entirely.  As they say on AIRPLANE, "It's an entirely different kind of flying altogether."
> 
> I do give you credit for not being a nasty little *XXXX* like patriot911.  He obviously feels the need to get as many expletives into a post as he can in an attempt to make himself feel like a really big boy.  Just look at the whole thing objectively and not defensively and you'll see holes in the government story all over the place.
Click to expand...


Wow you should do something about all that...not your lies; your mental health which seems to have been on the fritz sockboy.


----------



## eots

what we cant say *XXXX* anymore ?..since when ? thats a real shame, the freedom to say *XXXX* is from which all other freedoms spring forth.... terible shame... it was one of those things that made me feel proud to be a part of the usmb...I am devastated


----------



## youngpatriot

candycorn said:


> youngpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I simply believe they did not give enough credence to the damage done to the building. The collapse more than likely happened mostly the way they said. But since we can't see inside the building there is no way to be 100% positive. What we do know 100% is that there were no explosives found or explosions that could have been a controlled demolition recorded.
> 
> But you may feel free to keep denying that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since I haven't reached the 15 post count required to post a video, I can tell you that police found a suspicious device in one of the towers inside a van that they believed was a secondary device.  Of course this evidence all disappeared just like the witnesses who were speaking out and singing a different tune than the government was.
> 
> Just go to Youtube and enter "Police find secondary device 9/11."
> 
> Now where and when has a van with an explosive device been used before?  '93 WTC bombing, where the bombers were CIA assets and the ring leader was an FBI informant who was told by the FBI to make the bomb real.
> 
> The dirty deeds of the CIA are well known and well documented along with declassified government documents from decades ago.  Look up Operation Ajax, Operation Northwoods, U.S.S. Liberty, Bay of Pigs, Gulf of Tonkin.  False flag operations have been going on for a long time by our intelligence agencies.  That's why it's much easier for us "Twoofers" of "truthtards" to believe our government staged 9/11 than a gang of goat herders with box cutters out foxing the DOD and NORAD and blowing up the WTC and smashing a hole in the Pentagon with some ace piloting that has baffled seasoned commercial airline pilots.  Not to mention the fact that flying a cessna and flying a boeing a 737 are two different things entirely.  As they say on AIRPLANE, "It's an entirely different kind of flying altogether."
> 
> I do give you credit for not being a nasty little *XXXX* like patriot911.  He obviously feels the need to get as many expletives into a post as he can in an attempt to make himself feel like a really big boy.  Just look at the whole thing objectively and not defensively and you'll see holes in the government story all over the place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow you should do something about all that...not your lies; your mental health which seems to have been on the fritz sockboy.
Click to expand...


If you feel certain that I am a sock, feel free to notify the mods or the admin or whatever and tell them that you believe I am a sock.  

It's unfortunate that when people question their government they are attacked so viciously by sheeple who feel the need to defend their government in spite of all the flaws and blatant lies that have been exposed in the past.  But the cute little insults and unoriginal names are hardly enough to make a cogent argument.    

Maybe someday you'll realize that nearly all politicians are not to be trusted.  I'm sorry you have so much faith in a system that appears to be so obviously broken to me.


----------



## Meister

eots said:


> what we cant say *XXXX* anymore ?..since when ? thats a real shame, the freedom to say *XXXX* is from which all other freedoms spring forth.... terible shame... it was one of those things that made me fel proud to be a part of the usmb...I am devastated


*
Eots.....where have you been? You can say the c word, but only in the Flame Zone. Have any questions? Talk to Gunny on it and see where that gets you. *
Next time use spell check when your trying to make a point.


----------



## eots

meister said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> what we cant say *xxxx* anymore ?..since when ? Thats a real shame, the freedom to say *xxxx* is from which all other freedoms spring forth.... Terible shame... It was one of those things that made me fel proud to be a part of the usmb...i am devastated
> 
> 
> 
> *
> eots.....where have you been? You can say the c word, but only in the flame zone. Have any questions? Talk to gunny on it and see where that gets you. *
> next time use spell check when your trying to make a point.
Click to expand...


spell check is for losers and girlie men..I make typos and the odd spelling mistake...so what ?...better than being some cripple spell checking everything for a messageboard post...lol


----------



## Meister

eots said:


> meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> what we cant say *xxxx* anymore ?..since when ? Thats a real shame, the freedom to say *xxxx* is from which all other freedoms spring forth.... Terible shame... It was one of those things that made me fel proud to be a part of the usmb...i am devastated
> 
> 
> 
> *
> eots.....where have you been? You can say the c word, but only in the flame zone. Have any questions? Talk to gunny on it and see where that gets you. *
> next time use spell check when your trying to make a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> spell check is for losers and girlie men..I make typos and the odd spelling mistake...so what ?...better than being some cripple spell checking everything for a messageboard post...lol
Click to expand...


Understood, but I had to reread your post when you were trying to make a specific point.  I didn't know if it was my eyes or you.


----------



## candycorn

youngpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youngpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since I haven't reached the 15 post count required to post a video, I can tell you that police found a suspicious device in one of the towers inside a van that they believed was a secondary device.  Of course this evidence all disappeared just like the witnesses who were speaking out and singing a different tune than the government was.
> 
> Just go to Youtube and enter "Police find secondary device 9/11."
> 
> Now where and when has a van with an explosive device been used before?  '93 WTC bombing, where the bombers were CIA assets and the ring leader was an FBI informant who was told by the FBI to make the bomb real.
> 
> The dirty deeds of the CIA are well known and well documented along with declassified government documents from decades ago.  Look up Operation Ajax, Operation Northwoods, U.S.S. Liberty, Bay of Pigs, Gulf of Tonkin.  False flag operations have been going on for a long time by our intelligence agencies.  That's why it's much easier for us "Twoofers" of "truthtards" to believe our government staged 9/11 than a gang of goat herders with box cutters out foxing the DOD and NORAD and blowing up the WTC and smashing a hole in the Pentagon with some ace piloting that has baffled seasoned commercial airline pilots.  Not to mention the fact that flying a cessna and flying a boeing a 737 are two different things entirely.  As they say on AIRPLANE, "It's an entirely different kind of flying altogether."
> 
> I do give you credit for not being a nasty little *XXXX* like patriot911.  He obviously feels the need to get as many expletives into a post as he can in an attempt to make himself feel like a really big boy.  Just look at the whole thing objectively and not defensively and you'll see holes in the government story all over the place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you should do something about all that...not your lies; your mental health which seems to have been on the fritz sockboy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you feel certain that I am a sock, feel free to notify the mods or the admin or whatever and tell them that you believe I am a sock.
> 
> It's unfortunate that when people question their government they are attacked so viciously by sheeple who feel the need to defend their government in spite of all the flaws and blatant lies that have been exposed in the past.  But the cute little insults and unoriginal names are hardly enough to make a cogent argument.
> 
> Maybe someday you'll realize that nearly all politicians are not to be trusted.  I'm sorry you have so much faith in a system that appears to be so obviously broken to me.
Click to expand...


Socks always eventually reveal themselves when their owner shows up. You will be no different.  You're not that good at it.  

Anyway, feel free to take your proof to court if you got any.  We both know you won't and just like your owner, you'll sit here and whine about it; the only difference is that you won't be here long.  They never last.


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I simply believe they did not give enough credence to the damage done to the building. The collapse more than likely happened mostly the way they said. But since we can't see inside the building there is no way to be 100% positive. What we do know 100% is that there were no explosives found or explosions that could have been a controlled demolition recorded.
> 
> But you may feel free to keep denying that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you are not smart enough to figure out that means the computer model is junk and that is what they cite as the evidence their theory is correct... if something as critical as that is incorrect then whole the theory falls apart and it is back to the drawing board...fail...do not pass go
Click to expand...


So we're suppose to believe a known, proven liar that the computer model is just "wrong" with no explanation or solid science behind the claim.    I don't think so.  You want to claim the computer model is wrong?  Prove it.  Don't just make the claim.

Oh wait.  You're a bunch of fucking losers that make claims and fail miserably at backing it up.    Funny how none of the real experts who have examined the model claim it was wrong.  Or are you dumbshits going by looks alone?  I bet you are.  You ignorant fucks probably don't even understand the purpose of the computer model or what it was designed to prove.


----------



## Patriot911

youngpatriot said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I simply believe they did not give enough credence to the damage done to the building. The collapse more than likely happened mostly the way they said. But since we can't see inside the building there is no way to be 100% positive. What we do know 100% is that there were no explosives found or explosions that could have been a controlled demolition recorded.
> 
> But you may feel free to keep denying that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since I haven't reached the 15 post count required to post a video, I can tell you that police found a suspicious device in one of the towers inside a van that they believed was a secondary device.
Click to expand...

  Keep posting the lies, ya piece of shit truthtard!  Anyone else find it hilarious that truthtards will believe every word out of Dan Rather's mouth on 9/11 even when he was clearly wrong on numerous accounts?    The hypocricy and dishonesty are both of epic proportions!  So do you believe a car bomb went off in front of the Captial building as well?



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> Of course this evidence all disappeared just like the witnesses who were speaking out and singing a different tune than the government was.


The "evidence" was that Rather was reporting everything regardless of how true it was.  There was no evidence to back up Rather's claims.

As for disappearing witnesses, care to name them?    Oh right.  You can't.  You have to let the videos do your thinking for you.



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> Just go to Youtube and enter "Police find secondary device 9/11."


Because every truthtard knows if it is on YouTube it MUST be true, right?    Man, you are one seriously gullible piece of sheepshit, aren't you!



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> Now where and when has a van with an explosive device been used before?  '93 WTC bombing, where the bombers were CIA assets and the ring leader was an FBI informant who was told by the FBI to make the bomb real.


More bullshit lies from a known, proven liar.  The hilarious thing is that the FBI really did have a role in the 93 bombing, yet truthtards aren't satisfied with that, so they blow it all out of proportion and end up looking like jackasses in the process.  

Was there an FBI informant?  Yes.  Was he ordered to make a real bomb?  No.  Did the FBI blow a major chance to stop the bombing?  Absolutely.  But go ahead and keep believing your paranoid delusional fantasies because they are so much better for shits like you to jack off to, right?



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> The dirty deeds of the CIA are well known and well documented along with declassified government documents from decades ago.  Look up Operation Ajax, Operation Northwoods, U.S.S. Liberty, Bay of Pigs, Gulf of Tonkin.


  More lies from a proven liar.  Northwoods wasn't CIA, but joint chiefs of staff.  Liberty was Israel.  Tonkin had nothing to do with the CIA and North Vietnam agreed the first attack was real.  Boy, you REALLY suck at this, don't you!



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> False flag operations have been going on for a long time by our intelligence agencies.  That's why it's much easier for us "Twoofers" of "truthtards" to believe our government staged 9/11 than a gang of goat herders with box cutters out foxing the DOD and NORAD and blowing up the WTC and smashing a hole in the Pentagon with some ace piloting that has baffled seasoned commercial airline pilots.  Not to mention the fact that flying a cessna and flying a boeing a 737 are two different things entirely.  As they say on AIRPLANE, "It's an entirely different kind of flying altogether."


So.... making up excuses for your paranoid delusions now?    Figures.  



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> I do give you credit for not being a nasty little *XXXX* like patriot911.  He obviously feels the need to get as many expletives into a post as he can in an attempt to make himself feel like a really big boy.  Just look at the whole thing objectively and not defensively and you'll see holes in the government story all over the place.


Or look at it from the truthtard perspective while on acid and some of what they claim might make sense..... if you've had a lobotomy first.

Ever wonder why it is you can't defend the truthtard bullshit?  Because it is REALLY hard to defend lies, while it is really easy to defend the truth.  The fact you have zero evidence to back up your bullshit should be a huge red flag to anyone actually wanting to believe you.


----------



## SFC Ollie

youngpatriot said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I simply believe they did not give enough credence to the damage done to the building. The collapse more than likely happened mostly the way they said. But since we can't see inside the building there is no way to be 100% positive. What we do know 100% is that there were no explosives found or explosions that could have been a controlled demolition recorded.
> 
> But you may feel free to keep denying that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since I haven't reached the 15 post count required to post a video, I can tell you that police found a suspicious device in one of the towers inside a van that they believed was a secondary device.  Of course this evidence all disappeared just like the witnesses who were speaking out and singing a different tune than the government was.
> 
> Just go to Youtube and enter "Police find secondary device 9/11."
> 
> Now where and when has a van with an explosive device been used before?  '93 WTC bombing, where the bombers were CIA assets and the ring leader was an FBI informant who was told by the FBI to make the bomb real.
> 
> The dirty deeds of the CIA are well known and well documented along with declassified government documents from decades ago.  Look up Operation Ajax, Operation Northwoods, U.S.S. Liberty, Bay of Pigs, Gulf of Tonkin.  False flag operations have been going on for a long time by our intelligence agencies.  That's why it's much easier for us "Twoofers" of "truthtards" to believe our government staged 9/11 than a gang of goat herders with box cutters out foxing the DOD and NORAD and blowing up the WTC and smashing a hole in the Pentagon with some ace piloting that has baffled seasoned commercial airline pilots.  Not to mention the fact that flying a cessna and flying a boeing a 737 are two different things entirely.  As they say on AIRPLANE, "It's an entirely different kind of flying altogether."
> 
> I do give you credit for not being a nasty little *XXXX* like patriot911.  He obviously feels the need to get as many expletives into a post as he can in an attempt to make himself feel like a really big boy.  Just look at the whole thing objectively and not defensively and you'll see holes in the government story all over the place.
Click to expand...


Think about it now. A van full of explosives? Really? And what were they needed for if the towers and bldg7 had already been wired with enough explosives to bring them down? Why do you think the "evidence" disappeared? Because it never existed.....
There were no explosives.


----------



## candycorn

Meister said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> what we cant say *XXXX* anymore ?..since when ? thats a real shame, the freedom to say *XXXX* is from which all other freedoms spring forth.... terible shame... it was one of those things that made me fel proud to be a part of the usmb...I am devastated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Eots.....where have you been? You can say the c word, but only in the Flame Zone. Have any questions? Talk to Gunny on it and see where that gets you. *
> Next time use spell check when your trying to make a point.
Click to expand...

 
Can I Tell EOTS...See You Next Tuesday?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Patriot911 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did he plagerize?  Please provide proof....as I looked I couldn't find it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a while ago.  It started with TASB pretending he is a structural engineer, yet he had no clue where the energy in a collapse comes from which is always taught in first year physics at the most.
> 
> So I gave him an education here.
> 
> His response can be found here
> 
> This post was directly lifted from Judy Woods' site here, or here, or here, yet no reference back to Judy Woods or that he was quoting someone else, thus hoping someone might think the work was his.  That, to me, is a classic case of plagerization.
> 
> Unfortunately for TASB, while the formula for Judy's bullshit are sound, you will notice neither she nor TASB ever attempt to put values in the formula, but instead rely on people being impressed by the formula themselves even when they are meaningless without values.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately for you, I came up with the exact same equation as Dr. Wood. So while i lifted it verbatum from her instead of wasting time doing it free hand, the equation still stands. And while there aren't any numbers to the equation, it shows that pulverization isn't capable. You need an additional energy source to produce the pulverization.

So, yeah, thanks Dr. Wood for posting a mathematical equation that anyone with half a brain can do on their own if they understand the laws of physics and energy.

Good god you are truly BAD at this "patriot".


----------



## TakeAStepBack

So, utilizing the equation given and the knowledge we have, where did the energy come from to pulverize +80% of the building materials?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack said:


> YouTube - Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News
> 
> No, dip shit. Look how much material remained. It Pulverized. Explain the energy needed for that.



?

Steel, marble, concrete...all pulverized into dust. Explain?


----------



## Patriot911

Already explained, shit for brains.  Your formulas (not formula you dishonest fuck) are meaningless without the data in them to prove your point.  I already provided you with the formula showing how much energy is stored in every gram of the building which, it turns out, is far more than what is needed to collapse the building and grind the concrete to dust.  The fact you are so fucking stupid you couldn't even begin to grasp what I'm talking about and the fact you had to plagerize Judy Woods' entire section (not just one formula you dishonest fuck) shows that you have zero clue what you are talking about, much less what Judy Woods' formulas are talking about.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Steel was pulverized into dust? really? 

The only explosive force I know for certain that could do that would be nuclear. And I certainly don't remember seeing any mushroom clouds.....


----------



## eots

candycorn said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> what we cant say *XXXX* anymore ?..since when ? thats a real shame, the freedom to say *XXXX* is from which all other freedoms spring forth.... terible shame... it was one of those things that made me fel proud to be a part of the usmb...I am devastated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Eots.....where have you been? You can say the c word, but only in the Flame Zone. Have any questions? Talk to Gunny on it and see where that gets you. *
> Next time use spell check when your trying to make a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can I Tell EOTS...See You Next Tuesday?
Click to expand...


No.. but you can shut the hell up


----------



## youngpatriot

SFC Ollie said:


> youngpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I simply believe they did not give enough credence to the damage done to the building. The collapse more than likely happened mostly the way they said. But since we can't see inside the building there is no way to be 100% positive. What we do know 100% is that there
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think about it now. A van full of explosives? Really? And what were they needed for if the towers and bldg7 had already been wired with enough explosives to bring them down? Why do you think the "evidence" disappeared? Because it never existed.....
> There were no explosives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right.  That makes sense.  The police made it up.  That explains it all now.  They were just doing that for grins.  The van with the suspicious device was in tower #1 where Willie Rodriguez worked.  It explains the explosion that Willie Rodriguez heard underneath him when he was on the 6th floor.  And it explains what the firefighters had stated about the first floor looking like a bomb had gone off when they first entered the building.
> 
> I guess they're all just in on the lie together though, right?
Click to expand...


----------



## youngpatriot

It must be an exhausting task for these 9/11 truth undebunkers to keep fending for the government.  It shows you how pathetic society has gotten that these folks will scratch, claw, dig and take completely unnecessary shots at their fellow citizens to defend their government which has been caught red handed more times than patriot911 by his mom.

Take a pause for the cause and open your eyes.  Things become much clearer when you can do that.


----------



## Patriot911

youngpatriot said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think about it now. A van full of explosives? Really? And what were they needed for if the towers and bldg7 had already been wired with enough explosives to bring them down? Why do you think the "evidence" disappeared? Because it never existed.....
> There were no explosives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  That makes sense.  The police made it up.
Click to expand...

Wrong.  The police had no record of any call or communication involving the van Dan Rather reported.



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> That explains it all now.  They were just doing that for grins.


Start with a lie and you end up with absolute garbage as the end result.



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> The van with the suspicious device was in tower #1 where Willie Rodriguez worked.


Wrong again, fucktard.  The van was reported blocks away.  It was never reported in either tower.  You just pulling all this out your ass or what?



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> It explains the explosion that Willie Rodriguez heard underneath him when he was on the 6th floor.


Wrong again, fucktard.  When are you EVER going to get your facts straight?  Willie was in the basement when the plane struck.  If you listen to his report right after it happened and before he decided to milk you sheep for all you're worth, you get a very believable accounting of what happened.

Source



> I was in the basement, which is the support floor for the maintenance company, and we hear like a big rumble. Not like an impact, like a rumble, like moving furniture in a massive way. And all of sudden we hear another rumble, and a guy comes running, running into our office, and all of skin was off his body. All of the skin.



How many explosions are a "rumble"?  And we've seen the results of explosions in the parking garage.... huge plumes of black smoke coming from the parking garage.  Did we see any of that in any of the time while the North tower stood?  Nope.    You lose.  Yet again.  



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> And it explains what the firefighters had stated about the first floor looking like a bomb had gone off when they first entered the building.


Yeah, you stupid fucks can't tell the difference between when someone says it LOOKS LIKE a bomb went off and when someone says A BOMB WENT OFF.  They KNEW it wasn't a bomb.  They KNEW it was from the impact and from the elevators.  You silly boys and your silly little fantasies.  



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> I guess they're all just in on the lie together though, right?


Yeah, that's it.  EVERYONE is in on it and LYING to you.    OR everyone is telling the truth and DAN RATHER lied to your sorry ass and YOU believed him even after all the other mistakes he made that day.    What a gullible sap you are!


----------



## Patriot911

youngpatriot said:


> It must be an exhausting task for these 9/11 truth undebunkers to keep fending for the government.  It shows you how pathetic society has gotten that these folks will scratch, claw, dig and take completely unnecessary shots at their fellow citizens to defend their government which has been caught red handed more times than patriot911 by his mom.
> 
> Take a pause for the cause and open your eyes.  Things become much clearer when you can do that.



OR we take shots at piece of shit scum like you who are trying their hardest to betray this great nation of ours by pushing a bunch of bullshit lies you can't back up and pretending that it is the truth.  Since when has being for the truth been a bad thing?  

BTW, I'm not defending the government.  I am defending the truth.  Personally I would love to see massive changes in our government.  But I don't need to make up fantasies to enact change.  I don't need to spread seditious lies to feel important.  I act.  I get involved.  That is far more than your sorry ass can say.

I defend the truth.  The truth is defined by the facts and the evidence.  If you were able to actually produce real evidence and not opinion and bullshit, people might take you seriously.  In the mean time they're just pointing and laughing at the silly little truthtards pretending they're important or relevant in any way.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Patriot911 said:


> Already explained, shit for brains.  Your formulas (not formula you dishonest fuck) are meaningless without the data in them to prove your point.  I already provided you with the formula showing how much energy is stored in every gram of the building which, it turns out, is far more than what is needed to collapse the building and grind the concrete to dust.  The fact you are so fucking stupid you couldn't even begin to grasp what I'm talking about and the fact you had to plagerize Judy Woods' entire section (not just one formula you dishonest fuck) shows that you have zero clue what you are talking about, much less what Judy Woods' formulas are talking about.



No. The formula means that without an outside source of energy, pulverization can not be attained. The amount of joules required to create the act is ad hoc science of a fraudulent level.

YOU tell me how this equation works out with the official story. Go.


----------



## Patriot911

TakeAStepBack said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already explained, shit for brains.  Your formulas (not formula you dishonest fuck) are meaningless without the data in them to prove your point.  I already provided you with the formula showing how much energy is stored in every gram of the building which, it turns out, is far more than what is needed to collapse the building and grind the concrete to dust.  The fact you are so fucking stupid you couldn't even begin to grasp what I'm talking about and the fact you had to plagerize Judy Woods' entire section (not just one formula you dishonest fuck) shows that you have zero clue what you are talking about, much less what Judy Woods' formulas are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. The formula means that without an outside source of energy, pulverization can not be attained. The amount of joules required to create the act is ad hoc science of a fraudulent level.
> 
> YOU tell me how this equation works out with the official story. Go.
Click to expand...


Already have, dipshit.  Woods pretends it is a zero sum game.  It isn't.  Gravity is a bitch.    Now go run to your bitch Judy and have her explain that to your sorry ass.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

That's your science equation dispute?


----------



## youngpatriot

Patriot911 said:


> youngpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think about it now. A van full of explosives? Really? And what were they needed for if the towers and bldg7 had already been wired with enough explosives to bring them down? Why do you think the "evidence" disappeared? Because it never existed.....
> There were no explosives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  That makes sense.  The police made it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  The police had no record of any call or communication involving the van Dan Rather reported.
> 
> 
> Start with a lie and you end up with absolute garbage as the end result.
> 
> 
> Wrong again, fucktard.  The van was reported blocks away.  It was never reported in either tower.  You just pulling all this out your ass or what?
> 
> 
> Wrong again, fucktard.  When are you EVER going to get your facts straight?  Willie was in the basement when the plane struck.  If you listen to his report right after it happened and before he decided to milk you sheep for all you're worth, you get a very believable accounting of what happened.
> 
> Source
> 
> 
> 
> How many explosions are a "rumble"?  And we've seen the results of explosions in the parking garage.... huge plumes of black smoke coming from the parking garage.  Did we see any of that in any of the time while the North tower stood?  Nope.    You lose.  Yet again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youngpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it explains what the firefighters had stated about the first floor looking like a bomb had gone off when they first entered the building.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, you stupid fucks can't tell the difference between when someone says it LOOKS LIKE a bomb went off and when someone says A BOMB WENT OFF.  They KNEW it wasn't a bomb.  They KNEW it was from the impact and from the elevators.  You silly boys and your silly little fantasies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youngpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess they're all just in on the lie together though, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, that's it.  EVERYONE is in on it and LYING to you.    OR everyone is telling the truth and DAN RATHER lied to your sorry ass and YOU believed him even after all the other mistakes he made that day.    What a gullible sap you are!
Click to expand...


I wasn't referring to the van reported on by Dan Rather.  In fact, I didn't mention Dan Rather at all.  You did. 

As far as Rodriquez goes, you're right.  He was in the basement.  But he did hear a boom before the first plane hit.  

I choose to believe people that were actually there and have no reason to lie over the government, who obviously has a reason to lie, as well as hire people to investigate themselves.  If I had committed a crime and hired my best friend to investigate me, I'm pretty sure my dirty deeds would be covered and I'd be exonerated.


----------



## youngpatriot

Patriot911 said:


> youngpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It must be an exhausting task for these 9/11 truth undebunkers to keep fending for the government.  It shows you how pathetic society has gotten that these folks will scratch, claw, dig and take completely unnecessary shots at their fellow citizens to defend their government which has been caught red handed more times than patriot911 by his mom.
> 
> Take a pause for the cause and open your eyes.  Things become much clearer when you can do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OR we take shots at piece of shit scum like you who are trying their hardest to betray this great nation of ours by pushing a bunch of bullshit lies you can't back up and pretending that it is the truth.  Since when has being for the truth been a bad thing?
> 
> BTW, I'm not defending the government.  I am defending the truth.  Personally I would love to see massive changes in our government.  But I don't need to make up fantasies to enact change.  I don't need to spread seditious lies to feel important.  I act.  I get involved.  That is far more than your sorry ass can say.
> 
> I defend the truth.  The truth is defined by the facts and the evidence.  If you were able to actually produce real evidence and not opinion and bullshit, people might take you seriously.  In the mean time they're just pointing and laughing at the silly little truthtards pretending they're important or relevant in any way.
Click to expand...


Ah yes, there it is.  Attack my patriotism.  I guarantee I'm more of a patriot than you are.  You obviously aren't familiar with the founding fathers who made it expressly clear that the government should always be held accountable by the people for their actions.  You support a tyrannical government and you love them and stand up for them in spite of how deeply flawed they are.  And you believe that it is sedition to suspect them of a crime.  You're not a real American at all.  You are a dependent on the system.  Plain and simple.  You are unable to think for yourself and unable to investigate their dirty deeds.  You're not a patriot at all.  You're a weak little vagina who likes to talk big on the internet.  I guarantee if you ever met me in real life, you would temper your tone and speak to me in a rational manner, or I'd pull your underwear over your head and stuff you in the closet that you came out of.

Tough talk on the internet is bought cheaply.  Tough talk in real life is a different story.  It's obvious to everyone on here that you are an extremely insecure little weeny.  The insults and name calling don't make for a strong case..........bitchboy.


----------



## Patriot911

TakeAStepBack said:


> That's your science equation dispute?



Already gave you the equations used.  You were too stupid then to understand them.  Why should now be any different.


----------



## Patriot911

youngpatriot said:


> I wasn't referring to the van reported on by Dan Rather.  In fact, I didn't mention Dan Rather at all.  You did.


So which van are you referring to?  Which piece of made up bullshit are you going to pull out of your ass THIS time?  Or are you going to pretend the false report of explosives found with the Israelis?  Go ahead and post some police officers claiming they found explosives.  Then find a source ANYWHERE that claims the van was in the parking garage of the North Tower.



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> As far as Rodriquez goes, you're right.  He was in the basement.  But he did hear a boom before the first plane hit.


No, he felt the vibration of the impact before he heard the explosion.  Vibrations travel through steel to the bedrock much faster than sound travels through air.  Science.  Look it up.  



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> I choose to believe people that were actually there and have no reason to lie over the government, who obviously has a reason to lie, as well as hire people to investigate themselves.  If I had committed a crime and hired my best friend to investigate me, I'm pretty sure my dirty deeds would be covered and I'd be exonerated.


That's about as pathetic an excuse as I've heard from a fucking truthtard.  "Oh woe is me!  The government lies about everything so this must be a lie because NOBODY else lies!"  Yeah right.  Grow up and get a brain.  Care to explain how slick Willie's story changed so drastically once he wanted you silly sheep to start paying his way through life?


----------



## SFC Ollie

youngpatriot said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youngpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think about it now. A van full of explosives? Really? And what were they needed for if the towers and bldg7 had already been wired with enough explosives to bring them down? Why do you think the "evidence" disappeared? Because it never existed.....
> There were no explosives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  That makes sense.  The police made it up.  That explains it all now.  They were just doing that for grins.  The van with the suspicious device was in tower #1 where Willie Rodriguez worked.  It explains the explosion that Willie Rodriguez heard underneath him when he was on the 6th floor.  And it explains what the firefighters had stated about the first floor looking like a bomb had gone off when they first entered the building.
> 
> I guess they're all just in on the lie together though, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know that a fireball traveled down the elevator shafts right?
> 
> 
> 
> Several of the large express passenger elevators, which service the sky lobbies, plunged to the main lobby level. At least one of those falling elevators was accompanied by a huge fireball that burst into the lobby and concourse levels. Only four people are known to have survived in the south tower express elevators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTC ELEVATORS
Click to expand...


----------



## Patriot911

youngpatriot said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youngpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It must be an exhausting task for these 9/11 truth undebunkers to keep fending for the government.  It shows you how pathetic society has gotten that these folks will scratch, claw, dig and take completely unnecessary shots at their fellow citizens to defend their government which has been caught red handed more times than patriot911 by his mom.
> 
> Take a pause for the cause and open your eyes.  Things become much clearer when you can do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OR we take shots at piece of shit scum like you who are trying their hardest to betray this great nation of ours by pushing a bunch of bullshit lies you can't back up and pretending that it is the truth.  Since when has being for the truth been a bad thing?
> 
> BTW, I'm not defending the government.  I am defending the truth.  Personally I would love to see massive changes in our government.  But I don't need to make up fantasies to enact change.  I don't need to spread seditious lies to feel important.  I act.  I get involved.  That is far more than your sorry ass can say.
> 
> I defend the truth.  The truth is defined by the facts and the evidence.  If you were able to actually produce real evidence and not opinion and bullshit, people might take you seriously.  In the mean time they're just pointing and laughing at the silly little truthtards pretending they're important or relevant in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes, there it is.  Attack my patriotism.
Click to expand...

You are actively promoting overthrowing the government based on a pack of lies you couldn't defend if your life depended on it.  How is that patriotic?



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> I guarantee I'm more of a patriot than you are.


You're not in a position to make that kind of guarantee.  And since you're the fucktard who is constantly lying his ass off, your credibility in that department is severely lacking. 



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> You obviously aren't familiar with the founding fathers who made it expressly clear that the government should always be held accountable by the people for their actions.


So where did the founding fathers say you should scare up a witch hunt where you use unsubstantiated claims that have no evidence to back them up to overthrow the government?  I am pretty damn sure not one of them said anything about lying one's ass off to be a patriot.  Can you produce such a statement?



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> You support a tyrannical government and you love them and stand up for them in spite of how deeply flawed they are.


Wrong yet again, fucktard.  I've already stated what I am standing up for.  I am standing up for the three thousand Americans that were killed by Muslim fuckheads but whos deaths are being hijacked by a bunch of immature and idiotic truthtards who want to use their deaths to try and foment dissent.  I am standing up for the truth.  The government has plenty to answer for.  It doesn't need fucks like you coming up with a bunch of trumped up charges.



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> And you believe that it is sedition to suspect them of a crime.


No, it is sedition to accuse them of a crime you cannot prove.  You don't suspect them.  You accuse them as though they are already tried and convicted.  What did our founding fathers say about innocent until proven guilty?  



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> You're not a real American at all.


Really?  You're the one trampling the core American values like innocent until proven guilty and lying your ass off for purposes of sedition.  What am I doing?  I am standing up for the truth.  The truth the evidence supports.  Isn't it truth, justice and the American way?  You're fucking the truth, raping justice and mocking the American way and then accusing ME of being un-American?    That is hysterical!



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> You are a dependent on the system.  Plain and simple.


Wrong again, fucktard.  I am not dependant on the system for anything.  I make a damn good living for myself and for many others.    You just can't win, can you.



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> You are unable to think for yourself and unable to investigate their dirty deeds.


On the contrary, I can produce evidence to back up my claims.  You've been unable to do so since you created this little sock puppet.



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> You're not a patriot at all.


Others would say you're flat out wrong.  I know in my heart I am a patriot, and given all the bullshit you spew, I find it hard to believe you are in any way, shape or form a patriot.  You might as well be working for Al Qaeda for all the effort you are putting into destroying this country.



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> You're a weak little vagina who likes to talk big on the internet.


Naw.  I back up what I say.  Unlike you.  You should try it some time.



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> I guarantee if you ever met me in real life, you would temper your tone and speak to me in a rational manner, or I'd pull your underwear over your head and stuff you in the closet that you came out of.


  Internet threats are always so funny!  You're such a big tough guy.  You couldn't even take on my wife.  Of course, she packs a .357 and is a crack shot, so I would be careful around her.   



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> Tough talk on the internet is bought cheaply.


How hypocritical of you as you just get done "talking tough".    You silly fucks are good for a laugh, but beyond that you're not worth the oxygen needed to sustain life.



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> Tough talk in real life is a different story.


So says the ball-less wonder.  Go fuck yourself ya silly twit!



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> It's obvious to everyone on here that you are an extremely insecure little weeny.  The insults and name calling don't make for a strong case..........bitchboy.


That is why I back up my claims with evidence.  That is why you will ALWAYS be my bitch.... because you have yet to back up your bullshit with anything even coming close to resembling evidence.  

Come back when your balls drop and you understand what it is to be a real man, not a truthtard wanna be bitch.


----------



## youngpatriot

Here is the video patriot911 "Fucktard"

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd6IDpZNuGw]YouTube - &#x202a;Police Find Possible Explosive Device In The WTC Area On 9/11&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]

I'm sure patriot911 is a really big boy.  Just ask him.  I have yet to meet anybody in real life that speaks to me like he has here.  And there is a reason for that.  My bite is a lot worse than patriot911's bark...............keep on with the insults, patriot911.  You look more and more ridiculous all the time.

You have never owned me, patriot911.  Only in your wet dreams.  And your "wife?"  Why do I find that so hard to believe?   *No attacking family members-Meister*  You're not standing up for the victim's families, internet tough guy.  More than half the victim's families believe it was an inside job.  You're trying to act like a big bad neo con.  You can't find your weaner because it's buried in George Bush's ass.  

And since you insist that I'm a sock, why don't you back that claim up with some proof?  I'm sure it'll be every bit as compelling as the picture of the standing steel tower you posted that you claimed collapsed.  It's obvious you don't have a job.  You spend all day and half the night on here.  Your job appears to be making a total fool out of yourself.


----------



## SFC Ollie

How many times did that reporter say "MAY HAVE"?

Can you produce any evidence that says his may haves were true?

I'll wait....


----------



## Patriot911

youngpatriot said:


> Here is the video patriot911 "Fucktard"
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;Police Find Possible Explosive Device In The WTC Area On 9/11&#x202c;&rlm;


So how does a possible explosive device a block and a half away from the WTC which turned out to be nothing become a white van full of explosives parked in the tower?

Seriously.  How can you live with yourself when you constantly lie about everything?



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> I'm sure patriot911 is a really big boy.  Just ask him.


I'm not the one who has to make shit up in the hopes people will take him seriously for once.  



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> I have yet to meet anybody in real life that speaks to me like he has here.


Tell you what.  Go to a FDNY firehouse and say what you say here and see if they treat you like I do.  It isn't funny to them when you sick fucks pretend they were in on it and are lying about what happened.



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> And there is a reason for that.


You're right.  There is no reason for it.  But I have lost all respect for fucks like you, so you get what I want to give.  Got it?  Maybe you should go back to the romper room forums where everyone is all happy.



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> My bite is a lot worse than patriot911's bark.


In your dreams fucktard.  You can make claims all you want.  You can't back them up.  I can back up my claims.  You just PROVED to everyone you were lying your ass off, and you think you're winning?  You're more delusional than Charlie Sheen!  



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> keep on with the insults, patriot911.


Until you earn some respect, I shall.



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> You look more and more ridiculous all the time.


Naw.  That would be you pretending you actually know the facts when in reality you're just pulling fantasies out of your ass and hoping nobody notices the stench.



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> You have never owned me, patriot911.


Really?  Is that why you owned yourself by posting a video that proves you're nothing but a fucking liar?    So if you prove you're a liar first, nobody else can?  Is that how your twisted excuse for a mind works?    This is getting funnier and funnier!



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> Only in your wet dreams.  And your "wife?"  Why do I find that so hard to believe?


Who gives a shit what you believe.  You've already proven you're a delusional liar.



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> If you do have a wife I'd be willing to bet that she is a fat, disgusting cow with a bell wrapped around her neck.


Did that make you feel better little man?  



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> You're not standing up for the victim's families, internet tough guy.


Never said I was.  More lies from you, eh?  Can't even go one post without lies?  I said I was standing up for the victims.  You know.... the ones you lie about and use to try and spread your bullshit?



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> More than half the victim's families believe it was an inside job.


Bullshit.  Care to back that up or are you going to run away like a little bitch again?



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> You're trying to act like a big bad neo con.  You can't find your weaner because it's buried in George Bush's ass.


Did that make you feel all better, little boy?   



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> And since you insist that I'm a sock, why don't you back that claim up with some proof?  I'm sure it'll be every bit as compelling as the picture of the standing steel tower you posted that you claimed collapsed.


MORE lies?    Damn, boy!  You got a problem!  Seek medical help!   



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> It's obvious you don't have a job.  You spend all day and half the night on here.  Your job appears to be making a total fool out of yourself.


I'm not a jackass truthtard like you are.  Want to know what really makes a fool out of a guy?  When that guy posts a video that absolutely proves he was lying his sorry little ass off!    Congratulations, dumbfuck!  You're a wienner!


----------



## Patriot911

SFC Ollie said:


> How many times did that reporter say "MAY HAVE"?
> 
> Can you produce any evidence that says his may haves were true?
> 
> I'll wait....



Let me know when you find the point where the reporter talks about the white van full of explosives parked in the WTC.....


----------



## youngpatriot

Patriot911 said:


> youngpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the video patriot911 "Fucktard"
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;Police Find Possible Explosive Device In The WTC Area On 9/11&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> So how does a possible explosive device a block and a half away from the WTC which turned out to be nothing become a white van full of explosives parked in the tower?
> 
> Seriously.  How can you live with yourself when you constantly lie about everything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youngpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure patriot911 is a really big boy.  Just ask him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not the one who has to make shit up in the hopes people will take him seriously for once.
> 
> 
> Tell you what.  Go to a FDNY firehouse and say what you say here and see if they treat you like I do.  It isn't funny to them when you sick fucks pretend they were in on it and are lying about what happened.
> 
> 
> You're right.  There is no reason for it.  But I have lost all respect for fucks like you, so you get what I want to give.  Got it?  Maybe you should go back to the romper room forums where everyone is all happy.
> 
> 
> In your dreams fucktard.  You can make claims all you want.  You can't back them up.  I can back up my claims.  You just PROVED to everyone you were lying your ass off, and you think you're winning?  You're more delusional than Charlie Sheen!
> 
> 
> Until you earn some respect, I shall.
> 
> 
> Naw.  That would be you pretending you actually know the facts when in reality you're just pulling fantasies out of your ass and hoping nobody notices the stench.
> 
> 
> Really?  Is that why you owned yourself by posting a video that proves you're nothing but a fucking liar?    So if you prove you're a liar first, nobody else can?  Is that how your twisted excuse for a mind works?    This is getting funnier and funnier!
> 
> 
> Who gives a shit what you believe.  You've already proven you're a delusional liar.
> 
> 
> Did that make you feel better little man?
> 
> 
> Never said I was.  More lies from you, eh?  Can't even go one post without lies?  I said I was standing up for the victims.  You know.... the ones you lie about and use to try and spread your bullshit?
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  Care to back that up or are you going to run away like a little bitch again?
> 
> 
> Did that make you feel all better, little boy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youngpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And since you insist that I'm a sock, why don't you back that claim up with some proof?  I'm sure it'll be every bit as compelling as the picture of the standing steel tower you posted that you claimed collapsed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MORE lies?    Damn, boy!  You got a problem!  Seek medical help!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youngpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious you don't have a job.  You spend all day and half the night on here.  Your job appears to be making a total fool out of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a jackass truthtard like you are.  Want to know what really makes a fool out of a guy?  When that guy posts a video that absolutely proves he was lying his sorry little ass off!    Congratulations, dumbfuck!  You're a wienner!
Click to expand...


I don't even bother reading all of your drivel anymore.  You think the FDNY believes your bullshit?  Why don't *you* go to an FDNY firehouse and tell your lies.  It was the eye witness accounts of firefighters and other people on 9/11 that I believe over the fraudulent NIST report.  

I'm not disrespecting anybody's family.  It is you who is doing that by not listening to what they have to say and talking smack like a little child who just got his favorite toy taken away.  

You embarrassed yourself thoroughly by showing that picture of a steel structure that was still standing after being on fire for days.  You really are a total moron.  You haven't debunked anything.  And you are most definitely not a real American.  Defending the government over the eye witnesses and first responders is shameful.  You're a lowlife scumbag with WAAAAAAAY too much time on your hands.  

Do you really think you're worthy of any respect?  Why would anybody respect your cheap little trash talk, junior?  That crap doesn't fly in the real world, homeboy.  So you have to do it on the internet to make yourself feel like a big man.  

Your multiquote posts are supposed to have some sort of significance?  Time to get a life.  

Keep going.  We're all impressed.  Serve me up another mile long multiquote post, filled with cheap talk, pussy boy.  Bring it on.  Keep pretending like you're some sort of big man who is doing his patriotic duty by *trying* to debunk the truth.

Your a seething, angry little boy, aren't you?  Just furiously typing away on your mommy's computer.  Getting a flushed face, sweaty palms, and a beating heart.......DOUCHEBAG!


----------



## candycorn

youngpatriot said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youngpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the video patriot911 "Fucktard"
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;Police Find Possible Explosive Device In The WTC Area On 9/11&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> So how does a possible explosive device a block and a half away from the WTC which turned out to be nothing become a white van full of explosives parked in the tower?
> 
> Seriously.  How can you live with yourself when you constantly lie about everything?
> 
> 
> I'm not the one who has to make shit up in the hopes people will take him seriously for once.
> 
> 
> Tell you what.  Go to a FDNY firehouse and say what you say here and see if they treat you like I do.  It isn't funny to them when you sick fucks pretend they were in on it and are lying about what happened.
> 
> 
> You're right.  There is no reason for it.  But I have lost all respect for fucks like you, so you get what I want to give.  Got it?  Maybe you should go back to the romper room forums where everyone is all happy.
> 
> 
> In your dreams fucktard.  You can make claims all you want.  You can't back them up.  I can back up my claims.  You just PROVED to everyone you were lying your ass off, and you think you're winning?  You're more delusional than Charlie Sheen!
> 
> 
> Until you earn some respect, I shall.
> 
> 
> Naw.  That would be you pretending you actually know the facts when in reality you're just pulling fantasies out of your ass and hoping nobody notices the stench.
> 
> 
> Really?  Is that why you owned yourself by posting a video that proves you're nothing but a fucking liar?    So if you prove you're a liar first, nobody else can?  Is that how your twisted excuse for a mind works?    This is getting funnier and funnier!
> 
> 
> Who gives a shit what you believe.  You've already proven you're a delusional liar.
> 
> 
> Did that make you feel better little man?
> 
> 
> Never said I was.  More lies from you, eh?  Can't even go one post without lies?  I said I was standing up for the victims.  You know.... the ones you lie about and use to try and spread your bullshit?
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  Care to back that up or are you going to run away like a little bitch again?
> 
> 
> Did that make you feel all better, little boy?
> 
> 
> MORE lies?    Damn, boy!  You got a problem!  Seek medical help!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youngpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious you don't have a job.  You spend all day and half the night on here.  Your job appears to be making a total fool out of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a jackass truthtard like you are.  Want to know what really makes a fool out of a guy?  When that guy posts a video that absolutely proves he was lying his sorry little ass off!    Congratulations, dumbfuck!  You're a wienner!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't even bother reading all of your drivel anymore.  You think the FDNY believes your bullshit?  Why don't *you* go to an FDNY firehouse and tell your lies.  It was the eye witness accounts of firefighters and other people on 9/11 that I believe over the fraudulent NIST report.
> 
> I'm not disrespecting anybody's family.  It is you who is doing that by not listening to what they have to say and talking smack like a little child who just got his favorite toy taken away.
> 
> You embarrassed yourself thoroughly by showing that picture of a steel structure that was still standing after being on fire for days.  You really are a total moron.  You haven't debunked anything.  And you are most definitely not a real American.  Defending the government over the eye witnesses and first responders is shameful.  You're a lowlife scumbag with WAAAAAAAY too much time on your hands.
> 
> Do you really think you're worthy of any respect?  Why would anybody respect your cheap little trash talk, junior?  That crap doesn't fly in the real world, homeboy.  So you have to do it on the internet to make yourself feel like a big man.
> 
> Your multiquote posts are supposed to have some sort of significance?  Time to get a life.
> 
> Keep going.  We're all impressed.  Serve me up another mile long multiquote post, filled with cheap talk, pussy boy.  Bring it on.  Keep pretending like you're some sort of big man who is doing his patriotic duty by *trying* to debunk the truth.
> 
> Your a seething, angry little boy, aren't you?  Just furiously typing away on your mommy's computer.  Getting a flushed face, sweaty palms, and a beating heart.......DOUCHEBAG!
Click to expand...


Wow you should do something about all that...oh yeah, you're powerless (hence the sock puppet act).  




Nothing to learn from you...Ignore <plink>.


----------



## Rat in the Hat

candycorn said:


> youngpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how does a possible explosive device a block and a half away from the WTC which turned out to be nothing become a white van full of explosives parked in the tower?
> 
> Seriously.  How can you live with yourself when you constantly lie about everything?
> 
> 
> I'm not the one who has to make shit up in the hopes people will take him seriously for once.
> 
> 
> Tell you what.  Go to a FDNY firehouse and say what you say here and see if they treat you like I do.  It isn't funny to them when you sick fucks pretend they were in on it and are lying about what happened.
> 
> 
> You're right.  There is no reason for it.  But I have lost all respect for fucks like you, so you get what I want to give.  Got it?  Maybe you should go back to the romper room forums where everyone is all happy.
> 
> 
> In your dreams fucktard.  You can make claims all you want.  You can't back them up.  I can back up my claims.  You just PROVED to everyone you were lying your ass off, and you think you're winning?  You're more delusional than Charlie Sheen!
> 
> 
> Until you earn some respect, I shall.
> 
> 
> Naw.  That would be you pretending you actually know the facts when in reality you're just pulling fantasies out of your ass and hoping nobody notices the stench.
> 
> 
> Really?  Is that why you owned yourself by posting a video that proves you're nothing but a fucking liar?    So if you prove you're a liar first, nobody else can?  Is that how your twisted excuse for a mind works?    This is getting funnier and funnier!
> 
> 
> Who gives a shit what you believe.  You've already proven you're a delusional liar.
> 
> 
> Did that make you feel better little man?
> 
> 
> Never said I was.  More lies from you, eh?  Can't even go one post without lies?  I said I was standing up for the victims.  You know.... the ones you lie about and use to try and spread your bullshit?
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  Care to back that up or are you going to run away like a little bitch again?
> 
> 
> Did that make you feel all better, little boy?
> 
> 
> MORE lies?    Damn, boy!  You got a problem!  Seek medical help!
> 
> 
> I'm not a jackass truthtard like you are.  Want to know what really makes a fool out of a guy?  When that guy posts a video that absolutely proves he was lying his sorry little ass off!    Congratulations, dumbfuck!  You're a wienner!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even bother reading all of your drivel anymore.  You think the FDNY believes your bullshit?  Why don't *you* go to an FDNY firehouse and tell your lies.  It was the eye witness accounts of firefighters and other people on 9/11 that I believe over the fraudulent NIST report.
> 
> I'm not disrespecting anybody's family.  It is you who is doing that by not listening to what they have to say and talking smack like a little child who just got his favorite toy taken away.
> 
> You embarrassed yourself thoroughly by showing that picture of a steel structure that was still standing after being on fire for days.  You really are a total moron.  You haven't debunked anything.  And you are most definitely not a real American.  Defending the government over the eye witnesses and first responders is shameful.  You're a lowlife scumbag with WAAAAAAAY too much time on your hands.
> 
> Do you really think you're worthy of any respect?  Why would anybody respect your cheap little trash talk, junior?  That crap doesn't fly in the real world, homeboy.  So you have to do it on the internet to make yourself feel like a big man.
> 
> Your multiquote posts are supposed to have some sort of significance?  Time to get a life.
> 
> Keep going.  We're all impressed.  Serve me up another mile long multiquote post, filled with cheap talk, pussy boy.  Bring it on.  Keep pretending like you're some sort of big man who is doing his patriotic duty by *trying* to debunk the truth.
> 
> Your a seething, angry little boy, aren't you?  Just furiously typing away on your mommy's computer.  Getting a flushed face, sweaty palms, and a beating heart.......DOUCHEBAG!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow you should do something about all that...oh yeah, you're powerless (hence the sock puppet act).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to learn from you...Ignore <plink>.
Click to expand...


I'm still waiting for the day that these "truthers" get their shit together, and take their "evidence" to a federal prosecutor to file charges against President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and the rest of the NWO. 

I figure, one day, I'll have my nephew's grandchild on my lap, and I'll be explaining to him how Avery, Bermas, Rowe, Gage, Ventura, Woods, and Jones still haven't made their case, but any day now....


----------



## Rat in the Hat

And just so nobody forgets the real story of the 9/11 "truth" movement...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYzIbOYaSy8]YouTube - &#x202a;Important Message from 9/11 Truth!&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Patriot911 said:


> Already explained, shit for brains.  Your formulas (not formula you dishonest fuck) are meaningless without the data in them to prove your point.  I already provided you with the formula showing how much energy is stored in every gram of the building which, it turns out, is far more than what is needed to collapse the building and grind the concrete to dust.  The fact you are so fucking stupid you couldn't even begin to grasp what I'm talking about and the fact you had to plagerize Judy Woods' entire section (not just one formula you dishonest fuck) shows that you have zero clue what you are talking about, much less what Judy Woods' formulas are talking about.



No, I want you to spell it out completely here on the board for everyone to see. Referring to a website's calculation isn't going to do. In detail, spell out the completed equation that accounts for the energy needed to pulverize a 110 story building at almost free fall speed.


This should be good.....


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Rat in the Hat said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youngpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even bother reading all of your drivel anymore.  You think the FDNY believes your bullshit?  Why don't *you* go to an FDNY firehouse and tell your lies.  It was the eye witness accounts of firefighters and other people on 9/11 that I believe over the fraudulent NIST report.
> 
> I'm not disrespecting anybody's family.  It is you who is doing that by not listening to what they have to say and talking smack like a little child who just got his favorite toy taken away.
> 
> You embarrassed yourself thoroughly by showing that picture of a steel structure that was still standing after being on fire for days.  You really are a total moron.  You haven't debunked anything.  And you are most definitely not a real American.  Defending the government over the eye witnesses and first responders is shameful.  You're a lowlife scumbag with WAAAAAAAY too much time on your hands.
> 
> Do you really think you're worthy of any respect?  Why would anybody respect your cheap little trash talk, junior?  That crap doesn't fly in the real world, homeboy.  So you have to do it on the internet to make yourself feel like a big man.
> 
> Your multiquote posts are supposed to have some sort of significance?  Time to get a life.
> 
> Keep going.  We're all impressed.  Serve me up another mile long multiquote post, filled with cheap talk, pussy boy.  Bring it on.  Keep pretending like you're some sort of big man who is doing his patriotic duty by *trying* to debunk the truth.
> 
> Your a seething, angry little boy, aren't you?  Just furiously typing away on your mommy's computer.  Getting a flushed face, sweaty palms, and a beating heart.......DOUCHEBAG!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you should do something about all that...oh yeah, you're powerless (hence the sock puppet act).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to learn from you...Ignore <plink>.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for the day that these "truthers" get their shit together, and take their "evidence" to a federal prosecutor to file charges against President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and the rest of the NWO.
> 
> I figure, one day, I'll have my nephew's grandchild on my lap, and I'll be explaining to him how Avery, Bermas, Rowe, Gage, Ventura, Woods, and Jones still haven't made their case, but any day now....
Click to expand...


Some already have. Their cases were dismissed as "frivolous". Just like after the wiki leaks released all the war crimes data people have tried to get Bush into a courthouse on multiple war crime and human right violations. That didn't work out too well. You think the Establishment is going to punish one of their own?

Moron.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack said:


> Anyone find anything particularly interesting about this photo?



When you're done with the completed and equation that accounts for the pulverization of 110 story skyscraper, complete with steel being pulverized, I'd like for you to explain how the steel I-beam in the above photo got twist, shriveled and pinch crimped by falling debris.


----------



## Patriot911

youngpatriot said:


> I don't even bother reading all of your drivel anymore.


I'm not surprised at that.  Here's a news flash for you.  I don't write it for you to read.  I write it for those who read this thread who might actually BELIEVE some of your bullshit.  The fact you run away from responding to your lies simply shows everyone we BOTH know you're full of shit.



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> You think the FDNY believes your bullshit?  Why don't *you* go to an FDNY firehouse and tell your lies.  It was the eye witness accounts of firefighters and other people on 9/11 that I believe over the fraudulent NIST report.


I have and they do.  They think you are fucking scum just like I do.  When you have to put words into the firefighters mouths to say what you want them to say, that is called lying your ass off.  You truthtards do it all the time.  You pretend every explosion is caused by explosives.   



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> I'm not disrespecting anybody's family.  It is you who is doing that by not listening to what they have to say and talking smack like a little child who just got his favorite toy taken away.


Wrong yet again, fucktard.  And again, I'm not talking about the families.  I am talking about the people who died.  How many times do you have to be corrected before you start being honest about what others say?   



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> You embarrassed yourself thoroughly by showing that picture of a steel structure that was still standing after being on fire for days.


More lies from you.  I made it extremely clear I was talking about the steel framed section of the building, yet you dishonest fucks have to lie about it time and time again.  

By the way, you've been caught in yet ANOTHER lie.  The fire didn't burn for days.    We all know you're a liar by now.  No need to constantly prove it.  What do you think it does to your credibility when you lie as much as you do?



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> You really are a total moron.  You haven't debunked anything.  And you are most definitely not a real American.  Defending the government over the eye witnesses and first responders is shameful.  You're a lowlife scumbag with WAAAAAAAY too much time on your hands.


Blah blah blah.  You can't defend your lies so you go for the pure ad hominem attack.  How utterly juvinile.  I throw in the insults, but I also prove you wrong.  See the difference little boy?  



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> Do you really think you're worthy of any respect?


Absolutely.  Anyone who stands up for the truth deserves respect.  I have evidence that backs up my claims.  What evidence do you have that your bullshit is true?  Oh right.  Opinions and bullshit lies.    That neither cuts it nor deserves respect now does it.



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> Why would anybody respect your cheap little trash talk, junior?


Because I expose dishonest fucks like you for the fucktards they are.  I expose your lies and the fact you don't even know the basic facts, yet you wish everyone to believe you over all the evidence available.    So yes.  I get respect.  Some day when you grow up and become a man (if that ever happens), maybe you will understand what respect is all about and actually gain some for yourself.  Pardon me if I don't hold my breath.



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> That crap doesn't fly in the real world, homeboy.


Homeboy?    So now you goin all gangsta on us?  You gonna pull your 9 and pop a cap in someone's ass?    You're so pathetic it is hilarious!  Thanks for that one!  I'm going to have to send that one to my friends and show them how pathetic the truthtard bowel movement has truly become.



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> So you have to do it on the internet to make yourself feel like a big man.


Wrong yet again, fucktard.    I do realize sooner or later you're bound to get something right, but in the mean time, pardon me if I don't hold my breath waiting for that moment.   



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> Your multiquote posts are supposed to have some sort of significance?  Time to get a life.


Yeah.  It means I have the ability to respond to you point for point and you're such a pussy that you can't.  Well, if I were defending your bullshit lies I would probably run away too.  Don't worry, though.  You're not fooling anyone and you STILL look like a complete jackass even when you make up excuses for not defending your bullshit.  



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> Keep going.  We're all impressed.  Serve me up another mile long multiquote post, filled with cheap talk, pussy boy.


Not a problem, fucktard.  Anything I can do to expose you for the piece of shit you are is an opportunity I will take.



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> Bring it on.  Keep pretending like you're some sort of big man who is doing his patriotic duty by *trying* to debunk the truth.


No need to pretend here.  Just because you have to pretend doesn't mean everyone else has to.    As for debunking your sorry ass lies, if I am pretending, why is it you can't actually DEFEND your lies?  Why do you have to run off like some scared little bitch?  Oh right.  Because you CAN'T defend your bullshit lies.  When you have the truth on your side, it is easy to expose bullshit lies.  Remember that.  ;-)



			
				youngpatriot said:
			
		

> Your a seething, angry little boy, aren't you?  Just furiously typing away on your mommy's computer.  Getting a flushed face, sweaty palms, and a beating heart.......DOUCHEBAG!


I sense you're projecting your own pitiful shortcomings on everyone else.    Why else would you be typing such utter bullshit?  Something you want to get off your chest maybe?  Like why you are such a failure in life?


----------



## Patriot911

TakeAStepBack said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone find anything particularly interesting about this photo?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you're done with the completed and equation that accounts for the pulverization of 110 story skyscraper, complete with steel being pulverized, I'd like for you to explain how the steel I-beam in the above photo got twist, shriveled and pinch crimped by falling debris.
Click to expand...


When that falling debris weighs hundreds of thousands of tons, you would be surprised what happens to steel.  You can bend it, twist it and crimp it all kinds of different ways.  Oh wait!  That's right!  You're so stupid you think all the energy of the collapse goes into the generation of the collapse!  Your superhero Woods told you it was a zero sum game so there was no energy left over!    It is amazing what fucks like you will swallow when it is what you want to hear.


----------



## Patriot911

TakeAStepBack said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already explained, shit for brains.  Your formulas (not formula you dishonest fuck) are meaningless without the data in them to prove your point.  I already provided you with the formula showing how much energy is stored in every gram of the building which, it turns out, is far more than what is needed to collapse the building and grind the concrete to dust.  The fact you are so fucking stupid you couldn't even begin to grasp what I'm talking about and the fact you had to plagerize Judy Woods' entire section (not just one formula you dishonest fuck) shows that you have zero clue what you are talking about, much less what Judy Woods' formulas are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I want you to spell it out completely here on the board for everyone to see. Referring to a website's calculation isn't going to do. In detail, spell out the completed equation that accounts for the energy needed to pulverize a 110 story building at almost free fall speed.
> 
> 
> This should be good.....
Click to expand...


Like I said.  I already have.  Even posted a link back to it a couple pages back.  You ran from it like the ignorant fuck you are the last time.  What makes you think you're going to do any better THIS time?  What are you going to do, plagerize Woods again because you can't think for yourself?


----------



## Gamolon

youngpatriot said:


> It explains the explosion that Willie Rodriguez heard underneath him when he was on the 6th floor.  And it explains what the firefighters had stated about the first floor looking like a bomb had gone off when they first entered the building.
> 
> I guess they're all just in on the lie together though, right?



Willie Rodriguez?

Explosion below him?

Have you followed any of his story? Have you seen how it has "evolved" into it's current state?

Here is his quote the day after it happened. CNN.com - Collapsed Trade Center towers still dangerous - September 12, 2001


> William Rodriguez worked on the basement level of the north tower and was in the building when the first plane struck his building.
> 
> "We heard a *loud rumble*, then all of a sudden we heard another *rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture*," Rodriguez said. "And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off."



Here is what he says later. William Rodriguez, a 9/11 Survivor


> There were a total of fourteen people in the office at this time. As he was talking with others, there was a *very loud massive explosion* which seemed to emanate from between sub-basement B2 and B3. There were twenty-two people on B2 sub-basement who also felt and heard that first explosion.
> 
> At first he thought it was a generator that had exploded. But the cement walls in the office cracked from the explosion. *"When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and everything started shaking."* said Rodriguez, who was crowded together with fourteen other people in the office including Anthony Saltamachia, supervisor for the American Maintenance Company.
> 
> Just seconds later there was another explosion way above which made the building oscillate momentarily.



How did he go from "rumbles made by moving large furniture" to "massive explosions that shook the floor and cracked the floors"? Way to embellish the story as his "fame" seemed to grow.

Also, explain to me how a man can emerge from an elevator with SEVERE BURNS and his SKIN FALLING OFF"? What kind of explosive cause that kind of wounds to a human being? Explosives don't burn people. A massive fuel fireball would.

Want to get into the eyewitness reports of people smelling "kerosene" from the impact point down to the lower floors? Sorry, explosives don't incinerate people on the spot.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Patriot911 said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone find anything particularly interesting about this photo?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you're done with the completed and equation that accounts for the pulverization of 110 story skyscraper, complete with steel being pulverized, I'd like for you to explain how the steel I-beam in the above photo got twist, shriveled and pinch crimped by falling debris.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When that falling debris weighs hundreds of thousands of tons, you would be surprised what happens to steel.  You can bend it, twist it and crimp it all kinds of different ways.  Oh wait!  That's right!  You're so stupid you think all the energy of the collapse goes into the generation of the collapse!  Your superhero Woods told you it was a zero sum game so there was no energy left over!    It is amazing what fucks like you will swallow when it is what you want to hear.
Click to expand...


No, steel doesn't undergo the heat necessary to perform this anomaly from falling debris. Try using science and skip the ad hominem. At this point it only makes you look less credible (as if that were possible).

How does falling debris (and it wasn't hit by hundreds of thousands of tons either) generate the heat necessary to pinch crimp this steel I beam?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Patriot911 said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already explained, shit for brains.  Your formulas (not formula you dishonest fuck) are meaningless without the data in them to prove your point.  I already provided you with the formula showing how much energy is stored in every gram of the building which, it turns out, is far more than what is needed to collapse the building and grind the concrete to dust.  The fact you are so fucking stupid you couldn't even begin to grasp what I'm talking about and the fact you had to plagerize Judy Woods' entire section (not just one formula you dishonest fuck) shows that you have zero clue what you are talking about, much less what Judy Woods' formulas are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I want you to spell it out completely here on the board for everyone to see. Referring to a website's calculation isn't going to do. In detail, spell out the completed equation that accounts for the energy needed to pulverize a 110 story building at almost free fall speed.
> 
> 
> This should be good.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said.  I already have.  Even posted a link back to it a couple pages back.  You ran from it like the ignorant fuck you are the last time.  What makes you think you're going to do any better THIS time?  What are you going to do, plagerize Woods again because you can't think for yourself?
Click to expand...


No you have not. You posted a link to a calculator. Since you're claiming that the equation presented by me, via Dr. Wood, attempts to explain gravity form a zero point, show me the long form equation for how the energy appeared during global collapse to pulverize the contents including steel. OR just admit that you can't because it isn't there..... 

Stop beating around the bush and do the work and prove yourself.


----------



## Patriot911

TakeAStepBack said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you're done with the completed and equation that accounts for the pulverization of 110 story skyscraper, complete with steel being pulverized, I'd like for you to explain how the steel I-beam in the above photo got twist, shriveled and pinch crimped by falling debris.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When that falling debris weighs hundreds of thousands of tons, you would be surprised what happens to steel.  You can bend it, twist it and crimp it all kinds of different ways.  Oh wait!  That's right!  You're so stupid you think all the energy of the collapse goes into the generation of the collapse!  Your superhero Woods told you it was a zero sum game so there was no energy left over!    It is amazing what fucks like you will swallow when it is what you want to hear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, steel doesn't undergo the heat necessary to perform this anomaly from falling debris. Try using science and skip the ad hominem. At this point it only makes you look less credible (as if that were possible).
> 
> How does falling debris (and it wasn't hit by hundreds of thousands of tons either) generate the heat necessary to pinch crimp this steel I beam?
Click to expand...


  Oh how cute!  You think steel can only get that way through heat!  

So the entire upper structures are now weightless?  That is news to everyone!  Does this fit into the zero sum game Woods convinced you was true?


----------



## SFC Ollie

Still wondering why no one has produced proof of pulverized steel. Fact is it doesn't even come up under google. at least not on the first page......


----------



## Patriot911

TakeAStepBack said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I want you to spell it out completely here on the board for everyone to see. Referring to a website's calculation isn't going to do. In detail, spell out the completed equation that accounts for the energy needed to pulverize a 110 story building at almost free fall speed.
> 
> 
> This should be good.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said.  I already have.  Even posted a link back to it a couple pages back.  You ran from it like the ignorant fuck you are the last time.  What makes you think you're going to do any better THIS time?  What are you going to do, plagerize Woods again because you can't think for yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you have not. You posted a link to a calculator. Since you're claiming that the equation presented by me, via Dr. Wood, attempts to explain gravity form a zero point, show me the long form equation for how the energy appeared during global collapse to pulverize the contents including steel. OR just admit that you can't because it isn't there.....
> 
> Stop beating around the bush and do the work and prove yourself.
Click to expand...


OK, I guess you want to be proven a liar.  I didn't post it?  Wow.  Let's see...

Page 52 of this thread shows that I did indeed post a link back to where I owned your sorry ass the first time.

Link

Here is the text:



> It was a while ago.  It started with TASB pretending he is a structural engineer, yet he had no clue where the energy in a collapse comes from which is always taught in first year physics at the most.
> 
> So I gave him an education here.
> 
> His response can be found here
> 
> This post was directly lifted from Judy Woods' site here, or here, or here, yet no reference back to Judy Woods or that he was quoting someone else, thus hoping someone might think the work was his.  That, to me, is a classic case of plagerization.
> 
> Unfortunately for TASB, while the formula for Judy's bullshit are sound, you will notice neither she nor TASB ever attempt to put values in the formula, but instead rely on people being impressed by the formula themselves even when they are meaningless without values.



The link doesn't point back to a calculator as you blatantly lie about, but to the following post:



Patriot911 said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right. If that is so, why don't you start by answering my very first question? Use scientific method and show your data.
> 
> Where did the energy come from to cause the towers to pulverize most of the content? Concrete, steel, etc...?
> What are we to believe about building 7's 2+ seconds of free fall?
> 
> The fact is, you can't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit!  It is called gravity, dipshit!  Come on, you don't know this?  It is very simple.  Any time you raise something off the ground you are converting kinetic energy (the energy needed to raise the object) into potential energy (the energy stored in the object).  When that object is lowered by any means, that energy is converted back into kinetic energy.  Lift an object and drop it.  When it hits something, where does that energy come from?  Same deal.
> 
> Since this is simple science that has been proven for centuries, it is easily documented.
> 
> Here is a good example.
> 
> We know the height of the tower was 610 feet or 186 meters.  Take a 100 kg weight to the top and drop it off.  We know how much impact force that item will have when it reaches the ground.  The 100 kg weight impacts with 185,874 kilograms of force or, in English measurements,  409782 pounds of force.  So how much concrete can you bust up with that much force?  Now how heavy was the upper floor?  The floor below that?  The floor below that?  Once you put all this information together, you realize an ASTONISHING amount of energy was released in the collapses.
> 
> Strange how a self professed engineer would pretend he doesn't know where the energy in a collapse comes from.  Better yet, why would a supposed professional lie his ass off about what was pulverized?  The concrete was most certainly pulverized.  The steel?    Yeah, just keep pretending the steel was pulverized.
Click to expand...


So there you have it, TakeAShit.  You failed to respond last time with anything but a plagerized piece from Woods that was laughed at soundly by anyone and everyone who knows physics.  I've shown you how much force gets generated and how to calculate it all by your little lonesome.  

Now run along and type up another lie filled post, TakeAShit.  Show us your genius at work.  Pretend you're an engineer again while proving conclusively you don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about.


----------



## Patriot911

SFC Ollie said:


> Still wondering why no one has produced proof of pulverized steel. Fact is it doesn't even come up under google. at least not on the first page......



You'll find that claim made by Judy Woods, who TakeAShit likes to plagerize from.  According to Judy, 80-90% of the mass of the building was pulverized and blown away.  Of course this doesn't explain how they took 1.5 million tons of debris away from ground zero, but the likes of TakeAShit don't like to be bothered with facts and the truth.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

More ad hominem and no scientific data explained. I'm tired boys. Perhaps you should just get a room..????


----------



## SFC Ollie

TakeAStepBack said:


> More ad hominem and no scientific data explained. I'm tired boys. Perhaps you should just get a room..????



And again we seem to forget that we don't have to prove the 911CR is right. but that you must disprove it. So got any evidence yet?


----------



## Patriot911

TakeAStepBack said:


> More ad hominem and no scientific data explained. I'm tired boys. Perhaps you should just get a room..????



I showed you the energy contained in every 100kg from the top.  You've now run away from this three times.  How many more excuses are you going to come up with?    Anyone else need more proof TakeAShit is a fraud and a bullshit artist?


----------



## Triton

youngpatriot,

First hand accounts from these witnesses are not credible, nor are the analysis from numerous independent researchers. What is wrong with you? they are all LIARS

Patriot911 and friends say; fires caused the "progressive" collapse of the steel framed buildings, the building did not fall symmetrically, there was resistance, and the WTC towers did not collapse into their own footprints. They are far more credible than anything the "truthtards" claim, if they say so it is so.

NIST has offered sufficient explanations, it just takes some time to conduct their work. There really is nothing to debate here, the debunkers know what they are talking about.


Remember, as SFC Ollie said regarding WTC 7's collapse,  "A building fell on it"


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Patriot911 said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When that falling debris weighs hundreds of thousands of tons, you would be surprised what happens to steel.  You can bend it, twist it and crimp it all kinds of different ways.  Oh wait!  That's right!  You're so stupid you think all the energy of the collapse goes into the generation of the collapse!  Your superhero Woods told you it was a zero sum game so there was no energy left over!    It is amazing what fucks like you will swallow when it is what you want to hear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, steel doesn't undergo the heat necessary to perform this anomaly from falling debris. Try using science and skip the ad hominem. At this point it only makes you look less credible (as if that were possible).
> 
> How does falling debris (and it wasn't hit by hundreds of thousands of tons either) generate the heat necessary to pinch crimp this steel I beam?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh how cute!  You think steel can only get that way through heat!
> 
> So the entire upper structures are now weightless?  That is news to everyone!  Does this fit into the zero sum game Woods convinced you was true?
Click to expand...


How did the upper structure pulverize itself?

Man, I'm bored with you. You give NOTHING and try and explain everything. I'm done with you. You lose. You can't explain these items or show any science for your assertion.

You're as useless as tits on a boar.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

You still havent provided a viable equation either. Posting a link back to a link back to a link back to a calculator is the most pathetic fucking deal Ive seen yet from a hack like you.....

and yes, in order fro steel to undergo the anomaly in the picture, it requires heat. LOTS of heat. Dick.


----------



## Patriot911

TakeAStepBack said:


> You still havent provided a viable equation either. Posting a link back to a link back to a link back to a calculator is the most pathetic fucking deal Ive seen yet from a hack like you.....
> 
> and yes, in order fro steel to undergo the anomaly in the picture, it requires heat. LOTS of heat. Dick.



Really?  So the formula to convert potential energy to kinetic energy isn't a viable equation?  WOW!  Wait until all those physicists find out they're wrong just because some fucking asshole wants to pretend he is intelligent.

Mass times Gravity times Height gives you the total potential energy.  Through conservation of energy, you know that the potential energy is going to equal the kinetic energy.  Kinetic energy can be calculated from the equation 1/2 times Mass times Velocity squared.  I've already given you the sample values using the top of the WTC 7 as an example.  

The FACT you are too fucking stupid to understand this simple principle of physics exposes your claim that you are a structural engineer as a blatant lie.  

As for your claim that steel can't buckle or crimp from pressure alone.....   Were you dropped on your head a lot as a child?  Maybe drop kicked?


----------



## Gamolon

TakeAStepBack said:


> How did the upper structure pulverize itself?



What do you mean "pulverize"? You mean to tell me that the upper section could not it's connections and structural components ripped apart as if fell onto the bottom structure?

Obviously there was mass falling inside as you can see the perimeter column faces peel away like banana peels.

Would you like to see evidence of this "banana peel" evidence"? I still don't get how you can say the entire building was pulverized when there are tons of photos showing steel laying all over the place.


----------



## Triton

Patriot911, serious question. Feel free to not answer it or call me a "fucktard" or something but i'm still curious.

Do you have a background that would make you qualified or an expert in physics, engineering, military, etc. that is relevant to the events of 9/11?

TakeAStepBack says he is a civil (right?) engineer in NYC.

Just curious if you are formally educated, trained, or have experience in these fields.


----------



## Patriot911

Triton said:


> Patriot911, serious question. Feel free to not answer it or call me a "fucktard" or something but i'm still curious.
> 
> Do you have a background that would make you qualified or an expert in physics, engineering, military, etc. that is relevant to the events of 9/11?
> 
> TakeAStepBack says he is a civil (right?) engineer in NYC.
> 
> Just curious if you are formally educated, trained, or have experience in these fields.



I have taken advanced physics in college and have a BSCS degree.  Does that mean anything to anyone?  No.  The people who believe me don't need to know I have a degree or have studied the topic and the people who don't believe me aren't going to believe anything else I say.  So thanks for wasting everyone's time with silly questions that won't make a bit of difference to anyone else.  

As for TakeAShit's claims of being an engineer, all I can say is bullshit.  An engineer has to have a strong mathematical and science background in order to understand the physics involved in what they design / work on.  Apparently TakeAShit can't even figure out gravity or kinetic energy even when it is explained to him in simple terms.

You've seen the math and science I used.  I've shown a source that backs up the math and the science.  It isn't that hard to understand and it isn't something that can be faked without inserting false premises like Woods does.  There are no premises in my work.  It is all straight up.  No ifs, ands or buts.  Can you find fault with my math or the science behind it?  Do you have a hard time understanding where the energy came from in the collapse that TakeAShit can't seem to grasp even though he claims to have a background in the very subject we are talking about?  Seriously.  I answered your question.  Answer this one if you would be so kind.


----------



## Gamolon

TakeAStepBack said:


> Anyone find anything particularly interesting about this photo?



It HAD to be a DEW or something else right? Do these next photos look familiar?


----------



## Triton

The problem is your equations don't align with the actual manner of collapse, you're accounting for resistance when there was none, a progressive collapse is not going to create the same kind of collapse that the towers experienced. All the towers fell too fast, too symmetrically, and had too much energy aerosolizing metal and concrete for this to be the case.

Now we can resume the banter and name calling.


----------



## Mr. Jones

This discussion is leading back to the debate of whether the top part of the towers had enough kinetic energy to overcome the strength of the robust and undamaged lower part, and in the time that they took to collapse.
Zdenek P. Bazant who came up with the crush down crush up theory which has been shown unlikely to have happened within the time of the collapses, even said that 'The details of the failure process after the decisive initial trigger that sets the upper part in
motion are of course very complicated and their clarification would require large computer simulations."
His theory and calculations are is here-
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

He admits the explanation would be very complicated, yet he had an initial theory and explanation readily available as his first paper
came out on Sept 13, 2001, just 2 days after the attacks. 
Why did the World Trade Center towers collapse?

I am not a mathematician or an engineer, and I don't pretend to be but these explanations are at the heart of the matter when it comes to figuring out how the towers fell. 
The refutation of his work and papers on the towers collapse are here-
http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

"The energy balance of the collapse moves into deficit during the plastic shortening phase of
the first impacted columns showing that there would be insufficient energy available from the released potential energy of the upper section to satisfy all of the energy demands of the
collision. The analysis shows that despite the assumptions made in favour of collapse continuation, vertical movement of the falling section would be arrested prior to completion of the 3% shortening phase of the impacted columns, and within 0.02 seconds after impact."
In short the refutation comes up with an energy deficit of 
"Minimum Energy Deficit -390MJ"

"It should also be noted that this analysis examines only the energy levels required up to a point in time during the plastic shortening phase. Energy demands which involve further phases of the collapse mechanism, such as buckling of beams and disassociation of
end connections, spandrel plates and floor connections are further massive energy demands which must then be satisfied."

I'll defer to you "experts" to point out which theory you think is more reasonable. In my admittingly limited math skills, I can only conclude that the smaller top half of the towers, (that used smaller and lighter columns as the height increased) could not have the energy to cause the collapses in the time of under 15- 20 secs, to crush the lower half so thoroughly.


----------



## Patriot911

Triton said:


> The problem is your equations don't align with the actual manner of collapse, you're accounting for resistance when there was none, a progressive collapse is not going to create the same kind of collapse that the towers experienced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I posted has nothing to do with resistance, the kind of collapse or anything else OTHER THAN the amount of energy generated by the collapse itself.  It doesn't matter if the collapse is a progressive, simultanious, natural, controlled demolition, fast, slow or any other adjective you wish to think of.  The amount of energy released is still going to be the same.  It is not just a good idea.... it is the LAW!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the towers fell too fast, too symmetrically, and had too much energy aerosolizing metal and concrete for this to be the case.
> 
> 
> 
> That is your opinion and nothing more.  First off, no metal was "aerosolized".  That's just stupid talk.  The concrete was pulverized and that happens in collapses regardless of what initiates it.  Remember, a controlled demolition only uses explosives to initiate the collapse.  All the dust you see in a controlled demolition from the concrete is from the pulverization caused by the energy released in the collapse.  TakeAShit and Woods would have you believe 80% of the material vanished or was "aerosolized", but the facts prove them wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Triton

I didn't even know there was a Scientists for 9/11 truth!


----------



## Gamolon

Triton said:


> aerosolizing metal



Proof of this?


----------



## Gamolon

Triton said:


> The problem is your equations don't align with the actual manner of collapse, you're accounting for resistance when there was none, a progressive collapse is not going to create the same kind of collapse that the towers experienced. All the towers fell too fast, too symmetrically, and had too much energy aerosolizing metal and concrete for this to be the case.
> 
> Now we can resume the banter and name calling.



When that upper "block" started down, what part of the lower did you expect to resist the "block"? The upper "block" tilted so did not fall squarely on the supports below. The upper "block" hit the next concrete floor below. And what supported those concrete floors and their trusses? These did, circled in red.





So you expect those to resist this, circled in red?


----------



## Triton

Well, if you check out this video at the one minute mark and the two minute mark we are told the steel is turned to dust, are they wrong?


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJb-GPtb2I0&feature=related]YouTube - &#x202a;Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> I'll defer to you "experts" to point out which theory you think is more reasonable. In my admittingly limited math skills, I can only conclude that the smaller top half of the towers, (that used smaller and lighter columns as the height increased) could not have the energy to cause the collapses in the time of under 15- 20 secs, to crush the lower half so thoroughly.



That is because you're a dumbshit who refuses to learn.

You point to the "smaller" top half and pretend like it has to destroy the entire lower section at once.  That isn't how a collapse happens because loads aren't shifted instantaniously.  Local structures fail as the collapse progresses, so pretending the upper section had to overcome this massive lower section all at once is just retarded.

So let's see what kinds of energies we're talking about.  Lets use ridiculously unrealistic numbers just so we take that argument off the table.  Estimates of the weight of the towers are usually quoted at 500,000 tons each.  Lets cut that down to 300,000 tons just so there is no argument that the 500,000 ton estimate is too much.

110 floors in the building.  That comes to approximately 2,727 tons per floor or 2.5 million kilograms.  Now, let's pretend the top part only falls a meter.  That would give the upper half a velocity of 4.43 meters / second.  That translates into 24,500,000 Joules or 18,070,271 foot pounds of force at impact PER FLOOR.  The North Tower upper section was smaller because the impact was on the 96-98th floors.  Lets pretend it was only the 98th floor - 110th floor or 12 floors worth of mass.  That gives you 216,843,252 foot pounds of force slamming down on structures designed to only hold up that floor (the trusses) and the core which was supporting 65,448,000 pounds.

So, we know there was more mass than what I calculated above.  We know it dropped further than one meter as calculated above.  Yet even with the cut down figures, you're dealing with numbers far beyond what the building was designed to hold up.  

BTW, I've looked at David Chandler's bullshit and that is all it is.  The fact he doesn't take into account the dynamic load and pretends there is only a static load shows he either does not understand the issue or is purposefully obfuscating the issue.


----------



## Gamolon

Triton said:


> Well, if you check out this video at the one minute mark and the two minute mark we are told the steel is turned to dust, are they wrong?
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News&#x202c;&rlm;



Does this look like the steel was turned to dust? Yes or no.


----------



## Patriot911

Triton said:


> Well, if you check out this video at the one minute mark and the two minute mark we are told the steel is turned to dust, are they wrong?
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News&#x202c;&rlm;



Yes.  Do you ALWAYS believe everything you hear?   

Better yet, explain how they removed 1.5 million tons of debris from ground zero if the steel was turned to dust.  Now, is it possible SOME steel was ground into small particles?  Absolutely.  Does your video state how MUCH of the dust sample was steel?  No.  Just that they saw particles.


----------



## Triton

What does this have to do with the dust clouds created during the collapse? Are you saying the reports of steel being turned to dust are false?


----------



## Triton

What caused the steel to be turned to dust? Fires from jet fuel?

What about WTC 7?


----------



## Triton

Patriot911 said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you check out this video at the one minute mark and the two minute mark we are told the steel is turned to dust, are they wrong?
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. * Do you ALWAYS believe everything you hear?*
> 
> Better yet, explain how they removed 1.5 million tons of debris from ground zero if the steel was turned to dust.  Now, is it possible SOME steel was ground into small particles?  Absolutely.  Does your video state how MUCH of the dust sample was steel?  No.  Just that they saw particles.
Click to expand...




Yet, you refer to NIST all the time


----------



## Gamolon

Triton said:


> What does this have to do with the dust clouds created during the collapse? Are you saying the reports of steel being turned to dust are false?



Look at your terminology. Turned to dust. Are they basing this on a few particles or much more. I'm sure there were steel particles in the air. Why would you expect different results from a collapse where the building was ripped apart by falling structural components.

Let me ask you this.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Triton said:


> Well, if you check out this video at the one minute mark and the two minute mark we are told the steel is turned to dust, are they wrong?
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News&#x202c;&rlm;



Gypsum, plaster, and cement. Some asbestos, and one report of specs of steel. Certainly some metal could be shaved even down to dust size particles. But it wasn't very much.Rub a knife blade against a piece of steel, eventually you will wind up with some dust fragments. All you have to do is think.....


----------



## Gamolon

Triton said:


> What caused the steel to be turned to dust? Fires from jet fuel?
> 
> What about WTC 7?



Listen at 1:44 of your posted video. What did they say the clouds were mostly comprised of?


----------



## eots

Gamolon said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> What caused the steel to be turned to dust? Fires from jet fuel?
> 
> What about WTC 7?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen at 1:44 of your posted video. What did they say the clouds were mostly comprised of?
Click to expand...


just admit you where wrong


----------



## Patriot911

Triton said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you check out this video at the one minute mark and the two minute mark we are told the steel is turned to dust, are they wrong?
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. * Do you ALWAYS believe everything you hear?*
> 
> Better yet, explain how they removed 1.5 million tons of debris from ground zero if the steel was turned to dust.  Now, is it possible SOME steel was ground into small particles?  Absolutely.  Does your video state how MUCH of the dust sample was steel?  No.  Just that they saw particles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, you refer to NIST all the time
Click to expand...


The NIST is an organization that is a world renouned expert at structural failure.  A news report where all the facts aren't given isn't exactly the same thing, especially when you have to pretend it says more than it does.


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> What caused the steel to be turned to dust? Fires from jet fuel?
> 
> What about WTC 7?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen at 1:44 of your posted video. What did they say the clouds were mostly comprised of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> just admit you where wrong
Click to expand...


I am sure he would if he was wrong.  He's not.  See, unlike you dishonest pieces of shit, most people have integrity, honor, and the balls to admit a mistake.  You fucks get your ass handed to you and all you do is hitch up your skirts and run like hell.


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> What caused the steel to be turned to dust? Fires from jet fuel?
> 
> What about WTC 7?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen at 1:44 of your posted video. What did they say the clouds were mostly comprised of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> just admit you where wrong
Click to expand...


Wrong about what?


----------



## eots

blah blah pieces of shit,blah blah balls blah blah fucks blah blah ass blah blah blah hell ?l.


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. * Do you ALWAYS believe everything you hear?*
> 
> Better yet, explain how they removed 1.5 million tons of debris from ground zero if the steel was turned to dust.  Now, is it possible SOME steel was ground into small particles?  Absolutely.  Does your video state how MUCH of the dust sample was steel?  No.  Just that they saw particles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, you refer to NIST all the time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The NIST is an organization that is a world renouned expert at structural failure.  A news report where all the facts aren't given isn't exactly the same thing, especially when you have to pretend it says more than it does.
Click to expand...


but you constantly contradict the findings of NIST in your debwunking ?


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> blah blah pieces of shit,blah blah balls blah blah fucks blah blah ass blah blah blah hell ?l.



That actually made me laugh out loud.

Smoking a little to much weed today eots.


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, you refer to NIST all the time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NIST is an organization that is a world renouned expert at structural failure.  A news report where all the facts aren't given isn't exactly the same thing, especially when you have to pretend it says more than it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but you constantly contradict the findings of NIST in your debwunking ?
Click to expand...


Where have I done that?  Are you now going to admit you were wrong?    BTW, it is funny you only understand blah blah blah.  Who knew you were so thin skinned that you can only focus on swear words!


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NIST is an organization that is a world renouned expert at structural failure.  A news report where all the facts aren't given isn't exactly the same thing, especially when you have to pretend it says more than it does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but you constantly contradict the findings of NIST in your debwunking ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where have I done that?  Are you now going to admit you were wrong?    BTW, it is funny you only understand blah blah blah.  Who knew you were so thin skinned that you can only focus on swear words!
Click to expand...


NIST stated that damage played no significant role in the collapse of wtc 7 collapse


----------



## eots

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> blah blah pieces of shit,blah blah balls blah blah fucks blah blah ass blah blah blah hell ?l.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That actually made me laugh out loud.
> 
> Smoking a little to much weed today eots.
Click to expand...


 a little too much weed ?  what are you on ??


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> but you constantly contradict the findings of NIST in your debwunking ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where have I done that?  Are you now going to admit you were wrong?    BTW, it is funny you only understand blah blah blah.  Who knew you were so thin skinned that you can only focus on swear words!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NIST stated that damage played no significant role in the collapse of wtc 7 collapse
Click to expand...


And where have I ever stated that the damage was responsible for the collapse?  So when are you going to admit you are wrong?


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where have I done that?  Are you now going to admit you were wrong?    BTW, it is funny you only understand blah blah blah.  Who knew you were so thin skinned that you can only focus on swear words!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NIST stated that damage played no significant role in the collapse of wtc 7 collapse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where have I ever stated that the damage was responsible for the collapse?  So when are you going to admit you are wrong?
Click to expand...


you have posted the same video many times that points to the damage in response to the fact no plane hit wtc 7 are you that unaware of your own actions ?...debwunktard


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> NIST stated that damage played no significant role in the collapse of wtc 7 collapse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where have I ever stated that the damage was responsible for the collapse?  So when are you going to admit you are wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you have posted the same video many times that points to the damage in response to the fact no plane hit wtc 7 are you that unaware of your own actions ?...debwunktard
Click to expand...


Really?  And that video said the damage was the cause of the collapse?  The planes weren't responsible for the collapse of the towers.  That was the fires started by the planes.  You stupid dishonest fucks say no planes hit WTC 7 like there was no reason for a fire at WTC 7.  The damage wasn't instrumental in the initiation of the collapse, but it sure as hell started the fires that caused the collapse.

So, are you going to admit you are wrong?  

BTW, I rarely post videos, so you're still talking out your ass.  The only videos I recall posting about WTC 7 are the ones where you can't hear the explosions you stupid fucks claim brought down WTC 7.


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And where have I ever stated that the damage was responsible for the collapse?  So when are you going to admit you are wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you have posted the same video many times that points to the damage in response to the fact no plane hit wtc 7 are you that unaware of your own actions ?...debwunktard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  And that video said the damage was the cause of the collapse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The planes weren't responsible for the *collapse of the towers. * That was the fires started by the planes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this is not even a coherent sentence and I am speaking of wtc 7
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You stupid dishonest fucks say no planes hit WTC 7
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no planes hit wtc 7
> 
> 
> 
> 
> like there was no reason for a fire at WTC 7.  The damage wasn't instrumental in the initiation of the collapse, but it sure as hell started the fires that caused the collapse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> electrical fires may have been started by falling debris
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, are you going to admit you are wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> about what ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, I rarely post videos, so you're still talking out your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you have posted the wtc 7 videos many times
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only videos I recall posting about WTC 7 are the ones where you can't hear the explosions you stupid fucks claim brought down WTC 7.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> must be your brain impairment effecting your memory...debwunktard
Click to expand...


----------



## Vindicator

Mr. Jones said:


> YouTube - &#x202a;Help put this TV Ad on the Air -- Go to RememberBuilding7.org&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> Spread the word and research what the real issues are with the NIST investigation and the problems the families of the victims of 9-11 and many others have with the explanation that was told to the country.


 
Didn't they get paid or what? Victims of illegal alien attacks don't make money the way 9-11 janitors did. What crap!


----------



## eots

Vindicator said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;Help put this TV Ad on the Air -- Go to RememberBuilding7.org&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> Spread the word and research what the real issues are with the NIST investigation and the problems the families of the victims of 9-11 and many others have with the explanation that was told to the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't they get paid or what? Victims of illegal alien attacks don't make money the way 9-11 janitors did. What crap!
Click to expand...


????????


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> this is not even a coherent sentence and I am speaking of wtc 7


Not my problem you're so stupid you can't understand plain English.



			
				eots said:
			
		

> no planes hit wtc 7


Right.  A building did.  And just like with the towers, it wasn't what impacted the building that caused the collapse but the fires that resulted from the impact.  Try to keep up, fucktard.



			
				eots said:
			
		

> electrical fires may have been started by falling debris


So you agree there was a cause for the fires even though you whine constantly about no planes hitting WTC 7.  Good to know.



			
				eots said:
			
		

> about what ?


Your claim that I said it was the damage not the fires and that I posted videos that made that claim.  So either admit you were wrong or post a link where I make that claim or show a video claiming the damage caused the collapse.



			
				eots said:
			
		

> you have posted the wtc 7 videos many times


Then it should be a piece of cake for you to link a video I've posted that claims the damage caused the collapse.  Do so and I will admit you are right and I am wrong.  Or run away and hide like usual.



			
				eots said:
			
		

> The only videos I recall posting about WTC 7 are the ones where you can't hear the explosions you stupid fucks claim brought down WTC 7.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> must be your brain impairment effecting your memory...debwunktard
Click to expand...

Wrong yet again, fucktard.  So post a link already.  Should be easy according to your claims.  Of course.... if you're lying you're going to have a really hard time posting a link.


----------



## SFC Ollie

I believe eots is getting a bit confused, I am the one who believes that NIST may have under estimated the damage done to WTC 7. 

Which doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong. I might be. But I'm a big boy and can admit that, if need be.


----------



## Rat in the Hat

SFC Ollie said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you check out this video at the one minute mark and the two minute mark we are told the steel is turned to dust, are they wrong?
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gypsum, plaster, and cement. Some asbestos, and one report of specs of steel. Certainly some metal could be shaved even down to dust size particles. But it wasn't very much.Rub a knife blade against a piece of steel, eventually you will wind up with some dust fragments. All you have to do is think.....
Click to expand...


And the cutting and welding that was done during the construction of the buildings would have created iron microspheres that could have been found in the dust.

I wonder if that was ever taken into account when they did the post 9/11 analysis of the dust?


----------



## SFC Ollie

Rat in the Hat said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you check out this video at the one minute mark and the two minute mark we are told the steel is turned to dust, are they wrong?
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gypsum, plaster, and cement. Some asbestos, and one report of specs of steel. Certainly some metal could be shaved even down to dust size particles. But it wasn't very much.Rub a knife blade against a piece of steel, eventually you will wind up with some dust fragments. All you have to do is think.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the cutting and welding that was done during the construction of the buildings would have created iron microspheres that could have been found in the dust.
> 
> I wonder if that was ever taken into account when they did the post 9/11 analysis of the dust?
Click to expand...


Not if you're a truther.


----------



## Patriot911

Rat in the Hat said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you check out this video at the one minute mark and the two minute mark we are told the steel is turned to dust, are they wrong?
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gypsum, plaster, and cement. Some asbestos, and one report of specs of steel. Certainly some metal could be shaved even down to dust size particles. But it wasn't very much.Rub a knife blade against a piece of steel, eventually you will wind up with some dust fragments. All you have to do is think.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the cutting and welding that was done during the construction of the buildings would have created iron microspheres that could have been found in the dust.
> 
> I wonder if that was ever taken into account when they did the post 9/11 analysis of the dust?
Click to expand...


Of course not.  Not to mention the fact that what exactly is an iron microsphere suppose to do?  You need massive amounts of molten iron from a thermite reaction to cut through vertical beams, not itty bitty spheres.


----------



## Rat in the Hat

Patriot911 said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gypsum, plaster, and cement. Some asbestos, and one report of specs of steel. Certainly some metal could be shaved even down to dust size particles. But it wasn't very much.Rub a knife blade against a piece of steel, eventually you will wind up with some dust fragments. All you have to do is think.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the cutting and welding that was done during the construction of the buildings would have created iron microspheres that could have been found in the dust.
> 
> I wonder if that was ever taken into account when they did the post 9/11 analysis of the dust?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not.  Not to mention the fact that what exactly is an iron microsphere suppose to do?  You need massive amounts of molten iron from a thermite reaction to cut through vertical beams, not itty bitty spheres.
Click to expand...


You need microspheres to go into the nano-thermate that you put into the miniature, unseen hush-a-boom charges.

I learned that in NWO school, as on the job training for being a paid government shill.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll defer to you "experts" to point out which theory you think is more reasonable. In my admittingly limited math skills, I can only conclude that the smaller top half of the towers, (that used smaller and lighter columns as the height increased) could not have the energy to cause the collapses in the time of under 15- 20 secs, to crush the lower half so thoroughly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is because you're a dumbshit who refuses to learn.
> 
> You point to the "smaller" top half and pretend like it has to destroy the entire lower section at once.  That isn't how a collapse happens because loads aren't shifted instantaniously.  Local structures fail as the collapse progresses, so pretending the upper section had to overcome this massive lower section all at once is just retarded.
> 
> So let's see what kinds of energies we're talking about.  Lets use ridiculously unrealistic numbers just so we take that argument off the table.  Estimates of the weight of the towers are usually quoted at 500,000 tons each.  Lets cut that down to 300,000 tons just so there is no argument that the 500,000 ton estimate is too much.
> 
> 110 floors in the building.  That comes to approximately 2,727 tons per floor or 2.5 million kilograms.  Now, let's pretend the top part only falls a meter.  That would give the upper half a velocity of 4.43 meters / second.  That translates into 24,500,000 Joules or 18,070,271 foot pounds of force at impact PER FLOOR.  The North Tower upper section was smaller because the impact was on the 96-98th floors.  Lets pretend it was only the 98th floor - 110th floor or 12 floors worth of mass.  That gives you 216,843,252 foot pounds of force slamming down on structures designed to only hold up that floor (the trusses) and the core which was supporting 65,448,000 pounds.
> 
> So, we know there was more mass than what I calculated above.  We know it dropped further than one meter as calculated above.  Yet even with the cut down figures, you're dealing with numbers far beyond what the building was designed to hold up.
> 
> BTW, I've looked at David Chandler's bullshit and that is all it is.  The fact he doesn't take into account the dynamic load and pretends there is only a static load shows he either does not understand the issue or is purposefully obfuscating the issue.
Click to expand...


look asswipe, unlike you I dont pretend to know everything and pass myself off as an expert. Calling someone a dumbshit for admitting to not being an expert at something is classless but typical of you.

In my post I deferred to the "experts", and you responded.
So what makes you an "expert"? 
In your example above you estimate a tonnage per floor and average it out, leaving out the fact that the top half of the building is constructed in a tapered fashion, needing less robust columns and weight bearing materials, and therefore using less of it making your 
_2,727 tons per floor _ at _velocity of 4.43 meters / second._
not even an accurate example.



Moving along,
As you said-"Local structures fail as the collapse _progresses_, so pretending the upper section had to overcome this massive lower section _all at once_ is just retarded."
And no where am I pretending the top half had to destroy the lower all at once, and you know it. 
What _is _retarded is pretending the weaker top block can crush through the stronger lower block in the amount of time it did.
_Tower&#8217;s columns tapered as they ascended._

Your critique of Chandler is noted and I will review what you say about the dynamic loads you say he leaves unaccounted, I have already found some refutations for his calculations here-

NMSR 9-11 'Truth' Resources: Chandler's Data Support a Gravitational Collapse!

 but don't forget the NIST claims 200 "experts" and signatories to their report, and it was this Dr. Chandler, a _simple_ high school physics teacher that properly corrected one major obfuscation of their report in where they completely left out the fact WTC 7 experienced freefall, this after Sunder claimed it was impossible because the structure had to have provided resistance.

Getting back to it, ..even if all the great forces of energy you site were sound, (which I just showed in one example, may not be)
  it doesn't look like you are taking into account the fact that the top "block" had to overcome the resistance of the rigid lower "block", and that would not happen instantaneously. It would be met by an opposing force. The question seems to be if the dynamic loads in the top block was sufficient enough to cause the destruction as we saw it, in the short *amount of time it occurred in.*

_The rigidity of the upper block of stories is crucial to this explanation. If the upper block were to break, disintegrate or flow on impact it would certainly not threaten the 92 intact floors beneath it._
Which clearly shows it did pulverize in the many videos.

_There was nothing special about the weight of the upper block, rigid or otherwise. The lower part of the Tower had held up this weight without difficulty since 1970. The lower block had 283 cold steel columns, with less than 30% of their total load capacity being utilized for gravity loads, because of the factors of safety designed into the structure and the need to withstand high winds&#8212;and gravity loads were essentially the only loads the columns would have been subject to on a day such as 9/11 with little wind. The lower block was not weak, nor (excluding stories 93-98) was it damaged by plane impact or fire._
_The weight of the upper block posed no threat to it. If there were to be a threat, it had to come from *the momentum of the upper block. *But momentum is a product of mass and velocity, and since the upper block could not increase its mass it had to increase, if it were to become a threat, its velocity._

It looks like this study is referring to dynamic loads/force.

Much of the building fell off to the sides, as the debris field suggests, and pulverized, so the accumulation of its mass to provide the dynamic load is in question.

_Since NIST&#8217;s theory assumes the only energy at play at this stage of events was gravitational, the upper block had to fall, and the greater its velocity the greater its momentum. The longer and the less impeded its fall, the greater would be its impact on the lower structure. So it is no surprise that the NIST authors, however shy they are about affirming it, eventually come out in favour of the falling of the upper block. [7]_
_Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou, with whose September 13, 2001 back-of-the-envelope theory (with subsequent revisions and additions) NIST largely agrees, have never hesitated to say that the upper block fell. [8] Bazant has likewise been frank about the need for severe impact as the upper and lower structures met: he believes the impact may have been powerful enough to have been recorded by seismometers. [9] In his view, collapse initiation of the lower structure required &#8220;one powerful jolt.&#8221;[10] *Of course, if there was a powerful jolt to the lower structure there must also have been a powerful jolt to the upper falling structure, in accord with Newton&#8217;s Third Law.*_
_What NIST essentially says, agreeing with Bazant, is that the lighter and weaker part initially fell with a powerful jolt onto the heavier and stronger part, which could not withstand its momentum, and that this caused a progressive collapse to initiate smashing the lower block to bits all the way to the ground._

The top half of the building was lighter and weaker as most tall buildings are built that way, as they increase in height. 
_The WTC Tower&#8217;s columns tapered as they ascended._
In summary, even if it was possible for their theory to stand up to scrutiny, which it doesn't, the top "block" would have had to overcome the  lower blocks resistance, and the collapse would have taken *considerably longer*. As it stands we are faced with collapses that occurred in 10 to 18 seconds or there abouts.
The 9-11 commission endorses a figure of 10 secs.


_As Bazant has said, when the top part fell and struck the stories beneath it, there had to be a powerful jolt. *While a jolt entails acceleration of the impacted object it requires deceleration of the impacting object. *Even a hammer hitting a nail decelerates, and if the hammer is striking a strong, rigid body fixed to the earth its deceleration will be abrupt and dramatic._
This is why it takes more then one hammer blow to drive a nail, unless you are driving it into Styrofoam.
Journal of 911 Studies 1 January 2009/Volume 24
The Missing Jolt:
A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis
Graeme MacQueen
Tony Szamboti

I am also not trying to look at it the collapse as 12 floors falling onto 98 floors and figure that the 98 are greater than the 20 so would withstand the force. I think of it as 12 falling onto 1, then 13 falling onto 1, then 14 falling onto 1, then 15 falling onto 1, then 16 falling onto 1, and so on, this would take longer then 10 to 15 seconds, and this would take time.
 And I am also taking into account the destruction of the top block as it hits the lower parts, pulverizes and falls away. Less mass, less dynamic energy/forces.
We should expect to have a massive collapse but take much longer to complete.


----------



## Patriot911

Rat in the Hat said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the cutting and welding that was done during the construction of the buildings would have created iron microspheres that could have been found in the dust.
> 
> I wonder if that was ever taken into account when they did the post 9/11 analysis of the dust?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  Not to mention the fact that what exactly is an iron microsphere suppose to do?  You need massive amounts of molten iron from a thermite reaction to cut through vertical beams, not itty bitty spheres.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need microspheres to go into the nano-thermate that you put into the miniature, unseen hush-a-boom charges.
> 
> I learned that in NWO school, as on the job training for being a paid government shill.
Click to expand...


  Apparently someone needs to have a little chat with your NWO teachers.  ANY kind of thermite, thermate, nano thermwhatever doesn't use iron.  Iron is a result of the reaction, not an ingredient.  For any of the thermitic reactions you need iron oxide or rust.  Now, if they had found nano-sized particals of pure aluminum which doesn't occur in nature much at all, I would have been suspicious.  Aluminum oxide (the other byproduct of a thermite reaction along with the iron) is extremely common in nature.

BTW, you weren't suppose to use the official name of the charges.  Hush-a-boom hasn't been trademarked yet by the NWO and they're worried about the licensing rights.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Patriot911 said:


> The NIST is an organization that is a world renouned *expert at structural failure.*  A news report where all the facts aren't given isn't exactly the same thing, especially when you have to pretend it says more than it does.


Yeah and it took a lowly high school teacher to correct  a huge flaw about the freefall times of WTC 7 in which the still have no plausible explanation for.


----------



## Rat in the Hat

Patriot911 said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  Not to mention the fact that what exactly is an iron microsphere suppose to do?  You need massive amounts of molten iron from a thermite reaction to cut through vertical beams, not itty bitty spheres.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need microspheres to go into the nano-thermate that you put into the miniature, unseen hush-a-boom charges.
> 
> I learned that in NWO school, as on the job training for being a paid government shill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently someone needs to have a little chat with your NWO teachers.  ANY kind of thermite, thermate, nano thermwhatever doesn't use iron.  Iron is a result of the reaction, not an ingredient.  For any of the thermitic reactions you need iron oxide or rust.  Now, if they had found nano-sized particals of pure aluminum which doesn't occur in nature much at all, I would have been suspicious.  Aluminum oxide (the other byproduct of a thermite reaction along with the iron) is extremely common in nature.
> 
> BTW, you weren't suppose to use the official name of the charges.  Hush-a-boom hasn't been trademarked yet by the NWO and they're worried about the licensing rights.
Click to expand...


Gosh-darn-it, you've ruined everything. That was what was taught in disinfo 102 class. we're supposed to be spreading false crap to confuse them, or to get them out of pizza shops (Bermas) to scream into bullhorns all day.

And hush-a-boom is only the working name. Wait until you hear the really cool name they are getting trademarked!


----------



## SFC Ollie

Mr. Jones said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NIST is an organization that is a world renouned *expert at structural failure.*  A news report where all the facts aren't given isn't exactly the same thing, especially when you have to pretend it says more than it does.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and it took a lowly high school teacher to correct  a huge flaw about the freefall times of WTC 7 in which the still have no plausible explanation for.
Click to expand...


Oh horse shit. the facade hit free fall for 2.25 seconds. After the inside of the building had already collapsed. Whup de fucking do. Do yourself a favor, get a life.


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> look asswipe, unlike you I dont pretend to know everything and pass myself off as an expert. Calling someone a dumbshit for admitting to not being an expert at something is classless but typical of you.


I don't pretend to know everything.  I know my knowledge is limited.  That is why I rely on true experts like Leslie Robertson.  

And I called you a dumbshit because you refuse to learn.  I thought I made that clear, but apparently dumbshits can't read too gud.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> In my post I deferred to the "experts", and you responded.


David Chandler is hardly an expert.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> So what makes you an "expert"?


It is straight up physics.  Check the math.  Check the science.  The laws of physics can't be broken.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> In your example above you estimate a tonnage per floor and average it out, leaving out the fact that the top half of the building is constructed in a tapered fashion, needing less robust columns and weight bearing materials, and therefore using less of it making your _2,727 tons per floor _ at _velocity of 4.43 meters / second._
> not even an accurate example.


  Apparently your dumbshit skills are working overtime.  I used numbers that were three fifths the normal quoted numbers just so dumbfucks like you wouldn't whine about the numbers being too big.  BTW, velocity is a constant that has nothing to do with mass.  A marble and a mountain will fall at the same velocity.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

>


Careful with them emoticons.  You're exposing your true nature again!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Moving along,
> As you said-"Local structures fail as the collapse _progresses_, so pretending the upper section had to overcome this massive lower section _all at once_ is just retarded."
> And no where am I pretending the top half had to destroy the lower all at once, and you know it.


I didn't say you did.  Chandler did, however.   



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> What _is _retarded is pretending the weaker top block can crush through the stronger lower block in the amount of time it did.


Oh goodie!  Now you ARE pretending the entire lower block is one unit!  What a fucktard!    So what, in your estimation, is a proper amount of time for a collapse to take place?  Or are you just going off your retarded opinion of what you THINK should have happened?    Remember, the floors weren't designed to hold anything but their own weight + the contents of the floor.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> _Towers columns tapered as they ascended._


Yes they did.  And they're ONLY strong when perfectly vertical.  What do you think happens when all that debris being forced down the mostly hollow core starts pushing those columns out of vertical?  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Your critique of Chandler is noted and I will review what you say about the dynamic loads you say he leaves unaccounted, I have already found some refutations for his calculations here-
> 
> NMSR 9-11 'Truth' Resources: Chandler's Data Support a Gravitational Collapse!
> 
> but don't forget the NIST claims 200 "experts" and signatories to their report, and it was this Dr. Chandler, a _simple_ high school physics teacher that properly corrected one major obfuscation of their report in where they completely left out the fact WTC 7 experienced freefall, this after Sunder claimed it was impossible because the structure had to have provided resistance.


And?  The NIST final report didn't come out before they admitted free fall.  The experts and signatories signed off on the final report.  I don't know why you truthtards have such a hissy fit when a reputable agency admits fault and includes the relevant data in the report.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Getting back to it, ..even if all the great forces of energy you site were sound, (which I just showed in one example, may not be)


Except for the fact you ignored the weights used were 3/5ths normal and the height of the initial collapse was half or less of what it should be.    The weights of the tapered columns isn't going to be THAT drastic.  You're talking about 4" thick box columns 1' x 3' tapering up to 2" thick.  How many tons do you think that really makes up?



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> it doesn't look like you are taking into account the fact that the top "block" had to overcome the resistance of the rigid lower "block", and that would not happen instantaneously. It would be met by an opposing force. The question seems to be if the dynamic loads in the top block was sufficient enough to cause the destruction as we saw it, in the short *amount of time it occurred in.*


I just showed you what the dynamic loads would be for 3/5ths weight and half height.  Even at that amount the dynamic load was more than the core alone could take at that height, and the floors themselves would offer up almost no resistance at all.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> _The rigidity of the upper block of stories is crucial to this explanation. If the upper block were to break, disintegrate or flow on impact it would certainly not threaten the 92 intact floors beneath it._


Mass is mass.  Physics doesn't differentiate between the size of the object or if you're talking about numerous small objects.  Dropping a ton of ball bearings on something from a given height is going to release the EXACT same energy as a solid one ton block of steel.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Which clearly shows it did pulverize in the many videos.


I've never made the claim, nor would I, that the top structure either had to remain one mass to destroy the lower part or that it did remain one mass.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> _There was nothing special about the weight of the upper block, rigid or otherwise. The lower part of the Tower had held up this weight without difficulty since 1970. The lower block had 283 cold steel columns, with less than 30% of their total load capacity being utilized for gravity loads, because of the factors of safety designed into the structure and the need to withstand high windsand gravity loads were essentially the only loads the columns would have been subject to on a day such as 9/11 with little wind. The lower block was not weak, nor (excluding stories 93-98) was it damaged by plane impact or fire._


Exactly.  Except the "gravity loads" or static loads go right out the window as soon as the upper mass starts moving.  Suddenly those static loads become many times what they were as the potential energy stored in the mass is converted back into kinetic energy.  This weight can be expressed in foot pounds of pressure and it was many times what the core, much less the floors, were designed to withstand AND the core would be deformed as debris pushed the columns out of vertical.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> _The weight of the upper block posed no threat to it. If there were to be a threat, it had to come from *the momentum of the upper block. *But momentum is a product of mass and velocity, and since the upper block could not increase its mass it had to increase, if it were to become a threat, its velocity._
> 
> It looks like this study is referring to dynamic loads/force.
> 
> Much of the building fell off to the sides, as the debris field suggests, and pulverized, so the accumulation of its mass to provide the dynamic load is in question.


Again, pulverized mass is still mass.  Also, as the collapse progressed, the mass of the floors below it were added to the mass of the upper floors, thus greatly increasing the mass even accounting for the debris that fell over the sides due to the resistance of the lower floors.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> _Since NISTs theory assumes the only energy at play at this stage of events was gravitational, the upper block had to fall, and the greater its velocity the greater its momentum. The longer and the less impeded its fall, the greater would be its impact on the lower structure. So it is no surprise that the NIST authors, however shy they are about affirming it, eventually come out in favour of the falling of the upper block. [7]_
> _Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou, with whose September 13, 2001 back-of-the-envelope theory (with subsequent revisions and additions) NIST largely agrees, have never hesitated to say that the upper block fell. [8] Bazant has likewise been frank about the need for severe impact as the upper and lower structures met: he believes the impact may have been powerful enough to have been recorded by seismometers. [9] In his view, collapse initiation of the lower structure required one powerful jolt.[10] *Of course, if there was a powerful jolt to the lower structure there must also have been a powerful jolt to the upper falling structure, in accord with Newtons Third Law.*_
> _What NIST essentially says, agreeing with Bazant, is that the lighter and weaker part initially fell with a powerful jolt onto the heavier and stronger part, which could not withstand its momentum, and that this caused a progressive collapse to initiate smashing the lower block to bits all the way to the ground._


And here Chandler is pretending the upper and lower pieces are solid blocks and NOT individual structures that make up the whole.  You can't look at the lower section as one piece because loads cannot be redistributed anywhere near quickly enough to resist the collapse.  Thus the collapse is localized as individual structures fail instead of the entire lower block as a whole.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> The top half of the building was lighter and weaker as most tall buildings are built that way, as they increase in height.
> _The WTC Towers columns tapered as they ascended._
> In summary, even if it was possible for their theory to stand up to scrutiny, which it doesn't, the top "block" would have had to overcome the  lower blocks resistance, and the collapse would have taken *considerably longer*. As it stands we are faced with collapses that occurred in 10 to 18 seconds or there abouts.
> The 9-11 commission endorses a figure of 10 secs.


Again, you cannot pretend the lower "block" is one object that can use every structure at once to resist the collapse.  This is a MAJOR flaw in Chandler's work.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> _As Bazant has said, when the top part fell and struck the stories beneath it, there had to be a powerful jolt. *While a jolt entails acceleration of the impacted object it requires deceleration of the impacting object. *Even a hammer hitting a nail decelerates, and if the hammer is striking a strong, rigid body fixed to the earth its deceleration will be abrupt and dramatic._


Use a sledgehammer on the nail and it doesn't matter what you're nailing it into, you can do it in one blow and the sledgehammer won't even slow down.  Again, Chandler is pretending the upper block is smaller than the lower block and pretending the entire block is one object.  This is a logical falacy.  The upper mass only has to overcome the resistance of the structures directly below it, not the entire resistance of the lower block.  Thus the upper block is much larger than the structures it must immediately overcome.  Lather, rinse, repeat until you hit the bottom, except by the time you hit the bottom you still have a good chunk of the entire building moving VERY fast (thus more energy) which obliterates everything.  The total energy released by the collapse is a mindbogglingly large number.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> I am also not trying to look at it the collapse as 12 floors falling onto 98 floors and figure that the 98 are greater than the 20 so would withstand the force. I think of it as 12 falling onto 1, then 13 falling onto 1, then 14 falling onto 1, then 15 falling onto 1, then 16 falling onto 1, and so on, this would take longer then 10 to 15 seconds, and this would take time.


And it did take time.  But as the collapse increased in mass and velocity, the more energy was released to destroy the lower floors and the faster those floors would be destroyed.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> And I am also taking into account the destruction of the top block as it hits the lower parts, pulverizes and falls away. Less mass, less dynamic energy/forces.


This is also a logical falacy.  As the top part is destroyed, some of it's mass does fall away, but more mass takes it's place all the while the whole mess is accelerating, thus generating far MORE dynamic energy/forces.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> We should expect to have a massive collapse but take much longer to complete.


Given your assumptions, I would agree with you.  The problem is your assumptions are flawed.  The dynamic energy does not decrease as the collapse progresses, but rapidly increases to the point where the resistance of the lower floors becomes insignificant.  It is a vicious cycle of more mass and more velocity equaling more energy to destroy faster and add more mass and more velocity etc.


----------



## Patriot911

Also, I'd like to give a  to Jones as he actually put out a lucid and valid defense of his beliefs.  I can respect that.


----------



## Patriot911

Rat in the Hat said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need microspheres to go into the nano-thermate that you put into the miniature, unseen hush-a-boom charges.
> 
> I learned that in NWO school, as on the job training for being a paid government shill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently someone needs to have a little chat with your NWO teachers.  ANY kind of thermite, thermate, nano thermwhatever doesn't use iron.  Iron is a result of the reaction, not an ingredient.  For any of the thermitic reactions you need iron oxide or rust.  Now, if they had found nano-sized particals of pure aluminum which doesn't occur in nature much at all, I would have been suspicious.  Aluminum oxide (the other byproduct of a thermite reaction along with the iron) is extremely common in nature.
> 
> BTW, you weren't suppose to use the official name of the charges.  Hush-a-boom hasn't been trademarked yet by the NWO and they're worried about the licensing rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gosh-darn-it, you've ruined everything. That was what was taught in disinfo 102 class. we're supposed to be spreading false crap to confuse them, or to get them out of pizza shops (Bermas) to scream into bullhorns all day.
> 
> And hush-a-boom is only the working name. Wait until you hear the really cool name they are getting trademarked!
Click to expand...


Why do I never get the cool memos?


----------



## SFC Ollie

Patriot911 said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently someone needs to have a little chat with your NWO teachers.  ANY kind of thermite, thermate, nano thermwhatever doesn't use iron.  Iron is a result of the reaction, not an ingredient.  For any of the thermitic reactions you need iron oxide or rust.  Now, if they had found nano-sized particals of pure aluminum which doesn't occur in nature much at all, I would have been suspicious.  Aluminum oxide (the other byproduct of a thermite reaction along with the iron) is extremely common in nature.
> 
> BTW, you weren't suppose to use the official name of the charges.  Hush-a-boom hasn't been trademarked yet by the NWO and they're worried about the licensing rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh-darn-it, you've ruined everything. That was what was taught in disinfo 102 class. we're supposed to be spreading false crap to confuse them, or to get them out of pizza shops (Bermas) to scream into bullhorns all day.
> 
> And hush-a-boom is only the working name. Wait until you hear the really cool name they are getting trademarked!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do I never get the cool memos?
Click to expand...


You guys in the cubicles by the windows don't need memos. You're supposed to read the sky writing....


----------



## Patriot911

SFC Ollie said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh-darn-it, you've ruined everything. That was what was taught in disinfo 102 class. we're supposed to be spreading false crap to confuse them, or to get them out of pizza shops (Bermas) to scream into bullhorns all day.
> 
> And hush-a-boom is only the working name. Wait until you hear the really cool name they are getting trademarked!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I never get the cool memos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You guys in the cubicles by the windows don't need memos. You're supposed to read the sky writing....
Click to expand...


That is why we window guys took out WTC 7.  It was blocking our view of the sky.


----------



## Rat in the Hat

Patriot911 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I never get the cool memos?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys in the cubicles by the windows don't need memos. You're supposed to read the sky writing....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is why we window guys took out WTC 7.  It was blocking our view of the sky.
Click to expand...


 

Well played, my good fellow!



			
				The Freedom Repressing Board Software That Must Have Been Written By Halliburton On Orders From The Builderburgs said:
			
		

> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Patriot911 again.


----------



## Rat in the Hat

SFC Ollie said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh-darn-it, you've ruined everything. That was what was taught in disinfo 102 class. we're supposed to be spreading false crap to confuse them, or to get them out of pizza shops (Bermas) to scream into bullhorns all day.
> 
> And hush-a-boom is only the working name. Wait until you hear the really cool name they are getting trademarked!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I never get the cool memos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You guys in the cubicles by the windows don't need memos. You're supposed to read the sky writing....
Click to expand...


 

The newbies never learn, do they?



			
				The Terrible Board Software That Should Have Holographic Airliners Crashed Into It said:
			
		

> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to SFC Ollie again.


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NIST is an organization that is a world renouned *expert at structural failure.*  A news report where all the facts aren't given isn't exactly the same thing, especially when you have to pretend it says more than it does.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and it took a lowly high school teacher to correct  a huge flaw about the freefall times of WTC 7 in which the still have no plausible explanation for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh horse shit. the facade hit free fall for 2.25 seconds. After the inside of the building had already collapsed. Whup de fucking do. Do yourself a favor, get a life.
Click to expand...

 This is a fact that the experts at NIST dismissed, and should be embarrassed about. Did they just make a mistake or purposefully disregard this in the years they were supposed to be analyzing the WTC 7 collapses?
If it was a mistake, it goes to show you that even the most renowned  experts fuck up at times, or the most trusted of sources can use their authority to deceive.


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and it took a lowly high school teacher to correct  a huge flaw about the freefall times of WTC 7 in which the still have no plausible explanation for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh horse shit. the facade hit free fall for 2.25 seconds. After the inside of the building had already collapsed. Whup de fucking do. Do yourself a favor, get a life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a fact that the experts at NIST dismissed, and should be embarrassed about. Did they just make a mistake or purposefully disregard this in the years they were supposed to be analyzing the WTC 7 collapses?
> If it was a mistake, it goes to show you that even the most renowned  experts fuck up at times, or the most trusted of sources can use their authority to deceive.
Click to expand...


The acceleration at freefall rates of the collapse for 2.25 seconds of the entire collapse did not change any of their findings and theories as to the collapse itself.  It still started the same way.  It still progressed the same way.  By the time the outer walls fell, there was no way for the collapse to arrest itself as many of the internal structures were already either compromised or already collapsed.


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh horse shit. the facade hit free fall for 2.25 seconds. After the inside of the building had already collapsed. Whup de fucking do. Do yourself a favor, get a life.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a fact that the experts at NIST dismissed, and should be embarrassed about. Did they just make a mistake or purposefully disregard this in the years they were supposed to be analyzing the WTC 7 collapses?
> If it was a mistake, it goes to show you that even the most renowned  experts fuck up at times, or the most trusted of sources can use their authority to deceive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The acceleration at freefall rates of the collapse for 2.25 seconds of the entire collapse did not change any of their findings and theories as to the collapse itself.  It still started the same way.  It still progressed the same way.  By the time the outer walls fell, there was no way for the collapse to arrest itself as many of the internal structures were already either compromised or already collapsed.
Click to expand...


So the entire inner structure fell.. silently.. and completely, all behind the facade.. causing no apparent damage or distortion to the facade...and you can prove these theories how ??


----------



## Rat in the Hat

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a fact that the experts at NIST dismissed, and should be embarrassed about. Did they just make a mistake or purposefully disregard this in the years they were supposed to be analyzing the WTC 7 collapses?
> If it was a mistake, it goes to show you that even the most renowned  experts fuck up at times, or the most trusted of sources can use their authority to deceive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The acceleration at freefall rates of the collapse for 2.25 seconds of the entire collapse did not change any of their findings and theories as to the collapse itself.  It still started the same way.  It still progressed the same way.  By the time the outer walls fell, there was no way for the collapse to arrest itself as many of the internal structures were already either compromised or already collapsed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the entire inner structure fell.. silently.. and completely, all behind the facade.. causing no apparent damage or distortion to the facade...and you can prove these theories how ??
Click to expand...


By the simple fact that none of you owners of "THE TRUTH"TM (patent pending) can produce a single tape or video with any controlled demolition sounds on them.


----------



## eots

Rat in the Hat said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The acceleration at freefall rates of the collapse for 2.25 seconds of the entire collapse did not change any of their findings and theories as to the collapse itself.  It still started the same way.  It still progressed the same way.  By the time the outer walls fell, there was no way for the collapse to arrest itself as many of the internal structures were already either compromised or already collapsed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the entire inner structure fell.. silently.. and completely, all behind the facade.. causing no apparent damage or distortion to the facade...and you can prove these theories how ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the simple fact that none of you owners of "THE TRUTH"TM (patent pending) can produce a single tape or video with any controlled demolition sounds on them.
Click to expand...


do you have a tape of the inner structure falling within the facade or of the sound of the inner structure collapsing before the facade ? or is this wacky theory all you have ?


----------



## Rat in the Hat

eots said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the entire inner structure fell.. silently.. and completely, all behind the facade.. causing no apparent damage or distortion to the facade...and you can prove these theories how ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the simple fact that none of you owners of "THE TRUTH"TM (patent pending) can produce a single tape or video with any controlled demolition sounds on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do you have a tape of the inner structure falling within the facade or of the sound of the inner structure collapsing before the facade ? or is this wacky theory all you have ?
Click to expand...


Please let me and the rest of the group know how to produce the sounds of explosives that did not exist. As soon as you can provide this, we will make up tapes of non existent explosives.

TIA.

Agent Rattius Hattus, NWO paid shill, disinfo division.


----------



## Rat in the Hat

eots said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the entire inner structure fell.. silently.. and completely, all behind the facade.. causing no apparent damage or distortion to the facade...and you can prove these theories how ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the simple fact that none of you owners of "THE TRUTH"TM (patent pending) can produce a single tape or video with any controlled demolition sounds on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do you have a tape of the inner structure falling within the facade or of the sound of the inner structure collapsing before the facade ? or is this wacky theory all you have ?
Click to expand...


Oh, one last thing, eotus retardus, in a little over 3 months, your little TRUTHtm movement will be swept into the dustbin of history.

In 1 decade, you have managed to convince less than 2000 people of your little "conspiracy".

Jim Jones and David Koresh managed to get over 1000 converts in less than 1 year each. And they were more nuts than Dylan Avery, Jason Bermas, Judy Woods, Richard Gage, Jesse Ventura, and both Steven & Alex Jones, COMBINED!!


----------



## Rat in the Hat

Lest we forget....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFVoencqfZw&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - &#x202a;AE911TRUTH PLAYSCHOOL WITH RICHARD GAGE.&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBuH8NNIBys]YouTube - &#x202a;9/11 Simple Experiment&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## eots

you forgot this one debwunktard


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDHN1gBkx0M]YouTube - &#x202a;9/11 Physics: "You Can&#39;t Use Common Sense"&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## Rat in the Hat

And you forgot THIS one, twooftard...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXqs0ZYCHlA&feature=related]YouTube - &#x202a;Controlled Demolition vs. Reality&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## Mr. Jones

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> look asswipe, unlike you I dont pretend to know everything and pass myself off as an expert. Calling someone a dumbshit for admitting to not being an expert at something is classless but typical of you.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't pretend to know everything.  I know my knowledge is limited.  That is why I rely on true experts like Leslie Robertson.
Click to expand...

Both theories rely on experts, and calculations that if they thought were BS, I don't think they would put them out there to get ripped to shreds. What I want to see or hear is a debate pitting the experts and their calculations against each other. A new independent investigation would hopefully produce this.



> And I called you a dumbshit because you refuse to learn. I thought I made that clear, but apparently dumbshits can't read too gud.


You assume everyone who doesn't agree with you isn't _learning _ and is a dumbshit, that's hilarious.



> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my post I deferred to the "experts", and you responded.
> 
> 
> 
> David Chandler is hardly an expert.
Click to expand...

I hardly expected Chandler to be here and respond.



> It is straight up physics.  Check the math.  Check the science.  The laws of physics can't be broken.


 Funny people like Dr. Frank Legge, Tony Szamboti, and Gordon Ross, are basically saying the same things, and take into consideration other characteristics of the steel and what the top block had to overcome.




> Apparently your dumbshit skills are working overtime.  I used numbers that were three fifths the normal quoted numbers just so dumbfucks like you wouldn't whine about the numbers being too big.  BTW, velocity is a constant that has nothing to do with mass.  A marble and a mountain will fall at the same velocity.


 It was another attempt on your part to generalize and deceive. Why would I whine about any real numbers, I already admitted I'm not too hip on the calculations. If you happen to know them and can make sense of them post it, don't throw BS in the discussion and pretend you didn't. Mountains weigh more then marbles. 



> I didn't say you did.  Chandler did, however.


 No you referenced me-This is what you wrote-
"*You* point to the "smaller" top half and pretend like it has to destroy the entire lower section at once. That isn't how a collapse happens because loads aren't shifted instantaniously. Local structures fail as the collapse progresses, *so pretending* the upper section had to overcome this massive lower section all at once is just retarded."
Chandler isn't mentioned 




> Oh goodie!  Now you ARE pretending the entire lower block is one unit!  What a fucktard!    So what, in your estimation, is a proper amount of time for a collapse to take place?  Or are you just going off your retarded opinion of what you THINK should have happened?    Remember, the floors weren't designed to hold anything but their own weight + the contents of the floor.


 The top had to overcome more then just the floors, and the estimates the experts give is about 1 second per floor, given the top half had a lot of localized resistance to overcome, at every floor.




> Yes they did.  And they're ONLY strong when perfectly vertical.  What do you think happens when all that debris being forced down the mostly hollow core starts pushing those columns out of vertical?


 Strange you mention "all that debris" when supporters of the fire collapse mention the buildings were "mostly air" and try to minimize mass, except when it comes to "all the debris" being a force on the lower half. 
Regardless have you taken into account the elastic loading and plastic shortening phases of the columns, its effect on momentum transfer? There would be some losses of energy due to residual strength within the failing columns.

_Upon impact with the lower section the falling mass would deliver a force which would
grow from zero, up to the failure load of the impacted storey columns,_
_The falling upper section with a velocity of no more than 8.5 metres per second at impact
would meet resistance from the impacted columns and have as its first task the necessity to load
these columns through their *elastic range* and thereafter through the plastic shortening phase._
_Bazant/Zhou [1] show in their analysis that elastic and plastic behaviour of a steel column
under a dynamic buckling load can be shown to consist of three distinct phases. These can be shown on a load against vertical deflection graph and consist of an initial elastic phase, a
shortening phase and a rapid plastic deformation phase._
In short this engineers calculations show that when these other factors are taken into account, you have what amounts to energy losses. 

_The elastic deflection of lower storeys would increase the distance through which the
falling section would have to move in order to load the impacted column and complete its 3%
plastic shortening. The time taken, again using a constant velocity of 8.5 m/sec would increase to
about 0.02 seconds, and thus allow the propagation wave to move through and affect a further 8
storeys._
To 4.8 metres per second.

_The speed of the upper section would be reduced by the collision from
8.5 m/sec to a speed of less than 4.8 m/sec rather than the 8 m/sec derived from a momentum
calculation which does not include this factor._

_The kinetic energy of the falling section would be similarly affected, but because of the
velocity squared relationship, the reduction in kinetic energy would be more pronounced.
K. E. of falling section before impact = 16 floors moving at *(8.5 m/sec)*
K. E. of falling section after impact = 17 floors moving at *(4.8 m/sec)*
Percentage loss of K.E. = 1-(17 * 4.8/ (16 *8.5) * 100% = 66%_
So here we have a calculation that takes into account elastic deflection, and a slowing down of the collapse.
Feel free to look it over-
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf



> And?  The NIST final report didn't come out before they admitted free fall.  The experts and signatories signed off on the final report.  I don't know why you truthtards have such a hissy fit when a reputable agency admits fault and includes the relevant data in the report.


 These guys are experts and too good to over look something a lowly high school physics teacher noticed in such an important investigation that's why.

The NIST investigation was comprised of eight separate projects, which all together produced 43 volumes of supporting documentation. The projects included metallurgical studies, an impact analysis, an attempt to reconstruct the fires, and a computer model of the probable sequence of events leading to the collapse of each tower. Some of the agency's research was of excellent quality some was not. But the main problem is that none of it lends credence to NIST's official conclusions. 



> Except for the fact you ignored the weights used were 3/5ths normal and the height of the initial collapse was half or less of what it should be.    The weights of the tapered columns isn't going to be THAT drastic.  You're talking about 4" thick box columns 1' x 3' tapering up to 2" thick.  How many tons do you think that really makes up?


Depends on how many floors used the lighter columns. But you know damn well you would jump someones shit for doing the same.


> I just showed you what the dynamic loads would be for 3/5ths weight and half height.  Even at that amount the dynamic load was more than the core alone could take at that height, and the floors themselves would offer up almost no resistance at all.


 As I have been trying to explain, it doesn't appear to be that simple, there are other factors that engineers have sited in their refutations.




> Mass is mass.  Physics doesn't differentiate between the size of the object or if you're talking about numerous small objects.  Dropping a ton of ball bearings on something from a given height is going to release the EXACT same energy as a solid one ton block of steel.


So are you saying that opening up a 50lb bag of flour and dumping it on your head would hurt just as bad as if it hit your noodle unopened? 



> I've never made the claim, nor would I, that the top structure either had to remain one mass to destroy the lower part or that it did remain one mass.


 You 're saying mass is mass? What would cause more damage in the above scenario?



> Exactly.  Except the "gravity loads" or static loads go right out the window as soon as the upper mass starts moving.


How so when the force of gravity is crucial to the kinetic energy? No gravity no energy right?



> Suddenly those static loads become many times what they were as the potential energy stored in the mass is converted back into kinetic energy.  This weight can be expressed in foot pounds of pressure and it was many times what the core, much less the floors, were designed to withstand AND the core would be deformed as debris pushed the columns out of vertical.


 This brings me right back to the part where the top has to overcome the steels rigidity characteristics, and the time it takes to do that while being met with opposing forces.



> Again, pulverized mass is still mass.  Also, as the collapse progressed, the mass of the floors below it were added to the mass of the upper floors, thus greatly increasing the mass even accounting for the debris that fell over the sides due to the resistance of the lower floors.


 See the bag of flour example above. Still the collapse should have taken much longer, as you say as the collapse _progresses_.  Still IF this is possible, it should not happen almost instantaneously. 



> And here Chandler is pretending the upper and lower pieces are solid blocks and NOT individual structures that make up the whole.  You can't look at the lower section as one piece because loads cannot be redistributed anywhere near quickly enough to resist the collapse.  Thus the collapse is localized as individual structures fail instead of the entire lower block as a whole.


Actually what I quoted was not from Chandler, but another engineer, regardless it appears from the different theories that there is more going on and forces against forces that must overcome to produce the witnessed results, that the average person doesn't look at. And what about the localized parts of the top block?? It is not one solid piece, it too experiences damage meeting the bottom head on...and again how can this happen..all these intricacies, and opposing forces trying to overcome each other..in just 10 to 15 seconds!? It is complicated.



> Again, you cannot pretend the lower "block" is one object that can use every structure at once to resist the collapse.  This is a MAJOR flaw in Chandler's work.


 Even the power structure resisting the collapse bit by bit floor by floor, this would not happen almost instantaneously and I would agree that the collapse would take more the 10-15 seconds.



> Use a sledgehammer on the nail and it doesn't matter what you're nailing it into, you can do it in one blow and the sledgehammer won't even slow down.  Again, Chandler is pretending the upper block is smaller than the lower block and pretending the entire block is one object.  This is a logical falacy.


 The problem with this analogy is that the lower half being more robust and undamaged would be more akin to the sledgehammer, and the top to a regular carpenters hammer.



> The upper mass only has to overcome the resistance of the structures directly below it, not the entire resistance of the lower block.  Thus the upper block is much larger than the structures it must immediately overcome.


 But you still aren't taking any of the things into account that the top to has to overcome, so it's a series of smaller and stouter obstacles being provided by the lower half...?



> Lather, rinse, repeat until you hit the bottom, except by the time you hit the bottom you still have a good chunk of the entire building moving VERY fast (thus more energy) which obliterates everything.  The total energy released by the collapse is a mindbogglingly large number.


What chunk of the buildings are you talking about? Every video I have seen show a mostly pulverized mess with twisted metal every where. The top and falling part was destroyed in its descent. .From hitting and meeting the opposing lower blocks resisting force.



> And it did take time.  But as the collapse increased in mass and velocity, the more energy was released to destroy the lower floors and the faster those floors would be destroyed.


Nope  90 storys in 10 -15 seconds?



> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I am also taking into account the destruction of the top block as it hits the lower parts, pulverizes and falls away. Less mass, less dynamic energy/forces.
> 
> 
> 
> This is also a logical falacy.  As the top part is destroyed, some of it's mass does fall away, but more mass takes it's place all the while the whole mess is accelerating, thus generating far MORE dynamic energy/forces.
Click to expand...

 I think the fallacy is in thinking the smaller top part biting away at the larger bottom half in 10 to 15 seconds. I am also thinking from the refutations I have read and slowly trying to understand, make sense when the steels strength is taken into consideration.



> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We should expect to have a massive collapse but take much longer to complete.
> 
> 
> 
> Given your assumptions, I would agree with you.  The problem is your assumptions are flawed.  The dynamic energy does not decrease as the collapse progresses, but rapidly increases to the point where the resistance of the lower floors becomes insignificant.  It is a vicious cycle of more mass and more velocity equaling more energy to destroy faster and add more mass and more velocity etc.
Click to expand...

It would increase if it is constant, it had met resistance from every single floor on the way down, and actually encountered more mass to have to crush, because of the larger columns and structures the lower half was constructed with, thereby negating, at least somewhat, of the mass you are saying it picked up as it destroyed each floor.

I'm still trying to process both squabbles. it is obsessively interesting, time consuming and exhausting,,,fuck it, I'm out ...for now.


----------



## Mr. Jones

eots said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the entire inner structure fell.. silently.. and completely, all behind the facade.. causing no apparent damage or distortion to the facade...and you can prove these theories how ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the simple fact that none of you owners of "THE TRUTH"TM (patent pending) can produce a single tape or video with any controlled demolition sounds on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do you have a tape of the inner structure falling within the facade or of the sound of the inner structure collapsing before the facade ? or is this wacky theory all you have ?
Click to expand...


NIST doesn't have much more then theories based on assumptions, and guesses, from videos and limited steel to test.


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a fact that the experts at NIST dismissed, and should be embarrassed about. Did they just make a mistake or purposefully disregard this in the years they were supposed to be analyzing the WTC 7 collapses?
> If it was a mistake, it goes to show you that even the most renowned  experts fuck up at times, or the most trusted of sources can use their authority to deceive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The acceleration at freefall rates of the collapse for 2.25 seconds of the entire collapse did not change any of their findings and theories as to the collapse itself.  It still started the same way.  It still progressed the same way.  By the time the outer walls fell, there was no way for the collapse to arrest itself as many of the internal structures were already either compromised or already collapsed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the entire inner structure fell.. silently
Click to expand...

No, you can clearly hear the rumble of the internal collapse before the external collapse happens.  You know this.  It's been discussed on numerous occasions.  Yet you insist on lying your retarded ass off.  Why?



			
				eots said:
			
		

> .. and completely, all behind the facade


Another lie by you.  Nobody said completely.  I've stated time and time again that it was a vertical collapse (as seen by the penthouse collapsing into the building) followed by a horizontal progression until there wasn't enough support left to support the facade.  Then the global collapse started.  

Have you NEVER questioned the fact that you have to lie in order to make the official story sound bad?



			
				eots said:
			
		

> .. causing no apparent damage or distortion to the facade...


Wrong.  During the vertical collapse you can see numerous windows in that area being broken out.  You also see the penthouse completely disappear into the building.  How does that happen without an internal collapse?



			
				eots said:
			
		

> and you can prove these theories how ??


Through the physical, audio and visual evidence.  See, unlike you dishonest fucks, we don't have to make shit up that doesn't fit the evidence.  

You lose.  Again.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and it took a lowly high school teacher to correct  a huge flaw about the freefall times of WTC 7 in which the still have no plausible explanation for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh horse shit. the facade hit free fall for 2.25 seconds. After the inside of the building had already collapsed. Whup de fucking do. Do yourself a favor, get a life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a fact that the experts at NIST dismissed, and should be embarrassed about. Did they just make a mistake or purposefully disregard this in the years they were supposed to be analyzing the WTC 7 collapses?
> If it was a mistake, it goes to show you that even the most renowned  experts fuck up at times, or the most trusted of sources can use their authority to deceive.
Click to expand...


It's not a mistake, a part of the building had free fall, doesn't mean a damned thing. Sections of the towers that fell away from the building had free fall too. BFD........


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> Both theories rely on experts, and calculations that if they thought were BS, I don't think they would put them out there to get ripped to shreds. What I want to see or hear is a debate pitting the experts and their calculations against each other. A new independent investigation would hopefully produce this.


First off, neither David Chandler nor Richard Gage is an expert in engineering.  Chandler is a high school physics teacher.  This does NOT qualify him to write a paper on engineering.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> You assume everyone who doesn't agree with you isn't _learning _ and is a dumbshit, that's hilarious.


No, the people who have had things explained to them that can be verified, yet they choose to blissfully ignore them are dumbshits who aren't learning.  Nice try though.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> I hardly expected Chandler to be here and respond.


Look around.  Chandler has gotten into online debates and got his ass handed to him.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Funny people like Dr. Frank Legge, Tony Szamboti, and Gordon Ross, are basically saying the same things, and take into consideration other characteristics of the steel and what the top block had to overcome.


Frank Legge is a big time fraud and is more than willing to lie and try to strongarm other groups of the truthtard bowel movement.  The infighting between truthtard groups always cracks me up.  Here is a good read on that. 

Anyway, using members of the fraudulant AE911 isn't exactly using experts. 



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> It was another attempt on your part to generalize and deceive. Why would I whine about any real numbers, I already admitted I'm not too hip on the calculations. If you happen to know them and can make sense of them post it, don't throw BS in the discussion and pretend you didn't. Mountains weigh more then marbles.


When someone goes to great lengths to explain to you that the numbers are WELL below normal explicitly to prevent a claim the numbers are too high, yet you ignore that and pretend the numbers are too high, I'm going to call you on it.  

Also, my point is that a mountain is going to fall at the exact same rate as the marble despite it being billions of times heavier.   



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> No you referenced me-This is what you wrote-
> "*You* point to the "smaller" top half and pretend like it has to destroy the entire lower section at once. That isn't how a collapse happens because loads aren't shifted instantaniously. Local structures fail as the collapse progresses, *so pretending* the upper section had to overcome this massive lower section all at once is just retarded."
> Chandler isn't mentioned


So who posted Chandler's paper as evidence of what they believe?  Regardless, despite your claims to the contrary, you went ahead and pretended the lower section was one piece as well.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> The top had to overcome more then just the floors, and the estimates the experts give is about 1 second per floor, given the top half had a lot of localized resistance to overcome, at every floor.


I never said the top had to JUST overcome the floors.  I see you're back to lying.  

What experts?  What are their calculations or are they just pulling shit out of their asses?  Oh please PLEASE use Judy Woods' billiard ball example!  That one is SO much fun because the truthtard who uses it looks like a total jackass after pretending it is in any way true!  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Strange you mention "all that debris" when supporters of the fire collapse mention the buildings were "mostly air" and try to minimize mass, except when it comes to "all the debris" being a force on the lower half.


Here is another example of the extremely dishonest tactic used by truthtards called the binary method.  Either the building is nearly solid or it is mostly air.    Nothing in between!  Look, you silly fuck, BY VOLUME, the towers are mostly air.  Are you now going to pretend each floor didn't compromise thousands of tons of material?  Come on.  Seriously?  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Regardless have you taken into account the elastic loading and plastic shortening phases of the columns, its effect on momentum transfer? There would be some losses of energy due to residual strength within the failing columns.


Of course there would be.  If there wasn't, you wouldn't see any debris going over the sides and the towers would have fallen at free fall acceleration.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> In short this engineers calculations show that when these other factors are taken into account, you have what amounts to energy losses.


Nobody is saying energy wasn't lost.  Was it as much as was generated?  Not even a little bit close.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> _The kinetic energy of the falling section would be similarly affected, but because of the velocity squared relationship, the reduction in kinetic energy would be more pronounced. K. E. of falling section before impact = 16 floors moving at *(8.5 m/sec)*  K. E. of falling section after impact = 17 floors moving at *(4.8 m/sec)*
> Percentage loss of K.E. = 1-(17 * 4.8/ (16 *8.5) * 100% = 66%_
> So here we have a calculation that takes into account elastic deflection, and a slowing down of the collapse.  Feel free to look it over-
> http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf


OK, here is a good example of the tactics used by the various truthtard sites.  Let's say the calculations are right and you lost 66% of the kinetic energy destroying the first floor and your speed has been reduced to 4.8 m/s.  Now you have 17 floors where the mass is going to continue to accelerate through the next floors before impacting the floors blelow them and you're going to generate all the energy of the initial part of the collapse with the added mass of the 17th floor - any debris that went over the side.  Lather, rinse, repeat.  You're still going to end up with more and more energy as the building falls.  Remember, the kinetic energy is still there no matter what velocity the top is falling at.  One only uses freefall acceleration to determine the total amount.  It doesn't matter if the mass actually comes down at 1 or 100 miles an hour, the same amount of energy HAS to be released.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> These guys are experts and too good to over look something a lowly high school physics teacher noticed in such an important investigation that's why.


Really?  So now you're an expert on experts, but you have no clue what they're saying.  Hmmm.  I'm thinking you may not be the best judge in the world.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> The NIST investigation was comprised of eight separate projects, which all together produced 43 volumes of supporting documentation. The projects included metallurgical studies, an impact analysis, an attempt to reconstruct the fires, and a computer model of the probable sequence of events leading to the collapse of each tower. Some of the agency's research was of excellent quality some was not. But the main problem is that none of it lends credence to NIST's official conclusions.


Says a guy who ADMITS he has no clue what the NIST documentation actually means.  Don't you ever stop and question if AE911 et. al. are lying their asses off to you, someone who wouldn't be able to tell?



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Depends on how many floors used the lighter columns. But you know damn well you would jump someones shit for doing the same.


No, I wouldn't, and if I did, I would hope someone pointed out the extreme logical flaws, especially about the core columns losing structural integrity once they are no longer perfectly vertical.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> As I have been trying to explain, it doesn't appear to be that simple, here are other factors that engineers have sited in their refutations.


The point is that from an engineering point of view, the energies released are so far beyond what the building was designed for that there is no other outcome than collapse.  Given the FACT there is no evidence whatsoever of controlled demolition, what other conclusion is one to come to?



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> So are you saying that opening up a 50lb bag of flour and dumping it on your head would hurt just as bad as if it hit your noodle unopened?


The exact same amount of energy would be released, yes.  This is scientific fact.  Pretending your head and a bag of flour vs. loose flour is somehow relevant to the towers is hysterical, but meaningless.  Try this:  Put a board over your head and dump the flour either in or out of the bag and you're still going to go down hard as you will be absorbing all the energy released at the same time. 



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> You 're saying mass is mass? What would cause more damage in the above scenario?


Yes, mass is mass.  You're going to get the same result whether the top section is a solid block or made up of hundreds to thousands of individual structures tied together.  They still contain the exact same amount of potential energy that will convert to kinetic when the mass moves.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> How so when the force of gravity is crucial to the kinetic energy? No gravity no energy right?


Gravity is used to calculate the energy contained in a structure above ground.  Gravity loads are loads that are not moving and the only weight is that supplied by gravity.  Once that load starts moving, it is no longer a gravity or static load but a dynamic load = static load + energy converted from potential to kinetic energy.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> This brings me right back to the part where the top has to overcome the steels rigidity characteristics, and the time it takes to do that while being met with opposing forces.


Who says overcoming steel's rigidity takes time?  Ever see a car wreck?  Happens in a blink of the eye and can completely decimate the car including the very rigid steel frame.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> See the bag of flour example above. Still the collapse should have taken much longer, as you say as the collapse _progresses_.  Still IF this is possible, it should not happen almost instantaneously.


And we saw debris coming over the side.  We also saw that the vast majority of the debris was piled up very close to the footprint of the building which means most of the debris was still part of the collapse.

As for time, it happened just as one would expect given the loads involved.  You're talking about MASSIVE amounts of weight that should never be moving down.  The structures just are NOT made to take those kinds of weight, and in the case of the core once they fail, they are no longer structurally sound.  The core columns gain their enormous strength through being perfectly vertical and attached as a whole to one another through the spandrels at the top which helps distribute the loads.  Disconnect the core columns from the spandrels and take them out of vertical and they no longer can support the weight involved.  Take a straw (not a bendy one) and set it on a level surface and push straight down.  The straw can take many times its own weight before it fails, yet if you do the same experiment with the straw not being perfectly vertical and the straw fails almost immediately.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Actually what I quoted was not from Chandler, but another engineer, regardless it appears from the different theories that there is more going on and forces against forces that must overcome to produce the witnessed results, that the average person doesn't look at. And what about the localized parts of the top block?? It is not one solid piece, it too experiences damage meeting the bottom head on...and again how can this happen..all these intricacies, and opposing forces trying to overcome each other..in just 10 to 15 seconds!? It is complicated.


Complicated doesn't mean takes a long time.  Again, go back to a car wreck involving two cars.  Happens in literally a blink of an eye, yet you have the same issues going on.  Cars are not one mass, but numerous parts that all interact differently and produce different results.  Yet the end results are usually the same; cars destroyed in a flash.  Remember, no matter WHAT happens, you have the constant pressure from gravity insuring everything is being pulled inexhoribly down.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Even the power structure resisting the collapse bit by bit floor by floor, this would not happen almost instantaneously and I would agree that the collapse would take more the 10-15 seconds.


Remember, for every floor that collapses, the remaining energy of the upper section is still stored in the form of movement.  That movement is constantly accelerated by gravity which means the entire collapse event is going to continue to accelerate on the way down.  What started fairly slowly ended very quickly.  Gravity is a bitch!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> The problem with this analogy is that the lower half being more robust and undamaged would be more akin to the sledgehammer, and the top to a regular carpenters hammer.


No, there you go pretending the lower half is a solid structure.  It isn't.  It is a structure made up of numerous smaller structures that are holding up the load.  Those structures are all designed to share the load and distribute the load.  They are NOT designed to support the kinds of weights the dynamic load presented them and there is no way they can redistribute the weight fast enough, especially since the ultimate mechanism for redistributing weight is the spandrels at the top of the tower which are no longer there.  We know this happened because all one has to do is watch the collapse.  The lower half doesn't disintegrate as one object, but is destroyed floor by floor as the structures fail.  You have to look at it from the perspective of the structures in play at the time, not the sum total of all structures that are not yet affected.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> But you still aren't taking any of the things into account that the top to has to overcome, so it's a series of smaller and stouter obstacles being provided by the lower half...?


Not stouter.  Weaker.  The beauty of modern skyscrapers, especially ones like the towers, is that they are engineering marvels that use far less steel and concrete than those before it.  They work because of how the internal structures interact with one another to create something far stronger than the material alone is capable of supporting.  The inherent problem with this is that when that structural integrity is compromised, the structure fails spectacularly.

Here is a good example.  100g of toothpicks are put together with nothing but glue.  That is less than a quarter pound of toothpicks.  The winning structure was able to handle 300Kg or a tick over 660 pounds of weight before breaking.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmLnxIKHJYY]YouTube - &#x202a;11th Annual Toothpick Bridge Contest&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]




			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> What chunk of the buildings are you talking about? Every video I have seen show a mostly pulverized mess with twisted metal every where. The top and falling part was destroyed in its descent. .From hitting and meeting the opposing lower blocks resisting force.


The chunk of the building I am talking about is the debris that is moving downward.  That mass of debris continues to grow as it collapses down, despite the loss of some mass over the sides due to resistance.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Nope  90 storys in 10 -15 seconds?


Why not?  The collapse event was under constant acceleration due to gravity.  You can't just deny something for no reason.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> I think the fallacy is in thinking the smaller top part biting away at the larger bottom half in 10 to 15 seconds. I am also thinking from the refutations I have read and slowly trying to understand, make sense when the steels strength is taken into consideration.


OK, let me ask you this honest question.  If the collapse of the towers was just flat out impossible in the time frames involved, don't you think there would be more than just a mere handful of engineers going "wait a minute..... that ain't right!"  

Here's the bottom line.  We KNOW it happened and happened in the timeframes involved.  We KNOW there weren't high explosives used ala a controlled demolition due to lack of evidence and first hand accounts, namely the survivors of the north tower who were IN the space the explosives would be going off, yet heard nothing but the approaching collapse.  

So what other theory do you have to explain what you claim is impossible from a non controlled collapse?  There was zero evidence of columns lower down weakened or cut from fires / explosives / thermite / aliens / insert favorite theory here.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We should expect to have a massive collapse but take much longer to complete.
> 
> 
> 
> Given your assumptions, I would agree with you.  The problem is your assumptions are flawed.  The dynamic energy does not decrease as the collapse progresses, but rapidly increases to the point where the resistance of the lower floors becomes insignificant.  It is a vicious cycle of more mass and more velocity equaling more energy to destroy faster and add more mass and more velocity etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would increase if it is constant, it had met resistance from every single floor on the way down, and actually encountered more mass to have to crush, because of the larger columns and structures the lower half was constructed with, thereby negating, at least somewhat, of the mass you are saying it picked up as it destroyed each floor.
Click to expand...

You're also forgetting the other part of the equation: velocity.  Remember, as the collapse progresses, any energy NOT used up by the destruction of the most recent floor is maintained via movement.  This movement is constantly accelerated by gravity.  Remember... it's not just a good idea, it's the LAW!  Is there some momentum lost due to resistance?  Absolutely.  Is it greater than the total acceleration gravity is pulling at?  No or the collapse would stop completely.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> I'm still trying to process both squabbles. it is obsessively interesting, time consuming and exhausting,,,fuck it, I'm out ...for now.


Fuck it.  Peace.  ;-)


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> So the entire inner structure fell.. silently.. and completely, all behind the facade.. *causing no apparent damage or distortion to the facade*...and you can prove these theories how ??



10 years and you never saw this? Amazing...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkOGkdNq13k&feature=related]YouTube - &#x202a;WTC7 NIST Clip with east penthouse&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]

I don't see ANY windows breaking when the penthouse fell into the building. Nope. Nothing to see here right eots?


----------



## JackDan

Rat in the Hat said:


> Lest we forget....
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;AE911TRUTH PLAYSCHOOL WITH RICHARD GAGE.&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;9/11 Simple Experiment&#x202c;&rlm;



These people are so dumb I am suprised they even know how to use a camera.....  The first guy is not smart enough to be an architect, and the second guy is trying to show a principle and compare it to a building using plastic trays???? what an idiot.


----------



## eots

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the entire inner structure fell.. silently.. and completely, all behind the facade.. *causing no apparent damage or distortion to the facade*...and you can prove these theories how ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 years and you never saw this? Amazing...
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkOGkdNq13k&feature=related]YouTube - &#x202a;WTC7 NIST Clip with east penthouse&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]
> 
> I don't see ANY windows breaking when the penthouse fell into the building. Nope. Nothing to see here right eots?
Click to expand...


I do not see the entire inner structure collapsing...according to you and NIST
I see a facade falling...and all I hear is a narrative saying building 7 was the first know instance of a steel frame  building collapsing primarily due to fire


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> do not see the entire inner structure collapsing...according to you and NIST
> I see a facade falling...and all I hear is a narrative saying building 7 was the first know instance of a steel frame  building collapsing primarily due to fire


Truthtards are only going to see / believe what they want and fuck the truth.


----------



## Rat in the Hat

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> do not see the entire inner structure collapsing...according to you and NIST
> I see a facade falling...and all I hear is a narrative saying building 7 was the first know instance of a steel frame  building collapsing primarily due to fire
> 
> 
> 
> Truthtards are only going to see / believe what they want and fuck the truth.
Click to expand...


Twoofers have to fuck the truth.

They can't get women!


----------



## Triton

Those stupid twooftard fuckers!!! hahahaha., only 2000 people in a decade disprove of the official conspiracy theory and 1500 of them signed onto A&E for 9/11 truth!! 

Way to go Nutjobs!!

The debunker movement has made great strides in convincing people that the WTC towers did not fall symmetrically, nor anywhere near free fall speed! Fires, especially on a few floors, do indeed have enough power to cause a total collapse to steel framed skyscrapers!

Aerosolized steel in the dust, HA!!! That means nothing because the building was collapsing so of course the steel would be aerosolized!


NIST is a reuptable agency who cares is some stupid school teacher pointed out a flaw, even the experts make mistakes after taking several years after the event to offer an explanation.


and of course no explosions


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0a3Iz6Z0tg&feature=related]YouTube - &#x202a;Audible Explosion at WTC&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## candycorn

Rat in the Hat said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> do not see the entire inner structure collapsing...according to you and NIST
> I see a facade falling...and all I hear is a narrative saying building 7 was the first know instance of a steel frame  building collapsing primarily due to fire
> 
> 
> 
> Truthtards are only going to see / believe what they want and fuck the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twoofers have to fuck the truth.
> 
> They can't get women!
Click to expand...


That sums it up perfectly.


----------



## Triton

The towers couldn't handle a plane impact and of course there was no molten steel


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjmHqES_lto&feature=channel_video_title]YouTube - &#x202a;Les Robertson Confirms Molten Metal in WTC Basement&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]

Stupid Truthtards!!!


----------



## Triton

simply no explosions, no evidence, nothing, stupid truthtards


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY95decSS_I&feature=channel_video_title]YouTube - &#x202a;Numerous Explosions, Continuous Explosions&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## Triton

no audio either, those stupid truthtards, no audio of explosions, what are they thinking!




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE7fWV2qUVU&feature=channel_video_title]YouTube - &#x202a;South Tower Exploding&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## Triton

Yep, fires did this, no symmetry or free fall here, just a bunch of fucktard twoofer bullshit claiming otherwise






[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lny5S_9_fYs&feature=channel_video_title]YouTube - &#x202a;North Tower Spire&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## Triton

Fires eject debris and make explosions like this, oh wait there were no explosions


----------



## Triton

Nothing is exploding here, its not falling symmetrically nor anywhere near at free fall speed. This is due to fires, duh, a "progressive" collapse


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfVMOIUBnso]YouTube - &#x202a;9/11: Enhanced WTC1 Video (NIST FOIA - CBS-Net Dub6 04)&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]






Just a bunch of Twooftard Twoofers Twoofing stupid nonsense.


----------



## Triton

Raging fires! raging fires! it doesn't matter if a plane did not hit this building because a building fell on top of it! RIght, Ollie!


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYEY0x1Yedw&feature=channel_video_title]YouTube - &#x202a;9/11: Enhanced WTC7 Video (NIST FOIA - CBS-Net Dub6 23)&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie

Triton said:


> Those stupid twooftard fuckers!!! hahahaha., only 2000 people in a decade disprove of the official conspiracy theory and 1500 of them signed onto A&E for 9/11 truth!!
> 
> Way to go Nutjobs!!
> 
> The debunker movement has made great strides in convincing people that the WTC towers did not fall symmetrically, nor anywhere near free fall speed! Fires, especially on a few floors, do indeed have enough power to cause a total collapse to steel framed skyscrapers!
> 
> Aerosolized steel in the dust, HA!!! That means nothing because the building was collapsing so of course the steel would be aerosolized!
> 
> 
> NIST is a reuptable agency who cares is some stupid school teacher pointed out a flaw, even the experts make mistakes after taking several years after the event to offer an explanation.
> 
> 
> and of course no explosions
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;Audible Explosion at WTC&#x202c;&rlm;



Most explosions do not sound like a rumble. Do we really need to show you what a controlled Demo sounds like for the 500th time?


----------



## SFC Ollie

Triton said:


> no audio either, those stupid truthtards, no audio of explosions, what are they thinking!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;South Tower Exploding&#x202c;&rlm;



Again, do you think hundreds of tons of steel and concrete will fall silently?


----------



## SFC Ollie

Triton said:


> Yep, fires did this, no symmetry or free fall here, just a bunch of fucktard twoofer bullshit claiming otherwise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;North Tower Spire&#x202c;&rlm;



No dumb ass, fire did not do this. a 757 flying at full speed did this, then the fire finished it off.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Triton said:


> Fires eject debris and make explosions like this, oh wait there were no explosions
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;Explosions During North Tower Collapse&#x202c;&rlm;



Ever heard the Phrase "path of least resistance"?


----------



## SFC Ollie

Triton said:


> Nothing is exploding here, its not falling symmetrically nor anywhere near at free fall speed. This is due to fires, duh, a "progressive" collapse
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;9/11: Enhanced WTC1 Video (NIST FOIA - CBS-Net Dub6 04)&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a bunch of Twooftard Twoofers Twoofing stupid nonsense.




That's right no explosions, and free fall speed would be those huge chunks of the building that fell to the outside and had zero resistance, notice how they are way ahead of the actual collapse?


----------



## SFC Ollie

Triton said:


> Raging fires! raging fires! it doesn't matter if a plane did not hit this building because a building fell on top of it! RIght, Ollie!
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;9/11: Enhanced WTC7 Video (NIST FOIA - CBS-Net Dub6 23)&#x202c;&rlm;



Another truthtard video that is edited to not show the first 7 or 8 seconds of the collapse.

Really, you are getting boring, now do you have any real proof?


----------



## Triton

Way to go Ollie, just say 

"nope, not an explosion" 

"nope, not free fall"


But, oh the penthouse collapsed first so WTC 7's 40 + stories didn't fall symmetrically or at free fall, it fell because.....


"a building fell on it"


and



The "raging" fires




We have given plenty of evidence to disprove the official theory, your evidence is simply saying its not valid evidence without providing any evidence yourselves to support the official theory because its a load of BS and you know it. 

Others on your side of this "debate" mention the laws of physics without addressing the actual manner of collapse, just a lot of typed words filling up space.


At least you don't use alot of typed words to fill up space. You make no sense in about a sentence or two.


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> no audio either, those stupid truthtards, no audio of explosions, what are they thinking!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;South Tower Exploding&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, do you think hundreds of tons of steel and concrete will fall silently?
Click to expand...


You mean like the inside of WTC 7? The big _guess_ of an internal collapse that NIST _assumes _happened, based on their computer _"inputs_", that they wont let anybody  test?
It is just as far fetched a scenario, as you who say that it could not possibly have been orchestrated by other means.
When you weigh both theories they are a stretch, you then have to appeal to the authorities and experts, and their credibility, and calculations.
When that argument is stalemated, and fails to be resolved, in peoples minds, we go back to the other parts of 9-11 and the prior events and (in)actions  that preceded this event and round it goes again.
We all know that the NIST theories are just that, theories, and assumptions, that the inside of WTC 7 collapsed because of a series of highly improbable and undocumented, and still unproven events.


----------



## SFC Ollie

When you jokers can find some real evidence that the 911 CR and the NIST reports are in error, please let the world know about it.

You see if you did actually have any valid evidence then it would be all over the MSM, they would love to find something on Bush or Cheney. Anything that can be proven would do.

You've had over 9 years and you still got nothing.

Remember also that I don't have to prove the 911CR or the NIST report; you claim they are wrong, disprove them. With real evidence.


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> When you jokers can find some real evidence that the 911 CR and the NIST reports are in error, please let the world know about it.
> 
> You see if you did actually have any valid evidence then it would be all over the MSM, they would love to find something on Bush or Cheney. Anything that can be proven would do.
> 
> You've had over 9 years and you still got nothing.
> 
> Remember also that I don't have to prove the 911CR or the NIST report; you claim they are wrong, disprove them. With real evidence.



OMG, Man..WTF are you talking about? Ther IS a shitload of counter arguments and refutations of many of the things stated in both the NIST and 9-11 CR!
You act as though what the NIST and 9-11 CR say are absolutely without refute! Because the PTB wont allow fair and impartial proceedings?
 Nothing is further from the truth.
Your point of view is that since the government or PTB declare something is not considered worthy of evidence, it isn't.
The government and its agencies ARE the defendants in this case, and they determine what can or can't be brought against them?
Think about that for a while, and how if this allowed to be applied in other criminal conspiracy cases?
There is a problem with the truth movement being able to present their cases, because the government is  huge and powerful, and controls what they deem is credible or not. It's a one way uphill battle, and they are being blocked, not because their arguments or evidence is wrong or without merit.
The best way to prove that the truth movement is wrong is to look at what they want to present in a new impartial, unbiased investigation in front of the whole world, not by ignoring it. 
Why do you refuse to see this? It's so obvious. But you probably figure if the gov and PTB can do it it is perfectly fine to follow suit.

_9-11 has been exposed by hundreds of researchers, validated by the 1,400 architects and engineers who have signed the AE911Truth petition calling on Congress for a new investigation. These researcher/activists have been assiduously ignored and lambasted by the US corporate and alternative media.
Rather than seeing consistent balanced criticisms in all instances, where hard evidence for or against a conspiracy assertion is fairly tested, the Skeptics will often employ the types of underhanded and invalid attacks (disinformation strategies) that we have seen being used against 911 Truth - ie ad hominem attacks, distortions, omissions, false explanations*, unjustified dismissals of evidence* etc.._
http://spookyweather.blogspot.com/2011/01/skeptical-inquirer-attacks-911-truth.html

 Like many other things, that people have protested about in the past about the gov, it is ignored..
Do you know how many things are kept from the public and sealed for decades?
This is not a fair way to dispel accusations...by running away from it.


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> When you jokers can find some real evidence that the 911 CR and the NIST reports are in error, please let the world know about it.
> 
> You see if you did actually have any valid evidence then it would be all over the MSM, they would love to find something on Bush or Cheney. Anything that can be proven would do.
> 
> You've had over 9 years and you still got nothing.
> 
> Remember also that I don't have to prove the 911CR or the NIST report; you claim they are wrong, disprove them. With real evidence.


So you think you can hide under their skirt, and show your face only to mock? 
You have to prove that they are right. Where is your proof they are? All they have are what amounts to guesses, and use their authoritative powers to demand we believe their guesses are better.

The NIST and 9-11 CR are supposed to prove that what they guess  correct, and according to many credible intelligent sources they have concurred that they are not, and NIST guessed wrong.


 "It is not power that corrupts, but fear -- fear of losing power and fear of the scourge of those who wield it." ---- Aung Sung Suu Kyi


----------



## SFC Ollie

They are guessing? Really?

One word, do some studying on it.

PENTTBOM

It's a little bit more than a guess.


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> They are guessing? Really?
> 
> One word, do some studying on it.
> 
> PENTTBOM
> 
> It's a little bit more than a guess.



Study the guessing that NIST does, and stop referring to the PENTTBOM, the 9-11 Commission clearly MENTIONED IN THEIR MISSION STATEMENT, what the reason they were assembled was, and fell short. You are again evading the facts every which way you can instead of facing them head on.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are guessing? Really?
> 
> One word, do some studying on it.
> 
> PENTTBOM
> 
> It's a little bit more than a guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Study the guessing that NIST does, and stop referring to the PENTTBOM, the 9-11 Commission clearly MENTIONED IN THEIR MISSION STATEMENT, what the reason they were assembled was, and fell short. You are again evading the facts every which way you can instead of facing them head on.
Click to expand...


So you cannot refute the evidence. Or even the statements. Not a problem. You see, everything you have posted about what was wrong with the actual investigation someone has shown that you were wrong. You will not accept it because you want the government to be lying so badly. I would see someone on a professional level about that.

You (meaning the truthers in general) deny that a plane crashed in PA, but we have witnesses and the debris, and the black boxes. You deny that flight 77 hit the pentagon, yet there are over 100 eye witnesses, and the debris. You insist that there were explosives planted, yet can present no evidence that says there was.

Please continue.


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> So you cannot refute the evidence. Or even the statements. Not a problem.


 We have many times and you know it you just want to continue to deny this as always.



> You see, everything you have posted about what was wrong with the actual investigation someone has shown that you were wrong.


Just because you don't agree with alternative views from credible sources that we post, does not make them wrong.



> You will not accept it because you want the government to be lying so badly. I would see someone on a professional level about that.


 I will not accept the theories and guesses you believe because frankly they have not been proven to be infallible. Whether one wants to say the government is lying or mistaken it doesn't change the fact they are supplying only theories and guesses, that have been scientifically and reputably refuted.



> You (meaning the truthers in general) deny that a plane crashed in PA, but we have witnesses and the debris, and the black boxes. You deny that flight 77 hit the pentagon, yet there are over 100 eye witnesses, and the debris.


 You should not generalize truthers and lump us all in together. There are parts to the OCT that are more hotly contested then others, by different people, just like not all military veterans adhering to the OCT does not make them all truthers.

There are many instances about the OCT narrative and theory that are disputed. Again there is no solid proof of the theory you believe in or my theory I believe in, the only sure thing is that those that don't believe as you do have made good cases, specifically with respect to the NIST report and the 9-11 commission which is what we were specifically talking about, how about sicking to that for now instead of trying to change the  topics?


> You insist that there were explosives planted, yet can present no evidence that says there was.


You insist there was nothing other then fires and planes that caused the collapses, yet there is no evidence solid enough to support this, especially since there wasn't even a proper investigation into these claims that there might have been, even after Scientists Discovered Both Residues And Unignited Fragments Of Nano-Engineered Thermitic Pyrotechnics in Debris From the Twin Towers.
These are pretty strong claims that NIST doesn't respond to.
Explosive Residues: Energetic Materials and the World Trade Center Destruction 

Again the NIST report is only a theory, and the 9-11 commission report is  not entirely accurate, as admitted to by its panelists. 
Is NIST guessing? Yes. So why do you not like admitting this?
So tell us again how a building _fell_ on WTC 7?


----------



## SFC Ollie

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you cannot refute the evidence. Or even the statements. Not a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> We have many times and you know it you just want to continue to deny this as always.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see, everything you have posted about what was wrong with the actual investigation someone has shown that you were wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because you don't agree with alternative views from credible sources that we post, does not make them wrong.
> 
> I will not accept the theories and guesses you believe because frankly they have not been proven to be infallible. Whether one wants to say the government is lying or mistaken it doesn't change the fact they are supplying only theories and guesses, that have been scientifically and reputably refuted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You (meaning the truthers in general) deny that a plane crashed in PA, but we have witnesses and the debris, and the black boxes. You deny that flight 77 hit the pentagon, yet there are over 100 eye witnesses, and the debris.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should not generalize truthers and lump us all in together. There are parts to the OCT that are more hotly contested then others, by different people, just like not all military veterans adhering to the OCT does not make them all truthers.
> 
> There are many instances about the OCT narrative and theory that are disputed. Again there is no solid proof of the theory you believe in or my theory I believe in, the only sure thing is that those that don't believe as you do have made good cases, specifically with respect to the NIST report and the 9-11 commission which is what we were specifically talking about, how about sicking to that for now instead of trying to change the  topics?
> 
> 
> 
> You insist that there were explosives planted, yet can present no evidence that says there was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You insist there was nothing other then fires and planes that caused the collapses, yet there is no evidence solid enough to support this, especially since there wasn't even a proper investigation into these claims that there might have been, even after Scientists Discovered Both Residues And Unignited Fragments Of Nano-Engineered Thermitic Pyrotechnics in Debris From the Twin Towers.
> These are pretty strong claims that NIST doesn't respond to.
> Explosive Residues: Energetic Materials and the World Trade Center Destruction
> 
> Again the NIST report is only a theory, and the 9-11 commission report is  not entirely accurate, as admitted to by its panelists.
> Is NIST guessing? Yes. So why do you not like admitting this?
> So tell us again how a building _fell_ on WTC 7?
Click to expand...


The supposed nano thermite find is pure BS. Just had to let you know that.

Please answer this, because I have asked it many times and never received an answer. What part of the 911 CR that the panel put their name on do they now disagree with?


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you cannot refute the evidence. Or even the statements. Not a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> We have many times and you know it you just want to continue to deny this as always.
> 
> Just because you don't agree with alternative views from credible sources that we post, does not make them wrong.
> 
> I will not accept the theories and guesses you believe because frankly they have not been proven to be infallible. Whether one wants to say the government is lying or mistaken it doesn't change the fact they are supplying only theories and guesses, that have been scientifically and reputably refuted.
> 
> You should not generalize truthers and lump us all in together. There are parts to the OCT that are more hotly contested then others, by different people, just like not all military veterans adhering to the OCT does not make them all truthers.
> 
> There are many instances about the OCT narrative and theory that are disputed. Again there is no solid proof of the theory you believe in or my theory I believe in, the only sure thing is that those that don't believe as you do have made good cases, specifically with respect to the NIST report and the 9-11 commission which is what we were specifically talking about, how about sicking to that for now instead of trying to change the  topics?
> 
> 
> 
> You insist that there were explosives planted, yet can present no evidence that says there was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You insist there was nothing other then fires and planes that caused the collapses, yet there is no evidence solid enough to support this, especially since there wasn't even a proper investigation into these claims that there might have been, even after Scientists Discovered Both Residues And Unignited Fragments Of Nano-Engineered Thermitic Pyrotechnics in Debris From the Twin Towers.
> These are pretty strong claims that NIST doesn't respond to.
> Explosive Residues: Energetic Materials and the World Trade Center Destruction
> 
> Again the NIST report is only a theory, and the 9-11 commission report is  not entirely accurate, as admitted to by its panelists.
> Is NIST guessing? Yes. So why do you not like admitting this?
> So tell us again how a building _fell_ on WTC 7?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The supposed nano thermite find is pure BS. Just had to let you know that.
> 
> Please answer this, because I have asked it many times and never received an answer. What part of the 911 CR that the panel put their name on do they now disagree with?
Click to expand...


the statements are the report is incomplete it hard to agree or disagree with
incomplete..._.candycorn_


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you cannot refute the evidence. Or even the statements. Not a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> We have many times and you know it you just want to continue to deny this as always.
> 
> Just because you don't agree with alternative views from credible sources that we post, does not make them wrong.
> 
> I will not accept the theories and guesses you believe because frankly they have not been proven to be infallible. Whether one wants to say the government is lying or mistaken it doesn't change the fact they are supplying only theories and guesses, that have been scientifically and reputably refuted.
> 
> You should not generalize truthers and lump us all in together. There are parts to the OCT that are more hotly contested then others, by different people, just like not all military veterans adhering to the OCT does not make them all truthers.
> 
> There are many instances about the OCT narrative and theory that are disputed. Again there is no solid proof of the theory you believe in or my theory I believe in, the only sure thing is that those that don't believe as you do have made good cases, specifically with respect to the NIST report and the 9-11 commission which is what we were specifically talking about, how about sicking to that for now instead of trying to change the  topics?
> 
> 
> 
> You insist that there were explosives planted, yet can present no evidence that says there was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You insist there was nothing other then fires and planes that caused the collapses, yet there is no evidence solid enough to support this, especially since there wasn't even a proper investigation into these claims that there might have been, even after Scientists Discovered Both Residues And Unignited Fragments Of Nano-Engineered Thermitic Pyrotechnics in Debris From the Twin Towers.
> These are pretty strong claims that NIST doesn't respond to.
> Explosive Residues: Energetic Materials and the World Trade Center Destruction
> 
> Again the NIST report is only a theory, and the 9-11 commission report is  not entirely accurate, as admitted to by its panelists.
> Is NIST guessing? Yes. So why do you not like admitting this?
> So tell us again how a building _fell_ on WTC 7?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The supposed nano thermite find is pure BS. Just had to let you know that.
> 
> Please answer this, because I have asked it many times and never received an answer. What part of the 911 CR that the panel put their name on do they now disagree with?
Click to expand...

We don't know they aren't exactly saying, we have to go by these statements.
Thomas Kean, was the Republican governor of New Jersey. He had the following to say... We to this day dont know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us, it *was just so far from the truth*. . . "

Farmer states...at some level of the government, at some point in timethere was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened... 
What do these statements mean to you? Does it inspire confidence in them getting accurate information, does it inspire confidence everything could have been correct? They both allude to dishonesty, do they not?
It seems that the panelist agreeing with the report and the panel speaking out like they did in the above statements is double speak.

Bob Kerrey, another member of the federal 9/11 Commission, added, It might take a permanent 9/11 commission to end the remaining mysteries of September 11 and called for a permanent 9/11 Commission.--Newsweek

"Well, let me just say that I think the report is, uh, extremely accurate, and- and sets forth the facts of 9/11."-Farmer

So he writes a book suggesting that different levels of government gave them false information, and were dishonest, but when pressed to elaborate he says the above statement...
Looks like members of the truth movement aren't the only ones making money by selling books.

Farmer is not saying that 9-11 was an inside job, however, Farmers testimony, along with that of his fellow 9-11 Commission members,  demonstrates that, whatever really happened on 9-11, may not be accurate. He is talking about some of the details provided after the attacks by NORAD and the FAA, for example that NORAD knew about Flight 93 before it crashed, and the governments reaction to warnings etc.. Bottom line is that many people still don't believe the OCT.
'We should never be seen as answering all the questions"-
 Bob Kerry   at about 3:30 into the video
It's a 30 year old conspiracy" he goes on to say, at 6:47 


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtJWBcWAeAw&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - &#x202a;9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey finally confesses 9-11 Commission could not do it's job - Part 3 of 3&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]

Now can you tell us how a building fell on WTC 7?


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> The supposed nano thermite find is pure BS. Just had to let you know that.


 How do you know this. If it is a lie and made up why isn't it addressed and proven false and charges brought against those that claim to have found it, there's got to be a law about that somewhere isn't there?


----------



## SFC Ollie

What they are referring to is different agencies and the military holding back on certain classified material, and some things that they may not have told the complete truth about because of CYA. There were mistakes made that day by our leadership in different agencies and parts of the military. I don't know what they were nor do I have any clue what part of which stories were embellished or ignored to protect those agencies and divisions. Chances are we'll never know.

But the report is still as close to the truth as we can get. 




> Now can you tell us how a building fell on WTC 7?



Not difficult we all saw it happen. A 110 story building fell on it. What else do we need to know? There was no evidence of a controlled demolition. There were fires that raged through the building for 7 hours. And the Firemen reported creaking and bulging....
It fell down......


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> What they are referring to is different agencies and the military holding back on certain classified material, and some things that they may not have told the complete truth about because of CYA. There were mistakes made that day by our leadership in different agencies and parts of the military. I don't know what they were nor do I have any clue what part of which stories were embellished or ignored to protect those agencies and divisions. Chances are we'll never know.
> 
> But the report is still as close to the truth as we can get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now can you tell us how a building fell on WTC 7?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not difficult we all saw it happen. A 110 story building fell on it. What else do we need to know? There was no evidence of a controlled demolition. There were fires that raged through the building for 7 hours. And the Firemen reported creaking and bulging....
> It fell down......
Click to expand...


fire was the reported cause of the collapse Ollie...according to nist falling debris started the fires and thats it and the same fires ignited any other way would still of resulted in a collapse..so wtf are you talking about ????


----------



## Rat in the Hat

Triton said:


> Those stupid twooftard fuckers!!! hahahaha., only 2000 people in a decade disprove of the official conspiracy theory and 1500 of them signed onto A&E for 9/11 truth!!
> 
> Way to go Nutjobs!!
> 
> The debunker movement has made great strides in convincing people that the WTC towers did not fall symmetrically, nor anywhere near free fall speed! Fires, especially on a few floors, do indeed have enough power to cause a total collapse to steel framed skyscrapers!
> 
> Aerosolized steel in the dust, HA!!! That means nothing because the building was collapsing so of course the steel would be aerosolized!
> 
> 
> NIST is a reuptable agency who cares is some stupid school teacher pointed out a flaw, even the experts make mistakes after taking several years after the event to offer an explanation.
> 
> 
> and of course no explosions
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;Audible Explosion at WTC&#x202c;&rlm;



Just as info, there are people on another site I visit checking on the 1500 signatories on that AE911 petition. They have already found 18 people who have passed away since signing it.

Why won't the AE911 group keep track of this, and update their numbers as needed? Oh, that's right, they don't want it to be known that their numbers are actually going down.

If they were to present their petition to try to get a new investigation, the fact that some signers are dead will keep it from being accepted.


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The supposed nano thermite find is pure BS. Just had to let you know that.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know this. If it is a lie and made up why isn't it addressed and proven false and charges brought against those that claim to have found it, there's got to be a law about that somewhere isn't there?
Click to expand...


It isn't nano thermite because nobody has found nano thermite.  Jones et. al. found what they described as an "active thermitic compound".  They were unable to identify exactly what it was, but lots of things can be an "active thermitic compound".  A match head is an excellent example of an active thermitic compound.  

As for laws against claiming you found something you haven't, someone has to be hurt by your actions.  So who was demonstrably hurt by Jones et. al. pretending they found an "active thermitic compound"?  

Jones can get away with claiming he found an active thermitic compound.  I am sure he did.  Lots of things will ignite sooner or later when you apply heat.  So how do Jones et. al. get away with it?  Because while they're not exactly lying, the people who read their crap are going to read into it whatever they want like nano thermite was found.  They rely on the ignorance of their readers to cover up their bullshit findings.


----------



## SFC Ollie

That and the statement that the dust was made up of .1% of this so called nano thermostatic material. Think about that. There would have to be tons of this stuff unburnt for that to be true. And if there were tons unused, then how many hundreds of tons would have been planted?

It is impossible.


----------



## Vindicator

Could someone please explain to me why "the government" would blow up any of the WTC buildings?


----------



## eots

Vindicator said:


> Could someone please explain to me why "the government" would blow up any of the WTC buildings?



a prelude to wars of conquest and invasion of sovereign nations..and it worked very well


----------



## SFC Ollie

Vindicator said:


> Could someone please explain to me why "the government" would blow up any of the WTC buildings?



They wouldn't. No reason to have 4 planes hijacked and take the risk of discovery by having tons of explosives planted in three buildings. Wonder why if they were doing that then why didn't they plant explosives in the pentagon too. Of course now we'll hear about how it wasn't a plane that hit the pentagon....And we all know that there couldn't have been a plane in PA either.....


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> Vindicator said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could someone please explain to me why "the government" would blow up any of the WTC buildings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They wouldn't. No reason to have 4 planes hijacked and take the risk of discovery by having tons of explosives planted in three buildings. Wonder why if they were doing that then why didn't they plant explosives in the pentagon too. Of course now we'll hear about how it wasn't a plane that hit the pentagon....And we all know that there couldn't have been a plane in PA either.....
Click to expand...


no need to destroy the pentagon a hit on a symbolic military target was good enough and it could be repaired and continue in service .. but once the towers were hit they were the cost of repair and shut down made it much more efficient to just completely destroy them and makes for a much more spectacular display to incite the masses


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> Vindicator said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could someone please explain to me why "the government" would blow up any of the WTC buildings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They wouldn't. No reason to have 4 planes hijacked and take the risk of discovery by having tons of explosives planted in three buildings. Wonder why if they were doing that then why didn't they plant explosives in the pentagon too. Of course now we'll hear about how it wasn't a plane that hit the pentagon....And we all know that there couldn't have been a plane in PA either.....
Click to expand...


the question I have about PA is ..why do no less than two former presidents of the U.S air crash investigation board and several military crash investigators call the shanksville crash investigation a cover -up ???


----------



## SFC Ollie

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vindicator said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could someone please explain to me why "the government" would blow up any of the WTC buildings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They wouldn't. No reason to have 4 planes hijacked and take the risk of discovery by having tons of explosives planted in three buildings. Wonder why if they were doing that then why didn't they plant explosives in the pentagon too. Of course now we'll hear about how it wasn't a plane that hit the pentagon....And we all know that there couldn't have been a plane in PA either.....
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the question I have about PA is ..why do no less than two former presidents of the U.S air crash investigation board and several military crash investigators call the shanksville crash investigation a cover -up ???
Click to expand...


Opinion.


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> They wouldn't. No reason to have 4 planes hijacked and take the risk of discovery by having tons of explosives planted in three buildings. Wonder why if they were doing that then why didn't they plant explosives in the pentagon too. Of course now we'll hear about how it wasn't a plane that hit the pentagon....And we all know that there couldn't have been a plane in PA either.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the question I have about PA is ..why do no less than two former presidents of the U.S air crash investigation board and several military crash investigators call the shanksville crash investigation a cover -up ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Opinion.
Click to expand...


expert opinion.. that has been the gold seal in their field on many many other crash investigations...I think it is incumbent on us to take such opinions very seriously and recognize the courage of commitment it took  to go on record and make them


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> What they are referring to is different agencies and the military holding back on certain classified material, and some things that they may not have told the complete truth about because of CYA. There were mistakes made that day by our leadership in different agencies and parts of the military. I don't know what they were nor do I have any clue what part of which stories were embellished or ignored to protect those agencies and divisions. Chances are we'll never know.
> 
> But the report is still as close to the truth as we can get.


What is forgotten in all of this, is that, this government is accountable to the people, and like you say we still may never know, at least not in our lifetime. That has to change.
Also, no one is held responsible and reprimanded, instead many get promotions. That is BS and has to change. Bottom line is it seems that the report is dishonest...but accurate. WTF?



> Now can you tell us how a building fell on WTC 7?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not difficult we all saw it happen. A 110 story building fell on it. What else do we need to know? There was no evidence of a controlled demolition. There were fires that raged through the building for 7 hours. And the Firemen reported creaking and bulging....
> It fell down......
Click to expand...

 Ollie, you are arguing from a launching pad of ignorance, or out rite deceit. We know a 100 ten story tower did not fall on WTC 7. NIST has said that the falling debris was not a factor in the collapse. Now if you want to see the effects of the tower falling on a building, look no further then the other WTC complex buildings that were damaged a lot worse, but yet suffered no global collapse. NIST said cause of WTC 7 collapse was fire, and specifically fire damage to column 79. We are supposed to believe in a highly improbable series of random events led to the first ever total collapse of a hirise (fortified hirise at that), that made the "inside collapse first" .
BTW, the building would appear to collapse the same way if it was brought down by CD. ...The inside structure would be taken out, followed by the remaining outside of the building. So it is possible NIST is describing the way it really was brought down..Just change "fire" as the cause to "CD".
Just thinking out loud here, but..I have often wondered, given the highly sensitive and important agencies that had offices in that building, would it be reasonable to have a building like that, or any other important building that perhaps held information or secrets, that if in the wrong hands could be detrimental to national security, prewired to blow the shit out of it so its contents and state secrets could not be used by an enemy?

There are reports of Siverstein allegedly on the phone with the insurance company asking for permission to bring the building down.

Anyway no...the TOWERS  DID NOT fall ON IT. They aren't even sure what started the sporadic fires in WTC 7, again NIST has to resort to guessing, and with hardly any pieces to examine, made it more difficult. The problem is that once the buildings were felled, the immediate OCT started pointing the blame to Al Qaeda and 19 hijackers, so the "guessing" revolved around that scenario and left other possibilities out of their theories.


----------



## SFC Ollie

'The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7,' NIST's Sunder tells PM. 'On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out.'NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

detailsofdamagetowtc7 - wtc7lies













> Anyway no...the TOWERS DID NOT fall ON IT. They aren't even sure what started the sporadic fires in WTC 7


 You keep telling yourself that.


----------



## Rat in the Hat

Vindicator said:


> Could someone please explain to me why "the government" would blow up any of the WTC buildings?



Because there were paper records inside WTC7 that they needed to destroy, and it was easier to blow up the buildings than to use a paper shredder from Office Max.


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> 'The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7,' NIST's Sunder tells PM. 'On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out.'NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
> 
> detailsofdamagetowtc7 - wtc7lies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway no...the TOWERS DID NOT fall ON IT. They aren't even sure what started the sporadic fires in WTC 7
> 
> 
> 
> You keep telling yourself that.
Click to expand...


In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7&#8217;s Column 79&#8212;the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse&#8212;would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column&#8217;s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events...

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/techbeat/tbx2008_1120_wtc7.htm


----------



## Triton

SFC Ollie said:


> 'The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7,' NIST's Sunder tells PM. 'On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out.'NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
> 
> detailsofdamagetowtc7 - wtc7lies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway no...the TOWERS DID NOT fall ON IT. They aren't even sure what started the sporadic fires in WTC 7
> 
> 
> 
> You keep telling yourself that.
Click to expand...




This damage could not have caused the total free fall, yes, free fall collapse that WTC 7 experienced.


I believe WTC 7 was an emergency management office and there is speculation that at least some portion of the operation may have been carried out there so the building was demolished.

Regardless, the building was deliberately brought down via a manner of controlled demolition.


For the neutral observer, who are you to believe?

Credentialed scientists, engineers, pilots, and researchers with expertise and an advanced degree or some guy on a messageboard named SFC Ollie?


----------



## Patriot911

Triton said:


> This damage could not have caused the total free fall, yes, free fall collapse that WTC 7 experienced.
> 
> 
> I believe WTC 7 was an emergency management office and there is speculation that at least some portion of the operation may have been carried out there so the building was demolished.
> 
> Regardless, the building was deliberately brought down via a manner of controlled demolition.
> 
> 
> For the neutral observer, who are you to believe?
> 
> Credentialed scientists, engineers, pilots, and researchers with expertise and an advanced degree or some guy on a messageboard named SFC Ollie?



  They sure as hell wouldn't believe a piece of shit fucktard named Triton who continuously lies his sorry ass off.  Free fall collapse?    What... you think if you repeat a lie often enough someone might be brain dead enough to actually believe you?  I don't think so.  

Face it.  You fucking losers called truthtards are nothing but a blight on humanity.  You want to use the deaths of 3000 people to push your bullshit anti-whatever agendas depending on who you hate today.  The very fact you losers can't even agree on who did it, how they did it, what was done, or when it was done should be a big assed red flag showing you sorry sons of bitches are nothing but trash.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Triton said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7,' NIST's Sunder tells PM. 'On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out.'NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
> 
> detailsofdamagetowtc7 - wtc7lies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway no...the TOWERS DID NOT fall ON IT. They aren't even sure what started the sporadic fires in WTC 7
> 
> 
> 
> You keep telling yourself that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This damage could not have caused the total free fall, yes, free fall collapse that WTC 7 experienced.
> 
> 
> I believe WTC 7 was an emergency management office and there is speculation that at least some portion of the operation may have been carried out there so the building was demolished.
> 
> Regardless, the building was deliberately brought down via a manner of controlled demolition.
> 
> 
> For the neutral observer, who are you to believe?
> 
> Credentialed scientists, engineers, pilots, and researchers with expertise and an advanced degree or some guy on a messageboard named SFC Ollie?
Click to expand...


No child, WTC 7 did not experience free fall, the facade did for roughly 2 seconds.

And there is no one denying that there was an EOC in the building. But it was not used to direct the attacks, only people like you believe that.

There is still zero evidence of a controlled demolition. other than you claim it looked just like one, which in itself isn't even true. Wheres the flashes and bangs?

Now who would the casual viewer believe? Probably the guy who doesn't hide behind a fake name on a message board but clearly shows he is a Retired Army Sergeant First Class and uses his actual name. Most of the people I talk with even know where I live. Of course, most of the people I talk with are sane. 

Oh and in case you haven't noticed, I normally give a link to something that a credited expert says or make certain that you know it's me talking. Right now, it's just my opinion. You're nuts!


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7,' NIST's Sunder tells PM. 'On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out.'NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
> 
> detailsofdamagetowtc7 - wtc7lies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep telling yourself that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This damage could not have caused the total free fall, yes, free fall collapse that WTC 7 experienced.
> 
> 
> I believe WTC 7 was an emergency management office and there is speculation that at least some portion of the operation may have been carried out there so the building was demolished.
> 
> Regardless, the building was deliberately brought down via a manner of controlled demolition.
> 
> 
> For the neutral observer, who are you to believe?
> 
> Credentialed scientists, engineers, pilots, and researchers with expertise and an advanced degree or some guy on a messageboard named SFC Ollie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No child, WTC 7 did not experience free fall, the facade did for roughly 2 seconds.
> 
> And there is no one denying that there was an EOC in the building. But it was not used to direct the attacks, only people like you believe that.
> 
> There is still zero evidence of a controlled demolition. other than you claim it looked just like one, which in itself isn't even true. Wheres the flashes and bangs?
> 
> Now who would the casual viewer believe? Probably the guy who doesn't hide behind a fake name on a message board but clearly shows he is a Retired Army Sergeant First Class and uses his actual name. Most of the people I talk with even know where I live. Of course, most of the people I talk with are sane.
> 
> Oh and in case you haven't noticed, I normally give a link to something that a credited expert says or make certain that you know it's me talking. Right now, it's just my opinion. You're nuts!
Click to expand...


so how long did it take the inside to fall ?


----------



## Rat in the Hat

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> This damage could not have caused the total free fall, yes, free fall collapse that WTC 7 experienced.
> 
> 
> I believe WTC 7 was an emergency management office and there is speculation that at least some portion of the operation may have been carried out there so the building was demolished.
> 
> Regardless, the building was deliberately brought down via a manner of controlled demolition.
> 
> 
> For the neutral observer, who are you to believe?
> 
> Credentialed scientists, engineers, pilots, and researchers with expertise and an advanced degree or some guy on a messageboard named SFC Ollie?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No child, WTC 7 did not experience free fall, the facade did for roughly 2 seconds.
> 
> And there is no one denying that there was an EOC in the building. But it was not used to direct the attacks, only people like you believe that.
> 
> There is still zero evidence of a controlled demolition. other than you claim it looked just like one, which in itself isn't even true. Wheres the flashes and bangs?
> 
> Now who would the casual viewer believe? Probably the guy who doesn't hide behind a fake name on a message board but clearly shows he is a Retired Army Sergeant First Class and uses his actual name. Most of the people I talk with even know where I live. Of course, most of the people I talk with are sane.
> 
> Oh and in case you haven't noticed, I normally give a link to something that a credited expert says or make certain that you know it's me talking. Right now, it's just my opinion. You're nuts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so how long did it take the inside to fall ?
Click to expand...


No one knows how long the inside was collapsing, but enough of it collapsed for the mechanical penthouse to drop into the building 7 to 8 seconds before the outer facade started to fall.


----------



## SFC Ollie

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> This damage could not have caused the total free fall, yes, free fall collapse that WTC 7 experienced.
> 
> 
> I believe WTC 7 was an emergency management office and there is speculation that at least some portion of the operation may have been carried out there so the building was demolished.
> 
> Regardless, the building was deliberately brought down via a manner of controlled demolition.
> 
> 
> For the neutral observer, who are you to believe?
> 
> Credentialed scientists, engineers, pilots, and researchers with expertise and an advanced degree or some guy on a messageboard named SFC Ollie?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No child, WTC 7 did not experience free fall, the facade did for roughly 2 seconds.
> 
> And there is no one denying that there was an EOC in the building. But it was not used to direct the attacks, only people like you believe that.
> 
> There is still zero evidence of a controlled demolition. other than you claim it looked just like one, which in itself isn't even true. Wheres the flashes and bangs?
> 
> Now who would the casual viewer believe? Probably the guy who doesn't hide behind a fake name on a message board but clearly shows he is a Retired Army Sergeant First Class and uses his actual name. Most of the people I talk with even know where I live. Of course, most of the people I talk with are sane.
> 
> Oh and in case you haven't noticed, I normally give a link to something that a credited expert says or make certain that you know it's me talking. Right now, it's just my opinion. You're nuts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so how long did it take the inside to fall ?
Click to expand...


You know eots, we've posted the unedited videos so many times..... Maybe you should actually watch it sometime.


----------



## eots

Rat in the Hat said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> No child, WTC 7 did not experience free fall, the facade did for roughly 2 seconds.
> 
> And there is no one denying that there was an EOC in the building. But it was not used to direct the attacks, only people like you believe that.
> 
> There is still zero evidence of a controlled demolition. other than you claim it looked just like one, which in itself isn't even true. Wheres the flashes and bangs?
> 
> Now who would the casual viewer believe? Probably the guy who doesn't hide behind a fake name on a message board but clearly shows he is a Retired Army Sergeant First Class and uses his actual name. Most of the people I talk with even know where I live. Of course, most of the people I talk with are sane.
> 
> Oh and in case you haven't noticed, I normally give a link to something that a credited expert says or make certain that you know it's me talking. Right now, it's just my opinion. You're nuts!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so how long did it take the inside to fall ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one knows how long the inside was collapsing, but enough of it collapsed for the mechanical penthouse to drop into the building 7 to 8 seconds before the outer facade started to fall.
Click to expand...


is it 7 or 8 secs.. did NIST not measure this ?...so was the interior collapsing noisy ? did it create any massive clouds of dust or cause any distortion or damage to the facade as it fell ?


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> No child, WTC 7 did not experience free fall, the facade did for roughly 2 seconds.
> 
> And there is no one denying that there was an EOC in the building. But it was not used to direct the attacks, only people like you believe that.
> 
> There is still zero evidence of a controlled demolition. other than you claim it looked just like one, which in itself isn't even true. Wheres the flashes and bangs?
> 
> Now who would the casual viewer believe? Probably the guy who doesn't hide behind a fake name on a message board but clearly shows he is a Retired Army Sergeant First Class and uses his actual name. Most of the people I talk with even know where I live. Of course, most of the people I talk with are sane.
> 
> Oh and in case you haven't noticed, I normally give a link to something that a credited expert says or make certain that you know it's me talking. Right now, it's just my opinion. You're nuts!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so how long did it take the inside to fall ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know eots, we've posted the unedited videos so many times..... Maybe you should actually watch it sometime.
Click to expand...


have you watched it ? if you have you should know how many secs it is


----------



## Rat in the Hat

eots said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> so how long did it take the inside to fall ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one knows how long the inside was collapsing, but enough of it collapsed for the mechanical penthouse to drop into the building 7 to 8 seconds before the outer facade started to fall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> is it 7 or 8 secs.. did NIST not measure this ?...so was the interior collapsing noisy ? did it create any massive clouds of dust or cause any distortion or damage to the facade as it fell ?
Click to expand...


No, they didn't measure it. Why would they? How were they to know that years after the event, conspiritards would remove the footage of the penthouse collapse from their youtube videos, then try to say the entire building fell at free fall acceleration? To NIST's credit, they did re-examine the videos and concede that a portion of the north facade did reach F-F accel for 2.25 seconds.

And of course you hand wave away the windows that broke when the penthouse collapsed. Handwaving is a tool of the trade with you inside jobby-job folks. And how do you know if any of the south facade distorted? After all, another thing you hand wave away is that in the last few seconds of the collapse, the building rolled back, damaging the Verizon Building, and Fitterman Hall. How did that happen if the building fell into it's own footprint, as the surviving signatories of the AE911 petition claim?


----------



## eots

Rat in the Hat said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one knows how long the inside was collapsing, but enough of it collapsed for the mechanical penthouse to drop into the building 7 to 8 seconds before the outer facade started to fall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is it 7 or 8 secs.. did NIST not measure this ?...so was the interior collapsing noisy ? did it create any massive clouds of dust or cause any distortion or damage to the facade as it fell ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they didn't measure it. Why would they? How were they to know that years after the event, conspiritards would remove the footage of the penthouse collapse from their youtube videos, then try to say the entire building fell at free fall acceleration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> of course they measured it and their numbers are different than ollies a
> and yous..why is that ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To NIST's credit, they did re-examine the videos and concede that a portion of the north facade did reach F-F accel for 2.25 seconds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no they were forced to spin it when denial no longer worked
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And of course you hand wave away the windows that broke when the penthouse collapsed. Handwaving is a tool of the trade with you inside jobby-job folks. And how do you know if any of the south facade distorted? After all, another thing you hand wave away is that in the last few seconds of the collapse, the building rolled back, damaging the Verizon Building, and Fitterman Hall. How did that happen if the building fell into it's own footprint, as the surviving signatories of the AE911 petition claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> of course windows broke..windows were breaking just from heat so why would int they break as the building collapsed ?
Click to expand...


----------



## Rat in the Hat

eots said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> is it 7 or 8 secs.. did NIST not measure this ?...so was the interior collapsing noisy ? did it create any massive clouds of dust or cause any distortion or damage to the facade as it fell ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course they measured it and their numbers are different than ollies a
> and yous..why is that ?
> 
> Please post a link to the NIST report where they gave collapse time for the penthouse.
> 
> 
> 
> no they were forced to spin it when denial no longer worked
> 
> NIST didn't spin it. They flat out admitted that parts of the north facade fell at free fall acceleration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And of course you hand wave away the windows that broke when the penthouse collapsed. Handwaving is a tool of the trade with you inside jobby-job folks. And how do you know if any of the south facade distorted? After all, another thing you hand wave away is that in the last few seconds of the collapse, the building rolled back, damaging the Verizon Building, and Fitterman Hall. How did that happen if the building fell into it's own footprint, as the surviving signatories of the AE911 petition claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> of course windows broke..windows were breaking just from heat so why would int they break as the building collapsed ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you still handwave away the films of the windows that were breaking while the penthouse collapsed, in the corner of the building closet to the penthouse.
> 
> Replies in red.
> 
> Strange how you won't address the point about WTC7 damaging other buildings outside of it's own footprint.
Click to expand...


----------



## Rat in the Hat

Oh, and I know I screwed up the quote function. Please don't start another conspiracy about that.

I don't want anyone sitting in a basement making hay out of it.


----------



## eots

Rat in the Hat said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> of course they measured it and their numbers are different than ollies a
> and yous..why is that ?
> 
> Please post a link to the NIST report where they gave collapse time for the penthouse.
> 
> 
> 
> no they were forced to spin it when denial no longer worked
> 
> NIST didn't spin it. They flat out admitted that parts of the north facade fell at free fall acceleration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course windows broke..windows were breaking just from heat so why would int they break as the building collapsed ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you still handwave away the films of the windows that were breaking while the penthouse collapsed, in the corner of the building closet to the penthouse.
> 
> Replies in red.
> 
> Strange how you won't address the point about WTC7 damaging other buildings outside of it's own footprint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> happens in controlled demolitions
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

RARE NEW Video of WTC 7 Collapse ~ Close-Up of Penthouse on Roof, 9/11 Cover Up


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> happens in controlled demolitions


Bullshit you lying piece of shit!  Windows don't "break" in a controlled demolition.  They don't even HAVE windows still in place because the explosions would blow them out, not just break them.  Did we see that?  Nope.  Just like we didn't hear any explosions prior to or during the collapse even though one can clearly hear the internal collapse.  Oh, you truthtards TRIED to pretend the rumble was explosions, but come on... how fucking stupid does one have to be to believe THAT horseshit?

Or did you just "conveniently" forget all the things one REALLY sees during a controlled demolition?  

You truthtards are really becoming disgustingly desperate.  You know you're a bunch of fucking liars that are pushing bullshit, so you desperately try for anything someone MIGHT believe if they are stupid enough.


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> happens in controlled demolitions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit you lying piece of shit!  Windows don't "break" in a controlled demolition.  They don't even HAVE windows still in place because the explosions would blow them out, not just break them.  Did we see that?  Nope
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> I never said wows break in a controlled demolition retardind
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like we didn't hear any explosions prior to or during the collapse even though one can clearly hear the internal collapse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> really ? could you please post audio of the sounds before the collapse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you truthtards TRIED to pretend the rumble was explosions, but come on... how fucking stupid does one have to be to believe THAT horseshit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ll these steel beams failing and falling only made a low rumble as the facaded collapsed ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or did you just "conveniently" forget all the things one REALLY sees during a controlled demolition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it is you that conveniently forgets how skyscrapers typically react to fires
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You truthtards are really becoming disgustingly desperate.  You know you're a bunch of fucking liars that are pushing bullshit, so you desperately try for anything someone MIGHT believe if they are stupid enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ]
> 
> blah blah blah blah  blah blah blah...lol
Click to expand...


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> I never said wows break in a controlled demolition retardind


  Up the meds, fucktard.  You can't even spell or make sense.  BTW, when you claim "happens in controlled demolitions" and don't bother to be in any way, shape or form specific, one implies the subject of the previous post is what you are talking about.  So yes, you were talking about the windows.  Pretty pathetic attempt to cover your ass.  Didn't work.  It still got kicked.



			
				eots said:
			
		

> really ? could you please post audio of the sounds before the collapse


Already have.  Numerous times.  So has Jones pretending they are explosions.  Are you telling us each and every video of the collapse where the audio was talked about was ignored by you?    Well, listen up you lazy son of a bitch, you want the audio?  Look for it.  It isn't hard to find.  You pretending it has never been submitted before only proves my utter contempt for you is so richly deserved.



			
				eots said:
			
		

> ll these steel beams failing and falling only made a low rumble as the facaded collapsed ?


What sound would you expect?  It sounds like just about every other collapse when the explosives aren't going off..... you know.... the building collapsing due to gravity.



			
				eots said:
			
		

> I think it is you that conveniently forgets how skyscrapers typically react to fires


So what, exactly, was typical about 9/11?  Do you usually have 767s crashing into buildings where the fires can't be fought?  Do you typically have a 110 story building crashing into another building, starting numerous fires that also cannot be fought?  Or are we suppose to get a truthtard lobotomy and pretend all buildings should react the same regardless of construction, materials, and circumstances?  No thank you.  You truthtards can play brain dead fuck ups.  I prefer to use my brain for logic and common sense; two things completely foreign to you.



			
				eots said:
			
		

> blah blah blah blah  blah blah blah...lol


Yup.  That is all you got, mr. blah.  Anything you can't understand or don't want to hear just turns into blahs.  Must be why you are so allergic to the truth.


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the entire inner structure fell.. silently.. and completely, all behind the facade.. *causing no apparent damage or distortion to the facade*...and you can prove these theories how ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 years and you never saw this? Amazing...
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkOGkdNq13k&feature=related]YouTube - &#x202a;WTC7 NIST Clip with east penthouse&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]
> 
> I don't see ANY windows breaking when the penthouse fell into the building. Nope. Nothing to see here right eots?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not see the entire inner structure collapsing...according to you and NIST
> I see a facade falling...and all I hear is a narrative saying building 7 was the first know instance of a steel frame  building collapsing primarily due to fire
Click to expand...


No, you claimed there was no apparent damage to the facade when the interior fell. I showed you the windows breaking on the facade as a result of the penthouse collapsing. So your "no apparent damage" claim has been proven incorrect.

Next.


----------



## Obamerican

Nice to see Eots getting his ass handed to him...................................again!!


----------



## eots

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 10 years and you never saw this? Amazing...
> YouTube - &#x202a;WTC7 NIST Clip with east penthouse&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> I don't see ANY windows breaking when the penthouse fell into the building. Nope. Nothing to see here right eots?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not see the entire inner structure collapsing...according to you and NIST
> I see a facade falling...and all I hear is a narrative saying building 7 was the first know instance of a steel frame  building collapsing primarily due to fire
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you claimed there was no apparent damage to the facade when the interior fell. I showed you the windows breaking on the facade as a result of the penthouse collapsing. So your "no apparent damage" claim has been proven incorrect.
> 
> Next.
Click to expand...


windows breaking as the facade collapses is not distortion or damage to the facade prior to its collapse


----------



## Mr. Jones

Patriot911 said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> This damage could not have caused the total free fall, yes, free fall collapse that WTC 7 experienced.
> 
> 
> I believe WTC 7 was an emergency management office and there is speculation that at least some portion of the operation may have been carried out there so the building was demolished.
> 
> Regardless, the building was deliberately brought down via a manner of controlled demolition.
> 
> 
> For the neutral observer, who are you to believe?
> 
> Credentialed scientists, engineers, pilots, and researchers with expertise and an advanced degree or some guy on a messageboard named SFC Ollie?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They sure as hell wouldn't believe a piece of shit fucktard named Triton who continuously lies his sorry ass off.  Free fall collapse?    What... you think if you repeat a lie often enough someone might be brain dead enough to actually believe you?  I don't think so.
> 
> Face it.  You fucking losers called truthtards are nothing but a blight on humanity.  You want to use the deaths of 3000 people to push your bullshit anti-whatever agendas depending on who you hate today.  The very fact you losers can't even agree on who did it, how they did it, what was done, or when it was done should be a big assed red flag showing you sorry sons of bitches are nothing but trash.
Click to expand...

No you got this wrong man. Some of us just believe that the government has taken on a more tyrannical role in the Americans citizens lives. 
They have used the deaths of 3000 to _push their agenda_.
These power hungry maniacs think they can trash the Constitution and, and the rights that are in it to protect us from government getting too big and establishing a dictatorship.
They are supposed to be held accountable to the people, that is what America is supposed to be..a government that represents the people...We just want it to work and be like it was designed to be, not take it over and install some other form of governance, I'm not for that kind of shit. I'm sick to death of them lying to us and using their "superior" authority to know what's best for us.
I have stated many times on here that I jumped on the bandwagon back in 2001-2002, but slowly over time the lies just became so obvious, and it pissed me off, and I want them to come clean about a lot of this shit. There's nothing wrong with demanding that.

Now if they were more transparent and honest, and came out and totally debunked all the allegations the truth movement has put forth, I honestly would eat crow, apologize here and in public and support them..But nothing that they have said or done to dispel the allegations have convinced me they are right about 9-11 (and other things, like the bank and wall street scandal) or honest.
 For example...I don't approve of the way bills are infiltrated with amendments not related to the original bill's topic and rammed through as part of it.

The American government as was designed by the founders has mutated into exactly what they feared it would.
You know... it is possible to have rational discussion about this topic without resorting to all the name calling, that shit will not change someones opinion. Just post your rebuttal with some credible back up and you might be taken more seriously.
Everyone here that is involved in this topic has gotten their points from a variety of other sources, so calling someone a liar is not fair, how about we say their _sources are liars_ instead?
BTW, the calculations on the mechanics of the collapses are real MFKers, and I have looked at it and I have to agree it is brilliant, from both aspects, If only it (collapses) would have taken more time, and accounted for the top block having to overcome its own resistive forces as well as the lower blocks forces I would be able to file this part of it away as being more viable.
As it stands the only way get to the bottom of all the issues, in my humble opinion, is to reopen everything with no political biases involved, either here or in some neutral setting. 
It is obviously clear that both sides have only theories with limited resources at their disposal ( WTC steel for example)  to back up their claims, but I'm sure there are plenty of people  that would be willing to step forward if certain assurances were given to them etc.
With the help of a majority of people from both camps pushing for this, it could happen faster and finally be resolved.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The supposed nano thermite find is pure BS. Just had to let you know that.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know this. If it is a lie and made up why isn't it addressed and proven false and charges brought against those that claim to have found it, there's got to be a law about that somewhere isn't there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't nano thermite because nobody has found nano thermite.  Jones et. al. found what they described as an "active thermitic compound".  They were unable to identify exactly what it was, but lots of things can be an "active thermitic compound".  A match head is an excellent example of an active thermitic compound.
> 
> As for laws against claiming you found something you haven't, someone has to be hurt by your actions.  So who was demonstrably hurt by Jones et. al. pretending they found an "active thermitic compound"?
> 
> Jones can get away with claiming he found an active thermitic compound.  I am sure he did.  Lots of things will ignite sooner or later when you apply heat.  So how do Jones et. al. get away with it?  Because while they're not exactly lying, the people who read their crap are going to read into it whatever they want like nano thermite was found.  They rely on the ignorance of their readers to cover up their bullshit findings.
Click to expand...


 Can nanothermites (also called superthermites) be explosive?
What is the difference between ordinary thermite and nano-thermite?
 Are you now saying that nanothermite was used instead of thermate, or was the only explosive material in the operations?
 Do you agree that  Jones is putting "superthermite" in the same category of explosiveness as HMX and RDX as claimed by Mark Hightower? (Email to Jones and numerous others from Mark Hightower, 8 May 2011).
Could the red nano-thermitic material found in the WTC dust have been the result of clean-up operations after 9/11?
 Could the red nano-thermitic material found in the WTC dust have been the result of iron oxide from the building combining with aluminum from the building, during the collapses?....
Could the red nano-thermitic material found in the WTC dust have been primer paint used on the WTC?
Figure 14 in your paper shows zinc. Doesn't this mean that this sample (which later was soaked in MEK) was a primer-paint sample?
What is the main evidence you have that the red material undergoes a thermitic reaction when ignited?
What would be the motivation to place pyrotechnic material in the Towers and WTC 7 so as to cause the observed accelerated fall of these skyscrapers? Who would do such a thing?


Responses to questions regarding thermite, nanothermite and conventional explosives used in the WTC destruction. | 911Blogger.com.
What motivation does this man or his fellow scientists have for saying this. Why would they lie?
 This is a big allegation, that NIST and a new investigation has to look into and disprove IMHO.


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> No you got this wrong man. Some of us just believe that the government has taken on a more tyrannical role in the Americans citizens lives.


Bullshit Jones, and you know it.  You and your fellow fuckups ACTIVELY push bullshit lies trying to pretend the government was behind 9/11.  Trying to put on a halo now and pretend you just believe the government is more tyrannical is just laughable.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> They have used the deaths of 3000 to _push their agenda_.


So it is OK for you to do it, but nobody else?    Come on.  You think anyone else is buying the self righteous load of horse shit you're trying to peddle?



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> These power hungry maniacs think they can trash the Constitution and, and the rights that are in it to protect us from government getting too big and establishing a dictatorship.


Been hearing that since 2001.  You stupid fucks STILL don't have a dictator in power.  In fact, the guys you blame for 9/11 are no longer even in power.    I guess you forgot to check your facts, eh?



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> They are supposed to be held accountable to the people, that is what America is supposed to be..a government that represents the people...We just want it to work and be like it was designed to be, not take it over and install some other form of governance, I'm not for that kind of shit.


Right... so you make up all kinds of bullshit lies and accuse our government for what Al Qaeda did.  That just makes you a piece of shit liar who is also a traitor to this great nation of ours.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with standing up against the government.  I do it on a regular basis because there are things going on I do not agree with.  I don't have to swing people to my side with lies just because I'm such a loser I can't convince them on the merits of my own arguments.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> I'm sick to death of them lying to us and using their "superior" authority to know what's best for us.


So you lie to everyone else?  Since when do two wrongs make a right?  Instead of crystalizing the issues you have against the government, you end up muddying the waters.  Instead of being a patriot standing up for what you believe is right, you lie your sorry ass off trying to get people to overthrow the government.  How fucking stupid is that?  DAMN stupid in my book.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> I have stated many times on here that I jumped on the bandwagon back in 2001-2002, but slowly over time the lies just became so obvious, and it pissed me off, and I want them to come clean about a lot of this shit.


Just about every truthtard says the same damn thing.  Think it fools anyone?  I sincerely doubt it.  You're such a liar that why would you tell the truth about this?  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> There's nothing wrong with demanding that.


Sure there is.  When fucking assholes like you pretend everything the government says is wrong and push theories that by NO stretch of the imagination could possibly be true in light of all the evidence provided and all the investigations done, nobody is going to believe that you're just "wanting them to come clean".  You've already convicted them and nothing short of a lynching is going to satisfy sick fucks like you.  I know it.  You know it.  Everyone else knows it.  So why the games?



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Now if they were more transparent and honest, and came out and totally debunked all the allegations the truth movement has put forth, I honestly would eat crow, apologize here and in public and support them.


Bullfuckingshit.  We ALL have seen how you operate.  No matter what evidence is provided, no matter how badly your theories are debunked, you never change your mind about a damn thing.  So spare us your self aggrandizing bullshit about how you would honestly eat crow.... you're far to busy eating the bullshit from the likes of Gage.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> But nothing that they have said or done to dispel the allegations have convinced me they are right about 9-11 (and other things, like the bank and wall street scandal) or honest.


Of course not.  There is nothing anyone can say or do that will convince a complete retard like you that the world isn't the twisted, fucked up place you imagine it to be.  You're stuck in your own paranoid delusions, and I sincerely doubt there is any hope you'll break out of them anytime soon.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> For example...I don't approve of the way bills are infiltrated with amendments not related to the original bill's topic and rammed through as part of it.


Great!  Do you ever fight about that?  No.  You whine that the government is evil and was behind 9/11.  Does that do jack shit for getting reform on bills?  Nope.  All it does is destroy your credibility and make anything you say seem dubious at best.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> The American government as was designed by the founders has mutated into exactly what they feared it would.


Yet instead of fighting what is wrong in government, you make up bullshit and try to foment rebellion.  Isn't going to happen, junior.  You've had almost ten years to make your case and you still don't even have a single piece of evidence despite all your claims to the contrary.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> You know... it is possible to have rational discussion about this topic without resorting to all the name calling, that shit will not change someones opinion.


Well, I lost all respect for truthtards and have nothing left but utter contempt.  You're right.  It IS possible to have a rational discussion, right up until it is obvious the bullshit truthtard theories are wrong.  Then it always flips to another aspect of the 9/11 theories until you think people have forgotten about the prior ass kickings and it is safe to make the same bullshit claims yet again with all the same lies.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Just post your rebuttal with some credible back up and you might be taken more seriously.


Uh huh.  I post Leslie Robertson, the guy who actually DESIGNED the towers and I've yet to see a truthtard accept him as someone credible.    You fucks are so full of shit it is hard to believe you don't spend all day on the crapper.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Everyone here that is involved in this topic has gotten their points from a variety of other sources, so calling someone a liar is not fair, how about we say their _sources are liars_ instead?


When a piece of shit liar like you continues to pretend his "sources" are true, that makes the lie yours.  Nice try at wiggling out of responsibility for what you post, but I doubt anyone is going to buy that bullshit excuse.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> BTW, the calculations on the mechanics of the collapses are real MFKers, and I have looked at it and I have to agree it is brilliant, from both aspects, If only it (collapses) would have taken more time, and accounted for the top block having to overcome its own resistive forces as well as the lower blocks forces I would be able to file this part of it away as being more viable.


Convenient piece of denial.  So what you're saying is you're too damn stupid to figure it out, so you're going to continue on believing the collapses were controlled demolitions.    And you wonder why I have nothing but contempt for you.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> As it stands the only way get to the bottom of all the issues, in my humble opinion, is to reopen everything with no political biases involved, either here or in some neutral setting.


Bullshit.  People have been trying for YEARS to get you stupid fucks to see the truth and you blindly dismiss any and every piece of evidence you don't like.  Not only that, but there IS NO POLITICAL BIAS in this issue other than we think the government is innocent and you think the government is guilty.  This isn't a left / right thing.  This is pro-American / anti-American.  We stand for the truth.  You stand for anything that pushes your anti-government agenda no matter HOW often it has been proven to be wrong.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> It is obviously clear that both sides have only theories with limited resources at their disposal ( WTC steel for example)  to back up their claims, but I'm sure there are plenty of people  that would be willing to step forward if certain assurances were given to them etc.


  I love how you're trying to pretend both sides are equal.    Nothing could be further from the truth.  On the one side you have the government who has the evidence, the science, and the investigations that prove their theories are very close if not spot on.  On your side you have a bunch of crackpot liars who wouldn't know their own ass from a hole in the ground, a bunch of lies and false claims, no evidence at all to back up your bullshit, and some fucktards pretending they are experts.  

No contest.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> With the help of a majority of people from both camps pushing for this, it could happen faster and finally be resolved.


No, nothing would be resolved.  Any investigation HAS to go off the evidence.  YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE.  NONE.  ZIP.  ZILCH.  NADA.  Thus the only logical conclusion is that any investigation is going to come to the exact same conclusions you've already rejected because you just fucking don't like the answer.    So how would a NEW investigation be any different?  Truthtards have already exposed the fact nothing will sway them.  All we would be doing is wasting our time, effort and money re-hashing the same old shit with no new evidence that might make a different outcome possible.


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> What motivation does this man or his fellow scientists have for saying this. Why would they lie?
> This is a big allegation, that NIST and a new investigation has to look into and disprove IMHO.


Why would you lie?  Why would Gage lie?  You're fucking truthtards.  It's a mental disease with you guys.  JONES FOUND NOTHING that could account for the destruction of the towers.  That is the truth.

As for lying.... why did he lie about cold fusion?


----------



## Triton

SFC Ollie said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7,' NIST's Sunder tells PM. 'On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out.'NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
> 
> detailsofdamagetowtc7 - wtc7lies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep telling yourself that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This damage could not have caused the total free fall, yes, free fall collapse that WTC 7 experienced.
> 
> 
> I believe WTC 7 was an emergency management office and there is speculation that at least some portion of the operation may have been carried out there so the building was demolished.
> 
> Regardless, the building was deliberately brought down via a manner of controlled demolition.
> 
> 
> For the neutral observer, who are you to believe?
> 
> Credentialed scientists, engineers, pilots, and researchers with expertise and an advanced degree or some guy on a messageboard named SFC Ollie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No child, WTC 7 did not experience free fall, the facade did for roughly 2 seconds.
> 
> And there is no one denying that there was an EOC in the building. But it was not used to direct the attacks, only people like you believe that.
> 
> There is still zero evidence of a controlled demolition. other than you claim it looked just like one, which in itself isn't even true. Wheres the flashes and bangs?
> 
> Now who would the casual viewer believe? Probably the guy who doesn't hide behind a fake name on a message board but clearly shows he is a Retired Army Sergeant First Class and uses his actual name. Most of the people I talk with even know where I live. Of course, most of the people I talk with are sane.
> 
> Oh and in case you haven't noticed, I normally give a link to something that a credited expert says or make certain that you know it's me talking. Right now, it's just my opinion. You're nuts!
Click to expand...



Attack my character and avatar but ignore the fact that the damage WTC 7 had could not have facilitated the kind of total symmetrical free fall collapse that it experienced.

Have you posted on any other threads Ollie? Most people on this board have creative avatars. Who cares if people know where you live.

You can keep saying all day that WTC 7 didn't have a total symmetrical free fall collapse despite not being hit by a plane with minimal damage and sporadic fires. 


But it did, period.


----------



## Meister

Triton said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> This damage could not have caused the total free fall, yes, free fall collapse that WTC 7 experienced.
> 
> 
> I believe WTC 7 was an emergency management office and there is speculation that at least some portion of the operation may have been carried out there so the building was demolished.
> 
> Regardless, the building was deliberately brought down via a manner of controlled demolition.
> 
> 
> For the neutral observer, who are you to believe?
> 
> Credentialed scientists, engineers, pilots, and researchers with expertise and an advanced degree or some guy on a messageboard named SFC Ollie?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No child, WTC 7 did not experience free fall, the facade did for roughly 2 seconds.
> 
> And there is no one denying that there was an EOC in the building. But it was not used to direct the attacks, only people like you believe that.
> 
> There is still zero evidence of a controlled demolition. other than you claim it looked just like one, which in itself isn't even true. Wheres the flashes and bangs?
> 
> Now who would the casual viewer believe? Probably the guy who doesn't hide behind a fake name on a message board but clearly shows he is a Retired Army Sergeant First Class and uses his actual name. Most of the people I talk with even know where I live. Of course, most of the people I talk with are sane.
> 
> Oh and in case you haven't noticed, I normally give a link to something that a credited expert says or make certain that you know it's me talking. Right now, it's just my opinion. You're nuts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Attack my character and avatar but ignore the fact that the damage WTC 7 had could not have facilitated the kind of total symmetrical free fall collapse that it experienced.
> 
> Have you posted on any other threads Ollie? Most people on this board have creative avatars. Who cares if people know where you live.
> 
> You can keep saying all day that WTC 7 didn't have a total symmetrical free fall collapse despite not being hit by a plane with minimal damage and sporadic fires.
> 
> 
> But it did, period.
Click to expand...


----------



## SFC Ollie

Triton said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> This damage could not have caused the total free fall, yes, free fall collapse that WTC 7 experienced.
> 
> 
> I believe WTC 7 was an emergency management office and there is speculation that at least some portion of the operation may have been carried out there so the building was demolished.
> 
> Regardless, the building was deliberately brought down via a manner of controlled demolition.
> 
> 
> For the neutral observer, who are you to believe?
> 
> Credentialed scientists, engineers, pilots, and researchers with expertise and an advanced degree or some guy on a messageboard named SFC Ollie?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No child, WTC 7 did not experience free fall, the facade did for roughly 2 seconds.
> 
> And there is no one denying that there was an EOC in the building. But it was not used to direct the attacks, only people like you believe that.
> 
> There is still zero evidence of a controlled demolition. other than you claim it looked just like one, which in itself isn't even true. Wheres the flashes and bangs?
> 
> Now who would the casual viewer believe? Probably the guy who doesn't hide behind a fake name on a message board but clearly shows he is a Retired Army Sergeant First Class and uses his actual name. Most of the people I talk with even know where I live. Of course, most of the people I talk with are sane.
> 
> Oh and in case you haven't noticed, I normally give a link to something that a credited expert says or make certain that you know it's me talking. Right now, it's just my opinion. You're nuts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Attack my character and avatar but ignore the fact that the damage WTC 7 had could not have facilitated the kind of total symmetrical free fall collapse that it experienced.
> 
> Have you posted on any other threads Ollie? Most people on this board have creative avatars. Who cares if people know where you live.
> 
> You can keep saying all day that WTC 7 didn't have a total symmetrical free fall collapse despite not being hit by a plane with minimal damage and sporadic fires.
> 
> 
> But it did, period.
Click to expand...


Excuse me? I attacked your avatar? the poor thing.

Yes, I will say it again. WTC7 did not experience free fall.  This has been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, only someone who is really stupid would ever believe that it did. Admittedly the facade did hit free fall speed for 2.25 seconds. But the building did not. Are you smarter than a 1st grader? Can you distinguish the difference between a part of a building and the whole building?

Oh by the way I post in most sections of this board. I am not like some people and only post in conspiracies. You do know there are other sections of the board with other subjects? It might be healthy for you to check them out.


----------



## Meister

SFC Ollie said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> No child, WTC 7 did not experience free fall, the facade did for roughly 2 seconds.
> 
> And there is no one denying that there was an EOC in the building. But it was not used to direct the attacks, only people like you believe that.
> 
> There is still zero evidence of a controlled demolition. other than you claim it looked just like one, which in itself isn't even true. Wheres the flashes and bangs?
> 
> Now who would the casual viewer believe? Probably the guy who doesn't hide behind a fake name on a message board but clearly shows he is a Retired Army Sergeant First Class and uses his actual name. Most of the people I talk with even know where I live. Of course, most of the people I talk with are sane.
> 
> Oh and in case you haven't noticed, I normally give a link to something that a credited expert says or make certain that you know it's me talking. Right now, it's just my opinion. You're nuts!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Attack my character and avatar but ignore the fact that the damage WTC 7 had could not have facilitated the kind of total symmetrical free fall collapse that it experienced.
> 
> Have you posted on any other threads Ollie? Most people on this board have creative avatars. Who cares if people know where you live.
> 
> You can keep saying all day that WTC 7 didn't have a total symmetrical free fall collapse despite not being hit by a plane with minimal damage and sporadic fires.
> 
> 
> But it did, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me? I attacked your avatar? the poor thing.
> 
> Yes, I will say it again. WTC7 did not experience free fall.  This has been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, only someone who is really stupid would ever believe that it did. Admittedly the facade did hit free fall speed for 2.25 seconds. But the building did not. *Are you smarter than a 1st grader? Can you distinguish the difference between a part of a building and the whole building?*Oh by the way I post in most sections of this board. I am not like some people and only post in conspiracies.* You do know there are other sections of the board with other subjects?* It might be healthy for you to check them out.
Click to expand...


The answers to the questions in bold are:
1. no
2. no
3. no


----------



## Patriot911

Fascist Canuck said:


> *groan* Are Americans STILL sticking to the 'it was Bush done it' conspiracy bullshit? Your WTC was destroyed by Arabs... get over it.



Actually, some say it was Cheney..... and others say it was da Joos..... and others pretend they don't know who did it, but it sure wasn't Al Qaeda.


----------



## Triton

You're right Ollie, I'm wrong, a building fell on it.

Mesiter, let me guess, you believe WTC 7 didn't fall symmetrically, there was plenty of resistance and therefore the building didn't collapse anywhere near free fall, and a building fell on it, right?


"progressive" collapse


----------



## SFC Ollie

LOL

      

Now this is funny.


Hi, you have received -1 reputation points from Triton.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
What\'s the matter? Getting a little upset that your bullshit still smells?

Regards,
Triton

Boy you've got some balls at least. But you've also got more Bullshit than any three people. You are also extremely stupid. You have had your ass handed to you so many times over this that you can't see past it anymore. Maybe English is a second language to you. Or maybe you just need a reading comprehension class. But then again more than likely you need someone to help you understand comic books. At any rate your negative one hurt so bad........NOT...... LOL


----------



## Triton

Good. I hope you enjoyed it Ollie, Did you think I was going to just take negative rep from you and not hit you back?

English? Comic books? A building Fell on it? WTF?


----------



## eots

Fascist Canuck said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fascist Canuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> *groan* Are Americans STILL sticking to the 'it was Bush done it' conspiracy bullshit? Your WTC was destroyed by Arabs... get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, some say it was Cheney..... and others say it was da Joos..... and others pretend they don't know who did it, but it sure wasn't Al Qaeda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, your own military discovered the plans for 9-11 amongst Al Queda. Other than the Muslim fruitcakes of this world, the only other peoples I could believe who would do such a thing would be the Israelis.
> 
> Why do you not believe it was Al Queda?? Perhaps Arabs are simply too stupid to have come up with such a scheme? Are the Americans masters at fabricating all of the proof we have seen which clearly points to Al Queda? None too bright, are you? You are a loony leftie, aren't you?
Click to expand...


I believe NIST report failed to determine the cause of the collapses and that the 9/11 commission report and other official reports on the events of 9/11 were intentional cover -ups of the facts


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Wow. So all of my posts from yesterday just get removed? So, this board isn't moderated, it's actually controlled. Good to know....I'm done posting here.


----------



## SFC Ollie

TakeAStepBack said:


> Wow. So all of my posts from yesterday just get removed? So, this board isn't moderated, it's actually controlled. Good to know....I'm done posting here.



Promises promises........................

Everyones posts were lost dumb ass. They had to do a site restore. You really should get out of the conspiracy area sometimes.

Oh, that is, if you are still here...... Did you keep your promise this time?


----------



## Triton

They disappeared just like the debris field in Shanksville and the Pentagon


----------



## SFC Ollie




----------



## Gamolon

TakeAStepBack said:


> Wow. So all of my posts from yesterday just get removed? So, this board isn't moderated, it's actually controlled. Good to know....I'm done posting here.



Paranoid?


----------



## JackDan

this thread just needs to die.

die die die...


----------



## Mr. Jones

[





> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you got this wrong man. Some of us just believe that the government has taken on a more tyrannical role in the Americans citizens lives.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit Jones, and you know it.  You and your fellow fuckups ACTIVELY push bullshit lies trying to pretend the government was behind 9/11.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you douchebag, we speak out on the lies and BS that has been trying to be passed as the undeniable truth by NIST, the government, and shitheads like you.
> If you haven't noticed how this country has/is morphed into a fascist style you are a fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have used the deaths of 3000 to _push their agenda_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it is OK for you to do it, but nobody else?    Come on.  You think anyone else is buying the self righteous load of horse shit you're trying to peddle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a stupid statement from you again. It is a fact that the US has taken full advantage of the 9-11 attacks and deaths to pursue a war and imperialistic agenda you fucking asshole. Are you saying the truth movement and people in it somehow have a nefarious agenda? Prove it or STFU with your nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> Been hearing that since 2001.  You stupid fucks STILL don't have a dictator in power.  In fact, the guys you blame for 9/11 are no longer even in power.    I guess you forgot to check your facts, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Real Americans don't want a president or government that behaves like a dictatorship. Take a look and educate yourself on how the "war on terror" has effected our civil liberties, regardless of who is at the helm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right... so you make up all kinds of bullshit lies and accuse our government for what Al Qaeda did.  That just makes you a piece of shit liar who is also a traitor to this great nation of ours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't make up lies like you claim, that is another lie that YOU claim. You don't give a shit about "our great nation" quit pretending you are some righteous patriotic American, while you admit we weren't told everything about 9-11, you continue to bash anybody who speaks out and questions the government.
> Besides there is no hardcore conclusive evidence that Al Qaeda acted alone, unless you consider tortured confessions, and fake video translations proof. But of course a boot licking pussy like you would, and condone this shit too. That is not what America is supposed to represent. Look up Facism and witness the similarities that have and are occurring in the country, you willfully ignorant and stupid prick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely nothing wrong with standing up against the government.  I do it on a regular basis because there are things going on I do not agree with.  I don't have to swing people to my side with lies just because I'm such a loser I can't convince them on the merits of my own arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh please spare us the fake patriotic American routine already. You are a walking talking lying contradiction on a massive scale.
> First you say it is absolutely fine to stand up to the government, but it is not OK when YOU don't agree with others arguments
> and we are trying to take over the government  You are a conspiracy theorists of the worst kind, you mental and social outcast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you lie to everyone else?  Since when do two wrongs make a right?  Instead of crystalizing the issues you have against the government, you end up muddying the waters.  Instead of being a patriot standing up for what you believe is right, you lie your sorry ass off trying to get people to overthrow the government.  How fucking stupid is that?  DAMN stupid in my book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is you that muddies the waters by spewing hypocritical and and insane BS like you posted above. LOL, you are now a paranoid conspiracy nutcase if you think anybody who questions the government or has an objection to its policies, is seriously trying to take over the government.   What a headcase!
> BTW being a patriot does not mean you have to be a kiss ass cowardly pussy like yourself, that is too afraid to speak out, and stand up for what you believe in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just about every truthtard says the same damn thing.  Think it fools anyone?  I sincerely doubt it.  You're such a liar that why would you tell the truth about this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't you have any shame in acting like a little girl when you constantly say "liar, liar, truthtard" all the time? Grow the fuck up you whinny little school yard bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure there is.  When fucking assholes like you pretend everything the government says is wrong and push theories that by NO stretch of the imagination could possibly be true in light of all the evidence provided and all the investigations done, nobody is going to believe that you're just "wanting them to come clean".  You've already convicted them and nothing short of a lynching is going to satisfy sick fucks like you.  I know it.  You know it.  Everyone else knows it.  So why the games?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are here pretending everything they have said is without rebuke, and you try to pretend the far fetched theories they claim are correct. You are so fucking stupid, that you actually think that the highly improbable and first time in the history of the world scenarios and claims, can stand on their own?
> The evidence you say is correct is nothing more then wild speculation and guesses, and you claim to wanting people lynched is nothing more then some more unsubstantiated BS, you know it and anybody with any sort of intellect knows it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullfuckingshit.  We ALL have seen how you operate.  No matter what evidence is provided, no matter how badly your theories are debunked, you never change your mind about a damn thing.  So spare us your self aggrandizing bullshit about how you would honestly eat crow.... you're far to busy eating the bullshit from the likes of Gage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and the theories you peddle as absolute truth have been refuted time and again, you have NEVER debunked anything, only in your delusional paranoid mind.
> All you can come up with are the same tired old arguments that you have the nerve to call "proof" and "evidence" when in reality all they are, are theories and guesses backed up by the  propaganda machine, they control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  There is nothing anyone can say or do that will convince a complete retard like you that the world isn't the twisted, fucked up place you imagine it to be.  You're stuck in your own paranoid delusions, and I sincerely doubt there is any hope you'll break out of them anytime soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh man, you must be on high grade medication to think the world is some kind of happy fun Utopia, You should make sure you don't run out of those meds because you're in for a rude awakening when they ware off.
> You have once again shown what a n ignorant brainwashed little stooge you really are, who doesn't know anything about the real adult world outside his little pharmaceuticaly  induced protected shell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great!  Do you ever fight about that?  No.  You whine that the government is evil and was behind 9/11.  Does that do jack shit for getting reform on bills?  Nope.  All it does is destroy your credibility and make anything you say seem dubious at best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another stupid ASSumption, that has no basis for answering HIS OWN QUESTION with a NO  The truth is you have no idea what I have worked on in my state government, or any idea of any current projects I am involved in, and that makes you all pissy and cause you to throw your little sissy rants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet instead of fighting what is wrong in government, you make up bullshit and try to foment rebellion.  Isn't going to happen, junior.  You've had almost ten years to make your case and you still don't even have a single piece of evidence despite all your claims to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again another baseless claim
> With more paranoid delusions thrown in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I lost all respect for truthtards and have nothing left but utter contempt.  You're right.  It IS possible to have a rational discussion, right up until it is obvious the bullshit truthtard theories are wrong.  Then it always flips to another aspect of the 9/11 theories until you think people have forgotten about the prior ass kickings and it is safe to make the same bullshit claims yet again with all the same lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> News flash asshole, nobody likes a coward bootlicking stooge that acts like a prepubescent premenstrual little bitch like you do. You have not proved anything wrong about the other plausible theories, you are so stupid, you aren't capable of seeing just how insane your statements get.
> You have shown you are sorely lacking in any real world knowledge, by claiming all is well on planet Earth, then you display your paranoia by thinking anyone who is part of any truth movement, or objects to government policies is "trying to foment rebellion, and take over the government"
> Then you lie and contradict yourself again, by claiming  people should stand up to government when they fell there are abuses, but if you do, you are just part of some big conspiracy to foment a coup!!
> You are one sick disturbed dumbfucking jackass, Parrot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh.  I post Leslie Robertson, the guy who actually DESIGNED the towers and I've yet to see a truthtard accept him as someone credible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that? Why do you call anybody who has more intelligence and experience in the topic of 9-11 then you, and has different theories then you, a liar?
> Because you are a mindless, drone that is such a pussy he wont ask the hard questions of his government, even when he admits he doesn't know everything, and " they could be wrong" That's why.
> Plenty of reputable and knowledgeable engineers who know more about this stuff then you do, have soundly refuted the theories you claim to be undeniable!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a piece of shit liar like you continues to pretend his "sources" are true, that makes the lie yours.  Nice try at wiggling out of responsibility for what you post, but I doubt anyone is going to buy that bullshit excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When a POS liar and paranoid mentally fucked in the head asshole like you, pretends that what he believes has not been refuted, that make you an accessory to the lies.
> You are so fucked in the head, that you can't tell the difference between a real lie and a difference of opinion based on sound theories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Convenient piece of denial.  So what you're saying is you're too damn stupid to figure it out, so you're going to continue on believing the collapses were controlled demolitions.    And you wonder why I have nothing but contempt for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No that is what YOU want me to say, again trying to put words in your opponents mouths is a weak way to try to win any debate.
> You have no clue what I actually believe or don't, and a proven BS artist like you that has been caught lying his ass off by trying to pass refuted theories off as undisputed truth, is not a good source of anything near the truth of any subject. Just like you BS calculations I showed to be flawed, and you did that on purpose as though no one would be able to tell?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  People have been trying for YEARS to get you stupid fucks to see the truth and you blindly dismiss any and every piece of evidence you don't like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you confuse the truth as only what you believe, which has been shown to you many times to not be sound evidence or science. People have different views and opinions, grow up and deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only that, but there IS NO POLITICAL BIAS in this issue other than we think the government is innocent and you think the government is guilty.  This isn't a left / right thing.  This is pro-American / anti-American.  We stand for the truth.  You stand for anything that pushes your anti-government agenda no matter HOW often it has been proven to be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow you really don't have a clue what this is really about do you?
> The Ds against the Rs is nothing more then a BS game to keep stooges like you occupied. You also can't possibly know if you stand for the "truth " or not, since you don't know what that really is, you stupid dumbfuck!
> You don't like anybody questioning your masters, and we, who live in the real world have bonafide reasons to speak out.You are so fucking clueless, you actually think that wanting goverment to do its assigned duties for the people, are "anti-American?
> You can't see or understand just how stupid you are in thinking this way?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love how you're trying to pretend both sides are equal.    Nothing could be further from the truth.  On the one side you have the government who has the evidence, the science, and the investigations that prove their theories are very close if not spot on.  On your side you have a bunch of crackpot liars who wouldn't know their own ass from a hole in the ground, a bunch of lies and false claims, no evidence at all to back up your bullshit, and some fucktards pretending they are experts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You imagining the experts that don't agree with you are somehow stupid, is well...stupid. Calling them crackpots isn't disproving anything, and only makes you affirm what many of us think of you, that is you are a clueless lying little bitch, that has to throw tantrums to get any attention.
> You are really a nutcase, if you actually believe any of the BS you have said in this entire post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No contest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes when it comes to establishing the credibility of scientists, engineers and scholars, compared to some asshole like you, there is no contest, they win you lose..loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, nothing would be resolved.  Any investigation HAS to go off the evidence.  YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE.  NONE.  ZIP.  ZILCH.  NADA.  Thus the only logical conclusion is that any investigation is going to come to the exact same conclusions you've already rejected because you just fucking don't like the answer.    So how would a NEW investigation be any different?  Truthtards have already exposed the fact nothing will sway them.  All we would be doing is wasting our time, effort and money re-hashing the same old shit with no new evidence that might make a different outcome possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you, there is plenty of credible material that plenty of credible people have put out to counter the OCT that you lick from the asses of your handlers. Too bad for you if you don't like it. If you are so condident in their stance then why are you such a pussy that is against  a new non biased, non political investigation?
> Fear, that's why. You are scared you wont like what may happen and the upheaval it may cause.
> You have confirmed your paranoid delusions, while lying, and contradicting your views all in one sorry post! But I can always get you to do that!
Click to expand...


----------



## SFC Ollie

> there is plenty of credible material that plenty of credible people have put out to counter the OCT



Actually, if this were true, there would already be real investigations going on and the American people, even people from all over the world would be screaming for justice and truth. Fact is sadly that there is not any truly credible material to disprove the main points of the official investigations and reports.

Get over it.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> What motivation does this man or his fellow scientists have for saying this. Why would they lie?
> This is a big allegation, that NIST and a new investigation has to look into and disprove IMHO.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you lie?  Why would Gage lie?  You're fucking truthtards.  It's a mental disease with you guys.  JONES FOUND NOTHING that could account for the destruction of the towers.  That is the truth.
> 
> As for lying.... why did he lie about cold fusion?
Click to expand...

 Again the OCT believer Parrot continues to pretend all other theories that he doesn't subscribe to, and probably doesn't even understand, are just big fat lies!!
 and those that bring them up, are "LIARS" 
And that anybody that has any different opinions and views, are just lying!!
He can't actually prove they are actual lies, BUT, that is of no significance in his delusional sorry little mind 
Cmon you sorry little whinny crybaby, let's see how many times you can use the words "truthtard" and "liar" in your next pissass rant filled post?

Oh and BTW do you have any concrete proof Steven Jones actually really lied about cold fusion? I will admit to not having heard too much about this allegation, and found this article about him.

_*In the mid-1980s, Jones and other BYU scientists worked on what he then referred to as Cold Nuclear Fusion in a Scientific American article, but is today known as muon-catalyzed fusion to avoid confusion with the cold fusion concept of Pons and Fleischman . Muon-catalyzed fusion was a field of some interest in the 1980s, but its low energy output appears to be unavoidable (due to alpha-muon sticking losses). Jones led a research team that in 1986 achieved 150 fusions per muon (average), releasing over 2,600 MeV of fusion energy per muon, a record which still stands.[7]*_

*Around 1985 Jones then became interested in the anomalous concentration of helium-3 found in the gases escaping from volcanoes. He hypothesized that the high pressures in the Earth's interior might make fusion more likely, and began a series of experiments on what he referred to as piezofusion, or high-pressure fusion. In order to characterize the reactions, Jones designed and built a neutron counter able to accurately measure the tiny numbers of neutrons being produced in his experiments. The counter suggested a small amount of fusion was going on. Jones said the result suggested at least the possibility of fusion, though the process was unlikely to be useful as an energy source.*

Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann (Pons and Fleischmann or P&F) started their work around the same time. Their work was brought to Jones' attention when they applied for research funding from the Department of Energy, after which the DOE passed their proposal along to Jones for peer review. Realizing their work was very similar, Jones and P&F agreed to release their papers to Nature on the same day, March 24, 1989. However, P&F announced their results at a press event the day before. Jones faxed his paper to Nature.[8]

*A New York Times article says that while peer reviewers were quite critical of Pons and Fleishchmann's research they did not apply such criticism to Jones' much more modest, theoretically supported findings. Although critics insisted that his results likely stemmed from experimental error,[9] most of the reviewing physicists indicated that he was a careful scientist. Later research and experiments supported the metallic cold fusion reports by Jones.[10]*

Steven E. Jones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## SFC Ollie

And all this has what to do with his ability to tell the truth about what happened on 9-11-01?


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> And all this has what to do with his ability to tell the truth about what happened on 9-11-01?


That's a good question for your fellow OCT to answer since he brought Jones and the cold fusion controversy up as a way to discredit him.


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> there is plenty of credible material that plenty of credible people have put out to counter the OCT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, if this were true, there would already be real investigations going on and the American people, even people from all over the world would be screaming for justice and truth. Fact is sadly that there is not any truly credible material to disprove the main points of the official investigations and reports.
> 
> Get over it.
Click to expand...

 The problem is that the side that subscribes to the OCT does not want to debate the issues between them, and you people are idiots for saying they are "liars" simply because you don't agree with them, that is asinine.
What's even more stupid of you is to deny that there isn't anything that refutes the OCT, it seems you have not even seriously looked into what they have calculated or are saying, just like in another thread you try to insist that cell phones worked on the flights of 9-11 even though the FBI changed its tune about them in a trial regarding 9-11.
You people don't bother to read or look into anything that counters your beliefs, you insist on trying to avoid the obvious credible counter points and arguments by totally dismissing their claims, or by
 having to look up BS like your buddy Parrot about Jones and cold fusion.
I 'll give you another example..I have tried to have rational discussions about the mechanics of the WTC towers, and what do you think Parrot does?
He posts some bogus calculations to use as an example to bolster his claims. He does not bother to think that the facts are that NIST doesn't come close to explaining the collapse, it only goes as far as the theory on the initiation of collapse.
You people don't try to reason things out, like considering many people think that a gravity collapse does indeed have tremendous kinetic energy, and that perhaps all the CD that was needed was to kick start a gravity collapse.
It is a fact that many things have not been explained, not even by the very agency that was paid, and supposed to be counted on to do the explaining.
They admit to free fall in WTC 7, but don't explain anything about it.
If that kind of explanation is good enough for you, that's fine, but it may not be for others.
The main problem from what I can tell, is that too many people are just stuck in believing what they do, and are not flexible enough to consider other things, when so much has been put forth and evolved in 10 years.
You also don't seem to understand or want to, that the very same PTB are the ones that control what is and what is not deemed worthy of credible rebuttal or evidence.
We at least try to respect what the OCT put out, and try to respond to it, we don't go around like ignorant children calling everyone a "coincitard" or a "liar" just because we don't like or believe what they say.
Many of you have turned this place into nothing more then a launching pad for personal release of frustrations and other mental or social shortcomings you people may have.
Try reading some of the hilarious and stupid posts your fellow OCT rely with, and we try to defend ourselves from, lately?
 You should at least try to rebuttal with some kind of coherent and adult behavior and responses that resembles some form of human intelligence.


----------



## Rat in the Hat

TakeAStepBack said:


> Wow. So all of my posts from yesterday just get removed? So, this board isn't moderated, it's actually controlled. Good to know....I'm done posting here.



Who knew it could be that easy.

I have to spread this idea to a few other places.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is plenty of credible material that plenty of credible people have put out to counter the OCT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, if this were true, there would already be real investigations going on and the American people, even people from all over the world would be screaming for justice and truth. Fact is sadly that there is not any truly credible material to disprove the main points of the official investigations and reports.
> 
> Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is that the side that subscribes to the OCT does not want to debate the issues between them, and you people are idiots for saying they are "liars" simply because you don't agree with them, that is asinine.
> What's even more stupid of you is to deny that there isn't anything that refutes the OCT, it seems you have not even seriously looked into what they have calculated or are saying, just like in another thread you try to insist that cell phones worked on the flights of 9-11 even though the FBI changed its tune about them in a trial regarding 9-11.
Click to expand...


Now that is not true, I don't deny that there is nothing to refute the Official investigations and reports. I do believe that there is nothing that refutes the main points of those investigations and reports.



> You people don't bother to read or look into anything that counters your beliefs, you insist on trying to avoid the obvious credible counter points and arguments by totally dismissing their claims, or by
> having to look up BS like your buddy Parrot about Jones and cold fusion.



Au contraire, I have probably read as much about the conspiracies and seen as many videos as you have. The difference is that i can smell bull Shit and you can't.




> I 'll give you another example..I have tried to have rational discussions about the mechanics of the WTC towers, and what do you think Parrot does?
> He posts some bogus calculations to use as an example to bolster his claims. He does not bother to think that the facts are that NIST doesn't come close to explaining the collapse, it only goes as far as the theory on the initiation of collapse.



Please do not confuse me with other people. I have several times stated that I am not an physicist or engineer, so I won't argue those points.


> You people don't try to reason things out, like considering many people think that a gravity collapse does indeed have tremendous kinetic energy, and that perhaps all the CD that was needed was to kick start a gravity collapse.



Another new theory? You really don't think the planes did enough damage?




> It is a fact that many things have not been explained, not even by the very agency that was paid, and supposed to be counted on to do the explaining.
> They admit to free fall in WTC 7, but don't explain anything about it.
> If that kind of explanation is good enough for you, that's fine, but it may not be for others.



The facade, not the building. there is a difference between a part of a whole and the whole. Why won't you admit that. Huge sections of the towers fell at free fall because they fell to the outside where there was nothing to stop them. Does that mean the towers came down at free fall speed?


> The main problem from what I can tell, is that too many people are just stuck in believing what they do, and are not flexible enough to consider other things, when so much has been put forth and evolved in 10 years.



In ten years there has been nothing that could disprove the main points of the 911CR or the NIST reports.



> You also don't seem to understand or want to, that the very same PTB are the ones that control what is and what is not deemed worthy of credible rebuttal or evidence.


Wrong again, if you had the evidence someone would have taken it to a court somewhere. There are way too many VIP's that would have loved to pin something on Bush or Cheney, The US congress wasted a whole fucking year trying it....


> We at least try to respect what the OCT put out, and try to respond to it, we don't go around like ignorant children calling everyone a "coincitard" or a "liar" just because we don't like or believe what they say.
> Many of you have turned this place into nothing more then a launching pad for personal release of frustrations and other mental or social shortcomings you people may have.
> Try reading some of the hilarious and stupid posts your fellow OCT rely with, and we try to defend ourselves from, lately?



Again you want me to speak for someone else? Not going to happen.


> You should at least try to rebuttal with some kind of coherent and adult behavior and responses that resembles some form of human intelligence.



I try, I really do try, but when the truthers can't see what is put in front of them it does make one start to feel like they have a mental problem. I present what I believe to be the truth. And what do I get? Read some of the truthers (Trinton for example) comments. And then come tell me about Patriot.........


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> What motivation does this man or his fellow scientists have for saying this. Why would they lie?
> This is a big allegation, that NIST and a new investigation has to look into and disprove IMHO.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you lie?  Why would Gage lie?  You're fucking truthtards.  It's a mental disease with you guys.  JONES FOUND NOTHING that could account for the destruction of the towers.  That is the truth.
> 
> As for lying.... why did he lie about cold fusion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again the OCT believer Parrot continues to pretend all other theories that he doesn't subscribe to, and probably doesn't even understand, are just big fat lies!!
> and those that bring them up, are "LIARS"
Click to expand...

Wrong yet again, fucktard Jones.  Jones' claims about having discovered cold fusion were just that; flat out lies.  Maybe you should have done some research before sticking your foot up your own ass.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> And that anybody that has any different opinions and views, are just lying!!


Nope.  I only call people who blatantly lie liars.  Like you always do and I've proven.  Oh sure, you came back and tried to reword phrases or make excuses, but do you think anyone was buying that?  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> He can't actually prove they are actual lies, BUT, that is of no significance in his delusional sorry little mind


Wrong yet again, little fucktard!  I prove it time and time again.  But since you are driven by your hate and your agenda, you refuse to acknowledge the lies and instead continue to believe your little fantasies even when you can't even defend them.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Cmon you sorry little whinny crybaby, let's see how many times you can use the words "truthtard" and "liar" in your next pissass rant filled post?


Why do you get so upset when people call you what you really are?  Seriously.  All kidding aside.  You are one of the sorriest piece of shit liars I've seen.  Ever.  So why shouldn't I call a fucktard a fucktard?  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Oh and BTW do you have any concrete proof Steven Jones actually really lied about cold fusion?


Yeah.  His "proof" turned out to be a bunch of bullshit.  Otherwise we would all be swimming in nearly free energy.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> I will admit to not having heard too much about this allegation, and found this article about him.


Really?  A quick google search shows up lots of articles.  Of course, many of them are from fucktards like yourself who turn on Steven Jones and pretend he is covering up the discovery of cold fusion and is helping to cover up 9/11.  

See, that's the great thing about you truthtards.  You have no morals or character at all, so it is downright hysterical to see you turn on one another and rip each other's throats out when you don't agree.    You must not have gotten the memo.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> _*In the mid-1980s, Jones and other BYU scientists worked on what he then referred to as Cold Nuclear Fusion in a Scientific American article, but is today known as muon-catalyzed fusion to avoid confusion with the cold fusion concept of Pons and Fleischman . Muon-catalyzed fusion was a field of some interest in the 1980s, but its low energy output appears to be unavoidable (due to alpha-muon sticking losses). Jones led a research team that in 1986 achieved 150 fusions per muon (average), releasing over 2,600 MeV of fusion energy per muon, a record which still stands.[7]*_


Except he could never reproduce his experiment in front of anyone else.  Neither could anyone else reproduce his experiment from his notes.  What does that tell you?  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> *Around 1985 Jones then became interested in the anomalous concentration of helium-3 found in the gases escaping from volcanoes. He hypothesized that the high pressures in the Earth's interior might make fusion more likely, and began a series of experiments on what he referred to as piezofusion, or high-pressure fusion. In order to characterize the reactions, Jones designed and built a neutron counter able to accurately measure the tiny numbers of neutrons being produced in his experiments. The counter suggested a small amount of fusion was going on. Jones said the result suggested at least the possibility of fusion, though the process was unlikely to be useful as an energy source.*


So what part of that confuses you.  He didn't know what he found and didn't know how useful it could ever be.  He STILL never found cold fusion.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann (Pons and Fleischmann or P&F) started their work around the same time. Their work was brought to Jones' attention when they applied for research funding from the Department of Energy, after which the DOE passed their proposal along to Jones for peer review. Realizing their work was very similar, Jones and P&F agreed to release their papers to Nature on the same day, March 24, 1989. However, P&F announced their results at a press event the day before. Jones faxed his paper to Nature.[8]


Yet they were all found to be flawed to the point of insanity.  I never claimed Jones had a monopoly on lying about cold fusion.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> *A New York Times article says that while peer reviewers were quite critical of Pons and Fleishchmann's research they did not apply such criticism to Jones' much more modest, theoretically supported findings. Although critics insisted that his results likely stemmed from experimental error,[9] most of the reviewing physicists indicated that he was a careful scientist. Later research and experiments supported the metallic cold fusion reports by Jones.[10]*


Yet none of the experiments reproduced the results.  Why is that do you suppose?

But go ahead and continue to believe him to be the 9/11 messiah.

Tell you what.  You've steadfastly refused to accept Leslie Robertson as a credible source and just ignore anything he says.  Can you find anyone ANYWHERE saying Leslie Robertson is a liar?  He is one of the premier structural engineers in the world, yet he doesn't make the claims of others like Richard Gage who aren't credible enough in engineering to lick Robertson's boots.  Why is that?  Hmmmm.  Funny how you tie your credibility to known losers while ignoring the true experts.


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is plenty of credible material that plenty of credible people have put out to counter the OCT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, if this were true, there would already be real investigations going on and the American people, even people from all over the world would be screaming for justice and truth. Fact is sadly that there is not any truly credible material to disprove the main points of the official investigations and reports.
> 
> Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is that the side that subscribes to the OCT does not want to debate the issues between them, and you people are idiots for saying they are "liars" simply because you don't agree with them, that is asinine.
> What's even more stupid of you is to deny that there isn't anything that refutes the OCT, it seems you have not even seriously looked into what they have calculated or are saying, just like in another thread you try to insist that cell phones worked on the flights of 9-11 even though the FBI changed its tune about them in a trial regarding 9-11.
> You people don't bother to read or look into anything that counters your beliefs, you insist on trying to avoid the obvious credible counter points and arguments by totally dismissing their claims, or by
> having to look up BS like your buddy Parrot about Jones and cold fusion.
> I 'll give you another example..I have tried to have rational discussions about the mechanics of the WTC towers, and what do you think Parrot does?
> He posts some bogus calculations to use as an example to bolster his claims. He does not bother to think that the facts are that NIST doesn't come close to explaining the collapse, it only goes as far as the theory on the initiation of collapse.
> You people don't try to reason things out, like considering many people think that a gravity collapse does indeed have tremendous kinetic energy, and that perhaps all the CD that was needed was to kick start a gravity collapse.
> It is a fact that many things have not been explained, not even by the very agency that was paid, and supposed to be counted on to do the explaining.
> They admit to free fall in WTC 7, but don't explain anything about it.
> If that kind of explanation is good enough for you, that's fine, but it may not be for others.
> The main problem from what I can tell, is that too many people are just stuck in believing what they do, and are not flexible enough to consider other things, when so much has been put forth and evolved in 10 years.
> You also don't seem to understand or want to, that the very same PTB are the ones that control what is and what is not deemed worthy of credible rebuttal or evidence.
> We at least try to respect what the OCT put out, and try to respond to it, we don't go around like ignorant children calling everyone a "coincitard" or a "liar" just because we don't like or believe what they say.
> Many of you have turned this place into nothing more then a launching pad for personal release of frustrations and other mental or social shortcomings you people may have.
> Try reading some of the hilarious and stupid posts your fellow OCT rely with, and we try to defend ourselves from, lately?
> You should at least try to rebuttal with some kind of coherent and adult behavior and responses that resembles some form of human intelligence.
Click to expand...


More bullshit lies and ad hominem from the king of the fucktards.  You "respect" what the OCT put out?    You're SUCH a fucking liar!   

You're a fucking loser.  I bet you always have been.  I know you always will be.  There is no redemption for someone as lowlife as you.


----------



## Mr. Jones

[





Patriot911 said:


> Wrong yet again, fucktard Jones.  Jones' claims about having discovered cold fusion were just that; flat out lies.  Maybe you should have done some research before sticking your foot up your own ass.


Again with the "liars" BS. Did you not read the article I linked, that did not mention any such allegations? Sure some scientists had a disagreement, but they don't go around yelling "liar" and 'truthtard" and any other school yard rants like immature children as you do, try to grow up and act like an adult, and like your fellow OCT said, what does it have to do with 9-11 anyway? Nothing.



> Nope.  I only call people who blatantly lie liars.  Like you always do and I've proven.  Oh sure, you came back and tried to reword phrases or make excuses, but do you think anyone was buying that?


 Still haven't been able to come up with any of these blatant lies I see. 



> Wrong yet again, little fucktard!  I prove it time and time again.  But since you are driven by your hate and your agenda, you refuse to acknowledge the lies and instead continue to believe your little fantasies even when you can't even defend them.


Oh yes my super agenda to take over the government with the help of all the "lies" The only thing you prove time and time again is just what a nutcase, paranoid, conspiracy theorist you really are that uses logical fallacy arguments, and evades facts and points in a discussion. This about 9-11, go start a cold fusion thread.



> Why do you get so upset when people call you what you really are?  Seriously.  All kidding aside.  You are one of the sorriest piece of shit liars I've seen.  Ever.  So why shouldn't I call a fucktard a fucktard?


 That is all you _can_ do. That and adhere to a theory of BS that has a low or no probability of being accurate, and when it's pointed out to you you throw little hissy fits like a child. 
You really do nothing to advance any cause for your camp and bring nothing but shame to any serious discussion of any topic you claim to believe in. Do you think any self respecting organization with a cause would want such a stupid, ignorant, twit, that shows no self control and proves it every time with such childish name calling rants in their camp?..Think about it, all kidding aside..you are making a complete ass of your self....Truthers want to take over the government... With an arsenal of lies... OMG are you stupid!



> Yeah.  His "proof" turned out to be a bunch of bullshit.  Otherwise we would all be swimming in nearly free energy.


Again this has nothing to do with 9-11, and you again are a stupid moron, how many people in different countries agreed with him?
Apart from the media attention, in cold fusion we see scientific controversy as normal.
You just bring it up to try to discredit him  in anyway you can, but you fail..yet again. The only thing you are swimming in is your own BS.



> Really?  A quick google search shows up lots of articles.  Of course, many of them are from fucktards like yourself who turn on Steven Jones and pretend he is covering up the discovery of cold fusion and is helping to cover up 9/11.


 they are like you you mean. It is a fact that there are people dedicated to discredit anybody that doesn't go along with the OCT program. He has more integrity then any of you,... at least he speaks his mind and is not afraid to do so.



> See, that's the great thing about you truthtards.  You have no morals or character at all, so it is downright hysterical to see you turn on one another and rip each other's throats out when you don't agree.    You must not have gotten the memo.


 What a joke... you of all people talking about the lack of morals or charactor in other people  When you have a sum total of ZERO in that dept.

I stick to my own opinions formed from credible intelligent engineers hard work, and I don't follow the herd like you pussies do. 
You fucks are more worried about your little reputation points and acquiescing to anything the "crowd" is doing or saying. You got no balls. 



> Except he could never reproduce his experiment in front of anyone else.  Neither could anyone else reproduce his experiment from his notes.  What does that tell you?


Are you suggesting that others couldn't get any of the material Jones used in his experiments?



> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann (Pons and Fleischmann or P&F) started their work around the same time. Their work was brought to Jones' attention when they applied for research funding from the Department of Energy, after which the DOE passed their proposal along to Jones for peer review. Realizing their work was very similar, Jones and P&F agreed to release their papers to Nature on the same day, March 24, 1989. However, P&F announced their results at a press event the day before. Jones faxed his paper to Nature.[8]
> 
> 
> 
> Yet they were all found to be flawed to the point of insanity.  I never claimed Jones had a monopoly on lying about cold fusion.
Click to expand...

Figures you would try to slime your way out of your own flawed BS. Remember you said you would provide links to back up your claims, and so far you have lied and not done so, but anyway what exactly does this have to do with the 9-11 attacks again? Oh yeah absolutely nothing you fucking loser.



> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A New York Times article says that while peer reviewers were quite critical of Pons and Fleishchmann's research they did not apply such criticism to Jones' much more modest, theoretically supported findings. Although critics insisted that his results likely stemmed from experimental error,[9] most of the reviewing physicists indicated that he was a careful scientist. Later research and experiments supported the metallic cold fusion reports by Jones.[10]*
> 
> 
> 
> Yet none of the experiments reproduced the results.  Why is that do you suppose?
Click to expand...

 WTF are you talking about?
" Later research and experiments supported the metallic cold fusion reports by Jones." Why do you insist on sidetracking the issue you lying POS? Because you got nothing but ad hominem BS, and BS LIES that you presume to support you illogical train of thought.



> But go ahead and continue to believe him to be the 9/11 messiah.


 Until someone other then some paranoid retard like you refutes his paper in a published peer reviewed journal, my opinion is that his work is valid.



> Tell you what.  You've steadfastly refused to accept Leslie Robertson as a credible source and just ignore anything he says.  Can you find anyone ANYWHERE saying Leslie Robertson is a liar?


See, unlike you I don't go around calling people a liar, even though something they say may not be accurate, people do make mistakes you know. But I'll discuss Robertson and what I know of him in a debate between him and Jones.


----------



## Mr. Jones

[





Patriot911 said:


> He is one of the premier structural engineers in the world, yet he doesn't make the claims of others like Richard Gage who aren't credible enough in engineering to lick Robertson's boots.  Why is that?  Hmmmm.  Funny how you tie your credibility to known losers while ignoring the true experts.
> 
> 
> 
> There are many many more people other the Gage and architects you stupid fool! Real engineers, scientists, physicists, mathematicians, who took their time and didn't rush a BS theorie out 2 days after the attack like Bazant and Zhou, as if they actually had time to address something so complicated in just 2 fucking days!?
> 
> First of all, Mr. Robertson was NOT the chief engineer as you stated in a prior post of yours, that would be John Skilling, but they both have been quoted as saying the towers were built with consideration of the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of the fires.
> Robertson also admits there were a lot of modifications made throughout the years for different tenant requirements
> strengthening done here or there to satisfy their needs-
> He's not surprised the towers stood up well after the impacts-
> 
> Jones says the NIST report says they contracted with UL to test the trusses, they tested 4 test specimens and that they held up for 2 hrs without collapsing -both towers collapsed in less then 2 hrs. Leslie Robertson did not observe these fire tests-
> 
> The NIST report only takes their analysis where the buildings are poised to collapse, and does not explain the actual collapses-
> The behavior of the collapse is not addressed in the NIST report
> 
> But it is analyzed by Gordon Ross and other seemingly credible engineers, who criticize the NIST version of collapse.
> 
> Robertson states that the building collapsed as designed!? WTF??
> He says that engineers always have a collapse scenario in mind when constructing such buildings, so as to minimize a collapse, and strengthen any weak points...   T
> Then he goes on to admit that he has not performed an in depth study of the failure mechanisms of the collapses. See the contradiction in his statements??
> 
> So the question still remains, what actually caused the collapse mechanism?  The fires were not hot or intense enough to cause collapse initiation.
> 
> Astonishingly Robertson says NIST to have continued, and perused to study the actual collapses beyond the point they did, would NOT be beneficial to future engineers!
> 
> Other structural engineers have looked at this however, and the fact that NIST doesn't carry the study any further, doesn't mean that we can assume that collapse will be complete after the initiation.
> 
> Gordon Ross who has a published paper on this, and others that are qualified to speak on it, say that when you consider conservation of momentum, and energy, that the time required for the collapses is much larger then free fall time, where as they fell in about 10 seconds, according to the 9-11 commission report, you all say is they undisputed truth.
> ENERGY MUST ALSO BE CONSERVED, and when you take these into account the collapse will be significantly slowed down-it is basic physics-
> 
> Drop a ball and it will fall in free fall time, so obviously when you have 47 core columns and 240 perimeter columns in the way, plus all the concrete, hundreds of thousands tons.,  that will slow the progress of the fall. So, The only way to achieve the fast times of the collapse is to move the mass out of the way.
> Robertson admits he hasn't even studied the question of the time required for the roof to arrive at the plaza level
> But he assures us all that once the upper started to fall, there was nothing that could have saved those towers,
> 
> But that doesn't explain the fast collapse times, he admitted to not knowing about, He dodged the question!
> He even says that they would have collapsed and in his opinion collapsed "symmetrically" or more or less symmetrically, all the way down to the plaza level and partly into the foundation.
> 
> Mr. Ken Cutler, a professor in mathematics has studies it though-and he agrees with the mechanical engineer Gordon Ross, that the time to total collapse would be much larger then 10 secs, he gives a time figure estimate of 36 secs.
> 
> Anyway Robertson admits to not doing any chemical analysis at the site either, but that there were many engineering firms that ( he admits also acknowledged, that there was red hot METAL seen by these engineers) but that no analysis was done to confirm what the molten metal actually was.
> Well, if you're not too interested in it why would you bother to analyze it, again this is another thing left out of the investigation that clearly did not follow the fire analysis guidelines in the  NFPA Codes and Standards  handbook
> NFPA :: Codes & Standards
> 
> When Leslie Robertson finally confronts the CD theory Jones lays out,  he acts overwhelmed, and then he resorts to the same tired line of using a string of common logical fallacies, like questioning the motive for a CD and how it would be achieved, which is a common dodge to try to deny the actual questions posed to him about the collapse and the science of what actually happened and was witnessed, and measured, that seems to ignore the laws of physics.
> 
> He then rambles on about the plane crash into the N tower-and tries to make the listener think of that in an obvious attempt to distract from the main points of the discussion, just like you lying fucks try to do all the time! Now I see where you get it from.
> 
> So is he of the opinion that if you can't prove HOW it was done, it somehow makes the OCT correct?
> That is that the placing of explosives or whatever into the towers, because in his opinion it would be too big of a feat, it is OK to assume the collapses happened like they did, disregarding the laws of physics and mathematical calculations that other experts have taken into account about this. LOL!!
> 
> NIST says that about 15% of the columns were effected or destroyed in the N tower-This is the core AND perimeter columns-
> That's 85% still left.- I have to double check on that to be sure, but..
> 
> Robertson continues to say that a CD would require a "monumental effort" to rig, insinuating an impossibility, basically saying that the science and calculations of the others are wrong because they can't explain to him  how this "monumental task" is achieved!
> 
> Robertson agrees that perhaps tons of explosives or incendiaries may not be needed-
> 
> But cmon now, honestly anything can be accomplished if you have unlimited resources, and have complete control of the target. Something that, as we look into this further, seems to almost eliminate Al Qaeda from doing this "monumental task" as Robertson claims.
> Perhaps Al Qaeda was used for certain parts of the program, like being the patsy's to take the blame, and recruit the hijackers to throw suspicion away from the real masterminds behind such a huge project.
> 
> And he goes on to mention this would have to get by security police  etc..Again this is something beyond the debating scientists realm, or responsibility, they aren't FBI or detectives. He STILL is trying to distract and sidetrack from the SCIENTIFIC FACTS that the building came down TOO FAST according to credible experts he can not answer, by turning the debate into a "too big to be plausible" scenario-
> If it's too much of a monumental task for anyone in the US government to achieve, how the fuck is Al Qaeda supposed to have done what they are claimed to have done--all by themselves?? But you idiots refuse to even think about things like this, or you probably do but you aren't here to think, only to discredit with BS at all costs.
> 
> If this man admits to not even studying the collapse scenario,
> What the fuck is he doing even debating someone who has?
> Plus he seemingly hasn't put any thought into anything else about 9-11.
> The strategics, and highly first time in the history of the fucking planet, improbable bat shit insane pure lies, NIST and the government want us to believe?
> 
> Like about CD devices, how they could have been planted past security, or even knows who actually was IN CHARGE OF THE SECURITY THAT MIGHT HAVE TURNED THE OTHER WAY, IF THE SECURITY EVEN KNEW ANYTHING AT ALL!!
> But, OK,  that is not his or the scientists job to figure out, SO HE SHOULD STICK TO THE SCIENCE OF THE DEBATE-
> they are supposed to be discussing.
> 
> Robertson feels that continuing to talk about 9-11 is hurting the families, but he does not speak for all of them, especially the ones that this thread is referring to who support the WTC 7  awareness campaign.
> He wants to put this whole thing away and move on, just sort of forget all the BS that does not explain 9-11 accurately, a so what attitude, lets just forget about it?
> Fuck you!
> 
> Jones on the other hand likes to stick with the science for answers and not whether the job of planting explosives would be feasible, in other words Robertson, despite having "expert" credentials in constructing buildings and touted as though that is enough, by Parrot, admits he has NOT STUDIED THINGS AS THOROUGHLY AS JONES AND HIS EXPERTS HAVE, Robertson is satisfied with leaving the questions on the table and using the excuse, that a CD scenario would be " too large and complicated to do" and does not explain the collapse mechanisms like Jones and co. at least TRY to do!
> 
> And Jones understands that 9-11 victims families are still indeed seeking closure, but should have a FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THE EVENTS THAT KILLED THEIR RELATIVES, and not be left with unanswered questions and doubts,
> like the TILMAN FAMILY WAS.
> 
> Many families like the ones that support awareness about building 7 feel that 9-11 may not only have been caused by Muslim hijackers, but that there were others involved too, because of the
> "Monumental effort" Robertson admits was needed on 9-11
> and they are hopeful, that the science, particularly the speed of collapse, and the molten metal, along with other facts, like the highly improbable NIST BS about building 7, will clear it all up.
> 
> All of the data collected by the independent people who want to get to the truth, point to the need for further analysis and a new independent investigation, free of political bias.
> Many good credible and honest people, from all walks of life, know that what they have presented is enough to show that NIST and the government are wrong, ( or are lying)
> the circumstantial evidence alone is staggering, but it will never be proven without one,
> But then again that is precisely why you people fight so hard against one, and against your own Cognitive dissonance
> The FEAR that something other then what you were told will come to light, and what the repercussions to the nation will be.
> 
> It's so unbelievably  irresponsible, and dangerous to ignore and dismiss what these credible people have shown us, but to also ignore the past atrocities done to us and to others for decades by criminals that lied to us, FROM OUR OWN GOVERNMENT to acquire the power to this and many other atrocities.
> And the only thing you people can do is to call them "liars" and "truthtards" as a way to hide from your insecurities, and from the truth is pathetic.
> 
> 
> That complete debate is in this video/audio-
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAdcNEa6PTQ]YouTube - &#x202a;LESLIE ROBERTSON AND STEVEN JONES DEBATE PT1&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=053IpeEBji0&NR=1]YouTube - &#x202a;LESLIE ROBERTSON AND STEVEN JONES DEBATE PT2&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMZ38mY31cM&NR=1]YouTube - &#x202a;LESLIE ROBERTSON AND STEVEN JONES DEBATE PT3.&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]
Click to expand...


----------



## Mr. Jones

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, if this were true, there would already be real investigations going on and the American people, even people from all over the world would be screaming for justice and truth. Fact is sadly that there is not any truly credible material to disprove the main points of the official investigations and reports.
> 
> Get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that the side that subscribes to the OCT does not want to debate the issues between them, and you people are idiots for saying they are "liars" simply because you don't agree with them, that is asinine.
> What's even more stupid of you is to deny that there isn't anything that refutes the OCT, it seems you have not even seriously looked into what they have calculated or are saying, just like in another thread you try to insist that cell phones worked on the flights of 9-11 even though the FBI changed its tune about them in a trial regarding 9-11.
> You people don't bother to read or look into anything that counters your beliefs, you insist on trying to avoid the obvious credible counter points and arguments by totally dismissing their claims, or by
> having to look up BS like your buddy Parrot about Jones and cold fusion.
> I 'll give you another example..I have tried to have rational discussions about the mechanics of the WTC towers, and what do you think Parrot does?
> He posts some bogus calculations to use as an example to bolster his claims. He does not bother to think that the facts are that NIST doesn't come close to explaining the collapse, it only goes as far as the theory on the initiation of collapse.
> You people don't try to reason things out, like considering many people think that a gravity collapse does indeed have tremendous kinetic energy, and that perhaps all the CD that was needed was to kick start a gravity collapse.
> It is a fact that many things have not been explained, not even by the very agency that was paid, and supposed to be counted on to do the explaining.
> They admit to free fall in WTC 7, but don't explain anything about it.
> If that kind of explanation is good enough for you, that's fine, but it may not be for others.
> The main problem from what I can tell, is that too many people are just stuck in believing what they do, and are not flexible enough to consider other things, when so much has been put forth and evolved in 10 years.
> You also don't seem to understand or want to, that the very same PTB are the ones that control what is and what is not deemed worthy of credible rebuttal or evidence.
> We at least try to respect what the OCT put out, and try to respond to it, we don't go around like ignorant children calling everyone a "coincitard" or a "liar" just because we don't like or believe what they say.
> Many of you have turned this place into nothing more then a launching pad for personal release of frustrations and other mental or social shortcomings you people may have.
> Try reading some of the hilarious and stupid posts your fellow OCT rely with, and we try to defend ourselves from, lately?
> You should at least try to rebuttal with some kind of coherent and adult behavior and responses that resembles some form of human intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More bullshit lies and ad hominem from the king of the fucktards.  You "respect" what the OCT put out?    You're SUCH a fucking liar!
> 
> You're a fucking loser.  I bet you always have been.  I know you always will be.  There is no redemption for someone as lowlife as you.
Click to expand...


More of the same shit from the king of disinformation and fallacy arguments. That can't rebuttal ANYTHING like an adult with any intelligence.
 But yes I normally respect people, even if it is someone that espouses a theory I don't like or subscribe to, that is how most normal people I know are raised,.. that is, until they disrespect me, then the gloves come off you whinny little bitch. 
 You're a pathetic loser, we can tell this by your actions on this forum, and reading about the psychology of internet trolls and blowhard wannabees like you that have to hide behind the safety of an internet connection and get their courage from a computer keyboard. 
http://anti-troll.org/

So tell Parrotshit911... when is the truth movement going to take over the country with all their "lies" and install their "truthtard" president, that you just know you'll be kissing ass too?


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> First of all, Mr. Robertson was NOT the chief engineer as you stated in a prior post of yours, that would be John Skilling, but they both have been quoted as saying the towers were built with consideration of the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, *but also of the fires.*



That's a lie. 

You show me a quote from either John Skilling or Leslie Robertson that says they performed calculations and studies that show how the structure would react to a fire caused by a jet. Further, here is a quote from Robertson stating exactly the opposite of that which you claim above. 


> To the best of our knowledge, *little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.* Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.



If you would be kind enough to link these "quotes" you claim exist from Skilling and/or Robertson about design considerations for fires resulting from a jet impact, it would be appreciated. I bet you can't find them.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, Mr. Robertson was NOT the chief engineer as you stated in a prior post of yours, that would be John Skilling, but they both have been quoted as saying the towers were built with consideration of the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, *but also of the fires.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie.
> 
> You show me a quote from either John Skilling or Leslie Robertson that says they performed calculations and studies that show how the structure would react to a fire caused by a jet. Further, here is a quote from Robertson stating exactly the opposite of that which you claim above.
> 
> 
> 
> To the best of our knowledge, *little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.* Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you would be kind enough to link these "quotes" you claim exist from Skilling and/or Robertson about design considerations for fires resulting from a jet impact, it would be appreciated. I bet you can't find them.
Click to expand...


If you listen to the video, Mr. Robertson does mention this. Play the video and listen to it.
Furthermore, I was able to find these links in a quick google search.

_Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2   Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires.._

In this article are the links-
9-11 Research: Towers' Design Parameters


MedServ Medical News - Towers collapse shocks engineers

The Seattle Times: Search Results

Perhaps you could link the quote you pasted from Robertson, as we have no idea when he said that. Thanks.


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, Mr. Robertson was NOT the chief engineer as you stated in a prior post of yours, that would be John Skilling, but they both have been quoted as saying the towers were built with consideration of the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, *but also of the fires.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie.
> 
> You show me a quote from either John Skilling or Leslie Robertson that says they performed calculations and studies that show how the structure would react to a fire caused by a jet. Further, here is a quote from Robertson stating exactly the opposite of that which you claim above.
> 
> 
> 
> To the best of our knowledge, *little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.* Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you would be kind enough to link these "quotes" you claim exist from Skilling and/or Robertson about design considerations for fires resulting from a jet impact, it would be appreciated. I bet you can't find them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you listen to the video, Mr. Robertson does mention this. Play the video and listen to it.
> Furthermore, I was able to find these links in a quick google search.
> 
> _Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2   Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires.._
> 
> In this article are the links-
> 9-11 Research: Towers' Design Parameters
> 
> 
> MedServ Medical News - Towers collapse shocks engineers
> 
> The Seattle Times: Search Results
> 
> Perhaps you could link the quote you pasted from Robertson, as we have no idea when he said that. Thanks.
Click to expand...


My bad. I forgot the link.
NAE Website - Reflections on the World Trade Center

Furthermore, they said they designed the buildings for the IMPACT of the jets. That means they designed the towers to withstand the impact force against the towers and for them to resist said force, which they did.

There were no studies anywhere that shows they did calculations and research as far as how the structures would react to fires as a result of said impacts. Robertson even says that in the quote above.

I'll listen to the videos and see if I can find that quote about studies they did concerning the affects of fire on the steel as a result of the impacts.


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> _Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were *designed to withstand jetliner collisions.* For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "*designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it*." 2   Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires.._



Just to be clear. Both bolded parts above speak of IMPACTS, not resultant fires. You are trying to lump them together. This is further backed up with the quote from Robertson that they did no such studies or calculations for fires as a result of the impacts.


----------



## Gamolon

I've listened to the first two videos and have not heard anyone mention that there were calculations or studies done about the affects of fire on the structure as a result of fires from the jet impacts.

So please explain or show where you are getting that they are quoted as saying that the towers were designed to withstand the fires in addition to the impact force of a jet.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were *designed to withstand jetliner collisions.* For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "*designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it*." 2   Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires.._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to be clear. Both bolded parts above speak of IMPACTS, not resultant fires. You are trying to lump them together. This is further backed up with the quote from Robertson that they did no such studies or calculations for fires as a result of the impacts.
Click to expand...


Have you bothered to read the links in the article that that statement appears in? I actually posted them to make it easier for you to find.


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were *designed to withstand jetliner collisions.* For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "*designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it*." 2   Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires.._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to be clear. Both bolded parts above speak of IMPACTS, not resultant fires. You are trying to lump them together. This is further backed up with the quote from Robertson that they did no such studies or calculations for fires as a result of the impacts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you bothered to read the links in the article that that statement appears in? I actually posted them to make it easier for you to find.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, but I don;t see anything about them doing a study of the resultant fires from a jet crash. I see quotes about designing for impacts, but not resultant fires.

Can you post the quote here and link what article it's from? I don't see it.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Starting at 3:10-
He starts off saying that there was indeed strengthening of some of the towers as required by the individual need of the tenants..followed by how they were designed with considerations of a jet impact, similar to the Empire State building crash-low impact..
( that crash was followed by a fire)

At around 5:05-
the collapse mechanism of the trade center happened as "was anticipated it would be when we first designed it"--so they anticipated a possible future intentional collapse...? Apparently not but at-

around 5:10- he says,
"any prudent engineer looking to the future, has to think about what are the mechanisms that cause collapse, and how to go about strengthening the building so as to minimize that circumstance..
so sure we spent time at looking at that kind of event..

At around 8:20 or so is when Jones gets his turn and talks about the UL tests and how the specimens tested survived....

Anyway, are you of the opinion that after Robertson says the above statements and references the 1945 crash at the ESB, that somehow the fuel that propels the plane/707 jet was NOT part of the
"prudent engineer looking into the future" thinking about the "mechanisms of collapse"?
I hope not..That would be demeaning their intelligence don't you think?

I think I have answered what you are questioning, and linked to where I got my information from. As far as papers and studies with calculations we can actually see, no one as far as I know has ever posted this kind of detailed information, we only have what is said in interviews, and can rightly assume, that all consideration of a plane/jet, impacting the towers, that everyone knows is propelled by flammable fuel, included the 100% possibility of resulting fires.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to be clear. Both bolded parts above speak of IMPACTS, not resultant fires. You are trying to lump them together. This is further backed up with the quote from Robertson that they did no such studies or calculations for fires as a result of the impacts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you bothered to read the links in the article that that statement appears in? I actually posted them to make it easier for you to find.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don;t see anything about them doing a study of the resultant fires from a jet crash. I see quotes about designing for impacts, but not resultant fires.
> 
> Can you post the quote here and link what article it's from? I don't see it.
Click to expand...


There are copy rights, so I only provided the links to the articles, that are within the first one I posted a link to.


----------



## Mr. Jones

February 27, 1993: WTC Engineer Says Building Would Survive Jumbo Jet Hitting It

In the wake of the WTC bombing, the Seattle Times interviews John Skilling who was one of the two structural engineers responsible for designing the Trade Center. Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. He says, &#8220;Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.&#8221; But, he says, &#8220;The building structure would still be there.&#8221; The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: &#8220;The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707&#8212;DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.&#8221; However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made. The other structural engineer who designed the towers, Leslie Robertson, carried out a second study later in 1964, of how the towers would handle the impact of a 707 (see Between September 3, 2001 and September 7, 2001). However, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), following its three-year investigation into the WTC collapses, will in 2005 state that it has been &#8220;unable to locate any evidence to indicate consideration of the extent of impact-induced structural damage or the size of a fire that could be created by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.&#8221;

Entity Tags: John Skilling, World Trade Center 

The World Trade Center Twin Towers Were Designed For Jet Impacts - WTC Thermal Information

The argument that the towers were designed with consideration of jet plane impacts but not the resulting fires is almost like saying a person will survive a bullet wound with no consideration taken for the heavy blood loss that will surely follow..


----------



## SFC Ollie

I guess he was wrong.... it happens to the best of us.


----------



## Gamolon

Not once, in any of your quotes or linked articles was there any indication the the towers were designed to withstand fires as a result of jet impacts.

The only thing they design for was the actual impact force.

Period. 

I have repeatedly asked you to quote where they said they designed for fires and you haven't even come close.


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRWnax_TmSo&feature=feedf]YouTube - &#x202a;Richard Gage (AE911) Talk @ Cambridge University 18th June 2011 (ALL WELCOME)&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie

Rude ass wasn't he? When asked to get off the wall, get off the fucking wall.


----------



## Triton

SFC Ollie said:


>






Yep, that sure does look like a land based crash. Anyone who proposes that the plane was shot down is a nutjob "truthtard"


----------



## SFC Ollie

Got any witnesses to an explosion in the air?


----------



## Rat in the Hat

eots said:


> YouTube - &#x202a;Richard Gage (AE911) Talk @ Cambridge University 18th June 2011 (ALL WELCOME)&#x202c;&rlm;



I was able to locate a short portion of Richard Gage's speech that this man is talking about.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFVoencqfZw]YouTube - &#x202a;AE911TRUTH PLAYSCHOOL WITH RICHARD GAGE.&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## Triton

Well Rumsfeld says it was, oh those freudian slips.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX78zSjnY1s]YouTube - &#x202a;Donald Rumsfeld says flight 93 SHOT DOWN in Shanksville on 911&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]



And then this stupid wackjob truthtard says an Air Force officer said his description of the crash is conducive of a shootdown. Just another lunatic Twoofer.    


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWcdSyyppHI]YouTube - &#x202a;Flight 93 Eyewitness Sees A Second Plane, Says Flight 93 Was Shot Down&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie

1st video poorly edited. try again. 

2nd video, yes there was a Falcon 20 if I remember right, it was talking with the Cleveland tower, they reported that they had a visual on flight 93 at one point. Of course I'm sure you will claim it was an A10 or something along those lines, maybe it was an f35 or a F15......  

We've heard the tapes.....................


----------



## Triton

Another insane Twoofer video



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAws9odu3-Q&feature=related]YouTube - &#x202a;9/11 FLIGHT 93 SHOT DOWN&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## Triton

SFC Ollie said:


> 1st video poorly edited. try again.
> 
> 2nd video, yes there was a Falcon 20 if I remember right, it was talking with the Cleveland tower, they reported that they had a visual on flight 93 at one point. Of course I'm sure you will claim it was an A10 or something along those lines, maybe it was an f35 or a F15......
> 
> We've heard the tapes.....................




So you are saying that Rumsefeld did not say the plane was shot down?


----------



## SFC Ollie

Why would they rebroadcast a story that was wrong when they aired it the first time?


----------



## SFC Ollie

Triton said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1st video poorly edited. try again.
> 
> 2nd video, yes there was a Falcon 20 if I remember right, it was talking with the Cleveland tower, they reported that they had a visual on flight 93 at one point. Of course I'm sure you will claim it was an A10 or something along those lines, maybe it was an f35 or a F15......
> 
> We've heard the tapes.....................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that Rumsefeld did not say the plane was shot down?
Click to expand...


He probably said something like that, but without the full context I can't say what he meant. Did Obama mean that he believes that we have 57 states?


----------



## Triton

He didn't probably say it.

He said the plane wwas shot down.




Obama, no teleprompter and hes lost


----------



## Triton

He didn't probably say it.

He said the plane wwas shot down.




Obama, no teleprompter and hes lost


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Not once, in any of your quotes or linked articles was there any indication the the towers were designed to withstand fires as a result of jet impacts.
> 
> The only thing they design for was the actual impact force.
> 
> Period.
> 
> I have repeatedly asked you to quote where they said they designed for fires and you haven't even come close.



If you want to defy your own common sense logic again, have at it.
The fact is he was quoted as taking into consideration plane crashes, and the article I linked explains that.
Plane crashes almost 100% of the time involve a fiery explosion, that these experts in their field somehow didn't consider that in any type of analysis is insane, but in fact your assumptions are proven wrong as the link below will show that indeed it was part of their *analysis *. What exactly was done has been debated, and Robertson claims he can't find his work on it, when he was arguing with the port authority several years ago.


He is quoted ( Skilling) as saying their *analysis *indicated the biggest problem would be the fires from the plane.
Article from 1993-
The Seattle Times: Search Results


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> I guess he was wrong.... it happens to the best of us.


Was he?
That is one of my points. However when a "mistake" comes from a source you all use as an appeal to authority, it is a _mistake_.
Whereas the same from anyone from the truth movement, and it is labeled a LIE, and they are using those LIES to take over the government! 
Fucking ridiculous


----------



## SFC Ollie

Actually I don't use that word liar very often. And I have this tendency to place people that use it against me on ignore.

Anyone can make a mistake. Anyone can be wrong. When it comes to a controlled demolition at the WTC complex on 9-11-01, you are simply wrong. And you will remain wrong unless you come up with some actual physical evidence that proves you otherwise. All the opinion in the world doesn't make the 911CR or the NIST reports wrong. And you have less than 0.01% of opinions on your side.

I guess you need some new evidence......


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> Actually I don't use that word liar very often. And I have this tendency to place people that use it against me on ignore.
> 
> Anyone can make a mistake. Anyone can be wrong. When it comes to a controlled demolition at the WTC complex on 9-11-01, you are simply wrong. And you will remain wrong unless you come up with some actual physical evidence that proves you otherwise. All the opinion in the world doesn't make the 911CR or the NIST reports wrong. And you have less than 0.01% of opinions on your side.
> 
> I guess you need some new evidence......



Hogwash, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence, and physical evidence that is just being ignored, as though it doesn't exist.
You are wrong about having only 0.01% against the OCT too.
There's more than enough evidence to create reasonable doubt that the official story is not consistent with the evidence presented.
Evidence is information presented in* testimony *or in *documents* that is used to persuade the fact finder (judge or jury) to decide the case for one side or the other.


----------



## candycorn

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I don't use that word liar very often. And I have this tendency to place people that use it against me on ignore.
> 
> Anyone can make a mistake. Anyone can be wrong. When it comes to a controlled demolition at the WTC complex on 9-11-01, you are simply wrong. And you will remain wrong unless you come up with some actual physical evidence that proves you otherwise. All the opinion in the world doesn't make the 911CR or the NIST reports wrong. And you have less than 0.01% of opinions on your side.
> 
> I guess you need some new evidence......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hogwash, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence, and physical evidence that is just being ignored, as though it doesn't exist.
> You are wrong about having only 0.01% against the OCT too.
> There's more than enough evidence to create reasonable doubt that the official story is not consistent with the evidence presented.
> Evidence is information presented in* testimony *or in *documents* that is used to persuade the fact finder (judge or jury) to decide the case for one side or the other.
Click to expand...


But none of it matters;

Here are the main points of the 9/11 Commission Report:

19 men from the Middle East hijacked
4 planes and crashed them into
3 buildings and 
1 field in Pennsylvania.

Do you have any evidence that none of that happened?  If so produce it.  You can't and you won't.  The rest is a bunch of distinctions that will never make a difference. 

Unless you can refute those main points, you ain't got shit bitch.  Go have another sausage kolache and let nature take it's course.


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not once, in any of your quotes or linked articles was there any indication the the towers were designed to withstand fires as a result of jet impacts.
> 
> The only thing they design for was the actual impact force.
> 
> Period.
> 
> I have repeatedly asked you to quote where they said they designed for fires and you haven't even come close.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to defy your own common sense logic again, have at it.
> The fact is he was quoted as taking into consideration plane crashes, and the article I linked explains that.
> Plane crashes almost 100% of the time involve a fiery explosion, that these experts in their field somehow didn't consider that in any type of analysis is insane, but in fact your assumptions are proven wrong as the link below will show that indeed it was part of their *analysis *. What exactly was done has been debated, and Robertson claims he can't find his work on it, when he was arguing with the port authority several years ago.
> 
> 
> He is quoted ( Skilling) as saying their *analysis *indicated the biggest problem would be the fires from the plane.
> Article from 1993-
> The Seattle Times: Search Results
Click to expand...


Mr. Jones. Let me ask you a question since you seem to think you know more about structural engineering than I do. 

Go anywhere you like. Books, internet, wherever. Please provide me a link or any information that shows how, between 1962 and 1968, any structural engineering firm designed into a building or structure the ability to withstand the affects fire has on steel to prevent the weakening of steel components or the structure itself. What devices, mechanisms, or design criteria can you provide anyone here on how they did that. What about currently? 

You obviously don't have an inkling about structural design. I'll tell you why. Back in those days, the only way buildings were able to handle fire was to fire proof them. The fire proofing used would protect the steel for the amount of time it was rated so that people could get out and the fire department would get there in time to put the fire out BEFORE the rated time.

You seem to think that there are standards for designing into a structural steel building ways to resist weakening/collapse due to fire. Other than fireproofing, which is not used to PREVENT weakening of steel, but to try and maintain the component's structural integrity as long as possible, please show us other ways this can be down.

I am all ears now.

I can't stress this enough and I'll say it again. You seem to think that they DESIGNED some mechanism, standard, physical structural component to deal with the weakening of said components due to fire and prevent collapse based on their analysis. 

Other than fire proofing, WHAT MECHANISM is that? Let's get this hammered out because you are completely and utterly misguided about this aspect of structural design and I'm going to prove it to you. This goes beyond logic thinking now as you are basing your logic on some incorrect assumptions.


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not once, in any of your quotes or linked articles was there any indication the the towers were designed to withstand fires as a result of jet impacts.
> 
> The only thing they design for was the actual impact force.
> 
> Period.
> 
> I have repeatedly asked you to quote where they said they designed for fires and you haven't even come close.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to defy your own common sense logic again, have at it.
> The fact is he was quoted as taking into consideration plane crashes, and the article I linked explains that.
> Plane crashes almost 100% of the time involve a fiery explosion, that these experts in their field somehow didn't consider that in any type of analysis is insane, but in fact your assumptions are proven wrong as the link below will show that indeed it was part of their *analysis *. What exactly was done has been debated, and Robertson claims he can't find his work on it, when he was arguing with the port authority several years ago.
> 
> 
> He is quoted ( Skilling) as saying their *analysis *indicated the biggest problem would be the fires from the plane.
> Article from 1993-
> The Seattle Times: Search Results
Click to expand...


Here's the exact quote from the article.


> Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an *analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact* of a Boeing 707.
> 
> "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."



Do you see that bolded part of the quote? The analysis was of the impact, not the ensuing fires. I guess you left that part out for a reason? One can only guess. Furthermore, Robertsson states that they did no such study about the fire's affect on the steel.


> To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and *no designs were prepared for that circumstance*. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not once, in any of your quotes or linked articles was there any indication the the towers were designed to withstand fires as a result of jet impacts.
> 
> The only thing they design for was the actual impact force.
> 
> Period.
> 
> I have repeatedly asked you to quote where they said they designed for fires and you haven't even come close.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to defy your own common sense logic again, have at it.
> The fact is he was quoted as taking into consideration plane crashes, and the article I linked explains that.
> Plane crashes almost 100% of the time involve a fiery explosion, that these experts in their field somehow didn't consider that in any type of analysis is insane, but in fact your assumptions are proven wrong as the link below will show that indeed it was part of their *analysis *. What exactly was done has been debated, and Robertson claims he can't find his work on it, when he was arguing with the port authority several years ago.
> 
> 
> He is quoted ( Skilling) as saying their *analysis *indicated the biggest problem would be the fires from the plane.
> Article from 1993-
> The Seattle Times: Search Results
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the exact quote from the article.
> 
> 
> 
> Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an *analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact* of a Boeing 707.
> 
> "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you see that bolded part of the quote? The analysis was of the impact, not the ensuing fires. I guess you left that part out for a reason? One can only guess. Furthermore, Robertsson states that they did no such study about the fire's affect on the steel.
> 
> 
> 
> To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and *no designs were prepared for that circumstance*. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Your assumption that somehow these men did not take into account the fires caused by such impacts is plain wrong, as the articles posted claim they did. What was done to facilitate safety in a fire at the WTC is documented throughout its history in many places.
From sprinklers to fireproofing, to ventilation.
These are considerations that came from the analysis, and were implemented as time went on. These are facts, and why you would doubt that is beyond comprehension.
I pointed out the actual audio of this from Mr. Robertson, and the articles, while also admitting that anything on paper is missing, according to Robertson.
From what I have been studying, the best fire protection is the use of structural steel itself, for its properties have withstood the test of time concerning fires.

The biggest question that to this day are in debate from many of these experts, and others, is what caused the actual collapse initiation, and the mechanics of the collapse, and its progression.
There are theories from both sides, and what I consider enough credible points made from independent experts to warrant a new investigation.
I have repeatedly said I am no expert in this field, but I have read enough to come to my own conclusion, mainly that it is still partially unexplained, while trying to take the totality of 9-11 into consideration.
We can argue this shit all day and night for days, but until these things are allowed in an independent non political inquiry it is useless.
The main problem is the unwillingness to admit that credible counter views and arguments do in fact exist, and that has been proven.


----------



## Rationalist1016

"From what I have been studying, the best fire protection is the use of structural steel itself, for its properties have withstood the test of time concerning fires."

I can't imagine a more incorrect statement than that!  If steel itself is so impervious to fire.......why would they bother "FIREPROOFING" it?  For some reason, conspiracy buffs seem to think that steel is un-bendable, un-breakable, ect..  There are plenty of examples of steel constructed buildings that had a structural failure do to fire alone.  And that is with the fireproofing intact. 
The "Delft University of Technology" & the "Windsor Building" are two examples of this.  No the entire building didn't collapse.  But there construction was vastly different than that of the twin towers.  Not to mention that they weren't slammed into by large planes.


----------



## eots

Rationalist1016 said:


> "From what I have been studying, the best fire protection is the use of structural steel itself, for its properties have withstood the test of time concerning fires."
> 
> I can't imagine a more incorrect statement than that!  If steel itself is so impervious to fire.......why would they bother "FIREPROOFING" it?  For some reason, conspiracy buffs seem to think that steel is un-bendable, un-breakable, ect..  There are plenty of examples of steel constructed buildings that had a structural failure do to fire alone.  And that is with the fireproofing intact.
> The "Delft University of Technology" & the "Windsor Building" are two examples of this.  No the entire building didn't collapse.  But there construction was vastly different than that of the twin towers.  Not to mention that they weren't slammed into by large planes.



*"The WTC 7 is the first known instance of a hi -rise building collapsing primarily due to fire"...NIST*



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8]YouTube - &#x202a;Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


*parts of a building failing after burning for days like a roman candle does not even come close*


----------



## eots

Rationalist1016 said:


> "From what I have been studying, the best fire protection is the use of structural steel itself, for its properties have withstood the test of time concerning fires."
> 
> I can't imagine a more incorrect statement than that!  If steel itself is so impervious to fire.......why would they bother "FIREPROOFING" it?  For some reason, conspiracy buffs seem to think that steel is un-bendable, un-breakable, ect..  There are plenty of examples of steel constructed buildings that had a structural failure do to fire alone.  And that is with the fireproofing intact.
> The "Delft University of Technology" & the "Windsor Building" are two examples of this.  No the entire building didn't collapse.  But there construction was vastly different than that of the twin towers.  Not to mention that they weren't slammed into by large planes.



wtc 7 as not hit by any plane and damage was  determined not to be a significant factor in the collapse...could you please explain the vast difference in construction between wtc 7 and all the fully engaged building fires that did not suffer a progressive collapse ? are you claiming something in the design of wtc 7 is at fault ? or is inherently vulnerable  to fire compared to other  to fire buildings....could you provide a link to this information ?


----------



## Rationalist1016

No, WTC 7 was not hit by a plane.  But it was hit by a significant amount of falling debris from the North Tower collapse.  The south side of WTC 7 was badly damaged.  That coupled with the fires & the inability of the FDNY to fight those fires is what brought that building down.  There is no reason to think that the construction of that building was at fault.  Although it's construction did have one unique feature in that it was constructed over the Con Ed power substation.   You can go to "911myths.com" and find the information that I am referring to.

All I am saying, is that it is illogical to assume that after being hit by a falling building and being on fire for at least five hours, the building would need to be "brought down" by some other factor.


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to defy your own common sense logic again, have at it.
> The fact is he was quoted as taking into consideration plane crashes, and the article I linked explains that.
> Plane crashes almost 100% of the time involve a fiery explosion, that these experts in their field somehow didn't consider that in any type of analysis is insane, but in fact your assumptions are proven wrong as the link below will show that indeed it was part of their *analysis *. What exactly was done has been debated, and Robertson claims he can't find his work on it, when he was arguing with the port authority several years ago.
> 
> 
> He is quoted ( Skilling) as saying their *analysis *indicated the biggest problem would be the fires from the plane.
> Article from 1993-
> The Seattle Times: Search Results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the exact quote from the article.
> 
> 
> Do you see that bolded part of the quote? The analysis was of the impact, not the ensuing fires. I guess you left that part out for a reason? One can only guess. Furthermore, Robertsson states that they did no such study about the fire's affect on the steel.
> 
> 
> 
> To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and *no designs were prepared for that circumstance*. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your assumption that somehow these men did not take into account the fires caused by such impacts is plain wrong, as the articles posted claim they did. What was done to facilitate safety in a fire at the WTC is documented throughout its history in many places.
> *From sprinklers to fireproofing, to ventilation.*
> These are considerations that came from the analysis, and were implemented as time went on. These are facts, and why you would doubt that is beyond comprehension.
> I pointed out the actual audio of this from Mr. Robertson, and the articles, while also admitting that anything on paper is missing, according to Robertson.
> From what I have been studying, the best fire protection is the use of structural steel itself, for its properties have withstood the test of time concerning fires.
> 
> The biggest question that to this day are in debate from many of these experts, and others, is what caused the actual collapse initiation, and the mechanics of the collapse, and its progression.
> There are theories from both sides, and what I consider enough credible points made from independent experts to warrant a new investigation.
> I have repeatedly said I am no expert in this field, but I have read enough to come to my own conclusion, mainly that it is still partially unexplained, while trying to take the totality of 9-11 into consideration.
> We can argue this shit all day and night for days, but until these things are allowed in an independent non political inquiry it is useless.
> The main problem is the unwillingness to admit that credible counter views and arguments do in fact exist, and that has been proven.
Click to expand...


Read the part of your above statement that I quoted. These are not mechanisms designed into the steel structure to compensate for or prevent structural collapse due to fire. Which is what I have been saying all along and you have just proven for us here today.

Robertson further proves my point by his quote.


----------



## eots

> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, WTC 7 was not hit by a plane.  But it was hit by a significant amount of falling debris from the North Tower collapse.  The south side of WTC 7 was badly damaged.  That coupled with the fires & the inability of the FDNY to fight those fires is what brought that building down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what part of damage played no significant role in the collapse do you not understand ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no reason to think that the construction of that building was at fault.  Although it's construction did have one unique feature in that it was constructed over the Con Ed power substation.   You can go to "911myths.com" and find the information that I am referring to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if the design did not contribute to the collapse that is irrelevant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I am saying, is that it is illogical to assume that after being hit by a falling building and being on fire for at least five hours, the building would need to be "brought down" by some other factor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> all I am saying is NIST determined damage played no significant role in the collapse and that the WTC 7 was first hi-rise building in history to collapse due to fire and the failure of column 79 for any reason would have initiated the collapse sequence...so if you are going to support the official theory you should at least know what it is
Click to expand...


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the exact quote from the article.
> 
> 
> Do you see that bolded part of the quote? The analysis was of the impact, not the ensuing fires. I guess you left that part out for a reason? One can only guess. Furthermore, Robertsson states that they did no such study about the fire's affect on the steel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your assumption that somehow these men did not take into account the fires caused by such impacts is plain wrong, as the articles posted claim they did. What was done to facilitate safety in a fire at the WTC is documented throughout its history in many places.
> *From sprinklers to fireproofing, to ventilation.*
> These are considerations that came from the analysis, and were implemented as time went on. These are facts, and why you would doubt that is beyond comprehension.
> I pointed out the actual audio of this from Mr. Robertson, and the articles, while also admitting that anything on paper is missing, according to Robertson.
> From what I have been studying, the best fire protection is the use of structural steel itself, for its properties have withstood the test of time concerning fires.
> 
> The biggest question that to this day are in debate from many of these experts, and others, is what caused the actual collapse initiation, and the mechanics of the collapse, and its progression.
> There are theories from both sides, and what I consider enough credible points made from independent experts to warrant a new investigation.
> I have repeatedly said I am no expert in this field, but I have read enough to come to my own conclusion, mainly that it is still partially unexplained, while trying to take the totality of 9-11 into consideration.
> We can argue this shit all day and night for days, but until these things are allowed in an independent non political inquiry it is useless.
> The main problem is the unwillingness to admit that credible counter views and arguments do in fact exist, and that has been proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the part of your above statement that I quoted. These are not mechanisms designed into the steel structure to compensate for or prevent structural collapse due to fire. Which is what I have been saying all along and you have just proven for us here today.
> 
> Robertson further proves my point by his quote.
Click to expand...

 I never implied of any such "mechanisms designed into the steel".
I mentioned that such fires were considered in their analysis. Reread the entire exchange if you want, but I never made any such assertions, and you trying to create a strawman about it is not working, as is your false presumption that I ever claimed to know more about structural engineering then you do.
 However, I do doubt that you are more qualified then any of the men who have commented on the WTC, linked to in this thread that have actual connections to the construction of the complex.

If you claim to know so much about it, then I will look forward to your written paper with your theory about it.


----------



## Rationalist1016

When did I say that I support the "official story"?  I am just voicing my opinion on what I think happened based on what I have read and watched.  I would assume that is what most people do.  Read and listen to reports and testimony from witnesses about what happened that day.  Then make up their own mind on what they believe.  After conversing with you for this short time, I am convinced that is not how you operate.  You have a set agenda, no information that is contrary to your understanding is valued.


----------



## eots

> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did I say that I support the "official story"?  I am just voicing my opinion on what I think happened based on what I have read and watched.  I would assume that is what most people do
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> sadly that is most likely true people base there opinions on misinformation
> from sources like 9/11 myths and poular mechanics instead of the official report
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read and listen to reports and testimony from witnesses about what happened that day.  Then make up their own mind on what they believe.
> After conversing with you for this short time, I am convinced that is not how you operate.  You have a set agenda, no information that is contrary to your understanding is valued
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so what your saying is you have listened to some witnesses and have formed the opinion that NIST failed to correctly determine the collapse sequence
Click to expand...


----------



## Mr. Jones

Rationalist1016 said:


> "From what I have been studying, the best fire protection is the use of structural steel itself, for its properties have withstood the test of time concerning fires."
> 
> I can't imagine a more incorrect statement than that!  If steel itself is so impervious to fire.......why would they bother "FIREPROOFING" it?  For some reason, conspiracy buffs seem to think that steel is un-bendable, un-breakable, ect..  There are plenty of examples of steel constructed buildings that had a structural failure do to fire alone.  And that is with the fireproofing intact.
> The "Delft University of Technology" & the "Windsor Building" are two examples of this.  No the entire building didn't collapse.  But there construction was vastly different than that of the twin towers.  Not to mention that they weren't slammed into by large planes.



So what better base construction material that is more impervious to fire damage can you think of to use in the design of a building?
No one here is claiming it is totally indestructible, and neither do the people designing and building them. Why do YOU think they spray on fire retardant?..Because it is such a shitty construction material?? 
Structural "failure" do to fire has been shown to be very disproportionate, and not such a sequential event as was witnessed at the WTC towers and building 7, nor in as little amount of time.

Regardless, according to the engineers and designers analysis, verified by their own  statements, the WTC towers were indeed designed to withstand plane impacts, and they knew fires were part of it, and there is much debate from both camps concerning their demise.
The main argument concerning the WTC collapses, IMO, are the intensity of the fires and the initiation of the collapses, and whether the kinetic energy should have been delayed or even halted by the counter forces of the undamaged and more robust lower parts of the buildings.
The 9-11 commission excepts collapse times of about 10 secs. whereas others suggest a more reasonable time to full collapse would be like 30 to 40 secs.


----------



## Rationalist1016

eots said:


> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did I say that I support the "official story"?  I am just voicing my opinion on what I think happened based on what I have read and watched.  I would assume that is what most people do
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> sadly that is most likely true people base there opinions on misinformation
> from sources like 9/11 myths and poular mechanics instead of the official report
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read and listen to reports and testimony from witnesses about what happened that day.  Then make up their own mind on what they believe.
> After conversing with you for this short time, I am convinced that is not how you operate.  You have a set agenda, no information that is contrary to your understanding is valued
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so what your saying is you have listened to some witnesses and have formed the opinion that NIST failed to correctly determine the collapse sequence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what you are saying is that the "Official Report" is wrong?  And that "911myths" & "popular mechanics", which support the official story, is wrong?  But YOU know what happened?
> You say that most people base their opinion on misinformation.  Who is determining what is the misinformation?  There are multiple theories about what happened.  Obviously, only one of them, is in fact, correct.  I have heard all of the theories and heard all of the reasons those theories are correct.  The only one that is "logical", is the one that most rational people believe.  The so-called "Official" version.  You can throw around all the half-cocked ideas you want, when there is any REAL proof of any of it, I would change my opinion.
Click to expand...


----------



## Mr. Jones

eots said:


> sadly that is most likely true people base there opinions on misinformation
> from sources like 9/11 myths and poular mechanics instead of the official report
> 
> 
> 
> 9-11 Myths= Release date: November 27, 2007
> 
> _First of all, could you briefly introduce yourself.
> 
> I&#8217;m Mike Williams.  I worked as a software engineer for many years, but didn&#8217;t have much luck in my choice of employer: both were successful, but bought out by competitors and closed down!  I&#8217;d started doing freelance writing a year or two before my second redundancy,* so decided to see if I could make a living at that, instead. * I&#8217;m not always as disciplined or as good at time management as I should be, but I don&#8217;t miss the commuting or the pointless business meetings, and overall it&#8217;s been a good decision. _
> And people make fun and try to discredit the credentials of A&E signatories? Does Mike Williams know more about buildings then say Gage?
> 
> I would rather read what real experts say about 9-11 instead of someone who is not an expert in any of the fields that are relevant to the topic, and is dedicated to being an OCT disinformation specialist. Popular Mechanics so called _debunking_ is full of strawman arguments.
> The one thing Williams states on his site  about counter OCT sites and opinions, that can also be applied to the OCT is--
> "Many of the &#8220;facts&#8221; we read were distorted, or simply wrong. Quotes were routinely taken out of context. *Relevant information was often ignored. *And much of this could be discovered with a minimum of online research."
> 
> I suggest reading as much as you can from BOTH sides.
Click to expand...


----------



## Triton

No, the OCT is right.


A building fell on it


----------



## eots

Rationalist1016 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> sadly that is most likely true people base there opinions on misinformation
> from sources like 9/11 myths and poular mechanics instead of the official report
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so what your saying is you have listened to some witnesses and have formed the opinion that NIST failed to correctly determine the collapse sequence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what you are saying is that the "Official Report" is wrong?  And that "911myths" & "popular mechanics", which support the official story, is wrong? But YOU know what happened?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 myths and popular mechanics like yourself has often been in contradiction to the  NIST final report
> ..I do not believe either have provided reasonable explanations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ]You say that most people base their opinion on misinformation.  Who is determining what is the misinformation?  There are multiple theories about what happened.  Obviously, only one of them, is in fact, correct.  I have heard all of the theories and heard all of the reasons those theories are correct.  The only one that is "logical", is the one that most rational people believe.  The so-called "Official" version.  You can throw around all the half-cocked ideas you want, when there is any REAL proof of any of it, I would change my opininon]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but you were just in contradiction with the official theory and yet did not even seem to know what it was in any detail
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Rationalist1016

eots said:


> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> sadly that is most likely true people base there opinions on misinformation
> from sources like 9/11 myths and poular mechanics instead of the official report
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 myths and popular mechanics like yourself has often been in contradiction to the  NIST final report
> ..I do not believe either have provided reasonable explanations
> 
> 
> 
> but you were just in contradiction with the official theory and yet did not even seem to know what it was in any detail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, can I ask, what do you believe happened?  You obviously don't believe the official account.  What was the "evidence" that you saw that convinced you that the government is lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

I believe explosives are a more likely scenario...the list of what convinced me the investigative bodies were involved in a cover -up is a lengthy other than the nature of the collapses , the fact the top level FBI..CIA..9/11 commission members..NIST engineers have risk career and reputation to go on record to call the commission report and the NIST report cover-ups is one and the fact there is a complete media black out of this fact in favor of loose change or Rosie ODonald is yet another


Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## eots

I believe explosives are a more likely scenario...the list of what convinced me the investigative bodies were involved in a cover -up is a lengthy other than the nature of the collapses , the fact the top level FBI..CIA..9/11 commission members..NIST engineers have risk career and reputation to go on record to call the commission report and the NIST report cover-ups is one and the fact there is a complete media black out of this fact in favor of loose change or Rosie ODonald is yet another


Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## Rat in the Hat

eots said:


> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, WTC 7 was not hit by a plane.  But it was hit by a significant amount of falling debris from the North Tower collapse.  The south side of WTC 7 was badly damaged.  That coupled with the fires & the inability of the FDNY to fight those fires is what brought that building down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what part of damage played no significant role in the collapse do you not understand ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if the design did not contribute to the collapse that is irrelevant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I am saying, is that it is illogical to assume that after being hit by a falling building and being on fire for at least five hours, the building would need to be "brought down" by some other factor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> all I am saying is NIST determined damage played no significant role in the collapse and that the WTC 7 was first hi-rise building in history to collapse due to fire and the failure of column 79 for any reason would have initiated the collapse sequence...so if you are going to support the official theory you should at least know what it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what part of damage initiated the fires do you not understand?
> 
> and please give us your complete theory on what happened that day. from the time of the first plane impact, to WTC7's collapse. and give us names of who did what, and when.
> 
> let's see if at least one person can give a complete narrative of what the government did to cause the deaths of 3000 of our fellow citizens.
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

Rat in the Hat said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what part of damage played no significant role in the collapse do you not understand ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if the design did not contribute to the collapse that is irrelevant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> all I am saying is NIST determined damage played no significant role in the collapse and that the WTC 7 was first hi-rise building in history to collapse due to fire and the failure of column 79 for any reason would have initiated the collapse sequence...so if you are going to support the official theory you should at least know what it is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what part of damage initiated the fires do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that completely ..I also understand according to the NIST theory
> that any similar fire regardless of how it was ignited would have created the same result...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and please give us your complete theory on what happened that day. from the time of the first plane impact, to WTC7's collapse. and give us names of who did what, and when.
> 
> let's see if at least one person can give a complete narrative of what the government did to cause the deaths of 3000 of our fellow citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how could anyone do that without a real investigation with full authority ,full disclosure and subpoena powers ?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Rat in the Hat

eots said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that completely ..I also understand according to the NIST theory
> that any similar fire regardless of how it was ignited would have created the same result...
> 
> 
> 
> how could anyone do that without a real investigation with full authority ,full disclosure and subpoena powers ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You won't have a chance at a new investigation until you can provide a complete narrative on what happened that day, and why the government's findings are wrong.
> 
> So, let's hear what really happened, so we can get that ball rolling.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

Rat in the Hat said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> You won't have a chance at a new investigation until you can provide a complete narrative on what happened that day, and why the government's findings are wrong.
> 
> So, let's hear what really happened, so we can get that ball rolling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that is a ridiculous statement...however the forces we are working against are great and a new investigation may never occur but the battle is fought on may fronts .the powers behind wars of conquest and the military industrial complex are not one trick ponys and were active both before and after 9/11.the growing awareness and Resistance to  the systems of control and the court of public opinion is were  victories for truth have and will most likely occur
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

New 9/11 Poll: Half Of New Yorkers Support New Investigation Into WTC7 Collapse

http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/...ependent_Research/Building 7 Poll Results.pdf


----------



## Rat in the Hat

eots said:


> New 9/11 Poll: Half Of New Yorkers Support New Investigation Into WTC7 Collapse
> 
> http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/...ependent_Research/Building 7 Poll Results.pdf



    

Your link leads to the same thing as NYCCAN's ad campaign. A blank white screen. 

Maybe you should get Bobby "11.2 G" Balsalmo to help you set up the next ads.

But beware, he will force you to agree that the plane was north of the Citgo station.


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Your assumption that somehow these men did not take into account the fires caused by such impacts is plain wrong, as the articles posted claim they did. What was done to facilitate safety in a fire at the WTC is *documented throughout its* history in many places. From sprinklers to fireproofing, to ventilation. These are considerations that came from the analysis, and *were implemented as time went on.*


 Read the bolded parts of your quote above. Implemented over time and throughout it's history theses considerations were implemented???? Then, out of the other side of your mouth, you say this.


Mr. Jones said:


> First of all, Mr. Robertson was NOT the chief engineer as you stated in a prior post of yours, that would be John Skilling, but they both have been* quoted as saying the towers were built with consideration of the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of the fires.*



So which is it? Were the towers built that way or were the "considerations" implemented over time. You just contradicted yourself. The fact is, the only thing they knew was that there would be horrendous fires caused by the impact that's it. Nothing was known about the affects of fire on the steel if the fireproofing or sprinkler systems failed (which they did).



Mr. Jones said:


> These are facts, and why you would doubt that is beyond comprehension.


You mean the fact that Robertson directly refutes your claim with this quote?


			
				Robertson said:
			
		

> To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.





Mr. Jones said:


> I pointed out the actual audio of this from Mr. Robertson, and the articles, while also admitting that anything on paper is missing, according to Robertson.
> From what I have been studying, the best fire protection is the use of structural steel itself, for its properties have withstood the test of time concerning fires.


Is that why they need to fire proof steel? Because by itself, it can withstand the affects of fire????



Mr. Jones said:


> The biggest question that to this day are in debate from many of these experts, and others, is what caused the actual collapse initiation, and the mechanics of the collapse, and its progression.
> There are theories from both sides, and what I consider enough credible points made from independent experts to warrant a new investigation.
> I have repeatedly said I am no expert in this field, but I have read enough to come to my own conclusion, mainly that it is still partially unexplained, while trying to take the totality of 9-11 into consideration.
> We can argue this shit all day and night for days, but until these things are allowed in an independent non political inquiry it is useless.
> The main problem is the unwillingness to admit that credible counter views and arguments do in fact exist, and that has been proven.



And I show you an exact quote from Robertson that refutes what you claim, yet you want me to admit that it's credible?


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your assumption that somehow these men did not take into account the fires caused by such impacts is plain wrong, as the articles posted claim they did. What was done to facilitate safety in a fire at the WTC is *documented throughout its* history in many places. From sprinklers to fireproofing, to ventilation. These are considerations that came from the analysis, and *were implemented as time went on.*
> 
> 
> 
> Read the bolded parts of your quote above. Implemented over time and throughout it's history theses considerations were implemented???? Then, out of the other side of your mouth, you say this.
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, Mr. Robertson was NOT the chief engineer as you stated in a prior post of yours, that would be John Skilling, but they both have been* quoted as saying the towers were built with consideration of the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of the fires.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So which is it? Were the towers built that way or were the "considerations" implemented over time. You just contradicted yourself. The fact is, the only thing they knew was that there would be horrendous fires caused by the impact that's it. Nothing was known about the affects of fire on the steel if the fireproofing or sprinkler systems failed (which they did).
Click to expand...

The statement I made above that you highlighted and is in red, came from an article I linked. It is obvious that Mr. Robertson, and to an extent Mr. Skilling have provided statements in audio. or to the written press, affirming these "considerations" and "analysis", and as I said before, what exactly was done, or put on paper is unknown.
The statements I made where based on what was said by both of those men.




> You mean the fact that Robertson directly refutes your claim with this quote?


 He contradicts himself, and Skilling.
Which is the reason I made a post about Robertson in the first place, to show that, what some people are saying is a credible, undisputed source, he in reality contradicts himself in the audio debate with Jones. If you go back and re-read the original post I made, concerning Robertson you should be able to figure this out.




> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> I pointed out the actual audio of this from Mr. Robertson, and the articles, while also admitting that anything on paper is missing, according to Robertson.
> From what I have been studying, the best fire protection is the use of structural steel itself, for its properties have withstood the test of time concerning fires.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why they need to fire proof steel? Because by itself, it can withstand the affects of fire????
Click to expand...

So what building material that is more impervious to steel would you use in the construction of *your* hirise building Mr. Structural Engineer? If there were no such thing as fire retardant, what would you recommend expert construction engineers use??


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest question that to this day are in debate from many of these experts, and others, is what caused the actual collapse initiation, and the mechanics of the collapse, and its progression.
> There are theories from both sides, and what I consider enough credible points made from independent experts to warrant a new investigation.
> I have repeatedly said I am no expert in this field, but I have read enough to come to my own conclusion, mainly that it is still partially unexplained, while trying to take the totality of 9-11 into consideration.
> We can argue this shit all day and night for days, but until these things are allowed in an independent non political inquiry it is useless.
> The main problem is the unwillingness to admit that credible counter views and arguments do in fact exist, and that has been proven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I show you an exact quote from Robertson that refutes what you claim, yet you want me to admit that it's credible?
Click to expand...

And I show you, what the point of my original post was, to prove how what Robertson says is indeed contradiction, thus lowering his credibility, AND that he WAS NOT the original engineer for the project, it was in fact Skilling, who contradicts what Robertson says.

Waiting on your hirise building plans, using better base construction material then steel,  along with your expert hypothesis on the collapse...with you being so knowledgeable and all..


----------



## eots

*pentagon-papers-whistleblower -Daniel Ellsberg-says-that-the-government has ordered the media not to cover 911*



Washington's Blog


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> *pentagon-papers-whistleblower -Daniel Ellsberg-says-that-the-government has ordered the media not to cover 911*
> 
> 
> 
> Washington's Blog



  Awww.... truthard fucks are getting upset nobody will report on their same old tired bullshit, so now they have to pretend the government ORDERED the media to shut up.    Of course, they ignore the fact the government doesn't have such power, especially since a lot of the media isn't based in the US.  

There have been attempts by the government to ASK the media not to run stories like the NSA's wiretapping that the NYT exposed, yet you silly shits want us all to believe the media would sit on the story of the century to PROTECT the government?    What will you bitches dream up next!


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> And I show you, what the point of my original post was, to prove how what Robertson says is indeed contradiction, thus lowering his credibility, AND that he WAS NOT the original engineer for the project, it was in fact Skilling, who contradicts what Robertson says.



Ah, what utter hypocricy from the king of the truthtards!  So if YOU claim someone is contradicting themselves, then OBVIOUSLY they must be lying, yet you continue to use sources that have been PROVEN to have lied without even batting an eyelash.

Now, an honest person would look at how they treat their own sources vs. other sources and make sure they are held to the same level of integrity.  Truthtards will believe anything that says what they want to hear regardless of the credibility of the source or how retarded the claim is.  

And truthtards wonder why they are ridiculed and despised.


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> He contradicts himself, and Skilling.
> Which is the reason I made a post about Robertson in the first place, to show that, what some people are saying is a credible, undisputed source, he in reality contradicts himself in the audio debate with Jones.



I just listened to the first audio debate with Jones you posted and not one mention was made by Robertson about an analysis made concerning the eaffects of fire on the structural steel, ONLY the impact. If you think otherwise, please post the timestamp for when you seem to have heard this supposed "quote" from Robertson.

I am now listening to the second audio you posted in the debate.


----------



## Gamolon

Just finished listening to audio number 2 of the debate. Not one mention of an analysis due to determine the affects of fire on the structural steel by Robertson

Again, if you seem to know where this "quote" is from Robertson, then please post the timestamp at which it occurs in the audio.

I am listening to audio number 3 of the debate.


----------



## Gamolon

Just listened to audio number 3.

Again. No mention of analysis for the affects of fire on the structural steel. Please post a timestamp from this audio where Robertson is "quoted" as saying what you claim he does.


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> First of all, Mr. Robertson was NOT the chief engineer as you stated in a prior post of yours, that would be John Skilling,



Wrong. Mr. Robertson was in fact the chief structural engineer. He was also a lead engineer as he satmped all the structural blueprints. Yoyu have never worked in an engineering firm so you have no lcue. Any engineer who stamps a complete set of drawings with his seal is in fact a LEAD ENGINEER.



Mr. Jones said:


> but they both have been quoted as saying the towers were built with consideration of the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of the fires.



Do you know what a quote is? I don't so. You have yet to provide me or anyone else an exact quote where Robertson says that the towers were built with the consideration of the affects of fire. All you have posted is quotes about the study of the impacts and make a logical assumption that that also means they studied the affects of fire on the steel.

So supply me with the quote where Robertson says exactly what you are quoting him as saying. Otherwise you are just making things up.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, Mr. Robertson was NOT the chief engineer as you stated in a prior post of yours, that would be John Skilling,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. Mr. Robertson was in fact the chief structural engineer. He was also a lead engineer as he satmped all the structural blueprints. Yoyu have never worked in an engineering firm so you have no lcue. Any engineer who stamps a complete set of drawings with his seal is in fact a LEAD ENGINEER.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> but they both have been quoted as saying the towers were built with consideration of the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of the fires.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know what a quote is? I don't so. You have yet to provide me or anyone else an exact quote where Robertson says that the towers were built with the consideration of the affects of fire. All you have posted is quotes about the study of the impacts and make a logical assumption that that also means they studied the affects of fire on the steel.
> 
> So supply me with the quote where Robertson says exactly what you are quoting him as saying. Otherwise you are just making things up.
Click to expand...

"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."

Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there." 

The Seattle Times: Search Results

Regarding what Robertson says-
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3738967-post1036.html

Regarding Skilling-
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3739013-post1038.html

Now how about* you* answer the questions I posed to you regarding the better base construction material *you *would use instead of steel that would be more impervious to fires.
  ...Still waiting on your collapse hypothesis too 

And BTW, claiming that Robertson was THE lead engineer, may be your opinion, but you haven't posted a link to back it up.


----------



## Mr. Jones

> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I show you, what the point of my original post was, to prove how what Robertson says is indeed contradiction, thus lowering his credibility, AND that he WAS NOT the original engineer for the project, it was in fact Skilling, who contradicts what Robertson says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, what utter hypocricy from the king of the truthtards!  So if YOU claim someone is contradicting themselves, then OBVIOUSLY they must be lying, yet you continue to use sources that have been PROVEN to have lied without even batting an eyelash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I posted this about Robertson to show you how he contradicts himself. After all, You were the one who mentioned him as a credible source for your information. And it is you that goes around screaming "LIAR" at sources you don't like, not me. There's proof of that in many of your insane posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, an honest person would look at how they treat their own sources vs. other sources and make sure they are held to the same level of integrity.  Truthtards will believe anything that says what they want to hear regardless of the credibility of the source or how retarded the claim is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take your own medicine you hypocrite, and notice how your source Mr. Robertson contradicts himself in the posts I made a few pages back in response to your BS.
> 
> So have your meds balanced out your delirious mind yet, or do you still think there is a conspiracy involving the truth movement to take over the government?
> 
> 
> The hypocrite is you, you fucking nutcase.
Click to expand...


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> "We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said *John Skilling*, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."
> 
> *Skilling*, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.
> 
> Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.
> 
> "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed,"* he said*. "The building structure would still be there."
> 
> The Seattle Times: Search Results
> 
> Regarding what Robertson says-
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3738967-post1036.html
> 
> Regarding* Skilling*-
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3739013-post1038.html



Do you know what it means to say that someone is QUOTED as saying something? Obviously not because if you look at the above post from you, everything in there is about SKILLING. One link was back to what Robertson said in his audio debate. There is not one quote from Robertson that says the anything about their analysis having showing that the fires from a resultant impact would affect the steel.

I have asked you time and time again and you have yet to show the exact quote of Robertson saying anything about the analysis showing the affects of the fire. All you have are logical "jumps" in which you ASSUME they new the affects. There is not one exact quote form him. PERIOD.



Mr. Jones said:


> Now how about* you* answer the questions I posed to you regarding the better base construction material *you *would use instead of steel that would be more impervious to fires.



Where did I EVER say that we should use materials other than steel? Now you're reaching.


Mr. Jones said:


> ...Still waiting on your collapse hypothesis too


Plane impact, damaged steel, fires weakened steel, overloaded steel failed, collpase ensues.



Mr. Jones said:


> And BTW, claiming that Robertson was THE lead engineer, may be your opinion, but you haven't posted a link to back it up.



World Trade Center lead engineer to speak Wednesday // News // Notre Dame News // University of Notre Dame

NAE Website - Reflections on the World Trade Center

NOVA | Building on Ground Zero | TV Program Description | PBS

Narwhal Enterprises - Archives - Currents: 10-19-01

9-11 Documentaries | Top Documentaries.info


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, what utter hypocricy from the king of the truthtards!  So if YOU claim someone is contradicting themselves, then OBVIOUSLY they must be lying, yet you continue to use sources that have been PROVEN to have lied without even batting an eyelash.
> 
> 
> 
> No I posted this about Robertson to show you how he contradicts himself. After all, You were the one who mentioned him as a credible source for your information. And it is you that goes around screaming "LIAR" at sources you don't like, not me. There's proof of that in many of your insane posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, an honest person would look at how they treat their own sources vs. other sources and make sure they are held to the same level of integrity.  Truthtards will believe anything that says what they want to hear regardless of the credibility of the source or how retarded the claim is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take your own medicine you hypocrite, and notice how your source Mr. Robertson contradicts himself in the posts I made a few pages back in response to your BS.
> 
> So have your meds balanced out your delirious mind yet, or do you still think there is a conspiracy involving the truth movement to take over the government?
> 
> 
> The hypocrite is you, you fucking nutcase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still have yet to post his exact quote saying that the analysis they did showed the affects of fire on the steel!!!!
> 
> The only thing you post are quotes from Skilling and supposed quotes from Robertson that one has to make an assumption about in order see what you are claiming. That is not a quote. Not even close.
Click to expand...


----------



## charles brough

Terral said:


> Hi Mr. Jones:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spread the word and research what the real issues are with the NIST investigation and the problems the families of the victims of 9-11 and many others have with the explanation that was told to the country.
> 
> 
> 
> The entire US Federal, State and Local Govts are corrupt to the core and nobody cares. We have an illegal alien in the White House for God sakes who like Bush and Clinton and Bush let illegal aliens run around everywhere doing whatever they please. The fake 911Movement is running in place and nobody is ever brought to 911Justice and that is never going to change in this pathetic and corrupt nation of liars, murderers and thieves. America is simply not America anymore and the sheeple need to get accustomed to living in a third-world country where police state brutality is commonplace and the average subject can barely afford to pay for food.
Click to expand...


You must have had a _terrible_ day!  Like the majority of Americans, I also believe our civilization and the US itself is in decline and have even, as an author, laid out the process so it can be understood. Yes, the moral backbone of the US public has sadly suffered, but what is "good" can only be evaluated in respect to or relative to what is "bad." It is not so much that we have degenerated compared to others throughout the world but that it is degenerating, as all civilizations have always eventually done, compared to our past and the earler age of any and all previous civilizations.

I try my best to take a fatalistic attitude and not let the obvious decline overpower me with negativity. It can turn people into manic-depressives who go berzerk and kill people.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> You still have yet to post his exact quote saying that the analysis they did showed the affects of fire on the steel!!!!
> 
> The only thing you post are quotes from Skilling and supposed quotes from Robertson that one has to make an assumption about in order see what you are claiming. That is not a quote. Not even close.



My intention was to show the contradictions that have come from Robertson, and I have done that, and here they are in more detail.
It looks like in the article you linked, we also find a couple of the considerations that were utilized due to their analysis in case of fires:

"Another *theory was developed *to predict stack action and temperature-induced and wind-induced airflow within a high-rise building; an understanding of these airflows is crucial to controlling fire-generated smoke and reducing the energy consumption of the building." 

*"We developed the concept of and made use of the fire-rated shaft-wall partition system*, which is now widely used in place of masonry and plaster walls. At that time, masonry was the standard enclosure for elevators, stairs, duct shafts, and other internal structures."
NAE Website - Reflections on the World Trade Center

And this, taken from the 
 NOVA article you linked:

"Exclusive footage shows off the skyscraper's massive structural shell, "refuge floors" *with extra fire protection*, and additional elevators designed for use by emergency personnel. While Robertson is relieved that the NIST investigation found no flaw in his engineering of the World Trade Center, the horror of what happened to the Towers still haunts him to this day." 
NAE Website - Reflections on the World Trade Center

Regarding John Skilling and who was the boss:

"NIST found a three-page white paper that mentioned another aircraft-impact analysis, involving impact of a Boeing 707 at 600 miles per hour (970 km/h), but the original documentation of the study, which was part of the building's 1,200 page structural analysis, was lost when the Port Authority offices were destroyed in the collapse of the WTC 1; the copy was lost in WTC 7.[10] In 1993, *John Skilling, lead structural engineer for the WTC, recalled doing the analysis, and remarked, "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."*
Collapse of the World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you feel there is an error, perhaps you could edit the Wikipedia page and correct it, because here it mentions Skilling once again as being the lead engineer:
"John Skilling (October 8, 1921, Los Angeles, California  March 5, 1998, Seattle, Washington) was a civil engineer and architect, best known for being the chief structural engineer of the World Trade Center.[1]"

"John started working for the W.H.Witt Co. soon after graduation. In 1983, he became the chairman of the firm. Prominent constructions under his leadership include the World Trade Center, Rainier Bank Tower, the Seafirst Building, Seafirst Fifth Avenue Tower, Century Square, Columbia Seafirst Center and the Washington State Convention and Trade Center.[2]"

"John Skilling,  American structural and civil engineer whose firm, Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire, designed over 1,000 buildings in 36 states and 27 countries; among his best-known work was the 110-story twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City (b. Oct. 8, 1921, Los Angeles, Calif.--d. March 5, 1998, Seattle, Wash.)."
John Skilling (American engineer) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

"Skilling became a principal of the Witt firm in 1950. He led the evolution of a small, regionally oriented firm into the nationally acclaimed structural engineering organization that it became over the nearly 45 years of his direction."
HistoryLink.org- the Free Online Encyclopedia of Washington State History


So, Robertson answered to Skilling, apparently until he was made a partner.
Leslie Robertson is often represented as the lead engineer in the engineering firm that designed the Twin Towers: Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson. Robertson has become an apologist for the official story, while the actual lead architect, John Skilling, is not alive to defend his buildings, having died in 1998.
Skilling  seemed to remember considering fires in his analysis, but Robertson was not remembering any of it. 

The controversy caused by contradicting statements is further detailed in an analysis of contradictions in statements by Building Designer Leslie Robertson--
What the World Trade Center Building Designers Said: Before and After 9/11

(Between Early 1984 and October 1985): Office of Special Planning Studies Vulnerability of WTC to Terrorist Attack


The Office of Special Planning (OSP), a unit set up by the New York Port Authority to assess the security of its facilities against terrorist attacks (see Early 1984), spends four to six months studying the World Trade Center. It examines the centers design through looking at photographs, blueprints, and plans. It brings in experts such as the builders of the center, plus experts in sabotage and explosives, and has them walk through the WTC to identify any areas of vulnerability. According to New York Times reporters James Glanz and Eric Lipton, when Edward OSullivan, head of the OSP, looks at WTC security, he finds one vulnerability after another. Explosive charges could be placed at key locations in the power system. Chemical or biological agents could be dropped into the coolant system. The Hudson River water intake could be blown up. Someone might even try to infiltrate the large and vulnerable subterranean realms of the World Trade Center site. In particular, There was no control at all over access to the underground, two-thousand-car parking garage. However, OSullivan consults one of the trade centers original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane. He is told there is little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked. [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 227; New York County Supreme Court, 1/20/2004] The OSP will issue its report called Counter-Terrorism Perspectives: The World Trade Center late in 1985 (see November 1985). 
Leslie Robertson



Between September 3, 2001 and September 7, 2001: WTC Structural Engineer Says Trade Center Designed for 707 Crashing Into It--
Leslie Robertson. [Source: Publicity photo]Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, is asked at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany what he had done to protect the Twin Towers from terrorist attacks. He replies, I designed it for a 707 to smash into it, though does not elaborate further. [Chicago Tribune, 9/12/2001; Knight Ridder, 9/12/2001] The Twin Towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane. [Robertson, 3/2002; Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002, pp. 1-17] The Boeing 707 was the largest in use when the towers were designed. Robertson conducted a study in late 1964, to calculate the effect of a 707 weighing 263,000 pounds and traveling at 180 mph crashing into one of the towers. He concluded that the tower would remain standing. However, no official report of his study has ever surfaced publicly. [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 138-139, 366]

Also according to the authors of a book entiled City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center-By James Glanz and Eric Lipton
Robertson says  in 1984-5 that there was "little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked." Page 224

 A previous analysis, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing (see February 27, 1993). In 2002, though, Robertson will write, To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. [Robertson, 3/2002] The planes that hit the WTC on 9/11 are 767s, which are almost 20 percent heavier than 707s. [Scientific American, 10/9/2001; New Yorker, 11/19/2001]

More contradictions,
In the audio conversation, that I linked, and that Robertson had with Jones,  Robertson claims that he had never run across anyone who has said that they had in fact seen molten metal. This statement is also a contradiction, considering the fact that Robertson himself claimed to have seen it in a published news report! This contradicts his own statement about seeing molten metal: Leslie Robertson, one of the structural engineers responsible for the design of the WTC, describes fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.

"As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." -- Leslie Robertson, at the National Conference of Structural Engineers on October 5, 2001, James M. Williams, "WTC A STRUCTURAL SUCCESS," SEAUNEWS, The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah, Volume VI -- Issue II, October 2001, p.3.


Furthermore, 
The World Trade Center (WTC) Towers[1] were the largest buildings ever conceived in 1960.[2] This meant that there was a considerable amount of planning:

The structural analysis carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson is the most complete and detailed of any ever made for any building structure.  The preliminary calculations alone cover 1, 200 pages and involve over 100 detailed drawings The building as designed is sixteen times stiffer than a conventional structure.  The design concept is so sound that the structural engineer has been able to be ultra-conservative in his design without adversely affecting the economics of the structure.[3]

In July of 1971, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award judging the WTC Towers to be the engineering project that demonstrates the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest contribution to engineering progress and mankind.[4]

Like many modern structures and buildings, the WTC Towers were over-designed to withstand weight distribution in the event of structural damage.  According to calculations made by the engineers who helped with the design of the Twin Towers, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.[5] As well, Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.

Continue reading at NowPublic.com: The World Trade Center Building Designers: Pre-9/11 claims strongly implicate Towers should have remained standing on 9/11 | NowPublic News Coverage The World Trade Center Building Designers: Pre-9/11 claims strongly implicate Towers should have remained standing on 9/11 | NowPublic News Coverage

Thompson explains that besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made.[18] In fact, many of the building documents are unavailable because the building owners, designers and insurers, prevented independent researchers from gaining accessand delayed the BPAT team in gaining accessto pertinent building documents largely because of liability concerns.

It is demonstrable that the WTC building designers claimed that the Twin Towers would survive an event similar to 9/11.  Either the WTC building designers were tragically wrong in their calculations and designs, or there is another explanation for the destruction of the WTC Towers.  After 9/11, WTC building designer Leslie Robertson has made claims that are contradicted by statements and documents from as many as 40 years ago. 
The World Trade Center Building Designers: Pre-9/11 claims strongly implicate Towers should have remained standing on 9/11 | NowPublic News Coverage

Is Robertson being pressured to lie and make false statements? Was he asked to leak a false statement just before 9/11 about the speed of the planes having an impact on their destruction? Are these contradictions by accident or mistake?

A news report stated that he wanted to give his opinion to the FBI before making his comments public. This in itself is not overly suspiciousbut his contradictions are. No clear answers to these and similar questions can be obtained through speculation alone Leslie Robertson must account for these himself. If another 9/11 investigation is obtained, it is clear that Leslie Robertson will have to answer these and other relevant questions.
What the World Trade Center Building Designers Said: Before and After 9/11

So this shows that my original intention, 
 to prove that Robertson has said conflicting things before, and after the WTC 9-11 attacks, is valid, and well documented.
Do you still think the designers did not do any analysis concerning  plane impacts and the fires from the jet fuel? 
You probably will, and in so doing degrade their intelligence to further your stubborn beliefs and assumptions.

Are you still going to ask for any documentation about the "analysis" when even NIST has admitted the difficulty in obtaining such documentation?
All we have is the words of the designers themselves. One who is not alive to comment, but is recorded by many sources to have said considerations and analysis were done, and the other who was hired by the owner of the firm, and who is well documented showing that he likes to change his story?

*The engineer who said after the 1993 bombing that the towers could withstand a Boeing 707, Leslie Robertson, was not available for comment yesterday, a partner at his Manhattan firm said. 
We're going to hold off on speaking to the media, said the partner, Rick Zottola, at Leslie E. Robertson Associates. We'd like to reserve our first comments to our national security systems, F.B.I. and so on.*
Why would he have to wait to speak to the FBI? To get the story straight, and make sure it lines up with the "official accounts"?

I guess that depends on who you choose to believe.


----------



## Patriot911

Aww.... poor fucktard Jones STILL can't show where Robertson "contradicted" himself.

For the record, the towers BOTH withstood an impact far greater than the one that was calculated as has been shown to you numerous times.  

So once again you fail on an epic scale.

Anyone surprised?

Anyone?

Anyone?


----------



## Mr. Jones

Patriot911 said:


> Aww.... poor fucktard Jones STILL can't show where Robertson "contradicted" himself.
> 
> For the record, the towers BOTH withstood an impact far greater than the one that was calculated as has been shown to you numerous times.
> 
> So once again you fail on an epic scale.
> 
> Anyone surprised?
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> Anyone?


Aw what's the matter Parrot, not getting enough attention at home? You don't bother to educate yourself on thread topics, and make an ass out of yourself like always....Fucking hilarious!
You are one pathetic fuck, you're now stooping to panhandling for attention and following me around the different threads  
Again you have nothing of relevance to say, and you are resorting to your usual job of POS troll 
My post proves that Robertson is full of contradiction, if you would have read the post you would have noticed this, but you would of course pretend you didn't.
I don't have time to contribute to trolls, as I have many times embarrassed you by getting you to expose the sorry fuck you are, to yourself and to others. This time you did it all by yourself..
Have fun arguing by yourself. Maybe your dominant hand will be your friend, you have none here  
Bye bye now, you sorry little whiny bitch


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aww.... poor fucktard Jones STILL can't show where Robertson "contradicted" himself.
> 
> For the record, the towers BOTH withstood an impact far greater than the one that was calculated as has been shown to you numerous times.
> 
> So once again you fail on an epic scale.
> 
> Anyone surprised?
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> Aw what's the matter Parrot, not getting enough attention at home? You don't bother to educate yourself on thread topics, and make an ass out of yourself like always....Fucking hilarious!
> You are one pathetic fuck, you're now stooping to panhandling for attention and following me around the different threads
> Again you have nothing of relevance to say, and you are resorting to your usual job of POS troll
> My post proves that Robertson is full of contradiction, if you would have read the post you would have noticed this, but you would of course pretend you didn't.
> I don't have time to contribute to trolls, as I have many times embarrassed you by getting you to expose the sorry fuck you are, to yourself and to others. This time you did it all by yourself..
> Have fun arguing by yourself. Maybe your dominant hand will be your friend, you have none here
> Bye bye now, you sorry little whiny bitch
Click to expand...


  You still haven't quoted Robertson as claiming he did the fire calculations on the airline crash.  You making claims you can't back up aren't going to cut it.  Not now.  Not ever.

Regardless, Robertson is still FAR more credible than all your other sources who are known, proven liars, yet you continue to treat their every word as though God himself came down and handed it to you.


----------



## eots

parrot9/11 is a proven liar with zero credibility


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> parrot9/11 is a proven liar with zero credibility



Coming from you that is a compliment given your reputation.  Don't have anything to add?  Don't want to try and pretend Robertson is a liar like Jones is trying to do?    I know truthtards hate it when true experts speak up on the matter and shred any remaining credibility of the truthtard bowel movement.


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> parrot9/11 is a proven liar with zero credibility
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coming from you that is a compliment given your reputation.  Don't have anything to add?  Don't want to try and pretend Robertson is a liar like Jones is trying to do?    I know truthtards hate it when true experts speak up on the matter and shred any remaining credibility of the truthtard bowel movement.
Click to expand...


you are a crude ,foul individual, a proven liar and have no credibility,there is little more to be said


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlBjAZ4EFR0&feature=related]YouTube - &#x202a;9/11 Physics 101; Air, Water, or WTC Steel? You decide.&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> parrot9/11 is a proven liar with zero credibility
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coming from you that is a compliment given your reputation.  Don't have anything to add?  Don't want to try and pretend Robertson is a liar like Jones is trying to do?    I know truthtards hate it when true experts speak up on the matter and shred any remaining credibility of the truthtard bowel movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are a crude ,foul individual, a proven liar and have no credibility,there is little more to be said
Click to expand...


Good thing I don't give a shit what you think!    Still can't actually address the topic at hand?  Not surprised.  One note wonders can rarely hang with the people who know what is going on.


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> YouTube - &#x202a;9/11 Physics 101; Air, Water, or WTC Steel? You decide.&#x202c;&rlm;



So what.... you're hoping everyone is so ignorant they try to answer the twisted questions of the video that doesn't actually CLAIM anything?  It just asks a bunch of lame questions in the hopes people won't bother to learn the truth!  

Only thing keeping you truthtards going is people too stupid and ignorant to understand you're all just lying your asses off.    Unfortunately for you, people aren't buying the bullshit you're selling.  Almost ten years now and you truthtards STILL haven't been able to produce a single piece of real evidence or get anyone to actually act on your silly claims.

Of course, it would help if all you nuts could actually agree on what happened, who did it, how they did it, or any other facet of 9/11 other than your pathetic excuses as to why Al Qaeda didn't do it.  Funny how you all try to exhonerate the terrorists who would gladly gut you and dance in your blood.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

eots said:


> parrot9/11 is a proven liar with zero credibility


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Mr. Jones said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aww.... poor fucktard Jones STILL can't show where Robertson "contradicted" himself.
> 
> For the record, the towers BOTH withstood an impact far greater than the one that was calculated as has been shown to you numerous times.
> 
> So once again you fail on an epic scale.
> 
> Anyone surprised?
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> Aw what's the matter Parrot, not getting enough attention at home? You don't bother to educate yourself on thread topics, and make an ass out of yourself like always....Fucking hilarious!
> You are one pathetic fuck, you're now stooping to panhandling for attention and following me around the different threads
> Again you have nothing of relevance to say, and you are resorting to your usual job of POS troll
> My post proves that Robertson is full of contradiction, if you would have read the post you would have noticed this, but you would of course pretend you didn't.
> I don't have time to contribute to trolls, as I have many times embarrassed you by getting you to expose the sorry fuck you are, to yourself and to others. This time you did it all by yourself..
> Have fun arguing by yourself. Maybe your dominant hand will be your friend, you have none here
> Bye bye now, you sorry little whiny bitch
Click to expand...



should be no surprise to you,after all he sticks together with his bed buddy fellow attention seeker troll ,Candyfag. the biggest attention seeking troll of them all on any message board and defends him to no end.


----------



## Triton

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;9/11 Physics 101; Air, Water, or WTC Steel? You decide.&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what.... you're hoping everyone is so ignorant they try to answer the twisted questions of the video that doesn't actually CLAIM anything?  It just asks a bunch of lame questions in the hopes people won't bother to learn the truth!
> 
> Only thing keeping you truthtards going is people too stupid and ignorant to understand you're all just lying your asses off.    Unfortunately for you, people aren't buying the bullshit you're selling.  *Almost ten years now and you truthtards STILL haven't been able to produce a single piece of real evidence or get anyone to actually act on your silly claims*.
> 
> Of course, it would help if all you nuts could actually agree on what happened, who did it, how they did it, or any other facet of 9/11 other than your pathetic excuses as to why Al Qaeda didn't do it.  Funny how you all try to exhonerate the terrorists who would gladly gut you and dance in your blood.
Click to expand...




LMAO


----------



## Patriot911

Triton said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;9/11 Physics 101; Air, Water, or WTC Steel? You decide.&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what.... you're hoping everyone is so ignorant they try to answer the twisted questions of the video that doesn't actually CLAIM anything?  It just asks a bunch of lame questions in the hopes people won't bother to learn the truth!
> 
> Only thing keeping you truthtards going is people too stupid and ignorant to understand you're all just lying your asses off.    Unfortunately for you, people aren't buying the bullshit you're selling.  *Almost ten years now and you truthtards STILL haven't been able to produce a single piece of real evidence or get anyone to actually act on your silly claims*.
> 
> Of course, it would help if all you nuts could actually agree on what happened, who did it, how they did it, or any other facet of 9/11 other than your pathetic excuses as to why Al Qaeda didn't do it.  Funny how you all try to exhonerate the terrorists who would gladly gut you and dance in your blood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO
Click to expand...


I've asked you repeatedly to produce some of the evidence you claim to have.  To date you have not produced a single piece of real evidence that would hold up in a court of law.  The fact all you can do is sit there and laugh at your own failure speaks volumes as to just how low the TBM has sunk.


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what.... you're hoping everyone is so ignorant they try to answer the twisted questions of the video that doesn't actually CLAIM anything?  It just asks a bunch of lame questions in the hopes people won't bother to learn the truth!
> 
> Only thing keeping you truthtards going is people too stupid and ignorant to understand you're all just lying your asses off.    Unfortunately for you, people aren't buying the bullshit you're selling.  *Almost ten years now and you truthtards STILL haven't been able to produce a single piece of real evidence or get anyone to actually act on your silly claims*.
> 
> Of course, it would help if all you nuts could actually agree on what happened, who did it, how they did it, or any other facet of 9/11 other than your pathetic excuses as to why Al Qaeda didn't do it.  Funny how you all try to exhonerate the terrorists who would gladly gut you and dance in your blood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've asked you repeatedly to produce some of the evidence you claim to have.  To date you have not produced a single piece of real evidence that would hold up in a court of law.  The fact all you can do is sit there and laugh at your own failure speaks volumes as to just how low the TBM has sunk.
Click to expand...


If what you say is true...why are you here ?


----------



## SFC Ollie

Someone has to try to keep you smucks honest.


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> If what you say is true...why are you here ?


What Ollie said.  Why should I stand by and let schmucks like you use the deaths of 3000 Americans to spread your lies, deceit and discontent?  I know it probably boggles your little mind that there are people with integrity out there that will stand up for what they believe in and without the paranoid delusions as seen from the conspiratard crowd.

I've also noticed you have failed time and time again to produce a single shred of evidence that would hold up in a court of law that the bull you spread is anything but bull.  Why is that?  Don't you think it makes you and your movement look like a bunch of fools when you can't back up your claims with actual evidence, especially when you claim to have so much of it?  Here is a hint.  Nod your head up and down.  That's a good boy!


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> If what you say is true...why are you here ?
> 
> 
> 
> What Ollie said.  Why should I stand by and let schmucks like you use the deaths of 3000 Americans to spread your lies, deceit and discontent?  I know it probably boggles your little mind that there are people with integrity out there that will stand up for what they believe in and without the paranoid delusions as seen from the conspiratard crowd.
> 
> I've also noticed you have failed time and time again to produce a single shred of evidence that would hold up in a court of law that the bull you spread is anything but bull.  Why is that?  Don't you think it makes you and your movement look like a bunch of fools when you can't back up your claims with actual evidence, especially when you claim to have so much of it?  Here is a hint.  Nod your head up and down.  That's a good boy!
Click to expand...


but you said EVERYONE laughs at me...no one believes it...we look like a bunch of fools...there is no evidence...so why the concern ?


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> Someone has to try to keep you smucks honest.



you mean like how you like to explain the collapse of the wtc 7 by parroting the old popular mechanics line about how a third of the building was" scooped out"[ yes you actually use the word "scooped" the exact word used by popular mechanics) and how' a 110 story building fell on it...even though the NIST report says other than igniting fires damage played no significant role in the collapse ?
that kind of" honesty" ?...come to think of it you clowns always parrot the popular mechanics line about how fires' raged"  7 hours...when by historical building fire standards the fires were relatively small and contained to several floors


----------



## SFC Ollie

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone has to try to keep you smucks honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you mean like how you like to explain the collapse of the wtc 7 by parroting the old popular mechanics line about how a third of the building was" scooped out"[ yes you actually use the word "scooped" the exact word used by popular mechanics) and how' a 110 story building fell on it...even though the NIST report says other than igniting fires damage played no significant role in the collapse ?
> that kind of" honesty" ?...come to think of it you clowns always parrot the popular mechanics line about how fires' raged"  7 hours...when by historical building fire standards the fires were relatively small and contained to several floors
Click to expand...


Um, scooped out was how one of the Firemen described it. You may ask them about the words they used. Or don't the witnesses who disagree with you count?

Please show us where anyone who actually would have even a clue said that the fires in WTC7 were contained.

And we can see the fires and the smoke, there is nothing relatively small about them.


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dNR6coGRTI]YouTube - &#x202a;fires WTC7, CBS-Net Dub7 14.avi&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hSPFL2Zlpg]YouTube - &#x202a;CCTV/TVCC fire in Beijing (HD version)[/ame]




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8]YouTube - &#x202a;Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie

Why do we always have to compare to buildings that were constructed differently?

And you still want to go with relatively small while all you can see behind some windows is flame?

And this from the side of the building that wasn't damaged.

Unfortunately the other side of the building is conveniently hidden by massive clouds of smoke, you cannot even tell how much damage was done or how bad the fires are. But you know all this and dismiss it.


----------



## Obamerican

eots said:


> YouTube - &#x202a;fires WTC7, CBS-Net Dub7 14.avi&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;CCTV/TVCC fire in Beijing (HD version)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!&#x202c;&rlm;


Not a single one of your fires was in a building built like the WTC and NONE OF THEM were hit by commercial jets. Idiot.


----------



## eots

> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do we always have to compare to buildings that were constructed differently?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why do you pretend you have any idea how all the buildings featured were constructed ?...why do you pretend anything in the design of wtc 7 contributed or made it more vulnerable to collapse ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you still want to go with relatively small while all you can see behind some windows is flame?
> And this from the side of the building that wasn't damaged.
> 
> Unfortunately the other side of the building is conveniently hidden by massive clouds of smoke, you cannot even tell how much damage was done or how bad the fires are. But you know all this and dismiss it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think smoke could obscure the fires seen in these buildings..so if you cant see fire through smoke it cant be that intense and yes compared to other building fires they are indeed contained to several floors and _relativly_ small
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

obamerican said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> youtube - &#x202a;fires wtc7, cbs-net dub7 14.avi&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> youtube - &#x202a;cctv/tvcc fire in beijing (hd version)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youtube - &#x202a;bad ass skyscraper fires and destruction!! Awesome!!&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> not a single one of your fires was in a building built like the wtc and none of them were hit by commercial jets. Idiot.
Click to expand...


wtc 7 was not hit by a jet..other than igniting fires nist determined damage played no significant role in the collapse and  the design of wtc 7 was never called into fault and you have no clue how all the buildings in these videos were constructed regardless


----------



## Obamerican

eots said:


> obamerican said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> youtube - &#x202a;fires wtc7, cbs-net dub7 14.avi&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> youtube - &#x202a;cctv/tvcc fire in beijing (hd version)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youtube - &#x202a;bad ass skyscraper fires and destruction!! Awesome!!&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> not a single one of your fires was in a building built like the wtc and none of them were hit by commercial jets. Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wtc 7 was not hit by a jet..other than igniting fires nist determined damage played no significant role in the collapse and  the design of wtc 7 was never called into fault and you have no clue how all the buildings in these videos were constructed regardless
Click to expand...

Which one of your videos has a building where the entire front was stripped off by the collapse of a 110 floor building?


----------



## eots

obamerican said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> obamerican said:
> 
> 
> 
> not a single one of your fires was in a building built like the wtc and none of them were hit by commercial jets. Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wtc 7 was not hit by a jet..other than igniting fires nist determined damage played no significant role in the collapse and  the design of wtc 7 was never called into fault and you have no clue how all the buildings in these videos were constructed regardless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> which one of your videos has a building where the entire front was stripped off by the collapse of a 110 floor building?
Click to expand...


what part of...* other than initiating fires, damage from falling debris played no significant role in the collapse*... Do you not understand ??


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> If what you say is true...why are you here ?
> 
> 
> 
> What Ollie said.  Why should I stand by and let schmucks like you use the deaths of 3000 Americans to spread your lies, deceit and discontent?  I know it probably boggles your little mind that there are people with integrity out there that will stand up for what they believe in and without the paranoid delusions as seen from the conspiratard crowd.
> 
> I've also noticed you have failed time and time again to produce a single shred of evidence that would hold up in a court of law that the bull you spread is anything but bull.  Why is that?  Don't you think it makes you and your movement look like a bunch of fools when you can't back up your claims with actual evidence, especially when you claim to have so much of it?  Here is a hint.  Nod your head up and down.  That's a good boy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but you said EVERYONE laughs at me...no one believes it...we look like a bunch of fools...there is no evidence...so why the concern ?
Click to expand...


You never know when some fool might actually buy the bullshit you're selling.  And re-read my explanation above.  Still holds very true.


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> YouTube - &#x202a;fires WTC7, CBS-Net Dub7 14.avi&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;CCTV/TVCC fire in Beijing (HD version)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!&#x202c;&rlm;



So once again eots fails miserably at producing a single shred of evidence that backs up his bullshit.  Here's a hint.  Your OPINION of what the building should have done does not constitute evidence in any way, shape or form.  The complete lack of evidence that would be present if your bullshit were true and the evidence that backs up the official story exposes your bullshit for what it is.  Now, if you could actually produce evidence that doesn't require everyone to believe your opinion is evidence, I'd love to see it.


----------



## eots

what evidence do you have that proves the failure of a single column (79) would initiate the completely progress collapse of the wtc 7 in secs ?


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> what evidence do you have that proves the failure of a single column (79) would initiate the completely progress collapse of the wtc 7 in secs ?



Read the NIST report on the collapse.  It explains everything in great detail including how they came to their conclusions and what evidence they had that led them to their conclusions.  It is obvious there was some kind of failure in the vertical columns as evidenced by the collapse of the penthouse and the observable internal collapse occuring inside WTC 7 before the external collapse started.

Yes, I know you deny the video evidence and what it represents.  It doesn't change the facts nor does it change the fact there is observable evidence that backs up the NIST theory. 

Could the NIST theory be wrong?  Absolutely.  But it fits all available evidence.  Your bullshit doesn't even come close.  If new evidence surfaces that disproves the NIST report, then I am sure the NIST report will be revisited to see if there are other impacts to building design methodologies.

BTW, your evasion of the truth of you not having any real evidence to support your bullshit isn't going unnoticed.  Diversions aren't going to save you from the truth that you have no real evidence.


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> what evidence do you have that proves the failure of a single column (79) would initiate the completely progress collapse of the wtc 7 in secs ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the NIST report on the collapse.  It explains everything in great detail including how they came to their conclusions and what evidence they had that led them to their conclusions.  It is obvious there was some kind of failure in the vertical columns as evidenced by the collapse of the penthouse and the observable internal collapse occuring inside WTC 7 before the external collapse started.
> 
> Yes, I know you deny the video evidence and what it represents.  It doesn't change the facts nor does it change the fact there is observable evidence that backs up the NIST theory.
> 
> Could the NIST theory be wrong?  Absolutely.  But it fits all available evidence.  Your bullshit doesn't even come close.  If new evidence surfaces that disproves the NIST report, then I am sure the NIST report will be revisited to see if there are other impacts to building design methodologies.
> 
> BTW, your evasion of the truth of you not having any real evidence to support your bullshit isn't going unnoticed.  Diversions aren't going to save you from the truth that you have no real evidence.
Click to expand...


So what you are saying is you can not point to one shred of real evidence
and you concede that NIST absolutely could of failed to correctly determine the cause of the collapse..


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> So what you are saying is you can not point to one shred of real evidence.


Wrong as I clearly stated.  The fact you wish to ignore the hard evidence is not my problem and I even predicted you would do so.  Sucks to be you.



			
				eots said:
			
		

> and you concede that NIST absolutely could of failed to correctly determine the cause of the collapse..


And you could absolutely be a decent person.  The evidence proves otherwise and unless other evidence is presented that contradicts the overwhelming evidence you're anything BUT a decent person, I will continue believing you're nothing but scum.  

Same thing with the NIST.  COULD they be wrong?  Yes.  Now it is up to you to present the evidence your bullshit is true and the NIST is wrong.  Go ahead.  How many times do you have to be asked for the evidence before you either admit you're full of shit or present the evidence you claim to have?


----------



## SFC Ollie

What Eots is telling us is that the NIST report is wrong except when it's right.


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> What Eots is telling us is that the NIST report is wrong except when it's right.



No that would actually be your logic Ollie....I am telling you if you support the official story you need to support the findings...not blend the with poular mechanics..and debwunker sites as you see fit and contradict the report you claim to support


----------



## SFC Ollie

Lord forbid if anyone thinks that the official reports are correct on all their main points and that you might think they didn't give enough credence to one minor part. Or that you think there might be some unanswered questions. Because if that's what you think well then Bush or Cheney must have done it..........


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> Lord forbid if anyone thinks that the official reports are correct on all their main points and that you might think they didn't give enough credence to one minor part. Or that you think there might be some unanswered questions. Because if that's what you think well then Bush or Cheney must have done it..........



on all what main points Ollie...please be specific


----------



## SFC Ollie

Eots we have covered this a hundred times.

It was an A Q plot carried out by 19 Hijackers. UBL was the leader of A Q.

4 planes were hijacked, two hit the WTC towers one hit the pentagon and one crashed into the ground in Shanksville PA

There was no pre knowledge by anyone in the US government.

There were no pre planted explosives.

All of WTC buildings were destroyed along with a few others.

That's most of the main points. Which column fell when, and where did it land is of little consequence.

Unless you have some proof of explosives or of government planning you got nothing, and in nearly 10 years, you got nothing...... But Alex Jones is a lot richer....


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> Eots we have covered this a hundred times.
> 
> It was an A Q plot carried out by 19 Hijackers. UBL was the leader of A Q.
> 
> 4 planes were hijacked, two hit the WTC towers one hit the pentagon and one crashed into the ground in Shanksville PA
> 
> There was no pre knowledge by anyone in the US government.
> 
> There were no pre planted explosives.
> 
> All of WTC buildings were destroyed along with a few others.
> 
> That's most of the main points. Which column fell when, and where did it land is of little consequence.
> 
> Unless you have some proof of explosives or of government planning you got nothing, and in nearly 10 years, you got nothing...... But Alex Jones is a lot richer....



you a terrible confused Ollie the NIST report has nothing to do with has nothing to do with the points you listed ..the NIST report was to determine the cause of the collapses and you disagree with its most fundamental conclusions...that damage did not play a significant role in the collapse and the same fires ignited by any means would of resulted in initiation of the collapse sequence


----------



## Mr. Jones

eots said:


> what evidence do you have that proves the failure of a single column (79) would initiate the completely progress collapse of the wtc 7 in secs ?


He has nothing but the dubious guesses and theories of the NIST, who is an agency of the government. He uses what credible experts in many relevant fields have thoroughly exposed as being flawed, yet because it is NIST and the government the appeal to their authority is somehow beyond reproach  

NIST's models depend on stripping of insulation and fire temperatures of 1000° C.
But, there is no actual physical evidence for NIST's proposed 
Structural damage, Stripping of fire&#8211;proofing material, Fire temperatures, or Sagging of floors.
During the public comment period, August 2008, Shyam Sunder said free fall could not occur because of resistance by the structure itself.  David Chandler showed free fall did occur for a distance of about 105 feet, or a time of about 2.5 seconds.
 NIST admitted to free fall in the final report, but did not examine the implications.

There are many problems with NIST's theory that suggest fraud. See David Ray Griffin's "The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7," Olive Branch Press, 2010.

NIST's Theory for WTC7 is almost pure speculation. There is no direct evidence for high temperature fires, expansion of girders, or failure of columns due to fire.

NIST: "&#8230; we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."


----------



## SFC Ollie

Mr. Jones said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> what evidence do you have that proves the failure of a single column (79) would initiate the completely progress collapse of the wtc 7 in secs ?
> 
> 
> 
> He has nothing but the dubious guesses and theories of the NIST, who is an agency of the government. He uses what credible experts in many relevant fields have thoroughly exposed as being flawed, yet because it is NIST and the government the appeal to their authority is somehow beyond reproach
> 
> NIST's models depend on stripping of insulation and fire temperatures of 1000° C.
> But, there is no actual physical evidence for NIST's proposed
> Structural damage, Stripping of fireproofing material, Fire temperatures, or Sagging of floors.
> During the public comment period, August 2008, Shyam Sunder said free fall could not occur because of resistance by the structure itself.  David Chandler showed free fall did occur for a distance of about 105 feet, or a time of about 2.5 seconds.
> NIST admitted to free fall in the final report, but did not examine the implications.
> 
> There are many problems with NIST's theory that suggest fraud. See David Ray Griffin's "The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7," Olive Branch Press, 2010.
> 
> NIST's Theory for WTC7 is almost pure speculation. There is no direct evidence for high temperature fires, expansion of girders, or failure of columns due to fire.
> 
> NIST: " we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."
Click to expand...


Here we go again, There is a difference between a building and a part or section of a building. Why is this so difficult to understand?


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> what evidence do you have that proves the failure of a single column (79) would initiate the completely progress collapse of the wtc 7 in secs ?
> 
> 
> 
> He has nothing but the dubious guesses and theories of the NIST, who is an agency of the government. He uses what credible experts in many relevant fields have thoroughly exposed as being flawed, yet because it is NIST and the government the appeal to their authority is somehow beyond reproach
> 
> NIST's models depend on stripping of insulation and fire temperatures of 1000° C.
> But, there is no actual physical evidence for NIST's proposed
> Structural damage, Stripping of fireproofing material, Fire temperatures, or Sagging of floors.
> During the public comment period, August 2008, Shyam Sunder said free fall could not occur because of resistance by the structure itself.  David Chandler showed free fall did occur for a distance of about 105 feet, or a time of about 2.5 seconds.
> NIST admitted to free fall in the final report, but did not examine the implications.
> 
> There are many problems with NIST's theory that suggest fraud. See David Ray Griffin's "The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7," Olive Branch Press, 2010.
> 
> NIST's Theory for WTC7 is almost pure speculation. There is no direct evidence for high temperature fires, expansion of girders, or failure of columns due to fire.
> 
> NIST: " we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we go again, There is a difference between a building and a part or section of a building. Why is this so difficult to understand?
Click to expand...


because its babble....


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> what evidence do you have that proves the failure of a single column (79) would initiate the completely progress collapse of the wtc 7 in secs ?
> 
> 
> 
> He has nothing but the dubious guesses and theories of the NIST, who is an agency of the government.
Click to expand...

Right, so according to truthtards afflicted with paranoid delusions, this PROVES they were lying simply because they are a government agency.... yet they've never been caught lying before.  They are an investigative branch of the government with no political ties.  

And again, constant claims by proven liars that the NIST is lying when the only evidence presented is the fact they are a government agency doesn't exactly win anyone over based on logic, does it.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> He uses what credible experts in many relevant fields have thoroughly exposed as being flawed


You mean the ignorant fucks over at AE911?    The ones pretending the towers were really boxes when they were trying to explain their theories, much to the amusement of everyone?    Meanwhile, the rest of the WORLD of engineers is doing nothing but laughing at the "experts" you pretend are relevant.  And considering you dismiss the lead structural engineer of the towers simply because YOU claim he contradicted himself, who are you to talk about experts?  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> yet because it is NIST and the government the appeal to their authority is somehow beyond reproach


Wrong yet again.  The evidence points to the NIST story and directly conflicts with your bullshit.  There is NO evidence to support your bullshit.  Not one piece.  That is what this current thread is about.  Eots couldn't produce one.  You can't produce one.  Nobody else in the TBM has been able to produce one.  So why are we suppose to believe you over all the other evidence which YOU can't refute?



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> NIST's models depend on stripping of insulation and fire temperatures of 1000° C.


Wrong yet again.  The NIST reported maximum temperatures of 1000C, not that the collapse event required those temperatures.  Way to lie your ass off yet again.  BTW, you are aware other studies showed a collapse initiating without the stripping of insulation or even the impact of the planes, right?  Or are international engineering firms and universities now in on the conspiracy as well?



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> But, there is no actual physical evidence for NIST's proposed
> Structural damage, Stripping of fireproofing material, Fire temperatures, or Sagging of floors.


Wrong yet again.  All the NIST findings are based on the physical evidence found in the form of video and photographic evidence of what happened prior to and during the collapse initiation.  See, unlike you truthtards, the NIST has to base their findings on the facts, not dreamed up fantasies that have no evidence to back them up.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> During the public comment period, August 2008, Shyam Sunder said free fall could not occur because of resistance by the structure itself.  David Chandler showed free fall did occur for a distance of about 105 feet, or a time of about 2.5 seconds.
> NIST admitted to free fall in the final report, but did not examine the implications.


And?  Unlike truthtards, others admit fault and correct their theories to line up with the facts.  Meanwhile truthtards hang on to their precious lies regardless of what facts prove they are wrong.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> There are many problems with NIST's theory that suggest fraud. See David Ray Griffin's "The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7," Olive Branch Press, 2010.


So we're suppose to believe a theologian who has been widely discredited over the true experts.    Yeah right!  Grow up and get a life.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> NIST's Theory for WTC7 is almost pure speculation.


It is speculation based on fact, which is far more than you can claim about your bullshit fantasies, right?  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> There is no direct evidence for high temperature fires, expansion of girders, or failure of columns due to fire.


Sure there is.  How else do you explain the complete failure of an entire vertical section of the interior as proven by the collapse of the penthouse?  Oh wait.  You deny anything and everything that doesn't fit your fantasies.  Silly question!  But then again, everyone else knows the truth.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> NIST: " we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."


In contrast to the truthtard "We know everything that happened including all the space age new stuff that still hasn't been shown to the public but we somehow know about it!"   

So show us your true evidence your bullshit is correct.  Then we can go to the NIST and see if they have accounted for this evidence, right?  Oh wait.  You HAVE no evidence.  That is why you have to attack the NIST in the pathetic attempt to try and whine that they have no evidence either.   Must be pretty sad to know you have nothing to back up your bullshit.


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Eots is telling us is that the NIST report is wrong except when it's right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No that would actually be your logic Ollie....I am telling you if you support the official story you need to support the findings...not blend the with poular mechanics..and debwunker sites as you see fit and contradict the report you claim to support
Click to expand...


So again I ask you, eots, for the evidence that supports your bullshit claims about the towers and WTC 7.  If you support the truthtard theories, you need to support your findings, not just blindly follow the preachings of those out to fleece you and your fellow truthtards out of your money through videos and books.    Or do your own words not apply to you and your fellow truthtards?


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> what evidence do you have that proves the failure of a single column (79) would initiate the completely progress collapse of the wtc 7 in secs ?
> 
> 
> 
> He has nothing but the dubious guesses and theories of the NIST, who is an agency of the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, so according to truthtards afflicted with paranoid delusions, this PROVES they were lying simply because they are a government agency.... yet they've never been caught lying before.  They are an investigative branch of the government with no political ties.
> 
> And again, constant claims by proven liars that the NIST is lying when the only evidence presented is the fact they are a government agency doesn't exactly win anyone over based on logic, does it.
> 
> 
> You mean the ignorant fucks over at AE911?    The ones pretending the towers were really boxes when they were trying to explain their theories, much to the amusement of everyone?    Meanwhile, the rest of the WORLD of engineers is doing nothing but laughing at the "experts" you pretend are relevant.  And considering you dismiss the lead structural engineer of the towers simply because YOU claim he contradicted himself, who are you to talk about experts?
> 
> 
> Wrong yet again.  The evidence points to the NIST story and directly conflicts with your bullshit.  There is NO evidence to support your bullshit.  Not one piece.  That is what this current thread is about.  Eots couldn't produce one.  You can't produce one.  Nobody else in the TBM has been able to produce one.  So why are we suppose to believe you over all the other evidence which YOU can't refute?
> 
> 
> Wrong yet again.  The NIST reported maximum temperatures of 1000C, not that the collapse event required those temperatures.  Way to lie your ass off yet again.  BTW, you are aware other studies showed a collapse initiating without the stripping of insulation or even the impact of the planes, right?  Or are international engineering firms and universities now in on the conspiracy as well?
> 
> 
> Wrong yet again.  All the NIST findings are based on the physical evidence found in the form of video and photographic evidence of what happened prior to and during the collapse initiation.  See, unlike you truthtards, the NIST has to base their findings on the facts, not dreamed up fantasies that have no evidence to back them up.
> 
> 
> And?  Unlike truthtards, others admit fault and correct their theories to line up with the facts.  Meanwhile truthtards hang on to their precious lies regardless of what facts prove they are wrong.
> 
> 
> So we're suppose to believe a theologian who has been widely discredited over the true experts.    Yeah right!  Grow up and get a life.
> 
> 
> It is speculation based on fact, which is far more than you can claim about your bullshit fantasies, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no direct evidence for high temperature fires, expansion of girders, or failure of columns due to fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure there is.  How else do you explain the complete failure of an entire vertical section of the interior as proven by the collapse of the penthouse?  Oh wait.  You deny anything and everything that doesn't fit your fantasies.  Silly question!  But then again, everyone else knows the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NIST: " we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In contrast to the truthtard "We know everything that happened including all the space age new stuff that still hasn't been shown to the public but we somehow know about it!"
> 
> So show us your true evidence your bullshit is correct.  Then we can go to the NIST and see if they have accounted for this evidence, right?  Oh wait.  You HAVE no evidence.  That is why you have to attack the NIST in the pathetic attempt to try and whine that they have no evidence either.   Must be pretty sad to know you have nothing to back up your bullshit.
Click to expand...


it is amazing how you can talk so much and say nothing all at the same time


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> It is amazing how you can talk so much and say nothing all at the same time


Really?  You still don't understand such a simple request?

Show us the evidence that backs up your theories.  You demand others to do so, so man up and do the same.

Simple enough for you?

If not, take this to a kid and have them explain it to you.  It isn't hard to understand.  Maybe you should ask why it is so hard for you to understand.


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is amazing how you can talk so much and say nothing all at the same time
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You still don't understand such a simple request?
> 
> Show us the evidence that backs up your theories.  You demand others to do so, so man up and do the same.
> 
> Simple enough for you?
> 
> If not, take this to a kid and have them explain it to you.  It isn't hard to understand.  Maybe you should ask why it is so hard for you to understand.
Click to expand...


My theory is NIST failed to correctly determine the cause of the collapse and therefore a re-investigation is required and this investigation should include a thorough controlled demolition hypothesis...an opinion in part you and Ollie seem to share at times...along with the former lead fire investigator for NIST and oddly enough, with careful reading, even the NIST report itself

my theory is there was ample prior knowledge of the events of 9/11 and the commission report was a whitewash a belief held by many participants of the commission itself


----------



## SFC Ollie

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is amazing how you can talk so much and say nothing all at the same time
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You still don't understand such a simple request?
> 
> Show us the evidence that backs up your theories.  You demand others to do so, so man up and do the same.
> 
> Simple enough for you?
> 
> If not, take this to a kid and have them explain it to you.  It isn't hard to understand.  Maybe you should ask why it is so hard for you to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My theory is NIST failed to correctly determine the cause of the collapse and therefore a re-investigation is required and this investigation should include a thorough controlled demolition hypothesis...an opinion in part you and Ollie seem to share at times...along with the former lead fire investigator for NIST and oddly enough, with careful reading, even the NIST report itself
> 
> my theory is there was ample prior knowledge of the events of 9/11 and the commission report was a whitewash a belief held by many participants of the commission itself
Click to expand...


Oh don't put words in my mouth. There were no explosives and no residue of any explosives found. You want a new investigation start saving up some money to fund it. We the people aren't going to do it when you present zero evidence for your theories. But when that investigation shows that there were no explosives you'll want another investigation, and another and another.....

Some members of the commission believe that some organizations may have not told them the whole truth not to cover up any controlled demolition but to cover up mistakes that they may have made that morning during the reaction to the attacks. And they are probably right, chances are that there is some CYA going on, that and some things that are still classified. But no there was no prior knowledge by the government.


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You still don't understand such a simple request?
> 
> Show us the evidence that backs up your theories.  You demand others to do so, so man up and do the same.
> 
> Simple enough for you?
> 
> If not, take this to a kid and have them explain it to you.  It isn't hard to understand.  Maybe you should ask why it is so hard for you to understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My theory is NIST failed to correctly determine the cause of the collapse and therefore a re-investigation is required and this investigation should include a thorough controlled demolition hypothesis...an opinion in part you and Ollie seem to share at times...along with the former lead fire investigator for NIST and oddly enough, with careful reading, even the NIST report itself
> 
> my theory is there was ample prior knowledge of the events of 9/11 and the commission report was a whitewash a belief held by many participants of the commission itself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh don't put words in my mouth. There were no explosives and no residue of any explosives found. You want a new investigation start saving up some money to fund it. We the people aren't going to do it when you present zero evidence for your theories. But when that investigation shows that there were no explosives you'll want another investigation, and another and another.....
> 
> Some members of the commission believe that some organizations may have not told them the whole truth not to cover up any controlled demolition but to cover up mistakes that they may have made that morning during the reaction to the attacks. And they are probably right, chances are that there is some CYA going on, that and some things that are still classified. But no there was no prior knowledge by the government.
Click to expand...


what ever gets you through the night Ollie...


----------



## SFC Ollie

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> My theory is NIST failed to correctly determine the cause of the collapse and therefore a re-investigation is required and this investigation should include a thorough controlled demolition hypothesis...an opinion in part you and Ollie seem to share at times...along with the former lead fire investigator for NIST and oddly enough, with careful reading, even the NIST report itself
> 
> my theory is there was ample prior knowledge of the events of 9/11 and the commission report was a whitewash a belief held by many participants of the commission itself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh don't put words in my mouth. There were no explosives and no residue of any explosives found. You want a new investigation start saving up some money to fund it. We the people aren't going to do it when you present zero evidence for your theories. But when that investigation shows that there were no explosives you'll want another investigation, and another and another.....
> 
> Some members of the commission believe that some organizations may have not told them the whole truth not to cover up any controlled demolition but to cover up mistakes that they may have made that morning during the reaction to the attacks. And they are probably right, chances are that there is some CYA going on, that and some things that are still classified. But no there was no prior knowledge by the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what ever gets you through the night Ollie...
Click to expand...


It's called fact and truth. You really should try it sometime.


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is amazing how you can talk so much and say nothing all at the same time
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You still don't understand such a simple request?
> 
> Show us the evidence that backs up your theories.  You demand others to do so, so man up and do the same.
> 
> Simple enough for you?
> 
> If not, take this to a kid and have them explain it to you.  It isn't hard to understand.  Maybe you should ask why it is so hard for you to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My theory is NIST failed to correctly determine the cause of the collapse and therefore a re-investigation is required and this investigation should include a thorough controlled demolition hypothesis...an opinion in part you and Ollie seem to share at times...along with the former lead fire investigator for NIST and oddly enough, with careful reading, even the NIST report itself
> 
> So please present your evidence that would be needed for a nobody like you to overturn one of the most respected engineering investigative agencies in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> my theory is there was ample prior knowledge of the events of 9/11 and the commission report was a whitewash a belief held by many participants of the commission itself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So please present your evidence of prior knowledge and the whitewashing by the 9/11 commission.
> 
> We know what your theories are even when they change from time to time.
> 
> What I've asked for time and time again and what you continue to run away from while demanding it from everyone else is EVIDENCE YOUR BULLSHIT IS TRUE.
> 
> Is that so hard?  The only reason I can think of of why this would be so hard is if you don't have any evidence to back up your bullshit.
> 
> So what say you?
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

> So please present your evidence that would be needed for a nobody like you to overturn one of the most respected engineering investigative agencies in the world.



can you provide a link to..support your claim that Shyam Sunder the most respected engineering investigator in the world ?

*Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation*
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm

*
Dwain Deets, MS Physics, MS Eng &#8211; Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center.  Before this appointment, he served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden.  Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Servic*e (1988).  Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics, a distinguished speaking engagement sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) (1986). * Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering"* 1993 - 2000.  Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers.  Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology.  37 year NASA career.
Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:

*"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Cente*r]."  AE911Truth.org

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report




			
				eots said:
			
		

> my theory is there was ample prior knowledge of the events of 9/11 and the commission report was a whitewash a belief held by many participants of the commission itself





> So please present your evidence of prior knowledge and the whitewashing by the 9/11 commission.




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76ZVvMU4UO4]YouTube - &#x202a;9 11 Prior Knowledge Insider Trading 9 20 2001 ABC&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYIZW959vJc]YouTube - &#x202a;Fox News expose: Israelis had foreknowledge of 9-11.&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcrgeuLb3dQ]YouTube - &#x202a;Condi Lied Under Oath to the 9-11 Widows&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFrW3j6e9AA]YouTube - &#x202a;9/11 Truth: The 9/11 Commission Report is Fraudulent&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie

Opinion, we've got toms of it. What we don't have is any evidence of explosives.


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> Opinion, we've got toms of it. What we don't have is any evidence of explosives.



and no evidence that the 9/11 commission or NIST succeeded in their mandate
and evidence to strongly suggest it did not and this failure an orchestration and by design


----------



## eots

The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.

In a recent letter (PDF link) to 9/11 victim's family representatives Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, NIST states,* "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."*

A 10,000 page scientific study only offers theories as to how the "collapse initiation" proceeded and fails to address how it was possible for part of a WTC structure to fall through the path of most resistance at freefall speed, completely violating the accepted laws of physics

http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf


----------



## Triton

eots said:


> The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the *total free-fall collapse of the twin tower*s cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.
> 
> In a recent letter (PDF link) to 9/11 victim's family representatives Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, NIST states, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."[/B]
> 
> A 10,000 page scientific study only offers theories as to how the "collapse initiation" proceeded and fails to address how it was possible for part of a WTC structure to fall through the path of most resistance at freefall speed, completely violating the accepted laws of physics
> 
> http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf





Hahaha Truthtard! There was no free fall collapse!!! 



There's just no evidence, none, not a single shred of evidence, nothing, nada!

Not even a wee bit of evidence whatsoever in any way, shape, or form that the nutjob twoofers could possibly present that is contrary to WHAT REALLY HAPPENED, which is what NIST and the 9/11 Commission report say, fucktard!




Nothing, there's just no evidence!


----------



## eots

Triton said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the *total free-fall collapse of the twin tower*s cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.
> 
> In a recent letter (PDF link) to 9/11 victim's family representatives Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, NIST states, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."[/B]
> 
> A 10,000 page scientific study only offers theories as to how the "collapse initiation" proceeded and fails to address how it was possible for part of a WTC structure to fall through the path of most resistance at freefall speed, completely violating the accepted laws of physics
> 
> http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hahaha Truthtard! There was no free fall collapse!!!
> 
> 
> 
> There's just no evidence, none, not a single shred of evidence, nothing, nada!
> 
> Not even a wee bit of evidence whatsoever in any way, shape, or form that the nutjob twoofers could possibly present that is contrary to WHAT REALLY HAPPENED, which is what NIST and the 9/11 Commission report say, fucktard!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing, there's just no evidence!
Click to expand...


oh my...I believe I may of just experienced a drive by debwunking !


----------



## Patriot911

You two stupid fucks got taken in by the conspiratard sites again.  NOBODY has proven the towers fell at free fall acceleration.  That was WTC 7.  I am sure the truth doesn't matter to you, but I think everyone else should see just how dishonest, misinformed, and disgusting you really are.

So, eots.... still no evidence?  Funny that.  All those claims of evidence you CONTINUE to make and you STILL can't produce a single piece of real evidence that would hold up in a court of law.  Opinion and outright lies don't cut it.  They just show you're stupid enough to believe anyone who says what you want to hear.


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> YouTube - &#x202a;9/11 Physics 101; Air, Water, or WTC Steel? You decide.&#x202c;&rlm;



Simple question for you eots about this video. Are you telling me that you believe that the ENTIRE portion of the tower shown below that 10 floor block is what any engineer should use to show how that lower portion should have resisted the upper block coming down?


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> YouTube - &#x202a;9/11 Physics 101; Air, Water, or WTC Steel? You decide.&#x202c;&rlm;



Explain how that video even comes close to explaining what happened.

How do these connections circled in red...





Resist this "block" circled in red...


----------



## SFC Ollie

eots said:


> The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.
> 
> In a recent letter (PDF link) to 9/11 victim's family representatives Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, NIST states,* "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."*
> 
> A 10,000 page scientific study only offers theories as to how the "collapse initiation" proceeded and fails to address how it was possible for part of a WTC structure to fall through the path of most resistance at freefall speed, completely violating the accepted laws of physics
> 
> http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf



From your link:

NIST has fully documented it's analysis approach in it's reports....and is denying your request.

Thus there is no inconsistency between the text of NCSTAR 1-6 and the information depicted in figure 9-3.

We believe this statement is correct and useful, and do not plan to make revisions as suggested.

There is no inconsistency present in these results, and therefore your request for correction is being denied.

On this basis ....... your request is being denied.

You letter further asserts that NIST failed to take into account interviews of emergency personnel that suggested the presence of bombs in the towers. NIST reviewed all the interviews conducted by the FDNY of firefighters (500 interviews) and in addition conducted it's own set of interviews with emergency responders and building occupants. Taken as a whole, the interviews did not support the contention that explosives played a role in the collapse of the WTC towers.

Finally NIST has stated that it found no corroborating to suggest that explosives were used to bring down the buildings.

( oh I love it when you guys debunk yourselves)


----------



## eots

sfc ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> the national institute for standards and technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.
> 
> In a recent letter (pdf link) to 9/11 victim's family representatives bill doyle and bob mcilvaine, nist states,* "we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."*
> 
> a 10,000 page scientific study only offers theories as to how the "collapse initiation" proceeded and fails to address how it was possible for part of a wtc structure to fall through the path of most resistance at freefall speed, completely violating the accepted laws of physics
> 
> http://www.911proof.com/nist.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> from your link:
> 
> Nist has fully documented it's analysis approach in it's reports....and is denying your request.
> 
> Thus there is no inconsistency between the text of ncstar 1-6 and the information depicted in figure 9-3.
> 
> We believe this statement is correct and useful, and do not plan to make revisions as suggested.
> 
> There is no inconsistency present in these results, and therefore your request for correction is being denied.
> 
> On this basis ....... Your request is being denied.
> 
> You letter further asserts that nist failed to take into account interviews of emergency personnel that suggested the presence of bombs in the towers. Nist reviewed all the interviews conducted by the fdny of firefighters (500 interviews) and in addition conducted it's own set of interviews with emergency responders and building occupants. Taken as a whole, the interviews did not support the contention that explosives played a role in the collapse of the wtc towers.
> 
> Finally nist has stated that it found no corroborating to suggest that explosives were used to bring down the buildings.
> 
> ( oh i love it when you guys debunk yourselves)
Click to expand...


denial of witness testimony by nist debwunks nothing


----------



## Triton

what explosions, no explosions, it was fires


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> the national institute for standards and technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.
> 
> In a recent letter (pdf link) to 9/11 victim's family representatives bill doyle and bob mcilvaine, nist states,* "we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."*
> 
> a 10,000 page scientific study only offers theories as to how the "collapse initiation" proceeded and fails to address how it was possible for part of a wtc structure to fall through the path of most resistance at freefall speed, completely violating the accepted laws of physics
> 
> http://www.911proof.com/nist.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> from your link:
> 
> Nist has fully documented it's analysis approach in it's reports....and is denying your request.
> 
> Thus there is no inconsistency between the text of ncstar 1-6 and the information depicted in figure 9-3.
> 
> We believe this statement is correct and useful, and do not plan to make revisions as suggested.
> 
> There is no inconsistency present in these results, and therefore your request for correction is being denied.
> 
> On this basis ....... Your request is being denied.
> 
> You letter further asserts that nist failed to take into account interviews of emergency personnel that suggested the presence of bombs in the towers. Nist reviewed all the interviews conducted by the fdny of firefighters (500 interviews) and in addition conducted it's own set of interviews with emergency responders and building occupants. Taken as a whole, the interviews did not support the contention that explosives played a role in the collapse of the wtc towers.
> 
> Finally nist has stated that it found no corroborating to suggest that explosives were used to bring down the buildings.
> 
> ( oh i love it when you guys debunk yourselves)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> denial of witness testimony by nist debwunks nothing
Click to expand...


Except the NIST clearly didn't deny witness testimony, or did you not bother to read the above post?   

Of course, it has been a long time dishonest tactic of the TBM to pretend that any mention of explosions MUST MEAN the use of high explosives.   

News flash, truthtards!  Not all explosions are caused by high explosives, especially when dealing with multiple fires.  

News flash, truthtards!  If a witness THINKS it was explosives, that is their opinion unless they actually SAW the explosives or have some other evidence to back up their opinion.  Opinion is not evidence.

News flash, truthtards!  You still need to explain the complete lack of all hard evidence to back up controlled demolition before ANYONE with an above room temperature IQ is going to actually believe your controlled demolition bullshit.

I realize these blinding flashes of the obvious will not be addressed by the TBM crowd as this hurts their little hardwired brains.  Makes it all the more hilarious as they make fools out of themselves time and time again making the same bullshit claims.


----------



## Rationalist1016

Excellent post Gamolon!  It's hard to believe that the "truth movement" can look at all of these same pictures & videos and see that the lower portions of those buildings should have arrested the collapse of the upper portion.  Once those floors started to fail, which pulled the outer columns in, (shown very clearly in the south tower collapse) there was no way that building was going to stay standing.


----------



## Mr. Jones

> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, so according to truthtards afflicted with paranoid delusions, this PROVES they were lying simply because they are a government agency.... yet they've never been caught lying before.  They are an investigative branch of the government with no political ties.
> 
> 
> 
> lol!! "They are an investigative branch *of the government*, but with no political ties"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, constant claims by proven liars that the NIST is lying when the only evidence presented is the fact they are a government agency doesn't exactly win anyone over based on logic, does it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you you lying asshole, there are loads of discrepancies from very credible sources that totally counter and rebuke the NIST guesses, and theories. You know it, I know it, and anybody with half a brain knows it.
> They are well known and published all over the place and you pretending they don't exist is typical of your delusional paranoid mind. It hilarious to watch an asshole like you get all bent out of shape, an act like a fool in their denial of this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the ignorant fucks over at AE911?    The ones pretending the towers were really boxes when they were trying to explain their theories, much to the amusement of everyone?    Meanwhile, the rest of the WORLD of engineers is doing nothing but laughing at the "experts" you pretend are relevant.  And considering you dismiss the lead structural engineer of the towers simply because YOU claim he contradicted himself, who are you to talk about experts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who the fuck are you? Oh that's right a known liar that  is also a paranoid social outcast with no meaningful life other then the trolling he does behind a keyboard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong yet again.  The evidence points to the NIST story and directly conflicts with your bullshit.  There is NO evidence to support your bullshit.  Not one piece.  That is what this current thread is about.  Eots couldn't produce one.  You can't produce one.  Nobody else in the TBM has been able to produce one.  So why are we suppose to believe you over all the other evidence which YOU can't refute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the "evidence" that NIST had to create??
> You are referring to what NIST guessed at as the undisputed evidence? LOL, the BS from NIST that has been countered, rebuked and dismissed by real experts in their fields?
> You mean the made up "evidence" that supports their guesses, that  depends heavily on wild assumptions and never before happening in history, with astronomically outrageous odds of ever happening or even coming close to being the truth?
> How's that conspiracy about the truth movement taking over the government working out for you, you fucking dipshit idiot??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong yet again.  The NIST reported maximum temperatures of 1000C, not that the collapse event required those temperatures.  Way to lie your ass off yet again.  BTW, you are aware other studies showed a collapse initiating without the stripping of insulation or even the impact of the planes, right?  Or are international engineering firms and universities now in on the conspiracy as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The temps that NIST used were never proven, and in fact there is reason to doubt such high temps, and to doubt much of what NIST said, by the way they conducted their so called investigation. So you lie to yourself and to everyone else again by suggesting there is no evidence or reason to doubt NIST.
> You can not prove without a doubt that what NIST has said and you back up is true!! Never.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong yet again.  All the NIST findings are based on the physical evidence found in the form of video and photographic evidence of what happened prior to and during the collapse initiation.  See, unlike you truthtards, the NIST has to base their findings on the facts, not dreamed up fantasies that have no evidence to back them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NIST=flawed evidence, and testing. Other experts not connected to or working for the government, have come out and said so.
> Are you too stupid to understand that it is the actual government that is a possible defendant in any case that would arise from an independent 9-11 investigation??
> Are you that stupid that you cannot realize that if the government has any responsibility in the attacks on 9-11, that any agency that works for them is going to side with their employer, and produce a report that is favorable and clears their boss??
> You ignorant dense SOB!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And?  Unlike truthtards, others admit fault and correct their theories to line up with the facts.  Meanwhile truthtards hang on to their precious lies regardless of what facts prove they are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally false, and BS statement by you yet again. NIST only admitted freefall because it was so blatantly obvious, and they were forced to. Do you mean to tell us that the experts from NIST, whose ass you lick at every opportunity, couldn't figure out what a simple teacher like Chandler did??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we're suppose to believe a theologian who has been widely discredited over the true experts.    Yeah right!  Grow up and get a life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take your own advice you fucking asshole!
> There are many many more people that know what BS NIST said is flawed, and bootlicking cowards like you know it too.
> You are so terrified you think there is some big conspiracy about taking over the country, when the country has already been taken over and you don't have the sense to the courage to admit what many people who are in touch with reality already know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is speculation based on fact, which is far more than you can claim about your bullshit fantasies, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speculation based on BS is more like it. NIST and peddlers of their BS by cowards like you have been caught time and time again, trying to mislead the American people and it has not worked. There is opposition, and it is growing, and you can't stand it  Too bad for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no direct evidence for high temperature fires, expansion of girders, or failure of columns due to fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure there is.  How else do you explain the complete failure of an entire vertical section of the interior as proven by the collapse of the penthouse?  Oh wait.  You deny anything and everything that doesn't fit your fantasies.  Silly question!  But then again, everyone else knows the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No there isn't, and if there is, why don't you post your evidence of the high temps....Oh wait this just in from NIST...." we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."
> And neither can you, but it's funny watching you believe that you can explain what NIST can't!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NIST: " we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In contrast to the truthtard "We know everything that happened including all the space age new stuff that still hasn't been shown to the public but we somehow know about it!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that all you can say about your source that admits it doesn't know what the fuck really happened??
> And that BS quote you posted...any links to back that up or are you lying and making up shit like you always do??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So show us your true evidence your bullshit is correct.  Then we can go to the NIST and see if they have accounted for this evidence, right?  Oh wait.  You HAVE no evidence.  That is why you have to attack the NIST in the pathetic attempt to try and whine that they have no evidence either.   Must be pretty sad to know you have nothing to back up your bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NIST has no real evidence, and they ADMIT they don't know what the fuck happened..all they can do is guess and inflate figures that go along with what heir boss needs the public to believe.
> The independent scientists and engineers have pointed out all the known flaws about the NIST and governments version, and there isn't shit you can do or say to make it go away, and it just pisses you off that you can't actually do anything about it other then to act like the fucking paranoid idiot you really are
> What a sorry castrated debunker you turned out to be!! You can't even prove the theory you say is so full of evidence and has so many _facts_ is actually true!!
> You have to resort to acting like a whinny little bitch in hopes people will believe you and your source....A source that has been thoroughly destroyed of having any credibility, just like you!! LOL!
> 
> What you deny understanding is the fact that NIST had to distort things in order to achieve the storyline that its boss needed for the public to believe. The argument against NIST is vast, and has been exposed, like you here on this forum, as distorting the facts, and espousing "truth" when in fact they don't even know it.
> *But you even admit they could be wrong *  so, the question is what are you going to do about it?
> Continue to admit they could be wrong, and not bother to ask questions, and be a good little coward and hope no one notices??
> 
> You have been exposed troll!!  And your sources have been too, as liars.
Click to expand...


----------



## Mr. Jones

Patriot911 said:


> Read the NIST report on the collapse.  It explains everything in great detail including how they came to their conclusions and what evidence they had that led them to their conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> It only explains _their_ theory, which has been proven by many credible experts to have many flaws.
> They started out with preconceived notions, and made their "evidence" and "facts" fit it.The independent researchers point this out, and have written papers and articles about it. Are you still pretending this does not even exist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is obvious there was some kind of failure in the vertical columns as evidenced by the collapse of the penthouse and the observable internal collapse occuring inside WTC 7 before the external collapse started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit sherlock, it IS obvious there was a failure, genius. Just exactly what caused it and how it happened is what is in question you fucking idiot! The NIST theory is proven to be flawed, as has been pointed out to you numerous times.
> Yet you pretend it hasn't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know you deny the video evidence and what it represents.  It doesn't change the facts nor does it change the fact there is observable evidence that backs up the NIST theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you deny the very real and credible evidence these videos and witnesses in the videos say that counters the BS you think is so very real!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could the NIST theory be wrong?  Absolutely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what do you even do about it? NOTHING!! You don't even bother to question what might have led you to even say such a statement!!  Now you want people to think you have an open mind, which is the LAST thing you have concerning 9-11.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it fits all available evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can it when they dismissed much of the available evidence?? You can't have a complete theory and have it hold up to scrutiny, when you start out with incomplete evidence, and leave all other possibilities out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your bullshit doesn't even come close.  If new evidence surfaces that disproves the NIST report, then I am sure the NIST report will be revisited to see if there are other impacts to building design methodologies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There has been, and no nothing has been done about it, not even a peep to counter the claims by independent researchers from NIST.
> But you are just soooo sure
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, your evasion of the truth of you not having any real evidence to support your bullshit isn't going unnoticed.  Diversions aren't going to save you from the truth that you have no real evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reports that presuppose an impossible physical phenomenon are clearly not adequate.You ignoring the glaring discrepancies of your NIST theories isn't going unnoticed either. The faults in the NIST report have been made public for quite sometime now, and continuing to stick your head up your own ass has not made them go away.
> NIST hasn't proven their theories are correct in the least bit, but they have the power and are helped by the government to push their BS. It is a David VS Goliath scenario, and coward fucks like you, that think siding with the government is somehow going to save you from the impending catastrophe that awaits us all in this nation, are going to be in for a rude awakening, unless you actually don't live here and are just a hired troll.
Click to expand...


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, so according to truthtards afflicted with paranoid delusions, this PROVES they were lying simply because they are a government agency.... yet they've never been caught lying before.  They are an investigative branch of the government with no political ties.
> 
> 
> 
> lol!! "They are an investigative branch *of the government*, but with no political ties"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they had political ties, you would have exposed them already.  They don't.  Who would need them?  What kind of political clout do you get from the National Institute of Standards and Technology?    Go ahead and continue to deny the obvious.  No skin off my nose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you you lying asshole, there are loads of discrepancies from very credible sources that totally counter and rebuke the NIST guesses, and theories. You know it, I know it, and anybody with half a brain knows it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again.  You continuing to push your fantasies doesn't make them true, it just makes you look desperate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are well known and published all over the place and you pretending they don't exist is typical of your delusional paranoid mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are only published on truthtard sites.  No other engineering society, educational facility or agency takes them seriously because they're all talking out their collective asses and the stench is unbearable!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It hilarious to watch an asshole like you get all bent out of shape, an act like a fool in their denial of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pointing out that known proven liars making claims they want us to take on faith is "getting bent out of shape"?    Man, do you have a twisted idea of what bent out of shape is!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who the fuck are you? Oh that's right a known liar that  is also a paranoid social outcast with no meaningful life other then the trolling he does behind a keyboard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am someone who kicked your ass up one side and down the other and ended up with you admitting you just didn't know.    That was classic!  And you can CLAIM I am a liar all you want, but your pathetic attempt to prove I lied only exposed your lies even more.  I've already exposed numerous lies from you that you had to tap dance around and change definitions ala Bill Clinton in order for you to come up with a sorry excuse for an excuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the "evidence" that NIST had to create??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didn't have to create anything.  Or are you now trying to pretend they made up their own videos?    You truthtards sure don't know much about evidence, do you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are referring to what NIST guessed at as the undisputed evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, you truthtards have no idea what evidence is.  The theory the NIST came up with isn't the evidence.  The evidence is what they used to come up with the theory.  Their theory lines up with the known evidence.  You can't even produce one shred of evidence that proves your bullshit claims even when asked time and time again to produce just ONE piece out of the vast amounts of evidence you CLAIM to have.    In the mean time, your theories do NOT line up with the known evidence and is, in fact, directly refuted by the known evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, the BS from NIST that has been countered, rebuked and dismissed by real experts in their fields?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The retarded jackasses at AE911 are not experts.  Gage isn't even an engineer and pretends boxes can represent the complex structures in the towers!    You need to find a much better set of role models because the ones you have suck ass!
> 
> In the mean time, REAL experts from around the world have looked at the NIST findings and have studied them at great length, which is a far cry from the retarded one liners from the "experts" at AE911.  These universities and engineering firms found minor issues with the NIST reports, but agreed on the whole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the made up "evidence" that supports their guesses, that  depends heavily on wild assumptions and never before happening in history, with astronomically outrageous odds of ever happening or even coming close to being the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you insist on lying like this?  Think anyone believes you that the NIST made their own videos?  Think anyone believes you that the NIST came up with their own eyewitnesses?  What "made up" evidence are you talking about, or is this the antithesis of the evidence you claim to have but can't produce?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How's that conspiracy about the truth movement taking over the government working out for you, you fucking dipshit idiot??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just fine, thanks.  You still run away from trying to explain what it is you expect people who buy into your bullshit to do.  Just sit there and take it?  Do nothing?  Elect more of the same?    You can run.  You can deny.  You can do whatever you want, but the truth is still going to be there staring you back in the face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The temps that NIST used were never proven, and in fact there is reason to doubt such high temps, and to doubt much of what NIST said, by the way they conducted their so called investigation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually the temps were proven with NOAA modeling of the smoke plumes.  These can show how hot fires get and have been proven time and time again to be accurate because they are used in other fires like forest fires.  So once again you make a claim that is nothing but a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you lie to yourself and to everyone else again by suggesting there is no evidence or reason to doubt NIST.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have made repeated demands for such evidence.  All I get is you whining about why everyone is picking on you poor truthtards for not being able to produce one real piece of evidence.  Why SHOULDN'T people mock you?  You blatantly lie about having evidence and then when asked to produce it, you dance around like a barefooted buffoon on a hot plate in hell.  It is comical and sad at the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can not prove without a doubt that what NIST has said and you back up is true!! Never.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, let's see.  They are the experts.  They've consulted with agencies all over the world and relied on hundreds of engineers here in the US on this project.  Nobody but truthtards are claiming the information is false.  Truthtards can't produce a single scrap of evidence that proves the NIST is lying.  Hmm.  Boy.  That is a hard one.  Who to believe?  Shit.  I still have to give it to the NIST.  You children just don't have the kind of credibility needed to overturn the hard evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NIST=flawed evidence, and testing. Other experts not connected to or working for the government, have come out and said so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, and they consider you bunch of truthtards as the serious whackos!    While some have come out and questioned some of the NIST's findings, they have also stated that you truthtards are a bunch of nuts and they want nothing to do with you.  See, you truthtards like to pretend anyone who questions the NIST agrees with your sorry assed claims, but they don't.  There is a huge difference between questioning what happened vs. pretending something completely unsupported by any evidence and directly refuted by other evidence is what happened.  Someday you will understand this very simple concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you too stupid to understand that it is the actual government that is a possible defendant in any case that would arise from an independent 9-11 investigation??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not until you come out with all this evidence you claim to have.  You DO realize the case would have to revolve around this evidence, right?  I mean... there have already been investigations into 9/11 and you truthtards STILL haven't come up with anything that refutes those investigations or implicates the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you that stupid that you cannot realize that if the government has any responsibility in the attacks on 9-11, that any agency that works for them is going to side with their employer, and produce a report that is favorable and clears their boss??
> You ignorant dense SOB!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again.  See, you truthtards like to pretend the government is one big borg-like entity with a hive mind and people who are only going to do what they are told even if it means covering up the deaths of thousands.  News flash!  People turn on the government all the time for FAR LESS.
> 
> And who the fuck are you trying to kid that the entire government would lose their job?!?    That is just too fucking funny!  You really need to rethink who is the ignorant, dense SOB, because judging from what you write, it would be hard to top just how ignorant your claims are!
> 
> But lets run with this new line of ignorant thinking and see where it takes us.  Let's say the NIST lied its collective ass off about the towers and WTC 7.  Let's say they are discovered.  Guess what.  Everyone associated with that project is now implicated in the murder and coverup of 3,000 Americans.
> 
> So seriously.  What is a better motivation?  Hoping to keep your job by lying your ass off for your boss?  Or hoping to keep your life by telling the truth and exposing those who are trying to cover up the largest single crime in US history?
> 
> Here is another point you're little bullshit "theory" misses.  EVERY SINGLE ONE that is on the project would have to be in on the conspiracy without ANYONE giving it away.  Not after they retire.  Not on their deathbed.  Not in a tell all book.  NEVER.  Now seriously.... what are the odds of that?  I realize truthtards have no concience, morals, honesty or dignity, but that doesn't mean EVERYONE is like that!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Totally false, and BS statement by you yet again. NIST only admitted freefall because it was so blatantly obvious, and they were forced to. Do you mean to tell us that the experts from NIST, whose ass you lick at every opportunity, couldn't figure out what a simple teacher like Chandler did??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your opinion and nothing more.  Whether or not part of the facade fell at free fall acceleration or not has no bearing on the report whatsoever.  The report details how the collapse started and played out.
> 
> Now, if you could prove they fell FASTER than freefall, then someone would have some 'esplaining to do!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take your own advice you fucking asshole!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have.  I've got a great life and I am very happy.  I guess that explains why I have to debate bitter, disgruntled malcontents like you who try to do the whole doom and gloom schtick to death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many many more people that know what BS NIST said is flawed, and bootlicking cowards like you know it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again.  The NIST reports are used worldwide by engineering schools, societies and agencies to determine building codes and where potential flaws may exist.  All you have is a bunch of retarded wannabe "experts" pretending they know what they are talking about.  But since they, like you, have no evidence to back up their bullshit, nobody is ever going to give them more than a parting glance.  The fact that some of their claims are pure and utter bullshit to anyone who knows the subject matter only makes you truthtards a complete laughingstock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so terrified you think there is some big conspiracy about taking over the country, when the country has already been taken over and you don't have the sense to the courage to admit what many people who are in touch with reality already know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again.  All I do is demand evidence before going off half cocked like you do.  So once again I am demanding you present real evidence that your bullshit theories are true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speculation based on BS is more like it. NIST and peddlers of their BS by cowards like you have been caught time and time again, trying to mislead the American people and it has not worked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  So point out some of these other times other than 9/11.  Go ahead.  Or admit you're once again lying and exaggerating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is opposition, and it is growing, and you can't stand it  Too bad for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, there is opposition.  And I keep hearing it is growing.  I've been hearing that for almost ten years now.  I'm still waiting for you truthtards to be able to scrape up more than a handful of people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No there isn't, and if there is, why don't you post your evidence of the high temps....Oh wait this just in from NIST...." we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see.  So you're really so stupid you believe that the NIST stating they don't have all the answers is somehow the same as them saying they have NONE of the answers?    But somehow you and your "experts" have all the answers even though you can't produce a single shred of real evidence that backs you up?  Hmmmm.  Sorry.  But believing someone who can't take a statement at face value and has to pretend it means something completely different while having no evidence to back up their own fantasies just isn't someone any rational human being would believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And neither can you, but it's funny watching you believe that you can explain what NIST can't!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've never made the claim I can provide a full explanation of the total collapse.  Just more blatant lies from you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that all you can say about your source that admits it doesn't know what the fuck really happened??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More blatant lies from you.  That isn't what the NIST said at all, but you want so much to believe you are right that you are willing to outright lie to everyone about what the NIST said.  That is truly pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that BS quote you posted...any links to back that up or are you lying and making up shit like you always do??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was paraphrasing.
> 
> You and your fellow truthtards have come up with some real doozies that back up what I paraphrased.  Bullshit about nano-thermite, directed energy weapons, new explosives that don't make much sound, and all kinds of other ridiculous fantasies have been bandied about by you and others.  You all claim they are true and valid until you come up with something different, usually after having your asses handed to you by the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So show us your true evidence your bullshit is correct.  Then we can go to the NIST and see if they have accounted for this evidence, right?  Oh wait.  You HAVE no evidence.  That is why you have to attack the NIST in the pathetic attempt to try and whine that they have no evidence either.   Must be pretty sad to know you have nothing to back up your bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NIST has no real evidence, and they ADMIT they don't know what the fuck happened..all they can do is guess and inflate figures that go along with what heir boss needs the public to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong yet again.  The NIST has plenty of evidence as detailed in their report.  Your evidence they made it all up?  Absolutely none.    Par for the course.  Does the NIST admit they don't know everything?  Yes.  Do they say they don't know what the fuck happened?  No.  That is yet another desperate lie by you as pointed out above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The independent scientists and engineers have pointed out all the known flaws about the NIST and governments version, and there isn't shit you can do or say to make it go away, and it just pisses you off that you can't actually do anything about it other then to act like the fucking paranoid idiot you really are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong yet again, little truthtard!  The stupid ignorant pretenders at AE 911 don't amount to dick.  That is why every OTHER engineering firm, agency and univeristy laughs at them.  It would be a feather in any engineering firm, agency or universities' cap to prove the NIST was outright lying, yet none of them have spoken up other than to point out minor discrepancies that they believe the NIST made.  Why is that?  Oh, for the record, the discrepancies found by international agencies and universities found that it was even easier for the collapse of the towers to happen than the NIST stated, and that fire alone without the impacts from the planes would have produced the same results.
> 
> I guess it truly sucks to be a truthtard these days!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a sorry castrated debunker you turned out to be!! You can't even prove the theory you say is so full of evidence and has so many _facts_ is actually true!!
> You have to resort to acting like a whinny little bitch in hopes people will believe you and your source....A source that has been thoroughly destroyed of having any credibility, just like you!! LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong yet again!  It is easy to make the claim you made above, but like everything else, you can't prove it, especially as you have no evidence that refutes the evidence I have provided for the various claims I have made.  Just a bunch of empty lip flapping by someone who knows he has been beat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you deny understanding is the fact that NIST had to distort things in order to achieve the storyline that its boss needed for the public to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where is your evidence they distorted "things"?  You constantly make claims that are based on nothing more than your word.   Your word isn't worth shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The argument against NIST is vast, and has been exposed, like you here on this forum, as distorting the facts, and espousing "truth" when in fact they don't even know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the retards over at AE 911?    Oh, that's a good one!  The retards that use boxes to demonstrate their points because they're too fucking stupid to understand the complexities of a building!    These are the experts you're relying on to make you look good?  Wow.  Talk about aiming low and STILL missing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *But you even admit they could be wrong *  so, the question is what are you going to do about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you're not bright enough to understand the difference between could be wrong and wrong.  Until someone actually comes up with hard evidence they are wrong, their theory fits the known evidence and I will continue to assume it is correct.  Do you have such hard evidence?  No?  I didn't think so.  So what am I going to do about it?  Sit here and make you silly truthtards look like complete jackasses by exposing your lies and continuing to ask you for evidence we both know you don't have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Continue to admit they could be wrong, and not bother to ask questions, and be a good little coward and hope no one notices??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've looked at the evidence.  The evidence lines up with the NIST theory.  In the mean time, the evidence directly REFUTES your bullshit fantasies and you have yet to produce any evidence that actually SUPPORTS your bullshit fantasies.
> 
> So who am I to believe?  The NIST who real experts only have minor points of contention with?  Or the stupid truthtards who CLAIM the NIST is lying, cannot produce evidence the NIST is lying, comes up with their own wild fantasies about what happened, and cannot produce evidence THOSE fantasies are true.
> 
> Hmmm.
> 
> Gee...
> 
> That is a hard one.
> 
> But I am still going to go with the NIST even though I am sure you think you made a good case for believing a bunch of bullshit artists with no evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been exposed troll!!  And your sources have been too, as liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  Why in this post alone you've been caught lying your truthtard ass off several times.    I always laugh at people without a shred of dignity, honesty, integrity or moral fiber mocking those who do.    Here's to you, Mr. Jones!
Click to expand...


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the NIST report on the collapse.  It explains everything in great detail including how they came to their conclusions and what evidence they had that led them to their conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> It only explains _their_ theory, which has been proven by many credible experts to have many flaws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THEIR theory fits the facts.  Your fantasies fit something out of a poorly written suspense novel.  Given that you have no evidence to refute the NIST findings or back up your own bullshit theories, one still has to believe the NIST over dishonest thugs like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They started out with preconceived notions, and made their "evidence" and "facts" fit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  And how do you know this?  What is your evidence?  Or are you once again pulling shit out of your ass and pretending if you polish it enough, people won't mind the stench and recognize it for the turd that it is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The independent researchers point this out, and have written papers and articles about it. Are you still pretending this does not even exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So who else has acknowledged the work of your supposed experts?  Please list the associations, agencies and universities that have examined the claims of AE 911 and managed not to either barf or succumb to fits of hysterical laughter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No shit sherlock, it IS obvious there was a failure, genius. Just exactly what caused it and how it happened is what is in question you fucking idiot! The NIST theory is proven to be flawed, as has been pointed out to you numerous times.
> Yet you pretend it hasn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So once again I ask you for the evidence that prove the NIST is lying and you are telling the truth.  Come on.  How hard can it be?  It must be some pretty concrete rock solid convincing evidence for you to be so convinced!  So let's have it!
> 
> BTW, I would also like the evidence you claim to have that backs up your bullshit fantasies.  After all, if you're going to go around bashing the NIST for not having evidence, you wouldn't be so hypocritical as to not have any evidence to back up YOUR bullshit, right?  Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you deny the very real and credible evidence these videos and witnesses in the videos say that counters the BS you think is so very real!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like the witnesses that you and your fellow truthtards have to put words in their mouths in order for them to say what you're pretending they are saying?  No.  I don't deny those witnesses.  I deny your conclusions, especially since none of the witnesses have clarified they were talking about explosives or have joined your retarded bowel movement.
> 
> Or the witness who is directly refuted by video and audio who claimed there was a countdown over the red-cross radio and a massive explosion just before the collapse?    Yeah, that is a fun one!  Must make you proud to have such a proven liar on your side!  Or have you come up with an explanation for why there is no massive explosion heard just prior to the collapse or how no tapes of the radio conversations on 9/11 included count downs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what do you even do about it? NOTHING!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So again I ask you, what is there to do?  You STILL don't understand the difference between COULD be wrong and ARE wrong.  EINSTEIN could be wrong about his theory of relativity.  Right now all the evidence backs up his theory.  Does that mean we should all assume Einstein is wrong and dismiss his theory?  No.  It means we revisit the theory when evidence comes along that makes the theory incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even bother to question what might have led you to even say such a statement!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, unlike you, I don't make retarded assumptions about what other people have stated.  Read above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you want people to think you have an open mind, which is the LAST thing you have concerning 9-11.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a very open mind.  Your problem is that I demand evidence and not some truthtard's "good word" that what they are claiming is true.  So go ahead and give me this real evidence that backs up your claims.  What?  You have none?  So why should I believe you, especially when you truthtards can't agree on anything other than 9/11 didn't happen as claimed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can it when they dismissed much of the available evidence?? You can't have a complete theory and have it hold up to scrutiny, when you start out with incomplete evidence, and leave all other possibilities out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what evidence did they dismiss?  You've made this claim several times now, as well as conflicting statements.  Time to man up and state your case, not make vague references that mean nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There has been, and no nothing has been done about it, not even a peep to counter the claims by independent researchers from NIST.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And once again you make a claim that evidence exists.  So once again I will put the onus on you to present said real evidence that is so solid it overturns the NIST findings.  Go ahead.  You made the claim.  Now deliver or run away.  The choice is yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you are just soooo sure
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you certainly haven't given me any reason to think the NIST is wrong and you are right!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, your evasion of the truth of you not having any real evidence to support your bullshit isn't going unnoticed.  Diversions aren't going to save you from the truth that you have no real evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reports that presuppose an impossible physical phenomenon are clearly not adequate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another baseless and bullshit claim by you.  So what is your evidence the report "presupposes and impossible physical phenomenon"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You ignoring the glaring discrepancies of your NIST theories isn't going unnoticed either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  And what is your evidence of these glaring discrepancies you can't even enumerate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The faults in the NIST report have been made public for quite sometime now, and continuing to stick your head up your own ass has not made them go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So every other engineering association, agency and university is also sticking their heads up their asses?  Why is it nobody but you truthtards is giving any kind of credibility to your "expert" wannabes?  I'll tell you why.  They're full of shit and nothing but pretenders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NIST hasn't proven their theories are correct in the least bit, but they have the power and are helped by the government to push their BS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  How did the government "help them push their BS"?    More bullshit claims from you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a David VS Goliath scenario, and coward fucks like you, that think siding with the government is somehow going to save you from the impending catastrophe that awaits us all in this nation, are going to be in for a rude awakening, unless you actually don't live here and are just a hired troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More pathetic bullshit from you.  I am sure you get off on thinking you're some kind of hero, but you're really nothing but a zero.  You have nothing to back up your claims and are basically just a really pathetic liar.  The more you post, the more this becomes glaringly obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Mr. Jones

Patriot911 said:


> [
> It only explains _their_ theory, which has been proven by many credible experts to have many flaws.
> THEIR theory fits the facts.  Your fantasies fit something out of a poorly written suspense novel.  Given that you have no evidence to refute the NIST findings or back up your own bullshit theories, one still has to believe the NIST over dishonest thugs like you.
> Really?  And how do you know this?  What is your evidence?  Or are you once again pulling shit out of your ass and pretending if you polish it enough, people won't mind the stench and recognize it for the turd that it is?
> So who else has acknowledged the work of your supposed experts?  Please list the associations, agencies and universities that have examined the claims of AE 911 and managed not to either barf or succumb to fits of hysterical laughter.
> So once again I ask you for the evidence that prove the NIST is lying and you are telling the truth.  Come on.  How hard can it be?  It must be some pretty concrete rock solid convincing evidence for you to be so convinced!  So let's have it!
> BTW, I would also like the evidence you claim to have that backs up your bullshit fantasies.  After all, if you're going to go around bashing the NIST for not having evidence, you wouldn't be so hypocritical as to not have any evidence to back up YOUR bullshit, right?  Right?
> You mean like the witnesses that you and your fellow truthtards have to put words in their mouths in order for them to say what you're pretending they are saying?  No.  I don't deny those witnesses.  I deny your conclusions, especially since none of the witnesses have clarified they were talking about explosives or have joined your retarded bowel movement.
> Or the witness who is directly refuted by video and audio who claimed there was a countdown over the red-cross radio and a massive explosion just before the collapse?    Yeah, that is a fun one!  Must make you proud to have such a proven liar on your side!  Or have you come up with an explanation for why there is no massive explosion heard just prior to the collapse or how no tapes of the radio conversations on 9/11 included count downs?
> So again I ask you, what is there to do?  You STILL don't understand the difference between COULD be wrong and ARE wrong.  EINSTEIN could be wrong about his theory of relativity.  Right now all the evidence backs up his theory.  Does that mean we should all assume Einstein is wrong and dismiss his theory?  No.  It means we revisit the theory when evidence comes along that makes the theory incorrect.
> No, unlike you, I don't make retarded assumptions about what other people have stated.  Read above.
> I have a very open mind.  Your problem is that I demand evidence and not some truthtard's "good word" that what they are claiming is true.  So go ahead and give me this real evidence that backs up your claims.  What?  You have none?  So why should I believe you, especially when you truthtards can't agree on anything other than 9/11 didn't happen as claimed
> So what evidence did they dismiss?  You've made this claim several times now, as well as conflicting statements.  Time to man up and state your case, not make vague references that mean nothing.
> And once again you make a claim that evidence exists.  So once again I will put the onus on you to present said real evidence that is so solid it overturns the NIST findings.  Go ahead.  You made the claim.  Now deliver or run away.  The choice is yours.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you are just soooo sure
> Another baseless and bullshit claim by you.  So what is your evidence the report "presupposes and impossible physical phenomenon"?
> Really?  And what is your evidence of these glaring discrepancies you can't even enumerate?
> So every other engineering association, agency and university is also sticking their heads up their asses?  Why is it nobody but you truthtards is giving any kind of credibility to your "expert" wannabes?  I'll tell you why.  They're full of shit and nothing but pretenders.
> Really?  How did the government "help them push their BS"?    More bullshit claims from you.
> More pathetic bullshit from you.  I am sure you get off on thinking you're some kind of hero, but you're really nothing but a zero.  You have nothing to back up your claims and are basically just a really pathetic liar.  The more you post, the more this becomes glaringly obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> LOL, I don't have the time nor the desire to continually walk you through the vast amount of opposition that has been accumulated in the last decade concerning NIST and the attacks on 9-11.
> The information is out there to be researched and looked at by serious people.
> You may continue to dismiss that nothing of relevance exists, and you may continue to make an ass out of yourself, but you fool absolutely no one.
> The fact that you are registered on multiple forums and spew the same  disinformation tactics as you do on here is proof that you are not one to take serious when it comes to addressing the matters that affect our nation, like the 9-11 attacks.
> A few minutes spent reading your posts and your history and what one has to gain from you is readily confirmed as a big NOTHING.
> 
> You offer nothing that stimulates or encourages intelligent debate or discussion on any matter, and it is clear that you are here precisely to sabotage any discussion, no matter what the topic, if it pertains to an American citizen questioning his government on matters of importance.
> 
> The fact that you readily sit behind a keyboard and ramble off vast amounts of BS, as if you are on the clock is obvious also.
> There are many who have concluded that you are a paid troll, and that is why you have the ability to post on multiple accounts on the internet, and devote so much time to taking up the governments cause against its own people.
> I would have to concur that this is a strong possibility, though being a pathetic loser with no life, and no close relationship obligations to speak of might be a more accurate explanation, as you fit the psych profile of a lonely troll.
> 
> It makes no matter, as it is abundantly obvious that posters such as yourself are not worth the time writing page long responses to, and it keeps you in work, or fulfills your need to communicate your anger and sick hatred anonymously and is part of some therapy you obviously need.
> In closing, it is sick people like you that have made me become a champion for abortion rights, as this world needs to leave open the possibility of ridding itself of such utterly sick fucks as yourself, any chance it gets.
> 
> Always know that you have never helped the cause that you believe so much in, and by yourself, have given the OCT believers such a bad name and reputation, that you literally have alienated whatever support and respect you had any chance of recruiting, for this we thank you.
> We also thank you for proving that you have never fulfilled your mission statement, and for also confirming that there are more seriously mentally damaged believers of the OCT then ever could be in the alternative theories put together.
> 
> You have singlehandedly sabotaged the OCT,
> No one with any integrity or self respect would want to be associated with an idiot like you championing for their cause...Think about that for a while
> 
> I urge anybody reading this post to take a few minutes and read your posting history, it is a lesson on what an internet troll truly is.
> If they can find some assistance with these links, I am glad to help.*
> 
> (sick minded personal attack)
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3547196-post225.html
> 
> (made to apologize like a child for 2nd personal attack)
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3101121-post270.html
> 
> (hypocrisy)
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3640161-post516.html
> 
> (childish gibberish)
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3640165-post517.html
> 
> ( intrusive nosiness)
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3647851-post23.html
> 
> (others see his tactics)
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...1-gets-pwned-over-his-10-dumpsters-claim.html
> 
> (attacks others)
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3103965-post283.html
> 
> (more namecalling)
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3083717-post35.html
> 
> (the one and only thread started by Parrot9-11-mission statement)
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...-why-is-it-truthers-feel-the-need-to-lie.html
> 
> (attempts at thread derail)
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3760290-post37.html
> 
> (Everyone is a POS liar and insulted)
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3702014-post46.html
> 
> (more of the same)
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3702047-post48.html
> 
> (even his supporters are tired of him)
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3763939-post46.html
> 
> (not surprisingly)
> Friends-
> Patriot911 has not made any friends yet
> 
> This is only a small part of what this person posts day in and day out,
> So as you can see, this is one sick individual.
> I took the time to save many of this sickos comments as I became curious as to what kind of a sick mind such hate would come from, and I read a little on the subject of internet trolls
> 
> ( perfect psych profile that fits Parrot911)
> An abusive childhood
> Mental illness / Mental Health Problems
> Homosexuals in denial.
> Social Outcasts
> 
> ANTI - TROLL . ORG
> 
> For those that would like to say "pot kettle black" without knowing the history
> I readily admit I have engaged in the use of profanity, I'm guilty for sure, but I challenge anyone to find where I have ever started a post or response where I initiated it, you wont as I have dished it out defending myself.
> 
> USMB would really be a better place without having people like this to degrade and lower the status of what otherwise is a fine forum to discuss topics with rational folks with all kinds of different and interesting view points. This place is becoming another AWE and an outlet for free therapy by wackos.
Click to expand...


----------



## Patriot911

figures.  Fucktard Jones can't respond nor can he produce any evidence so he goes with the ad hominem attack.    Way to prove my points, fucktard Jones!

So where is the real evidence that proves your bullshit fantasies?

Come on. I'm only asking for one piece of real, actionable evidence.  You know.... the kind you pretend you have tons of.  

So quit being a pussy and produce it.  Or run away while flinging shit like usual.  Choice is yours.  Let's see what you do.


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> figures.  Fucktard Jones can't respond nor can he produce any evidence so he goes with the ad hominem attack.    Way to prove my points, fucktard Jones!
> 
> So where is the real evidence that proves your bullshit fantasies?
> 
> Come on. I'm only asking for one piece of real, actionable evidence.  You know.... the kind you pretend you have tons of.
> 
> So quit being a pussy and produce it.  Or run away while flinging shit like usual.  Choice is yours.  Let's see what you do.



you are a total goofball...call it what you will


----------



## Rat in the Hat

Mr. Jones said:


> *
> LOL, I don't have the time nor the desire to continually walk you through the vast amount of opposition that has been accumulated in the last decade concerning NIST and the attacks on 9-11.
> *


*

NIST's final report was released in November 2008. Are you now trying to claim that a decade is 31 months long??

Maybe the other 89 months were blown up with nano-therm*te. Or Dr. Judy's space beams.

Or did Bushcheneyhaliburton use their NWO connections to just make them vanish, like the Pentagon plane, into another dimension?*


----------



## Triton

It took NIST a long time to come up with a load of bullshit


----------



## Mr. Jones

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> figures.  Fucktard Jones can't respond nor can he produce any evidence so he goes with the ad hominem attack.    Way to prove my points, fucktard Jones!
> 
> So where is the real evidence that proves your bullshit fantasies?
> 
> Come on. I'm only asking for one piece of real, actionable evidence.  You know.... the kind you pretend you have tons of.
> 
> So quit being a pussy and produce it.  Or run away while flinging shit like usual.  Choice is yours.  Let's see what you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are a total goofball...call it what you will
Click to expand...

Wow does anybody else notice how this troll is now using one of 9-11 Insides Jobs lines that was used against Parrot??! This POS can't even come up with his own verbiage!
Fucking loser, exposed for the troll he is.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Rat in the Hat said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> LOL, I don't have the time nor the desire to continually walk you through the vast amount of opposition that has been accumulated in the last decade concerning NIST and the attacks on 9-11.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> NIST's final report was released in November 2008. Are you now trying to claim that a decade is 31 months long??
> 
> Maybe the other 89 months were blown up with nano-therm*te. Or Dr. Judy's space beams.
> 
> Or did Bushcheneyhaliburton use their NWO connections to just make them vanish, like the Pentagon plane, into another dimension?*
Click to expand...

* Another one who can't make sense of what he reads.Is this all you people have? Making things up as you go along. Distorting things people say because you have nothing useful or insightful to post?
Here's a newsflash for you, the NIST report has been found to contain flaws, there is documented rebuttals of it by credible independent engineers and scientists, and your attempt at creating strawman arguments all fail. 
If you don't think these good people have a legitimate basis on which they make these claims, then perhaps you could show us the undisputed evidence that NIST has and used. You could start with the test they did to prove the fire retardant blew off..?You know the one with a shotgun blast??
No that's not a good one, that one failed..How about the fire test that showed the floors DIDN'T SAG?
Nope that one failed too..How about the testing for explosive materials or incendiaries?... Nope they didn't bother to do one of those, even though the WTC had a prior bomb attempt in '93..
Well I'm sure you can find something that NIST did other then fudging around with computer models, and exaggerating the fuel loads.
Let us know what you have.
Perhaps you can also explain how NIST came to the conclusion the "buildings fell essentially in free fall"-NIST
Or why the lower more robust structures "provided only minimal resistance"-NIST
And I'll round up all my articles, and link you to them, but I'll be asking questions, so you'll have to read and study them....no cheating.*


----------



## Mr. Jones

Patriot911 said:


> figures.  Fucktard Jones can't respond nor can he produce any evidence so he goes with the ad hominem attack.    Way to prove my points, fucktard Jones!
> 
> So where is the real evidence that proves your bullshit fantasies?
> 
> Come on. I'm only asking for one piece of real, actionable evidence.  You know.... the kind you pretend you have tons of.
> 
> So quit being a pussy and produce it.  Or run away while flinging shit like usual.  Choice is yours.  Let's see what you do.



Mr Jones responded with undeniable facts about you, showing all readers your true colors and just what kind of a sick person you are. And you can't deny any of it 
You even stole another posters little parting shot meant for you!!
Look up 9/11 Inside Jobs posts!! You plagiarized him!! 
How original of you Parrot!! 
Explain to us just how the truth movement is taking over the government Parrot...we're all ears on your scoop
Fucking loser  Oh man this is too funny..You stole someones little line that YOU put down all the time?? Real classy..


----------



## Mr. Jones

Rat in the Hat said:


> Or did Bushcheneyhaliburton use their NWO connections to just make them vanish, like the Pentagon plane, into another dimension?



Hey do you know what happened on 9-11 and why many people don't believe the NIST and governments version?? Do you really think you can get away with the kind of shit you just posted without looking like a total fool??
Do you even have a clue as to what is meant when something like the NWO is even mentioned??


----------



## Patriot911

This is hilarious!  Fucktard Jones can't produce any evidence, so he tries to pretend the term "flinging shit" is trademarked by 9/11 inside job and that I am PLAGERIZING him!  

How fucking pathetic!

Anyone else notice he ran like a little bitch instead of presenting the evidence he claims to have?    Anyone reading this think Jones actually HAS any real evidence to present?  Considering all the utter crap he has posted so far, he would have posted any real evidence he had a long time ago.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Most of this thread has been personal attacks and no evidence. They've got nothing. They've had nothing for 10 years and they will still have nothing 10 years from now.


----------



## Gamolon

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;9/11 Physics 101; Air, Water, or WTC Steel? You decide.&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple question for you eots about this video. Are you telling me that you believe that the ENTIRE portion of the tower shown below that 10 floor block is what any engineer should use to show how that lower portion should have resisted the upper block coming down?
Click to expand...


Eots,

Do you believe that the video you have linked is an accurate representation of what occurred? The a smaller upper solid block hit a larger lower solid block and that the upper block should have been resisted by the larger lower block??


----------



## Gamolon

Eots,

Here is one of the written paragraphs in that video:



> On 9/11, 2001, the Top Floors seemingly "sank" through Steel & Concrete (B) in just 10 to 15 seconds.



If the above is true, how do you explain the core still standing in this next photo?





I thought they upper floors "sank" THROUGH steel and concrete????


----------



## eots

the very small portion of the core  appears to be standing for one frame

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGelvjIuANo&feature=feedrec_grec_index]YouTube - &#x202a;Wearechange interviews BBC&#39;s Phil Hayton about WTC 7&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## Gamolon

Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;9/11 Physics 101; Air, Water, or WTC Steel? You decide.&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple question for you eots about this video. Are you telling me that you believe that the ENTIRE portion of the tower shown below that 10 floor block is what any engineer should use to show how that lower portion should have resisted the upper block coming down?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eots,
> 
> Do you believe that the video you have linked is an accurate representation of what occurred? The a smaller upper solid block hit a larger lower solid block and that the upper block should have been resisted by the larger lower block??
Click to expand...


Eots?


----------



## eots

Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple question for you eots about this video. Are you telling me that you believe that the ENTIRE portion of the tower shown below that 10 floor block is what any engineer should use to show how that lower portion should have resisted the upper block coming down?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eots,
> 
> Do you believe that the video you have linked is an accurate representation of what occurred? The a smaller upper solid block hit a larger lower solid block and that the upper block should have been resisted by the larger lower block??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eots?
Click to expand...


what happened to the first 2/3 of the core ? why did the rest crumble secs later ? where is the core in the seconed tower ?


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> the very small portion of the core  appears to be standing for one frame
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;Wearechange interviews BBC's Phil Hayton about WTC 7&#x202c;&rlm;



A SMALL portion of the core?





The building on the left is the 2 world Financial Center at 645 ft high (about 44 stories). Your talking about half the height if the towers. You consider that a "small portion"?

So how did the "smaller" upper block fall THROUGH lower larger block if half the core still stood AFTER the floors are gone according to the picture above?


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eots,
> 
> Do you believe that the video you have linked is an accurate representation of what occurred? The a smaller upper solid block hit a larger lower solid block and that the upper block should have been resisted by the larger lower block??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eots?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what happened to the first 2/3 of the core ? why did the rest crumble secs later ? where is the core in the seconed tower ?
Click to expand...


Is this what you do when you have no answer? Ask derailing questions?


----------



## eots

Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple question for you eots about this video. Are you telling me that you believe that the ENTIRE portion of the tower shown below that 10 floor block is what any engineer should use to show how that lower portion should have resisted the upper block coming down?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eots,
> 
> Do you believe that the video you have linked is an accurate representation of what occurred? The a smaller upper solid block hit a larger lower solid block and that the upper block should have been resisted by the larger lower block??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eots?
Click to expand...


it is more accurate than shyam sunders..."think of opening a tight jar by running it under hot water"


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eots,
> 
> Do you believe that the video you have linked is an accurate representation of what occurred? The a smaller upper solid block hit a larger lower solid block and that the upper block should have been resisted by the larger lower block??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eots?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what happened to the first 2/3 of the core
Click to expand...


You mean to tell me you think the remnants of the core in the picture is only 1/3 of the total core???? Only 453 feet (the towers were about 1360 ft high each)? The 2 World Financial Center in the foreground of my photo was 645 feet tall. The core was BEHIND that in relation and was STILL taller. 

Is this the kind of "facts" you use to make your claims? No wonder you perpetuate fantasies on the board.


----------



## Rationalist1016

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eots?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what happened to the first 2/3 of the core ? why did the rest crumble secs later ? where is the core in the seconed tower ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this what you do when you have no answer? Ask derailing questions?
Click to expand...


Gamolon, I would say the picture in your last post should put to bed the theories that the core was taken out by explosives........wouldn't you say?  Also, I wonder if the "truthers" know that a few people survived the collapse of WTC 2 inside the core.  Admittedly, they were much lower in the core, but that still shows that the core was intact.


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eots,
> 
> Do you believe that the video you have linked is an accurate representation of what occurred? The a smaller upper solid block hit a larger lower solid block and that the upper block should have been resisted by the larger lower block??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eots?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it is more accurate than shyam sunders..."think of opening a tight jar by running it under hot water"
Click to expand...


So you think that the lower block should provided resistance for the upper block and should have arrested the fall? 

So do tell. How should these connections circled in red...





...have provided resistance to this block circled in red...


----------



## Gamolon

Rationalist1016 said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> what happened to the first 2/3 of the core ? why did the rest crumble secs later ? where is the core in the seconed tower ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this what you do when you have no answer? Ask derailing questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gamolon, I would say the picture in your last post should put to bed the theories that the core was taken out by explosives........wouldn't you say?  Also, I wonder if the "truthers" know that a few people survived the collapse of WTC 2 inside the core.  Admittedly, they were much lower in the core, but that still shows that the core was intact.
Click to expand...


I agree. 

The problem with them is they think that the towers were solid block rather than a compilation of integrated structural components designed to hold up STATIC loads and not the mass and energy of a falling upper third of the building. They refuse to look at the actual connections that held the towers together as the weakest link/s when resisting a gravity load.

I would like any truther to explain to me what they think would be the first structural component contacted by the upper lock circled in red below, that would provide enough resistance to arrest the descent.


----------



## Rationalist1016

Exactly!
For example, Richard Gages model of dropping 2 cardboard boxes..........one over nothing, and the other over a much larger cardboard box.  And then he claims that experiment proves that the lower block would resist the upper block.  Man!..................that is powerful stupid!  And he is an Architect!!


----------



## Mr. Jones

Mr. Jones said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> LOL, I don't have the time nor the desire to continually walk you through the vast amount of opposition that has been accumulated in the last decade concerning NIST and the attacks on 9-11.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> NIST's final report was released in November 2008. Are you now trying to claim that a decade is 31 months long??
> 
> Maybe the other 89 months were blown up with nano-therm*te. Or Dr. Judy's space beams.
> 
> Or did Bushcheneyhaliburton use their NWO connections to just make them vanish, like the Pentagon plane, into another dimension?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> * Another one who can't make sense of what he reads.Is this all you people have? Making things up as you go along. Distorting things people say because you have nothing useful or insightful to post?
> Here's a newsflash for you, the NIST report has been found to contain flaws, there is documented rebuttals of it by credible independent engineers and scientists, and your attempt at creating strawman arguments all fail.
> If you don't think these good people have a legitimate basis on which they make these claims, then perhaps you could show us the undisputed evidence that NIST has and used. You could start with the test they did to prove the fire retardant blew off..?You know the one with a shotgun blast??
> No that's not a good one, that one failed..How about the fire test that showed the floors DIDN'T SAG?
> Nope that one failed too..How about the testing for explosive materials or incendiaries?... Nope they didn't bother to do one of those, even though the WTC had a prior bomb attempt in '93..
> Well I'm sure you can find something that NIST did other then fudging around with computer models, and exaggerating the fuel loads.
> Let us know what you have.
> Perhaps you can also explain how NIST came to the conclusion the "buildings fell essentially in free fall"-NIST
> Or why the lower more robust structures "provided only minimal resistance"-NIST
> And I'll round up all my articles, and link you to them, but I'll be asking questions, so you'll have to read and study them....no cheating.*
Click to expand...

*

Still no answer?? From anyone ?*


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Or why the lower more robust structures "provided only minimal resistance"-NIST



Let's discuss this Mr. Jones.

Please explain how you think the "lower, more robust structure" should have performed in your eyes. Can we start there?


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eots,
> 
> Do you believe that the video you have linked is an accurate representation of what occurred? The a smaller upper solid block hit a larger lower solid block and that the upper block should have been resisted by the larger lower block??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eots?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it is more accurate than shyam sunders..."think of opening a tight jar by running it under hot water"
Click to expand...


Is this how you answer questions?

Your reasoning is mind boggling.

I guess if your girlfriend/wife asked you how you thought she was in bed, you'd reply "Well, you're better than my last girlfriend/wife."


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or why the lower more robust structures "provided only minimal resistance"-NIST
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's discuss this Mr. Jones.
> 
> Please explain how you think the "lower, more robust structure" should have performed in your eyes. Can we start there?
Click to expand...

Hello Gamolon, yes this seems to be one of the biggest problems with the demise of the towers that other engineers have, from what I have read.
It is the opinions that while the gravitational collapse indeed took place-
1) something other then fire initiated the collapse, or "kicked started it"
2) the times of the collapses should have taken somewhere in the neighborhood of 30-40 secs,
This is from the opinion of and a rebuttal for the NIST and the Bazant theories. From reading it, considerations were taken into account of the counter resistance of the lower structure, and its many components, the fact that the building was constructed with a degree of extra safety factors, and the fact that the lower parts of the towers were more robust, as it was responsible for holding up a huge amount of static weight loads.
I have also delved a little deeper, and found that there are also opinions that not a lot of explosives/incendiaries would necessarily have been required to kick start the gravitational collapse events.
For the record, the 9-11 commission has excepted that, the towers fell in about 10 secs.
I don't hold the theory that every single floor had to be wired, or rigged, as the planes penetrated a significant portion of the buildings, to provide a "projectile" using the kinetic energy, to use as a destructive force.
The question is, and has always been, what initiated the collapse, and why was it allowed to progress almost unimpeded?
As NIST said "the buildings fell, essentially at free fall"  and "the lower structure provided minimal resistance"
But they proceed no further to explain "why"?

That's about the towers of course, and WTC 7, is a different animal, as there has been no rational explanation as to what, or how fires started in the sporadic places it did.
The fact that 2 witnesses were inside the building, and heard explosions, and were trapped in it, until finally being rescued, is also not taken into consideration.
Free fall being at first ignored, then admitted to, but not even explained by NIST is another mystery. Column 79 "walking" is not explained IMO, and NIST had to make a huge correction about the shear studs too...
All in all there are too many things left unexplained and the reports make for even more questions left unanswered.
RE: Another poster--
I don't understand why certain ignorant people want some sort of proof that there are any anomalies in the NIST and 9-11 theories, as there have been many documented articles written about the inconsistencies of the OCT version for a while now. In other words there is proof that there are objections to the OCT everywhere.
From the discovery of chemicals in the WTC dust, to the calculated collapse times, and the "inconsistent" testimony from pentagon personnel, as well as NORAD, as well as the Mineta testimony
There is sufficient "proof" of inconsistencies and disputes to warrant a new independent investigation.

Gamolon-How is it that Bazant and co. could come up with the collapse theory in only 2 DAYS, were it took NIST years to come to their conclusion? Most of the early rebuttals and counter views were established based on the Bazant theory, but have since been extrapolated on.


My question:

What creditable and indisputable scientific facts convinced you that the OS is one hundred percent true? Please post your creditable sources that *cannot be disputed*?


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eots?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is more accurate than shyam sunders..."think of opening a tight jar by running it under hot water"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this how you answer questions?
> 
> Your reasoning is mind boggling.
> 
> I guess if your girlfriend/wife asked you how you thought she was in bed, you'd reply "Well, you're better than my last girlfriend/wife."
Click to expand...


That answer would probably be a very good one! The best I ever had would be my choice 
WTF is the point of this anyway?
Gage using the boxes was his way of making fun of those that don't get it. I found it hilarious.
The lower part of the building was designed to support huge static loads for years, the collapse of the floors in between them, was not enough to crush and pulverize the lower more robust part of the building at "essentially free fall"--NIST 
and could not possibly provide 
"only minimal resistance"-NIST
So why does NIST say this and walk away?


----------



## SFC Ollie

Mr. Jones said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> NIST's final report was released in November 2008. Are you now trying to claim that a decade is 31 months long??
> 
> Maybe the other 89 months were blown up with nano-therm*te. Or Dr. Judy's space beams.
> 
> Or did Bushcheneyhaliburton use their NWO connections to just make them vanish, like the Pentagon plane, into another dimension?
> 
> 
> 
> Another one who can't make sense of what he reads.Is this all you people have? Making things up as you go along. Distorting things people say because you have nothing useful or insightful to post?
> Here's a newsflash for you, the NIST report has been found to contain flaws, there is documented rebuttals of it by credible independent engineers and scientists, and your attempt at creating strawman arguments all fail.
> If you don't think these good people have a legitimate basis on which they make these claims, then perhaps you could show us the undisputed evidence that NIST has and used. You could start with the test they did to prove the fire retardant blew off..?You know the one with a shotgun blast??
> No that's not a good one, that one failed..How about the fire test that showed the floors DIDN'T SAG?
> Nope that one failed too..How about the testing for explosive materials or incendiaries?... Nope they didn't bother to do one of those, even though the WTC had a prior bomb attempt in '93..
> Well I'm sure you can find something that NIST did other then fudging around with computer models, and exaggerating the fuel loads.
> Let us know what you have.
> Perhaps you can also explain how NIST came to the conclusion the "buildings fell essentially in free fall"-NIST
> Or why the lower more robust structures "provided only minimal resistance"-NIST
> And I'll round up all my articles, and link you to them, but I'll be asking questions, so you'll have to read and study them....no cheating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still no answer?? From anyone ?
Click to expand...


Eots provided the link, you really should read more.....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3771837-post1159.html


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is more accurate than shyam sunders..."think of opening a tight jar by running it under hot water"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this how you answer questions?
> 
> Your reasoning is mind boggling.
> 
> I guess if your girlfriend/wife asked you how you thought she was in bed, you'd reply "Well, you're better than my last girlfriend/wife."
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That answer would probably be a very good one! The best I ever had would be my choice
> WTF is the point of this anyway?
Click to expand...


The point is that I asked him a direct question as to whether or not the video he posted was an accurate representation of what we saw and how the towers reacted and he answered with a comparison to what he already thinks is a bad one.

I guess he thinks his his video is also inaccurate, but just a little more than Shyam's. Nice to see uses information that he considers inaccurate to come to his conclusions.


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> Still no answer?? From anyone ?


Why do you demand anything from anyone when you can't even produce the evidence you claim you have?  Seriously.  Are you somehow better than everyone else where you demand (and receive) evidence from them, but despite your constant claims of having evidence, you refuse to show us this self-proclaimed evidence?

Or is the fact of the matter that you HAVE no evidence and are bullshitting everyong by claiming to have something you do not have?

So once again I will ask you for a single piece of real, hard evidence that backs up your bullshit fantasies.  Remember, opinion isn't evidence, but then again, your claims should have left behind numerous pieces of hard evidence, so it shouldn't be hard to produce some, right?


----------



## Rationalist1016

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is more accurate than shyam sunders..."think of opening a tight jar by running it under hot water"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this how you answer questions?
> 
> Your reasoning is mind boggling.
> 
> I guess if your girlfriend/wife asked you how you thought she was in bed, you'd reply "Well, you're better than my last girlfriend/wife."
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That answer would probably be a very good one! The best I ever had would be my choice
> WTF is the point of this anyway?
> Gage using the boxes was his way of making fun of those that don't get it. I found it hilarious.
> The lower part of the building was designed to support huge static loads for years, the collapse of the floors in between them, was not enough to crush and pulverize the lower more robust part of the building at "essentially free fall"--NIST
> and could not possibly provide
> "only minimal resistance"-NIST
> So why does NIST say this and walk away?
Click to expand...


If Gage wanted to prove his point to those that "don't get it", shouldn't he build a real model and prove his theory?  Not some silly demonstration?  He is an Architect, that shouldn't be an unreasonable request.  The only thing his cardboard demo showed was that gravity does indeed work.
Also, you just said that the Towers were designed to support a "static" load.  Once the upper block started to move, it is obviously not static anymore.  Now you are dealing with an accelerating mass.  You can break ANYTHING with enough mass and/or speed.


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or why the lower more robust structures "provided only minimal resistance"-NIST
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's discuss this Mr. Jones.
> 
> Please explain how you think the "lower, more robust structure" should have performed in your eyes. Can we start there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hello Gamolon, yes this seems to be one of the biggest problems with the demise of the towers that other engineers have, from what I have read.
> It is the opinions that while the gravitational collapse indeed took place-
> 1) something other then fire initiated the collapse, or "kicked started it"
> 2) the times of the collapses should have taken somewhere in the neighborhood of 30-40 secs,
> This is from the opinion of and a rebuttal for the NIST and the Bazant theories. From reading it, considerations were taken into account of the counter resistance of the lower structure, and its many components, the fact that the building was constructed with a degree of extra safety factors, and the fact that the lower parts of the towers were more robust, as it was responsible for holding up a huge amount of static weight loads.
> I have also delved a little deeper, and found that there are also opinions that not a lot of explosives/incendiaries would necessarily have been required to kick start the gravitational collapse events.
> For the record, the 9-11 commission has excepted that, the towers fell in about 10 secs.
> I don't hold the theory that every single floor had to be wired, or rigged, as the planes penetrated a significant portion of the buildings, to provide a "projectile" using the kinetic energy, to use as a destructive force.
> The question is, and has always been, what initiated the collapse, and why was it allowed to progress almost unimpeded?
> As NIST said "the buildings fell, essentially at free fall"  and "the lower structure provided minimal resistance"
> But they proceed no further to explain "why"?
> 
> That's about the towers of course, and WTC 7, is a different animal, as there has been no rational explanation as to what, or how fires started in the sporadic places it did.
> The fact that 2 witnesses were inside the building, and heard explosions, and were trapped in it, until finally being rescued, is also not taken into consideration.
> Free fall being at first ignored, then admitted to, but not even explained by NIST is another mystery. Column 79 "walking" is not explained IMO, and NIST had to make a huge correction about the shear studs too...
> All in all there are too many things left unexplained and the reports make for even more questions left unanswered.
> RE: Another poster--
> I don't understand why certain ignorant people want some sort of proof that there are any anomalies in the NIST and 9-11 theories, as there have been many documented articles written about the inconsistencies of the OCT version for a while now. In other words there is proof that there are objections to the OCT everywhere.
> From the discovery of chemicals in the WTC dust, to the calculated collapse times, and the "inconsistent" testimony from pentagon personnel, as well as NORAD, as well as the Mineta testimony
> There is sufficient "proof" of inconsistencies and disputes to warrant a new independent investigation.
> 
> Gamolon-How is it that Bazant and co. could come up with the collapse theory in only 2 DAYS, were it took NIST years to come to their conclusion? Most of the early rebuttals and counter views were established based on the Bazant theory, but have since been extrapolated on.
> 
> 
> My question:
> 
> What creditable and indisputable scientific facts convinced you that the OS is one hundred percent true? Please post your creditable sources that *cannot be undisputed*?
Click to expand...


Mr. Jones.

With all due respect, I asked you to please explain a certain aspect of one of your questions and you have gone of in 50 different tangents while never actually answering my original question.

I am trying to understand your line of thinking by asking you questions that I have about the way you see things. Going off in many different directions is not helpful. Can we just stick with one subject please?

Here is the full quote from NIST:


>  the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.



So I ask you again. In your eyes, and based on what you have read or researched, how should the lower, more robust part of the structure have reacted to the falling upper "block"? Should it have resisted?


----------



## Gamolon

Rationalist1016 said:


> Also, you just said that the Towers were designed to support a "static" load.  Once the upper block started to move, it is obviously not static anymore.  Now you are dealing with an accelerating mass.  You can break ANYTHING with enough mass and/or speed.



Bingo!

This is what I am trying to get Mr. Jones to discuss. Based on what was quoted above, Mr. Jones thinks that the more robust lower potion of the building should have resisted or acted differently. I want to figure out why and what reasoning was used to come to this conclusion.


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> ...and the fact that the lower parts of the towers were more robust, as it was responsible for holding up a huge amount of static weight loads



More to your question.

This is no longer a static load.






These were designed to support dead and live loads place on the floors.





So I'll ask again of you as I have of eots. When that upper block descended, what structural components did that upper block it come into contact with first and what components would that descending load be directed to? What is the weakest link in the towers?


----------



## eots

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eots?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what happened to the first 2/3 of the core ? why did the rest crumble secs later ? where is the core in the seconed tower ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this what you do when you have no answer? Ask derailing questions?
Click to expand...


so you find these simple questions to be derailing ?


----------



## eots

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and the fact that the lower parts of the towers were more robust, as it was responsible for holding up a huge amount of static weight loads
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More to your question.
> 
> This is no longer a static load.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These were designed to support dead and live loads place on the floors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I'll ask again of you as I have of eots. When that upper block descended, what structural components did that upper block it come into contact with first and what components would that descending load be directed to? What is the weakest link in the towers?
Click to expand...


if your theory is correct we should see two cores from both towers standing not a small portion of one that crumbles within secs


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> what happened to the first 2/3 of the core ? why did the rest crumble secs later ? where is the core in the seconed tower ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this what you do when you have no answer? Ask derailing questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you find these simple questions to be derailing ?
Click to expand...


You can't answer the questions first asked of you?


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and the fact that the lower parts of the towers were more robust, as it was responsible for holding up a huge amount of static weight loads
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More to your question.
> 
> This is no longer a static load.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These were designed to support dead and live loads place on the floors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I'll ask again of you as I have of eots. When that upper block descended, what structural components did that upper block it come into contact with first and what components would that descending load be directed to? What is the weakest link in the towers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if your theory is correct we should see two cores from both towers standing not a small portion of one that crumbles within secs
Click to expand...


You didn't even answer the questions (as usual). I'll ask them again.

When that upper block descended, what structural components did that upper block it come into contact with first and what components would that descending load be directed to? What is the weakest link in the towers?


----------



## eots

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> More to your question.
> 
> This is no longer a static load.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These were designed to support dead and live loads place on the floors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I'll ask again of you as I have of eots. When that upper block descended, what structural components did that upper block it come into contact with first and what components would that descending load be directed to? What is the weakest link in the towers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if your theory is correct we should see two cores from both towers standing not a small portion of one that crumbles within secs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't even answer the questions (as usual). I'll ask them again.
> 
> When that upper block descended, what structural components did that upper block it come into contact with first and what components would that descending load be directed to? What is the weakest link in the towers?
Click to expand...


that depends on what happened to the upper portion of the core and how the structural failure occurred.. something NIST was unable to determine with any certainty


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> towers standing not a small portion of one that crumbles within secs



You mean like this?


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> if your theory is correct we should see two cores from both towers standing not a small portion of one that crumbles within secs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't even answer the questions (as usual). I'll ask them again.
> 
> When that upper block descended, what structural components did that upper block it come into contact with first and what components would that descending load be directed to? What is the weakest link in the towers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that depends on what happened to the upper portion of the core and how the structural failure occurred.. something NIST was unable to determine with any certainty
Click to expand...


According to you and your posted video, the lower portion should have resisted. Now you are saying you aren't sure? 

Interesting...


----------



## eots

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't even answer the questions (as usual). I'll ask them again.
> 
> When that upper block descended, what structural components did that upper block it come into contact with first and what components would that descending load be directed to? What is the weakest link in the towers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that depends on what happened to the upper portion of the core and how the structural failure occurred.. something NIST was unable to determine with any certainty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to you and your posted video, the lower portion should have resisted. Now you are saying you aren't sure?
> 
> Interesting...
Click to expand...


you asked what contacted first.. not if there would of been Resistance..of course there should be Resistance


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> if your theory is correct we should see two cores from both towers standing not a small portion of one that crumbles within secs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't even answer the questions (as usual). I'll ask them again.
> 
> When that upper block descended, what structural components did that upper block it come into contact with first and what components would that descending load be directed to? What is the weakest link in the towers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that depends on what happened to the upper portion of the core and how the structural failure occurred.. something NIST was unable to determine with any certainty
Click to expand...


What does this video show?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rbfLLp7rBI&feature=relmfu]YouTube - &#x202a;WTC close up of South Tower buckling&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> that depends on what happened to the upper portion of the core and how the structural failure occurred.. something NIST was unable to determine with any certainty
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to you and your posted video, the lower portion should have resisted. Now you are saying you aren't sure?
> 
> Interesting...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you asked what contacted first.. not if there would of been Resistance..of course there should be Resistance
Click to expand...


Resistance provided by what? What components would provide resistance to a descending mass? 

Come on eots. Let's think this through. Explain how the lower block should have resisted. What components of that lower block are involved?


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> that depends on what happened to the upper portion of the core and how the structural failure occurred.. something NIST was unable to determine with any certainty
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to you and your posted video, the lower portion should have resisted. Now you are saying you aren't sure?
> 
> Interesting...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you asked what contacted first.. not if there would of been Resistance..of course there should be Resistance
Click to expand...


Also, what happened to the upper block that supposedly "sank through" (according to your accurate video) the lower portion? Why is it not sitting intact on top of the pile? Are you suggesting that they used explosives to tear apart that upper block?


----------



## eots

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> towers standing not a small portion of one that crumbles within secs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like this?
Click to expand...


and what is that ? a small portion of the core that fell instantly


----------



## eots

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to you and your posted video, the lower portion should have resisted. Now you are saying you aren't sure?
> 
> Interesting...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you asked what contacted first.. not if there would of been Resistance..of course there should be Resistance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also, what happened to the upper block that supposedly "sank through" (according to your accurate video) the lower portion? Why is it not sitting intact on top of the pile? Are you suggesting that they used explosives to tear apart that upper block?
Click to expand...


that is a possibility


----------



## Rationalist1016

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> that depends on what happened to the upper portion of the core and how the structural failure occurred.. something NIST was unable to determine with any certainty
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to you and your posted video, the lower portion should have resisted. Now you are saying you aren't sure?
> 
> Interesting...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you asked what contacted first.. not if there would of been Resistance..of course there should be Resistance
Click to expand...


Would you agree, that in many videos, you can see the side of WTC 2 bowing in?  And would you agree that once those columns are pulled out of "true", they can no longer support the load?  Once the upper block starts to move & tilt, columns are no longer resting on columns.  Thus, columns are landing on floors.  Which obviously can't support that load.
Is there any part of this you would not agree with?


----------



## eots

&#8220;The WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause&#8230;.Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? Their current explanation for the collapse of the towers is critically based on an assumption that the insulation was removed from the steel in the path of the aircraft, particularly the core columns. NIST does not show calculations or experiments to satisfactorily confirm that the insulation was removed in the core.&#8221; [1]

&#8212;James G. Quintiere, Ph.D.

Professor, Fire Protection Engineering, University of Maryland

(1971-1989, NIST chief of Fire Science and Engineering Division)


----------



## SFC Ollie

eots said:


> The WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause.Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? Their current explanation for the collapse of the towers is critically based on an assumption that the insulation was removed from the steel in the path of the aircraft, particularly the core columns. NIST does not show calculations or experiments to satisfactorily confirm that the insulation was removed in the core. [1]
> 
> James G. Quintiere, Ph.D.
> 
> Professor, Fire Protection Engineering, University of Maryland
> 
> (1971-1989, NIST chief of Fire Science and Engineering Division)



Interesting person your Dr James G. Quintiere.

I have to ask, how much of his work have you read? You see he doesn't believe in any conspiracy theory, he believes that NIST was wrong because he thinks the fires were hotter and were at peak temperatures longer than NIST says.

http://www.enfp.umd.edu/documents/QuintiereNATOFinal.pdf


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> The WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause.Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? Their current explanation for the collapse of the towers is critically based on an assumption that the insulation was removed from the steel in the path of the aircraft, particularly the core columns. NIST does not show calculations or experiments to satisfactorily confirm that the insulation was removed in the core. [1]
> 
> James G. Quintiere, Ph.D.
> 
> Professor, Fire Protection Engineering, University of Maryland
> 
> (1971-1989, NIST chief of Fire Science and Engineering Division)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting person your Dr James G. Quintiere.
> 
> I have to ask, how much of his work have you read? You see he doesn't believe in any conspiracy theory, he believes that NIST was wrong because he thinks the fires were hotter and were at peak temperatures longer than NIST says.
> 
> http://www.enfp.umd.edu/documents/QuintiereNATOFinal.pdf
Click to expand...


*bullshit ollie *



Dr. Quintiere, one of the worlds leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way, he said




. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have


. If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the conspiracy theories that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, its one of the floors falling down.


OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## eots

Rationalist1016 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to you and your posted video, the lower portion should have resisted. Now you are saying you aren't sure?
> 
> Interesting...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you asked what contacted first.. not if there would of been Resistance..of course there should be Resistance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you agree, that in many videos, you can see the side of WTC 2 bowing in?  And would you agree that once those columns are pulled out of "true", they can no longer support the load?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once the upper block starts to move & tilt, columns are no longer resting on columns.  Thus, columns are landing on floors.  Which obviously can't support that load.
> Is there any part of this you would not agree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes
Click to expand...


----------



## SFC Ollie

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> The WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause.Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? Their current explanation for the collapse of the towers is critically based on an assumption that the insulation was removed from the steel in the path of the aircraft, particularly the core columns. NIST does not show calculations or experiments to satisfactorily confirm that the insulation was removed in the core. [1]
> 
> James G. Quintiere, Ph.D.
> 
> Professor, Fire Protection Engineering, University of Maryland
> 
> (1971-1989, NIST chief of Fire Science and Engineering Division)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting person your Dr James G. Quintiere.
> 
> I have to ask, how much of his work have you read? You see he doesn't believe in any conspiracy theory, he believes that NIST was wrong because he thinks the fires were hotter and were at peak temperatures longer than NIST says.
> 
> http://www.enfp.umd.edu/documents/QuintiereNATOFinal.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *bullshit ollie *
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Quintiere, one of the worlds leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way, he said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have
> 
> 
> . If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the conspiracy theories that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, its one of the floors falling down.
> 
> 
> OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
Click to expand...


The man does not believe there were any explosives. Read his papers, not just what Alex Jones tells you to read.


----------



## Rationalist1016

Ollie, I have to agree.  Mr. Quintiere is definitely saying that he thinks the fires where hotter and more severe than NIST accounts for.  Isn't it amazing that multiple people can read the same document and come to completely different conclusions?  I don't know how someone could read that and conclude he is on the side of the "truthers".


----------



## eots

Rationalist1016 said:


> Ollie, I have to agree.  Mr. Quintiere is definitely saying that he thinks the fires where hotter and more severe than NIST accounts for.  Isn't it amazing that multiple people can read the same document and come to completely different conclusions?  I don't know how someone could read that and conclude he is on the side of the "truthers".



_His complaints of the procedure are accurate and factual and make any conclusive findings impossible.. if he calls the NIST investigation into question and seeks a re-investigation under the terms he list, he is on the side of truth, regardless of his personal view on controlled demolition_





Dr. Quintiere said he originally &#8220;had high hopes&#8221; that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. &#8220;They&#8217;re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what* I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives]*, which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And* I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information.* What prevented all of this? I think it&#8217;s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.




&#8220;In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by *not definitively finding cause*, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.


OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting person your Dr James G. Quintiere.
> 
> I have to ask, how much of his work have you read? You see he doesn't believe in any conspiracy theory, he believes that NIST was wrong because he thinks the fires were hotter and were at peak temperatures longer than NIST says.
> 
> http://www.enfp.umd.edu/documents/QuintiereNATOFinal.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *bullshit ollie *
> 
> 
> Dr. Quintiere, one of the worlds leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way, he said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have
> 
> 
> . If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the conspiracy theories that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, its one of the floors falling down.
> 
> 
> OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The man does not believe there were any explosives. Read his papers, not just what Alex Jones tells you to read.
Click to expand...



No one ever said he did, he believes there needs to be a re investigation.. because fact finding was deterred and blocked ..that the NIST conclusions are questionable and list very valid reasons why the investigative procedure was terrible flawed and intentionally hampered, for what ever reason


----------



## Rationalist1016

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *bullshit ollie *
> 
> 
> Dr. Quintiere, one of the worlds leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way, he said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have
> 
> 
> . If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the conspiracy theories that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, its one of the floors falling down.
> 
> 
> OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The man does not believe there were any explosives. Read his papers, not just what Alex Jones tells you to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one ever said he did, he believes there needs to be a re investigation.. because fact finding was deterred and blocked ..that the NIST conclusions are questionable and list very valid reasons why the investigative procedure was terrible flawed and intentionally hampered, for what ever reason
Click to expand...


Then I am surprised that you used him as a reference, sense he seems to contradict your views.  If I remember correctly, you believe that explosives are the likely cause of the collapse.  And as you just agreed, he does NOT believe that to be the case.  He believes that the damage caused by the planes and the fire is what caused the collapses.  He just thinks that NIST failed to get the exact part that failed first, triggering the collapse.  So, I'm not sure what a new investigation would prove.  That the trusses failed in this spot instead of in that spot?  That the core failed on this floor instead of that floor?  That really doesn't change the outcome.
I understand, from an engineering perspective, he wants to know the EXACT cause.  That is the nature of an engineer.  I know, I am one.  We want the details!
As far as his questions for NIST, I think they are valid.  But the answers to those questions are not going to point to some "inside job" conspiracy.  They are just going to allow a better understanding of how the damage and the fires destroyed those buildings.
And if that is your stance?................That you want to know what ACTUALLY happened?  Then I would be wrong to group you with the "truthers".  Because the real "truthers" DO NOT want truth..............they want a conspiracy!!


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> you asked what contacted first.. not if there would of been Resistance..of course there should be Resistance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, what happened to the upper block that supposedly "sank through" (according to your accurate video) the lower portion? Why is it not sitting intact on top of the pile? Are you suggesting that they used explosives to tear apart that upper block?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that is a possibility
Click to expand...


----------



## Gamolon

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> The WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause.Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? Their current explanation for the collapse of the towers is critically based on an assumption that the insulation was removed from the steel in the path of the aircraft, particularly the core columns. NIST does not show calculations or experiments to satisfactorily confirm that the insulation was removed in the core. [1]
> 
> James G. Quintiere, Ph.D.
> 
> Professor, Fire Protection Engineering, University of Maryland
> 
> (1971-1989, NIST chief of Fire Science and Engineering Division)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting person your Dr James G. Quintiere.
> 
> I have to ask, how much of his work have you read? You see he doesn't believe in any conspiracy theory, he believes that NIST was wrong because he thinks the fires were hotter and were at peak temperatures longer than NIST says.
> 
> http://www.enfp.umd.edu/documents/QuintiereNATOFinal.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *bullshit ollie *
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Quintiere, one of the worlds leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way, he said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have
> 
> 
> . If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the conspiracy theories that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, its one of the floors falling down.
> 
> 
> OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
Click to expand...


Really eots? Maybe you should read this paper that he was involved in. Also, his email address is listed on that page. Email him and ask him directly what he thinks about conspiracy theories and explosives being used. You can then post his email here in the forums for all to see.

Scale Modeling of the 96th Floor of World Trade Center Tower 1 | Browse - Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting person your Dr James G. Quintiere.
> 
> I have to ask, how much of his work have you read? You see he doesn't believe in any conspiracy theory, he believes that NIST was wrong because he thinks the fires were hotter and were at peak temperatures longer than NIST says.
> 
> http://www.enfp.umd.edu/documents/QuintiereNATOFinal.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *bullshit ollie *
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Quintiere, one of the worlds leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way, he said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have
> 
> 
> . If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the conspiracy theories that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, its one of the floors falling down.
> 
> 
> OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really eots? Maybe you should read this paper that he was involved in. Also, his email address is listed on that page. Email him and ask him directly what he thinks about conspiracy theories and explosives being used. You can then post his email here in the forums for all to see.
> 
> Scale Modeling of the 96th Floor of World Trade Center Tower 1 | Browse - Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities
Click to expand...

*
Access to article objects (figures, tables, multimedia) requires a subscription; log in to view available files.
(Access to supplementary files, where available, is free for this journal.)*

You are not logged in You are not logged in to this journal. Log In
Scale Modeling of the 96th Floor of World Trade Center Tower 1 | Browse - Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities


Anyone have a password?


----------



## Mr. Jones

Rationalist1016 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The man does not believe there were any explosives. Read his papers, not just what Alex Jones tells you to read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one ever said he did, he believes there needs to be a re investigation.. because fact finding was deterred and blocked ..that the NIST conclusions are questionable and list very valid reasons why the investigative procedure was terrible flawed and intentionally hampered, for what ever reason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I am surprised that you used him as a reference, sense he seems to contradict your views.  If I remember correctly, you believe that explosives are the likely cause of the collapse.  And as you just agreed, he does NOT believe that to be the case.  He believes that the damage caused by the planes and the fire is what caused the collapses.  He just thinks that NIST failed to get the exact part that failed first, triggering the collapse.  So, I'm not sure what a new investigation would prove.  That the trusses failed in this spot instead of in that spot?  That the core failed on this floor instead of that floor?  That really doesn't change the outcome.
> I understand, from an engineering perspective, he wants to know the EXACT cause.  That is the nature of an engineer.  I know, I am one.  We want the details!
> As far as his questions for NIST, I think they are valid.  But the answers to those questions are not going to point to some "inside job" conspiracy.  They are just going to allow a better understanding of how the damage and the fires destroyed those buildings.
> And if that is your stance?................That you want to know what ACTUALLY happened?  Then I would be wrong to group you with the "truthers".  Because the real "truthers" DO NOT want truth..............they want a conspiracy!!
Click to expand...


You really are very wrong. The majority of people that oppose the OCT, and NIST, and various other agencies that contributed to the  inaccuracy of it, just want a fair playing field, and full disclosure.

It has been shown that the NIST report is a flawed investigation and falls way short of explaining what happened because the data has been manipulated, omitted, or not even considered.
 Even by people that don't think explosives were used, what does that tell you?
That it was a flawed report, that's what.
Quinterre makes good points for both sides, but overall, he is on the side that wants the truth, and a new investigation.
He sides with no one regarding any conspiracy, either the one people like you subscribe to, or an alternative one. But he obviously feels that NIST could have done a better job, as do most people who have looked at their BS, and read what other independent researchers have to say about it.


----------



## Patriot911

So where is your evidence your bullshit fantasies are true, Jones?  Come on.  How long are you going to wait before either showing us all this evidence you've repeatedly claimed to have, or admit you were lying once again.


----------



## Rationalist1016

Mr. Jones said:


> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one ever said he did, he believes there needs to be a re investigation.. because fact finding was deterred and blocked ..that the NIST conclusions are questionable and list very valid reasons why the investigative procedure was terrible flawed and intentionally hampered, for what ever reason
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I am surprised that you used him as a reference, sense he seems to contradict your views.  If I remember correctly, you believe that explosives are the likely cause of the collapse.  And as you just agreed, he does NOT believe that to be the case.  He believes that the damage caused by the planes and the fire is what caused the collapses.  He just thinks that NIST failed to get the exact part that failed first, triggering the collapse.  So, I'm not sure what a new investigation would prove.  That the trusses failed in this spot instead of in that spot?  That the core failed on this floor instead of that floor?  That really doesn't change the outcome.
> I understand, from an engineering perspective, he wants to know the EXACT cause.  That is the nature of an engineer.  I know, I am one.  We want the details!
> As far as his questions for NIST, I think they are valid.  But the answers to those questions are not going to point to some "inside job" conspiracy.  They are just going to allow a better understanding of how the damage and the fires destroyed those buildings.
> And if that is your stance?................That you want to know what ACTUALLY happened?  Then I would be wrong to group you with the "truthers".  Because the real "truthers" DO NOT want truth..............they want a conspiracy!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are very wrong. The majority of people that oppose the OCT, and NIST, and various other agencies that contributed to the  inaccuracy of it, just want a fair playing field, and full disclosure.
> 
> It has been shown that the NIST report is a flawed investigation and falls way short of explaining what happened because the data has been manipulated, omitted, or not even considered.
> Even by people that don't think explosives were used, what does that tell you?
> That it was a flawed report, that's what.
> Quinterre makes good points for both sides, but overall, he is on the side that wants the truth, and a new investigation.
> He sides with no one regarding any conspiracy, either the one people like you subscribe to, or an alternative one. But he obviously feels that NIST could have done a better job, as do most people who have looked at their BS, and read what other independent researchers have to say about it.
Click to expand...


I completely agree.  I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on what I was trying to say.
So, what am I "very wrong" about?


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, you just said that the Towers were designed to support a "static" load.  Once the upper block started to move, it is obviously not static anymore.  Now you are dealing with an accelerating mass.  You can break ANYTHING with enough mass and/or speed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo!
> 
> This is what I am trying to get Mr. Jones to discuss. Based on what was quoted above, Mr. Jones thinks that the more robust lower potion of the building should have resisted or acted differently. I want to figure out why and what reasoning was used to come to this conclusion.
Click to expand...

The official account of the three towers' collapses, even Building 7 which was not hit by a jetliner, centers around the ridiculous notion that somehow the steel frames lost enough of their tensile strength through heat to become like "clay," and that the top floors where the damage was the greatest finally "buckled" and started a chain reaction in which the accumulating weight and momentum of collapsing floors forced the rest of the steel frame down. 

But it can be observed that even clay has a tensile strength and does not squash itself flat at free-fall speed. Moreover the "momentum" from a light body, the upper floors, cannot "plunge" through the upward static resistance of a much heavier body, the massive central core which remained largely undamaged.

In any event, the speed of such an unlikely collapse would have to be considerably slower than free-fall, to account for the resistance of the "clay." Free-fall speed could only be attained by all of the steel in the structure reaching melting point of 2800F, a condition which would require the adding of even more tons of office materials burning with the heat and efficiency of a blast furnace. The only other way for a steel frame to come down at free-fall is for it to be cut into small pieces all at once or in rapid progression, so that the remains of the structure are falling through air. This is precisely what a demolition is. 

The "straw man" often used by defenders of the official story is that skeptics are claiming "fire does not melt steel," which is clearly absurd. Fire melts or makes steel malleable all the time, in a blast furnace. As always with such oversimplifications, the issue is not whether fire can melt steel, but what kind of fire, burning how hot, how long, and over what area. As we have seen, how high the temperatures may or may not have gotten is only one consideration. You can raise the temperature of the steel in a very small area to melting very quickly with the 5000F point flame of a blowtorch. But you are unlikely to take down the towers with that blowtorch. It is total energy delivered which is important.

WTC engineer John Skilling said the perimeter columns alone, which were not the structures' main support (the cores were) could handle an increase in live loads of 2000% before failure. 

So what explains the extreme high temps recorded and the molten metal in the rubble pile? Perhaps something else was used, that DID produce the high temps needed to remove the resistance of the huge structures, as witnessed by the pool of molten(something) exiting one of the towers, and in the mentioned rubble pile.

Perhaps allowing the intellectuals from boyh sides present what they have in an independent forum would produce more accurate results and clear this part of the 9-11 controversy up once and for all.

Simple Calculations Showing the Official 911 Story is Impossible | Ron Paul 2012 | Sound Money, Peace and Liberty


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> Simple Calculations Showing the Official 911 Story is Impossible | Ron Paul 2012 | Sound Money, Peace and Liberty



  OMG THAT WAS HIALRIOUS!!!!!  That is the funniest shit I have EVER READ IN MY LIFE!!!!!

This fucked up retard thinks that every pound of structural steel (all 192,000 tons of it) had to be heated to 1800F!  He then goes on to claim there just wasn't enough fuel to heat up every pound of steel up to that temperature!  No shit Sherlock!    OMG THAT IS FUNNY!!!!!

He then goes on to point out that 1800F is far short of the melting point, but not one official report has EVER stated the metal had to be or was anywhere near the melting point.  

What a fucking joke!

Thanks for the laughs Jones!  Maybe next time you should actually READ what you link so you don't look like such a jackass when you try to pretend the article is relevant.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Rationalist1016 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then I am surprised that you used him as a reference, sense he seems to contradict your views.  If I remember correctly, you believe that explosives are the likely cause of the collapse.  And as you just agreed, he does NOT believe that to be the case.  He believes that the damage caused by the planes and the fire is what caused the collapses.  He just thinks that NIST failed to get the exact part that failed first, triggering the collapse.  So, I'm not sure what a new investigation would prove.  That the trusses failed in this spot instead of in that spot?  That the core failed on this floor instead of that floor?  That really doesn't change the outcome.
> I understand, from an engineering perspective, he wants to know the EXACT cause.  That is the nature of an engineer.  I know, I am one.  We want the details!
> As far as his questions for NIST, I think they are valid.  But the answers to those questions are not going to point to some "inside job" conspiracy.  They are just going to allow a better understanding of how the damage and the fires destroyed those buildings.
> And if that is your stance?................That you want to know what ACTUALLY happened?  Then I would be wrong to group you with the "truthers".  Because the real "truthers" DO NOT want truth..............they want a conspiracy!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are very wrong. The majority of people that oppose the OCT, and NIST, and various other agencies that contributed to the  inaccuracy of it, just want a fair playing field, and full disclosure.
> 
> It has been shown that the NIST report is a flawed investigation and falls way short of explaining what happened because the data has been manipulated, omitted, or not even considered.
> Even by people that don't think explosives were used, what does that tell you?
> That it was a flawed report, that's what.
> Quinterre makes good points for both sides, but overall, he is on the side that wants the truth, and a new investigation.
> He sides with no one regarding any conspiracy, either the one people like you subscribe to, or an alternative one. But he obviously feels that NIST could have done a better job, as do most people who have looked at their BS, and read what other independent researchers have to say about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I completely agree.  I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on what I was trying to say.
> So, what am I "very wrong" about?
Click to expand...


*"Because the real "truthers" DO NOT want truth..............they want a conspiracy!!"*
Do you realize what the "Official conspiracy Theory" has done to this nation? Who in their right mind wants that?
There are so many aspects of it that are so dubious, that it demands a new investigation.
But sometimes I wonder if the lid was blown off this cover up, what the implications would be..Massive chaos, loss of international and domestic credibility..
If the American people want truth they must acknowledge that they have been deceived. If that were to happen, and if they were to accept the facts that have been uncovered by the independent 9-11 research community, their faith in their government would be irreparably destroyed.
( For many it already has) In the long run, it is far easier to maintain ones faith in a deceptive government than to deal with the painful details of that deception.

The defenders of the OCT of 9-11 inevitably ask how so many people could keep a secret. "Wouldn't someone have blown the whistle by now?" is the constant question by the champions of denial. How naive.

At the higher levels of government the issue is no longer about secrecy, but about survival. The extent of the 9-11 crimes are so great that a very real scenario of self preservation has arisen. It may well be that whistle blowers fear the consequences of exposing the truth about 9-11, not to themselves, but to the nation.

It is highly probable that they believe that their testimony would lead to the end of the United States of America as a viable power.
In this worst case scenario, the good people in our government and in our intelligence community may really fear that America would never ever regain its credibility in the world, and would never again be respected or trusted.  They may envision a terrible time when the United States would relinquish its leadership position in the world and sink to the position of a rogue nation that had committed an unforgivable atrocity against its own people for political purposes. If this is so, can anyone blame them for not coming forward to expose what they know?

A deep love of country might easily create a dilemma for those who know the truth. What would happen at that unimaginable moment when a ranking government official was charged with complicity in 9-11? Would the nation recover? Could the nation heal after such a huge betrayal of the trust that has been cultivated and nurtured over our 230 year history as a nation?

But, in fact, they are badly mistaken. The United States of America will not crumble with the revelation of their actions because our foundation is too strong to falter at their hands. History is never without obstacles to progress and this ordeal will not be an exception. On the contrary, if and when the truth is ever known, this nation will be stronger and nobler for that knowledge.

And it is for those reasons that we must continue to pursue the truth.
Bottom line: the real facts are out there, somewhere. The questions being asked are legitimate and raise reasonable suspicions that must be addressed.
Refusing the 9/11 Evidence


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, you just said that the Towers were designed to support a "static" load.  Once the upper block started to move, it is obviously not static anymore.  Now you are dealing with an accelerating mass.  You can break ANYTHING with enough mass and/or speed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo!
> 
> This is what I am trying to get Mr. Jones to discuss. Based on what was quoted above, Mr. Jones thinks that the more robust lower potion of the building should have resisted or acted differently. I want to figure out why and what reasoning was used to come to this conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The official account of the three towers' collapses, even Building 7 which was not hit by a jetliner, centers around the ridiculous notion that somehow the steel frames lost enough of their tensile strength through heat to become like "clay," and that the top floors where the damage was the greatest finally "buckled" and started a chain reaction in which the accumulating weight and momentum of collapsing floors forced the rest of the steel frame down.
> 
> But it can be observed that even clay has a tensile strength and does not squash itself flat at free-fall speed. Moreover the "momentum" from a light body, the upper floors, cannot "plunge" through the upward static resistance of a much heavier body, the massive central core which remained largely undamaged.
Click to expand...


Why do you continue to compare the structures to sold entities in order to make your comparisons? What you are failing to see is that the upper and lower "blocks" are comprised of many individual components brought to together with CONNECTIONS. CONNECTIONS that are not in any way, shape, or form, designed to withstand the downward force of that descending block. That is why I keep asking you the following. 

Were these truss supports circled in red...





...designed to resist the force of this block, circled in red, coming down?





Why can you not understand this? This is why we see perimeter columns peeling away like banana peels from the tower proper. The debris that was the upper block came down and  severed the floor truss connections circled in red. There were huge elevator motors, electrical control panels, etc. in that debris.


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> In any event, the speed of such an unlikely collapse would have to be considerably slower than free-fall, to account for the resistance of the "clay." Free-fall speed could only be attained by all of the steel in the structure reaching melting point of 2800F, a condition which would require the adding of even more tons of office materials burning with the heat and efficiency of a blast furnace. The only other way for a steel frame to come down at free-fall is for it to be cut into small pieces all at once or in rapid progression, so that the remains of the structure are falling through air. This is precisely what a demolition is.



I suggest you ask a structural engineer about this because you clearly do not understand one bit of structural engineering.

Read this.
Structural Material Behavior in Fire: Steel: Hot Rolled Carbon Steel Mechanical Properties

Steel STARTS to lose it's strength at about 572 degrees F (300 C). Here's a problem for you to ask a structural engineer. Go to this site and pick out a 40 foot long steel wide flange.
Structural Steel W Flange Section Properties Moment of Inertia, Steel Beam Size,Cross Section Area -* Engineers Edge

Ask the engineer to figure out how much of a load would need to be applied on top for the wide flange to fail. Now ask him to apply 800 degrees worth of heat to that flange and figure out how much of a load needs to applied to make that wide flange fail.

Let me know if the load remains the same for both cases. This will put your "steel needs to be melted in order to fail" claim to rest. A failed column is failed whether it is cut or over-stressed. Both will provide no support and result in the free fall of it's supported load.

I mean, what your basically saying is that no matter what load I put on a steel column, it will ALWAYS provide some resistance. The only way to do away with any resistance is to cut it or melt it.

Pure craziness.

I guess, based on your thinking, if I dropped a 1,000,000 pound weight on the top of vertical W10x60, that weight would not fall at free fall to the ground.


----------



## Rationalist1016

> *"Because the real "truthers" DO NOT want truth..............they want a conspiracy!!"
> Do you realize what the "Official conspiracy Theory" has done to this nation? Who in their right mind wants that?
> There are so many aspects of it that are so dubious, that it demands a new investigation.
> But sometimes I wonder if the lid was blown off this cover up, what the implications would be..Massive chaos, loss of international and domestic credibility..
> If the American people want truth they must acknowledge that they have been deceived. If that were to happen, and if they were to accept the facts that have been uncovered by the independent 9-11 research community, their faith in their government would be irreparably destroyed.
> ( For many it already has) In the long run, it is far easier to maintain one&#8217;s faith in a deceptive government than to deal with the painful details of that deception.
> 
> The defenders of the OCT of 9-11 inevitably ask how so many people could keep a secret. "Wouldn't someone have blown the whistle by now?" is the constant question by the champions of denial. How naive.
> 
> At the higher levels of government the issue is no longer about secrecy, but about survival. The extent of the 9-11 crimes are so great that a very real scenario of self preservation has arisen. It may well be that whistle blowers fear the consequences of exposing the truth about 9-11, not to themselves, but to the nation.
> 
> It is highly probable that they believe that their testimony would lead to the end of the United States of America as a viable power.
> In this worst case scenario, the good people in our government and in our intelligence community may really fear that America would never ever regain its credibility in the world, and would never again be respected or trusted.  They may envision a terrible time when the United States would relinquish its leadership position in the world and sink to the position of a rogue nation that had committed an unforgivable atrocity against its own people for political purposes. If this is so, can anyone blame them for not coming forward to expose what they know?
> 
> A deep love of country might easily create a dilemma for those who know the truth. What would happen at that unimaginable moment when a ranking government official was charged with complicity in 9-11? Would the nation recover? Could the nation heal after such a huge betrayal of the trust that has been cultivated and nurtured over our 230 year history as a nation?
> 
> But, in fact, they are badly mistaken. The United States of America will not crumble with the revelation of their actions because our foundation is too strong to falter at their hands. History is never without obstacles to progress and this ordeal will not be an exception. On the contrary, if and when the truth is ever known, this nation will be stronger and nobler for that knowledge.
> 
> And it is for those reasons that we must continue to pursue the truth.
> Bottom line: the real facts are out there, somewhere. The questions being asked are legitimate and raise reasonable suspicions that must be addressed.
> Refusing the 9/11 Evidence*


[/QUOTE]

The "lid" is never going to be "blown off this cover-up"!!  There just isn't evidence to support that.  No matter how much you believe it, want it, & know it in your heart, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference unless you can PROVE IT!  It's been almost a decade.  Plenty of time to put a real case together against the government.  Yet, there hasn't been one.  And for good reason, there aren't any hard facts to prove your case.  I agree there are some questions that we don't know the answers to.  Do you think the answers to those questions are going to abolish the evidence that is already known?  Yes, NIST may have screwed up.  But correcting a few of their calculations isn't going to change the out come.  The call for a re-investigation is nothing but a ploy to keep this fading "truth movement" alive.  No investigation will ever satisfy the "truth movement".


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> Do you realize what the "Official conspiracy Theory" has done to this nation? Who in their right mind wants that?


Retarded statement based on a biased and flawed premise.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> There are so many aspects of it that are so dubious, that it demands a new investigation.


When one refuses to look at the facts and instead pushes bullshit fantasies that are directly refuted by the facts, a new investigation is NOT going to clear anything up.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> But sometimes I wonder if the lid was blown off this cover up, what the implications would be..Massive chaos, loss of international and domestic credibility..


People rising up against the government.... something you claimed truthtards like you weren't after, yet you clearly admit to the massive repercussions of people actually BELIEVING your bullshit.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> If the American people want truth they must acknowledge that they have been deceived.


Another bullshit premise based on the flawed assumption that they HAD to have been lied to.  Again, something that is only true when someone drinks the truthtard koolaid.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> If that were to happen, and if they were to accept the facts that have been uncovered by the independent 9-11 research community, their faith in their government would be irreparably destroyed.


Which is what truthtards push for.  They are out to destroy the government and by proxy the United States by pushing a bunch of lies.  Fortunately their bullshit fantasies are so whacked out, very few rational people believe the TBM.  The fact they have zero evidence to back up their bullshit fantasies also doesn't do the TBM any favors.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> ( For many it already has) In the long run, it is far easier to maintain ones faith in a deceptive government than to deal with the painful details of that deception.


Another bullshit platitude from the truthtards to excuse their actions and to villify anyone who doesn't believe their bullshit.  What is it based on?  Absolutely nothing but a made up claim.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> The defenders of the OCT of 9-11 inevitably ask how so many people could keep a secret. "Wouldn't someone have blown the whistle by now?" is the constant question by the champions of denial. How naive.


Yet also a question you truthtards cannot answer.  You claim the thousands of people who worked on the NIST reports were in on it and covered up the truth to protect their jobs and keep their bosses happy... while covering up the murders of 3000 people and committing numerous felonies in the process.    That is just ONE example of the truthtard claims that make absolutely no sense.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> At the higher levels of government the issue is no longer about secrecy, but about survival. The extent of the 9-11 crimes are so great that a very real scenario of self preservation has arisen. It may well be that whistle blowers fear the consequences of exposing the truth about 9-11, not to themselves, but to the nation.


Bullshit.  Whistleblowers come forward all the time and for far less.  This is just another pathetic excuse the truthtards use to try and pretend the fact not one person out of thousands has come forward has a reasonable explanation.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> It is highly probable that they believe that their testimony would lead to the end of the United States of America as a viable power.


So, people like you trying to promote the overthrow of the government are somehow unique?  Bullshit.  You're talking about EVERYONE in on the conspiracy which, by your own definition would include thousands of people, thinks the exact same way and none of them would take that risk.  Riiiiiight.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> In this worst case scenario, the good people in our government and in our intelligence community may really fear that America would never ever regain its credibility in the world, and would never again be respected or trusted.


Wrong.  The worst case scenario is the government is overthrown.  You think the worst that could happen is we lose credibility?!?!?  What planet do you live on?



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> They may envision a terrible time when the United States would relinquish its leadership position in the world and sink to the position of a rogue nation that had committed an unforgivable atrocity against its own people for political purposes.


They wouldn't be around.  Yes, the US would probably sink into anarchy for a while and lose its number one position, but it also wouldn't have the same government.  You seem to think everyone is willing to forgive and forget.  That is hysterical considering you neither forgive nor forget even when it is generations down the line that you lay the blame.  You think the fact a plan like Northwoods was dreamed up but never executed is proof the current government drew up 9/11 and executed it.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> If this is so, can anyone blame them for not coming forward to expose what they know?


Yes.  The truth is the truth and people shouldn't be allowed to get away with shit like that regardless of the consequences.  I can't be the only one who thinks that way.  You're asking us all to believe EVERY SINGLE PERSON in on the conspiracy thinks the exact opposite and will continue to do so forever.  Talk about your fantasies!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> A deep love of country might easily create a dilemma for those who know the truth.


Or a deep love of country would be the driving force to make them expose the government corrupting this great country.  Don't confuse love of country for love of government.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> What would happen at that unimaginable moment when a ranking government official was charged with complicity in 9-11? Would the nation recover? Could the nation heal after such a huge betrayal of the trust that has been cultivated and nurtured over our 230 year history as a nation?


Yet you insist on pushing this scenaro even though you have zero evidence to back up your bullshit fantasies, and then scoff when someone like myself points out how irresposible you are being.  Funny how when it suits your purpose you can see it from my angle.... 



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> But, in fact, they are badly mistaken. The United States of America will not crumble with the revelation of their actions because our foundation is too strong to falter at their hands.


And you base this on what..... your gut feeling?  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> History is never without obstacles to progress and this ordeal will not be an exception. On the contrary, if and when the truth is ever known, this nation will be stronger and nobler for that knowledge.


Again one has to ASSume you are right in the first place.  That is a huge ASSumption to make, especially considering you have zero evidence to back up your bullshit claims.  Don't you find it odd that you would ask so much of people based on nothing but your opinion?



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> And it is for those reasons that we must continue to pursue the truth.


You don't know DICK about pursuing the truth.  In fact, you rape it on a daily basis. 



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Bottom line: the real facts are out there, somewhere. The questions being asked are legitimate and raise reasonable suspicions that must be addressed.


Wrong yet again.  Your "reasonable suspicions" are nothing but the paranoid delusions of very sick minds.  The questions have been asked AND ANSWERED.  The fact you refuse to acknowledge the evidence presented and continue to push bullshit fantasies you have no evidence for precludes you from consideration as someone actually pursuing the truth.


----------



## Patriot911

So once again I am calling Jones out to present the evidence he has repeatedly claimed he has that "prove" his bullshit fantasies are true.  Either present an example of this real evidence or admit to everyone you lied your ass off and apologize.


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> WTC engineer John Skilling said the perimeter columns alone, which were not the structures' main support (the cores were) could handle an increase in live loads of 2000% before failure.



Mr. Jones. Please elaborate.

What does this actually mean in your opinion? What was the purpose of the perimeter columns? What were they designed to resist?


----------



## Triton

This thread is ridiculous.


----------



## candycorn

Rationalist1016 said:


> *"Because the real "truthers" DO NOT want truth..............they want a conspiracy!!"
> Do you realize what the "Official conspiracy Theory" has done to this nation? Who in their right mind wants that?
> There are so many aspects of it that are so dubious, that it demands a new investigation.
> But sometimes I wonder if the lid was blown off this cover up, what the implications would be..Massive chaos, loss of international and domestic credibility..
> If the American people want truth they must acknowledge that they have been deceived. If that were to happen, and if they were to accept the facts that have been uncovered by the independent 9-11 research community, their faith in their government would be irreparably destroyed.
> ( For many it already has) In the long run, it is far easier to maintain ones faith in a deceptive government than to deal with the painful details of that deception.
> 
> The defenders of the OCT of 9-11 inevitably ask how so many people could keep a secret. "Wouldn't someone have blown the whistle by now?" is the constant question by the champions of denial. How naive.
> 
> At the higher levels of government the issue is no longer about secrecy, but about survival. The extent of the 9-11 crimes are so great that a very real scenario of self preservation has arisen. It may well be that whistle blowers fear the consequences of exposing the truth about 9-11, not to themselves, but to the nation.
> 
> It is highly probable that they believe that their testimony would lead to the end of the United States of America as a viable power.
> In this worst case scenario, the good people in our government and in our intelligence community may really fear that America would never ever regain its credibility in the world, and would never again be respected or trusted.  They may envision a terrible time when the United States would relinquish its leadership position in the world and sink to the position of a rogue nation that had committed an unforgivable atrocity against its own people for political purposes. If this is so, can anyone blame them for not coming forward to expose what they know?
> 
> A deep love of country might easily create a dilemma for those who know the truth. What would happen at that unimaginable moment when a ranking government official was charged with complicity in 9-11? Would the nation recover? Could the nation heal after such a huge betrayal of the trust that has been cultivated and nurtured over our 230 year history as a nation?
> 
> But, in fact, they are badly mistaken. The United States of America will not crumble with the revelation of their actions because our foundation is too strong to falter at their hands. History is never without obstacles to progress and this ordeal will not be an exception. On the contrary, if and when the truth is ever known, this nation will be stronger and nobler for that knowledge.
> 
> And it is for those reasons that we must continue to pursue the truth.
> Bottom line: the real facts are out there, somewhere. The questions being asked are legitimate and raise reasonable suspicions that must be addressed.
> Refusing the 9/11 Evidence*
Click to expand...





Rationalist1016 said:


> The "lid" is never going to be "blown off this cover-up"!!  There just isn't evidence to support that.  No matter how much you believe it, want it, & know it in your heart, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference unless you can PROVE IT!  It's been almost a decade.  Plenty of time to put a real case together against the government.  Yet, there hasn't been one.  And for good reason, there aren't any hard facts to prove your case.  I agree there are some questions that we don't know the answers to.  Do you think the answers to those questions are going to abolish the evidence that is already known?  Yes, NIST may have screwed up.  But correcting a few of their calculations isn't going to change the out come.  The call for a re-investigation is nothing but a ploy to keep this fading "truth movement" alive.  No investigation will ever satisfy the "truth movement".



Right, right, and right.

You know....the REAL tragedy of the twoof movement is that it could have been so beneficial.  I don't think any of us would argue that the system got fixed.  While we're strip searching little old ladies and doing aggressive pat-downs of toddlers....absolutely no screening takes place of private planes or those who charter them.  Check out a recent article by Andrew Goldman in the Atlantic.  Very little air freight gets screened.  

The twoof movement could have been useful in solving the neglected problems of real airline security.  The twoof movement, instead got fixated on blaming everybody and everything other than the actual perpetrators and, in the process, made themselves look silly, stupid, and somewhat distrurbed.  Case in point, would you let EOTS weed your flowerbed--do you want someone like him knowing where you live?  

Anyway, Al Queda's days of hijacking aircraft is over for the time being.  They move on to the next area of vulnerability because they take a long time in planning and discovered plots yield intel.  It will be a McVeigh type that hits us using airlines next time (and there will be a next time because we have collectively rolled over and hit the snooze button).  

Again, when it happens next time, these losers will blame the FBI, CIA, NSA, and everybody other than the actual perpetrators.

How sad.


----------



## Mr. Jones

QUOTE]





Gamolon said:


> Why do you continue to compare the structures to sold entities in order to make your comparisons? What you are failing to see is that the upper and lower "blocks" are comprised of many individual components brought to together with CONNECTIONS. CONNECTIONS that are not in any way, shape, or form, designed to withstand the downward force of that descending block.


Did you just refer to BLOCKS?? Solid entities? Why do you?
Of course the towers were not 2 solid blocks! They were constructed with attached components! But it is a fact the components lower in the building were made with stronger, thicker columns, and beams  designed to support much more loads then the top half of the towers.
Are you adding extra downward force, on the lower, by NOT taking into account all that fell to the sides and onto the streets??
Why are you leaving out the fact that there were truss supports all around the core, as well as the perimeter,...on every single floor.
You are going to sit here and say that every single one of those welded, and bolted supports would just give way, to allow a mear 10 seconds for 110 ten storys to collapse??
You aren't using your head man.

The towers had a strong core structure and perimeter columns all around the outside. The 47 core columns held up approximately 60% of the vertical load, and the 244 perimeter columns distributed the remaining 40% across the four walls, 10% per wall.



> That is why I keep asking you the following.
> 
> Were these truss supports circled in red...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...designed to resist the force of this block, circled in red, coming down?


 Who is implying that the top was BLOCK?? 
The part you reference, is made up of less thicker and less hardy, robust materials, that is a FACT.

It had to overcome the lower portion of the heavier, denser more stronger part, and since they weren't 2 separate "blocks" like you keep telling me to not think of, but it is somehow OK for you to,
The power part out weighed the top in strength, and size.
Even taking the kinetic force, of what, 12 ft? 
IT SHOULD NOT HAVE COLLAPSED IN 10 FUCKING SECONDS.


Actual floor plans were withheld from the public for more than five years, and finally leaked by a whistleblower.
Actual construction photos make the real structure clear. Notice the extensive horizontal and diagonal cross bracing, particularly on the corner columns of the core.






The columns in the core had a separate set of heavier side braces for the floors. What happened to them?
What are the fuel loads for these particular floor truss connections?
Your failed truss theory doesn't hold up very well after further scrutiny.
The floor plans exposed the misrepresentation by FEMA and NIST of the true structure, which helped them support their theory of how a gravity-driven collapse occurred.

In order for each floor to hold up all the floors above it, the columns in lower floors must be *much stronger and heavier than those above. * In fact, the core columns on the bottom were 10 times more massive compared to those near the top.
 You don't seem to grasp, OR want to admit is that the lower part of these massive towers were more robust, and stronger, as Skilling has been quoted as saying. 

So the rectangular shaped towers were actually built more like pyramids internally.
The towers were designed, by standard building practice, such that the columns at each floor could resist the weight of 3-5 times all the floors above it. The safety factor.
This means each tower could have had 3-5 times as many floors before being on the verge of collapsing under its own weight.
This would surly lead to an arrest of the collapse, halt its momentum, at least to the point that it would take much longer then 10secs!
And don't forget that some mechanical floors had additional structural steel to support heavy machinery. 

The Engineering News-Record declared that live loads on these  columns can be increased more than 2,000 percent before failure occurs. -Skilling
So why the extremely quick collapses?

What YOU don't seem to understand is that in order for the towers and building 7 to collapse, to produce at or near free fall speeds as NIST has suggested for WTC 1-2, and forced to admit in WTC7,
 The resistance has to be removed by something, and the article I linked simply states that fire temps inside that building have been shown to NOT be enough to do that.
Not enough to simultaneously remove all the resistance, to allow such fast collapse times. No where close to producing this--






This does not look like, or describe what you are trying to say it is.
This is an expulsion of debris, in an explosive manner...
Not your failed truss, floor by floor fantasy.
Also....notice how much of the actual core is standing? 
Can the use of any type of explosive/incendiary be ruled out, happening somewhere in there?? If you say yes, how can you be sure when the NIST didn't even bother to check??
Could you distinguish any explosions from floors hitting each other in all that shit?
That should have been the first thing they looked for, especially given the complexes history.



> Why can you not understand this? This is why we see perimeter columns peeling away like banana peels from the tower proper. The debris that was the upper block came down and  severed the floor truss connections circled in red. There were huge elevator motors, electrical control panels, etc. in that debris.


You yourself are using the words"blocks" 
The top part of the buildings were made of LIGHTER materials!!!.
The top would have had to have met more resistance then a mere 10 secs. for the entire collapse!!
The lower part of the towers were more ROBUST, were BUILT WITH SAFETY FACTORS, the falling top part would have been met with a resisting force, that should have momentarily DELAYED, EACH FLOOR.
You don't stop to think that the floors huge motors, panels that you mentioned, were supported by EXTRA heavier load bearing materials, and were taken into account?
Have you not read this about the WTC, or do you think  the tops of towers like the WTC are built to the same standards as the lower, and no consideration is taken for extra loads on mechanical floors?

"I don't disagree that the floors must have collapsed at some point," said Matthys Levy, a founding partner at Weidlinger Associates, who has written a new chapter on the core-collapse theory for his 1992 book, "Why Buildings Fall Down," and plans to release a new edition in January. *"I don't think that's enough to cause the buildings to go down."*

Both of the government-sponsored engineering studies of the Twin Towers' "collapses" -- FEMA's and NIST's -- are highly misleading about the core structures. Neither FEMA's Study nor NIST's Report discloses dimensions for core columns -- dimensions that are clearly evident in the architectural drawings. Both Reports use a variety of techniques seemingly designed to minimize the strength of the cores or to conceal their structural role entirely. 
So effective was FEMA at concealing the nature of the cores that the 9/11 Commission Report , citing the FEMA Report, denied the very existence of the core columns. 
9-11 Research: Tower Blueprints

I suggest you look over the videos that are available on the WTC construction, and look again at the NIST and FEMA articles written on the collapses, and notice how they minimize just how truly massive these things were, then ask yourself, how all the tons of steel and material could collapse in 10 secs.
Quit believing everything they say about it, as there is much proof presented that they are wrong.


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you continue to compare the structures to sold entities in order to make your comparisons? What you are failing to see is that the upper and lower "blocks" are comprised of many individual components brought to together with CONNECTIONS. CONNECTIONS that are not in any way, shape, or form, designed to withstand the downward force of that descending block.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you just refer to BLOCKS?? Solid entities? Why do you?
Click to expand...


Probably because you continue to worship the dumbass known as Richard Gage who demonstrated why it had to be a controlled demoltion by using two cardboard boxes.... solid entities.

So, Jones.... where's the evidence you keep promising us you have?  Ready to admit you're a lowlife liar yet?    I'm not going to stop.


----------



## Trojan

One thing that always bugs me, this claim that the blue prints for the WTC towers do not exist, or are somehow hard to find.

The WTC towers were the subject of asbestos litigation for well over a decade before 9/11 - i've seen them myself.  They have been produced or otherwise made available to mutiple parties for many years.


----------



## Patriot911

Trojan said:


> One thing that always bugs me, this claim that the blue prints for the WTC towers do not exist, or are somehow hard to find.
> 
> The WTC towers were the subject of asbestos litigation for well over a decade before 9/11 - i've seen them myself.  They have been produced or otherwise made available to mutiple parties for many years.



Not that hard to find.  North tower blueprints.

Blueprints are rarely given to people without a legitimate need to have the blueprints because they can be used for illegal purposes.  Imagine what the terrorists in 92 could have done if they had the blueprints and understood where to park the van for the most damage.


----------



## Mr. Jones

> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "lid" is never going to be "blown off this cover-up"!!  There just isn't evidence to support that.  No matter how much you believe it, want it, & know it in your heart, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference unless you can PROVE IT!
> 
> 
> 
> Could you please make yourself clear as to what do you mean by proof?
> As far as providing proof that the NIST reports are flawed, there are many independent researchers who have pointed out many discrepancies, and this should already be well known to someone who has seriously looked into the 9-11 debate. It really is silly to even ask. But I have provided just a small amount at the end of this post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's been almost a decade.  Plenty of time to put a real case together against the government.  Yet, there hasn't been one.  And for good reason, there aren't any hard facts to prove your case.  I agree there are some questions that we don't know the answers to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are acting naive about the vast power that the government has over the researchers who have contrary theories to it, and its own citizens. Do you not understand this is not some 2 bit small claims case, and the very people who likely would be defendants have a shitload of sway over the process?
> Do you have any idea of the  struggle this uphill battle poses, even for members who try to get a bill passed for a new investigation?
> Are you even aware of any litigation about 9-11?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think the answers to those questions are going to abolish the evidence that is already known?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would turn the OCT on its head, and shake the nation if ever allowed to happen.
> I and many others are hopeful that if a new independent investigation with subpoena power ever comes to fruition, that the vast amount of new information that has been accumulated, and along with the many witnesses that were ignored, would indeed show that a rouge element of our government allowed, and or facilitated the 9-11 attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, NIST may have screwed up.  But correcting a few of their calculations isn't going to change the out come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are only spouting off you opinion, and have no legitimate substance to even conclude this would be close to the truth. You probably don't even know what the main argument points about the 9-11 attacks are. If you do, would you show us what you think they are please?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The call for a re-investigation is nothing but a ploy to keep this fading "truth movement" alive.  No investigation will ever satisfy the "truth movement".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Terribly naive and bordering on stupid. So you think that the truth movement wanting a new look at evidence is only a ploy??  On the contrary, there are many patriots who love what the counry is supposed to stand for and mean to them, whereas many people like yourself have lost all meaning about what America is supposed to stand for, if you ever did at all.
> Tell us who stood to gain more from the 9-11 attacks, the MIC, the government and defense industries, the energy companies, or the movement that would not even exist if there had been actual transparency and honesty in our government, starting with honest elections?
> 
> It's astounding how some of you readily admit that NIST may have "screwed up" but you just prefer to sit on your hands, and do nothing, while the nation pays for the consequences, with blood and treasure, and IOUs.
> 
> And for the record, There is convincing and compelling witness testimony. There are many credible witnesses and their testimony is convincing because it seems to match. This is called having a case. This has moved beyond theory into the realm of testimony, and demonstrative evidential proof. The problem is it would be a matter for the federal courts.
> Federal judges are appointed and none of them will hear it. Many have tried bringing  claims to court. This is the stumbling road block.
> 
> The government decides what is to be a conspiracy theory and what lies you are supposed to believe as the truth. People like you allow this to happen by acquiescing to everything they tell you, even though you know it to be harmful to you, your families and children, and the nation as a whole.
> They know people tend to avoid being called a conspiracy theorist because it's socially punished, and are cowards. The government knows exactly how to manage his herd, and has done a good job at it on most brain dead people.
> 
> But alas, if you would like to read about what others have to say that counters the OCT and proves that there is vast evidence to oppose it here you go.
> 
> 
> 
> Journal of 9/11 Studies...
> 
> Propping Up the War on Terror
> 9-11 Review...
> 
>  Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust
> Jim Hoffman
>  Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
> Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, and others
>  Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials
> By Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, & Steven E. Jones
>  Mysteries of the Twin Towers
> R. Herbst
>  The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis
> By Prof. Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti
>  Scientists, Scholars, Architects & Engineers respond to NIST
> By 16 scientists, scholars, architects, and engineers
>  Public comments on the NIST WTC 7 draft report. Submitted to NIST 09/11/08.
> Jonathan Cole P.E.
>  WTC 7: A Short Computation
> Prof. Kenneth L. Kuttler
>  Journal of Engineering Mechanics:
> Discussion of "Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: A Simple Analysis" by K.A. Seffen
> Dr. Crockett Grabbe
>  Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Stories of WTC 1
> Gordon Ross Journal of 9/11 Studies
>  Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and Widespread Impact Damage
> Dr. Crockett Grabbe
>  Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories
> Kevin Ryan - U.L. whistleblower - former Site Manager
>  Physical Chemistry of Thermite, Thermate, Iron-Alum-Rich Microspheres at Demise of WTC 1 & 2
> Jerry Lobdill 6/15/2007
>  The Destruction of WTC 7
> Vesa Raiskila
>  The NIST WTC Investigation -- How Real Was The Simulation?
> Eric Douglas, Architect
>  Revisiting 9/11/2001 -- Applying the Scientific Method
> Prof. Steven E. Jones, Ph.D., Physics
>  DR. BAZANT - NIST's 911 FALL GUY
> by Gordon Ross, ME [1], June 4, 2007*
>  Open Letter to Purdue President France Córdova
> Kevin Ryan, B.S. Chem.
>  Jones vs. Robertson: A Physicist and a Structural Engineer Debate the Controlled Demolition of the World Trade Center
> Gregg Roberts, Associate Editor, 911Research.com
>  Another Structural Engineer Questions WTC Collapses
> William Rice, P.E.
>  Can Physics Rewrite History?
> Chuck Thurston
>  Reply to Protec's "A critical analysis of the collapse of WTC towers 1, 2 & 7 from an explosives and conventional demolition industry viewpoint"
> Jim Hoffman
>  NIST's World Trade Center FAQ: A Reply to the National Institute for Standards and Technology's Answers to Frequently Asked Questions
> Jim Hoffman
>  Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century
> Jim Hoffman
>  The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
> David Ray Griffin
>  Another reason the 9/11 fire-mediated collapse theory is wrong
> Joseph Smith
>  Popular Mechanics' Assault on 9/11 Truth
> Jim Hoffman
>  Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?
> Dr. Steven E. Jones
>  Proof That The Thermal and Gravitational Energy Available Were Insufficient to Melt Steel in the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center on 9/11/01
> Terry Morrone
>  Report on Weidlinger Simulation
> Leaked WTC Blueprints contain 3D simulations from the Weidlinger report that contradict the NIST repoort of the Twin Tower's destruction
>  Engineering News Record: The World Trade Center
>  Bad Science: Keith Seffen And The WTC 'Collapse'
> Winter Patriot blog 9/14/07
>  UK Engineer: WTC 'Collapses' Were 'A Very Ordinary Thing'
> Winter Patriot blog 9/11/07
>  Explosions or Collapse? The Semantics of Deception and the Significance of Categories
> C. Thurston
>  My Response to Ryan Mackey and the Self-Crushing Building Theory, "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking"
> by Chuck Thurston
>  NIST Data Disproves Collapse Theories Based on Fire
> Frank Legge (Ph D) Logical Systems Consulting Perth, Western Australia. flegge@iinet.net.au
>  High Velocity Bursts of Debris from Point-Like Sources in the WTC Towers
> Kevin Ryan
>  Response to NIST on Control Demolition Investigation Failure
> Crockett Grabbe © January 13, 2008 University of Iowa & SeaLane Consulting
>  Response to NIST on Energy and Momentum
> Crockett Grabbe © January 18, 2008 University of Iowa & SeaLane Consulting
>  Collapse of the South Tower of the World Trade Center
> Crockett Grabbe © December 23, 2007 University of Iowa & SeaLane Consulting
>  Science in the Bush: When Politics Displaces Physics
> By Dr. Crockett Grabbe and Lenny Charles 9/08/07
>  9/11 and the Twin Towers: Sudden Collapse Initiation Was Impossible
> Dec 23, 2007
> by Frank Legge, PhD & Tony Szamboti, Mechanical Engineer
>  Dr Seffen Paper Proven Ludicrous
> by Mick Meany
> Feb, 2008
>  Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction
> Steven E. Jones, Jeffrey Farrer, Gregory S. Jenkins, Frank Legge, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan, Danial Farnsworth, and Crockett Grabbe
> January 2007
>  Engineer Sees Evidence of Extreme Temperatures in WTC Steel
> Submitted by Shoestring on Mon, 02/25/2008
>  The Sustainability of the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis for the Destruction of the Twin Towers
> Tony Szamboti, ME --- May, 2007
>  WTC 1 - The Case for Collapse Arrest
> Anders Bjorkman - Apr 19, 2008
>  The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites
> Kevin R. Ryan, 7-02-08
>  Response to Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: A Simple Analysis by K.A. Seffen
> Crockett Grabbe
>  How the Towers were Demolished
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash - According To ATC/Radar
> 04/28/09 (PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Recently it has been brought to our attention that Air Traffic Control (ATC) transcripts reveal United 93 as being airborne after it's alleged crash. Similar scenarios have been offered with regard to American 77 and American 11 showing an aircraft target continuing past its alleged crash point in the case of American 11, or past the turn-around point in the case of American 77. However, both these issues can be easily explained by "Coast Mode" radar tracking. This is not the case with United 93.
> Full Article Here
> -By Gordon Ross
> AE911Truth.org...
> 
> Eight U.S. State Department Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11
> by Alan Miller
> Official Account of 9/11: Flawed, Absurd, Totally Inadequate, a Cover-up
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> January 5, 2008  Eight U.S. State Department veterans have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation. There is no question in my mind, that there is enough evidence to justify a very comprehensive and hard hitting investigation of the kind we have not seen, with subpoenas, general questioning of people, releasing a lot of documents, said Daniel Ellsberg, PhD, in a 2006 interview with Jack Blood. Full Article
> National Academy of Sciences Member Calls for New 9/11 Investigation
> 
> August 27, 2007  World renowned scientist, Lynn Margulis, Ph.D., today severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation, I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken. Full Article
> Could Barbara Olson Have Made Those Calls?
> An Analysis of New Evidence about Onboard Phones
> Pilots For 9/11 Truth...
> 
> F.B.I. Counsel: No Records Available Revealing ID Process Of Recovered 9/11 Plane Wreckage
> 911Blogger.com | Paying Attention to 9/11 Related News...
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> The Lack of Foundation Damage at the Pentagon is Irreconcilable with the Official Reports and Data
> pilotsfor911truth.org...
> 
> Conflicting Data, Hardcore Questions and the Media Blackout
> pilotsfor911truth.org...
> Planes Of September
> By Shelton F. Lankord, Core Member, Pilots For 9/11 Truth
> 
> Lies, Conflicting Reports, Cover-Up's
> pilotsfor911truth.org...
> 
> 9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
> That is only a part of what can be found, and I am not going to sit here half the night and post this when all of you who are seriously curious can look plenty up yourself, as well as do your own research about the legaleeze involved.
> As you can see there is a mountain of creditable evidence that the Government and its agencies are being obtuse, disingenuous or out right fucking lying.
> There is a mountain of scientific creditable proof that NIST deliberately went out their way to deceive us by presenting unscientific findings that does not stand up to true science.
> Members of the 911 commission have came out and said: The story we told you, is not what was told to us.
> pilotsfor911truth.org...
> 
> 9/11 Commission: The official cover up guide
> The Kean Commission came to New York the second week of May for a two-day set of hearings at The New School University. As hundreds of Sept. 11th family members, reporters and curious New Yorkers lined up for airport-style security checks, they received copies of a new 24-page booklet published by NY 9/11 Truth, with help from 911Truth.org.
> "Scamming America: The Official 9/11 Cover-up" is named after a quote by former Sen. Max Cleland, who resigned from the commission last November with the words, "Bush is scamming America."
> Cleland attacked his own commission after the other members cut a deal to accept highly limited access to CIA reports to the White House that may indicate advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the Bush administration. "This is a scam," Cleland said. "It's disgusting. America is being cheated."
> 
> "As each day goes by," Cleland said, "we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before September 11 than it has ever admitted.... Let's chase this rabbit into the ground. They had a plan to go to war and when 9/11 happened that's what they did; they went to war."
> The 911 OS is a proven lie, and this is just some of the indisputable creditable and scientific facts that prove the OS is a lie.
> 
> If you own the courthouses, no amount of proof will be able to prosecute people with that amount of power and who are politically untouchable, for now. This is what tyranny is all about, it is deliberately stifleling  anything anyone has to say about 9-11, that contradicts their criminal agenda.
> Do you think that because the criminals say what is proof and what isn't, there is no proof?? The defendants are in charge of what is considered evidence??
Click to expand...


----------



## Mr. Jones

Trojan said:


> One thing that always bugs me, this claim that the blue prints for the WTC towers do not exist, or are somehow hard to find.
> 
> The WTC towers were the subject of asbestos litigation for well over a decade before 9/11 - i've seen them myself.  They have been produced or otherwise made available to mutiple parties for many years.



The blueprints to the Twin Towers and Building 7 remained off-limits to the public *for more than five years after the attack*, despite the fact that the buildings were built with public money and that the engineering drawings of public buildings are supposed to be public information. 
Released in  March of 2007.

Official Reports Misrepresented the Towers' Construction
9-11 Research: Tower Blueprints


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> In any event, the speed of such an unlikely collapse would have to be considerably slower than free-fall, to account for the resistance of the "clay." Free-fall speed could only be attained by all of the steel in the structure reaching melting point of 2800F, a condition which would require the adding of even more tons of office materials burning with the heat and efficiency of a blast furnace. The only other way for a steel frame to come down at free-fall is for it to be cut into small pieces all at once or in rapid progression, so that the remains of the structure are falling through air. This is precisely what a demolition is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you ask a structural engineer about this because you clearly do not understand one bit of structural engineering.
> 
> Read this.
> Structural Material Behavior in Fire: Steel: Hot Rolled Carbon Steel Mechanical Properties
> 
> Steel STARTS to lose it's strength at about 572 degrees F (300 C). Here's a problem for you to ask a structural engineer. Go to this site and pick out a 40 foot long steel wide flange.
> Structural Steel W Flange Section Properties Moment of Inertia, Steel Beam Size,Cross Section Area -* Engineers Edge
> 
> Ask the engineer to figure out how much of a load would need to be applied on top for the wide flange to fail. Now ask him to apply 800 degrees worth of heat to that flange and figure out how much of a load needs to applied to make that wide flange fail.
> 
> Let me know if the load remains the same for both cases. This will put your "steel needs to be melted in order to fail" claim to rest. A failed column is failed whether it is cut or over-stressed. Both will provide no support and result in the free fall of it's supported load.
> 
> I mean, what your basically saying is that no matter what load I put on a steel column, it will ALWAYS provide some resistance. The only way to do away with any resistance is to cut it or melt it.
> 
> Pure craziness.
> 
> I guess, based on your thinking, if I dropped a 1,000,000 pound weight on the top of vertical W10x60, that weight would not fall at free fall to the ground.
Click to expand...


You still don't understand that the problem is the removal of resistance that is needed to achieve the very fast "essentially at free fall speeds" that NIST even admitted to. The article is being sarcastic and making a point that to do this fast collapse all the steel supporting would have to be melted, at the same time. 
NIST leaves a lot out, in the hopes no one would notice the anomalies and BS that other researchers have found.
The failing of a column depends on many variables, among them at the WTC is the heat, the length of time it is heated, and where it is heated, and obviously intelligent researchers have calculated and concluded something other then gravity helped the collapses along in order to have it collapse in such short times, not only once, but 3 times in history, and one building didn't even need to be hit by a plane 

It isn't as simple as calculating what the top stories weigh and doing the calculations with gravity, and the estimated distance of the fall to the lower part. You leave out thinking about the other things I mentioned before.


----------



## eots

Rationalist1016 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The man does not believe there were any explosives. Read his papers, not just what Alex Jones tells you to read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one ever said he did, he believes there needs to be a re investigation.. because fact finding was deterred and blocked ..that the NIST conclusions are questionable and list very valid reasons why the investigative procedure was terrible flawed and intentionally hampered, for what ever reason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I am surprised that you used him as a reference, sense he seems to contradict your views.  If I remember correctly, you believe that explosives are the likely cause of the collapse.  And as you just agreed, he does NOT believe that to be the case.  He believes that the damage caused by the planes and the fire is what caused the collapses.  He just thinks that NIST failed to get the exact part that failed first, triggering the collapse.  So, I'm not sure what a new investigation would prove.  That the trusses failed in this spot instead of in that spot?  That the core failed on this floor instead of that floor?  That really doesn't change the outcome.
> I understand, from an engineering perspective, he wants to know the EXACT cause.  That is the nature of an engineer.  I know, I am one.  We want the details!
> As far as his questions for NIST, I think they are valid.  But the answers to those questions are not going to point to some "inside job" conspiracy.  They are just going to allow a better understanding of how the damage and the fires destroyed those buildings.
> And if that is your stance?................That you want to know what ACTUALLY happened?  Then I would be wrong to group you with the "truthers".  Because the real "truthers" DO NOT want truth..............they want a conspiracy!!
Click to expand...


deterring fact finding and and blocking an investigation for what ever reason is a conspiracy


----------



## Rationalist1016

Mr. Jones said:


> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "lid" is never going to be "blown off this cover-up"!!  There just isn't evidence to support that.  No matter how much you believe it, want it, & know it in your heart, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference unless you can PROVE IT!
> 
> 
> 
> Could you please make yourself clear as to what do you mean by proof?
> As far as providing proof that the NIST reports are flawed, there are many independent researchers who have pointed out many discrepancies, and this should already be well known to someone who has seriously looked into the 9-11 debate. It really is silly to even ask. But I have provided just a small amount at the end of this post.
> 
> You are acting naive about the vast power that the government has over the researchers who have contrary theories to it, and its own citizens. Do you not understand this is not some 2 bit small claims case, and the very people who likely would be defendants have a shitload of sway over the process?
> Do you have any idea of the  struggle this uphill battle poses, even for members who try to get a bill passed for a new investigation?
> Are you even aware of any litigation about 9-11?
> 
> It would turn the OCT on its head, and shake the nation if ever allowed to happen.
> I and many others are hopeful that if a new independent investigation with subpoena power ever comes to fruition, that the vast amount of new information that has been accumulated, and along with the many witnesses that were ignored, would indeed show that a rouge element of our government allowed, and or facilitated the 9-11 attacks.
> 
> You are only spouting off you opinion, and have no legitimate substance to even conclude this would be close to the truth. You probably don't even know what the main argument points about the 9-11 attacks are. If you do, would you show us what you think they are please?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The call for a re-investigation is nothing but a ploy to keep this fading "truth movement" alive.  No investigation will ever satisfy the "truth movement".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Terribly naive and bordering on stupid. So you think that the truth movement wanting a new look at evidence is only a ploy??  On the contrary, there are many patriots who love what the counry is supposed to stand for and mean to them, whereas many people like yourself have lost all meaning about what America is supposed to stand for, if you ever did at all.
> Tell us who stood to gain more from the 9-11 attacks, the MIC, the government and defense industries, the energy companies, or the movement that would not even exist if there had been actual transparency and honesty in our government, starting with honest elections?
> 
> It's astounding how some of you readily admit that NIST may have "screwed up" but you just prefer to sit on your hands, and do nothing, while the nation pays for the consequences, with blood and treasure, and IOUs.
> 
> And for the record, There is convincing and compelling witness testimony. There are many credible witnesses and their testimony is convincing because it seems to match. This is called having a case. This has moved beyond theory into the realm of testimony, and demonstrative evidential proof. The problem is it would be a matter for the federal courts.
> Federal judges are appointed and none of them will hear it. Many have tried bringing  claims to court. This is the stumbling road block.
> 
> The government decides what is to be a conspiracy theory and what lies you are supposed to believe as the truth. People like you allow this to happen by acquiescing to everything they tell you, even though you know it to be harmful to you, your families and children, and the nation as a whole.
> They know people tend to avoid being called a conspiracy theorist because it's socially punished, and are cowards. The government knows exactly how to manage his herd, and has done a good job at it on most brain dead people.
> 
> But alas, if you would like to read about what others have to say that counters the OCT and proves that there is vast evidence to oppose it here you go.
> 
> 
> 
> Journal of 9/11 Studies...
> 
> Propping Up the War on Terror
> 9-11 Review...
> 
>  Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust
> Jim Hoffman
>  Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
> Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, and others
>  Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials
> By Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, & Steven E. Jones
>  Mysteries of the Twin Towers
> R. Herbst
>  The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis
> By Prof. Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti
>  Scientists, Scholars, Architects & Engineers respond to NIST
> By 16 scientists, scholars, architects, and engineers
>  Public comments on the NIST WTC 7 draft report. Submitted to NIST 09/11/08.
> Jonathan Cole P.E.
>  WTC 7: A Short Computation
> Prof. Kenneth L. Kuttler
>  Journal of Engineering Mechanics:
> Discussion of "Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: A Simple Analysis" by K.A. Seffen
> Dr. Crockett Grabbe
>  Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Stories of WTC 1
> Gordon Ross Journal of 9/11 Studies
>  Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and Widespread Impact Damage
> Dr. Crockett Grabbe
>  Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories
> Kevin Ryan - U.L. whistleblower - former Site Manager
>  Physical Chemistry of Thermite, Thermate, Iron-Alum-Rich Microspheres at Demise of WTC 1 & 2
> Jerry Lobdill 6/15/2007
>  The Destruction of WTC 7
> Vesa Raiskila
>  The NIST WTC Investigation -- How Real Was The Simulation?
> Eric Douglas, Architect
>  Revisiting 9/11/2001 -- Applying the Scientific Method
> Prof. Steven E. Jones, Ph.D., Physics
>  DR. BAZANT - NIST's 911 FALL GUY
> by Gordon Ross, ME [1], June 4, 2007*
>  Open Letter to Purdue President France Córdova
> Kevin Ryan, B.S. Chem.
>  Jones vs. Robertson: A Physicist and a Structural Engineer Debate the Controlled Demolition of the World Trade Center
> Gregg Roberts, Associate Editor, 911Research.com
>  Another Structural Engineer Questions WTC Collapses
> William Rice, P.E.
>  Can Physics Rewrite History?
> Chuck Thurston
>  Reply to Protec's "A critical analysis of the collapse of WTC towers 1, 2 & 7 from an explosives and conventional demolition industry viewpoint"
> Jim Hoffman
>  NIST's World Trade Center FAQ: A Reply to the National Institute for Standards and Technology's Answers to Frequently Asked Questions
> Jim Hoffman
>  Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century
> Jim Hoffman
>  The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
> David Ray Griffin
>  Another reason the 9/11 fire-mediated collapse theory is wrong
> Joseph Smith
>  Popular Mechanics' Assault on 9/11 Truth
> Jim Hoffman
>  Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?
> Dr. Steven E. Jones
>  Proof That The Thermal and Gravitational Energy Available Were Insufficient to Melt Steel in the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center on 9/11/01
> Terry Morrone
>  Report on Weidlinger Simulation
> Leaked WTC Blueprints contain 3D simulations from the Weidlinger report that contradict the NIST repoort of the Twin Tower's destruction
>  Engineering News Record: The World Trade Center
>  Bad Science: Keith Seffen And The WTC 'Collapse'
> Winter Patriot blog 9/14/07
>  UK Engineer: WTC 'Collapses' Were 'A Very Ordinary Thing'
> Winter Patriot blog 9/11/07
>  Explosions or Collapse? The Semantics of Deception and the Significance of Categories
> C. Thurston
>  My Response to Ryan Mackey and the Self-Crushing Building Theory, "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking"
> by Chuck Thurston
>  NIST Data Disproves Collapse Theories Based on Fire
> Frank Legge (Ph D) Logical Systems Consulting Perth, Western Australia. flegge@iinet.net.au
>  High Velocity Bursts of Debris from Point-Like Sources in the WTC Towers
> Kevin Ryan
>  Response to NIST on Control Demolition Investigation Failure
> Crockett Grabbe © January 13, 2008 University of Iowa & SeaLane Consulting
>  Response to NIST on Energy and Momentum
> Crockett Grabbe © January 18, 2008 University of Iowa & SeaLane Consulting
>  Collapse of the South Tower of the World Trade Center
> Crockett Grabbe © December 23, 2007 University of Iowa & SeaLane Consulting
>  Science in the Bush: When Politics Displaces Physics
> By Dr. Crockett Grabbe and Lenny Charles 9/08/07
>  9/11 and the Twin Towers: Sudden Collapse Initiation Was Impossible
> Dec 23, 2007
> by Frank Legge, PhD & Tony Szamboti, Mechanical Engineer
>  Dr Seffen Paper Proven Ludicrous
> by Mick Meany
> Feb, 2008
>  Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction
> Steven E. Jones, Jeffrey Farrer, Gregory S. Jenkins, Frank Legge, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan, Danial Farnsworth, and Crockett Grabbe
> January 2007
>  Engineer Sees Evidence of Extreme Temperatures in WTC Steel
> Submitted by Shoestring on Mon, 02/25/2008
>  The Sustainability of the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis for the Destruction of the Twin Towers
> Tony Szamboti, ME --- May, 2007
>  WTC 1 - The Case for Collapse Arrest
> Anders Bjorkman - Apr 19, 2008
>  The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites
> Kevin R. Ryan, 7-02-08
>  Response to Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: A Simple Analysis by K.A. Seffen
> Crockett Grabbe
>  How the Towers were Demolished
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash - According To ATC/Radar
> 04/28/09 (PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Recently it has been brought to our attention that Air Traffic Control (ATC) transcripts reveal United 93 as being airborne after it's alleged crash. Similar scenarios have been offered with regard to American 77 and American 11 showing an aircraft target continuing past its alleged crash point in the case of American 11, or past the turn-around point in the case of American 77. However, both these issues can be easily explained by "Coast Mode" radar tracking. This is not the case with United 93.
> Full Article Here
> -By Gordon Ross
> AE911Truth.org...
> 
> Eight U.S. State Department Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11
> by Alan Miller
> Official Account of 9/11: Flawed, Absurd, Totally Inadequate, a Cover-up
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> January 5, 2008  Eight U.S. State Department veterans have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation. There is no question in my mind, that there is enough evidence to justify a very comprehensive and hard hitting investigation of the kind we have not seen, with subpoenas, general questioning of people, releasing a lot of documents, said Daniel Ellsberg, PhD, in a 2006 interview with Jack Blood. Full Article
> National Academy of Sciences Member Calls for New 9/11 Investigation
> 
> August 27, 2007  World renowned scientist, Lynn Margulis, Ph.D., today severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation, I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken. Full Article
> Could Barbara Olson Have Made Those Calls?
> An Analysis of New Evidence about Onboard Phones
> Pilots For 9/11 Truth...
> 
> F.B.I. Counsel: No Records Available Revealing ID Process Of Recovered 9/11 Plane Wreckage
> 911Blogger.com | Paying Attention to 9/11 Related News...
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> The Lack of Foundation Damage at the Pentagon is Irreconcilable with the Official Reports and Data
> pilotsfor911truth.org...
> 
> Conflicting Data, Hardcore Questions and the Media Blackout
> pilotsfor911truth.org...
> Planes Of September
> By Shelton F. Lankord, Core Member, Pilots For 9/11 Truth
> 
> Lies, Conflicting Reports, Cover-Up's
> pilotsfor911truth.org...
> 
> 9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
> That is only a part of what can be found, and I am not going to sit here half the night and post this when all of you who are seriously curious can look plenty up yourself, as well as do your own research about the legaleeze involved.
> As you can see there is a mountain of creditable evidence that the Government and its agencies are being obtuse, disingenuous or out right fucking lying.
> There is a mountain of scientific creditable proof that NIST deliberately went out their way to deceive us by presenting unscientific findings that does not stand up to true science.
> Members of the 911 commission have came out and said: The story we told you, is not what was told to us.
> pilotsfor911truth.org...
> 
> 9/11 Commission: The official cover up guide
> The Kean Commission came to New York the second week of May for a two-day set of hearings at The New School University. As hundreds of Sept. 11th family members, reporters and curious New Yorkers lined up for airport-style security checks, they received copies of a new 24-page booklet published by NY 9/11 Truth, with help from 911Truth.org.
> "Scamming America: The Official 9/11 Cover-up" is named after a quote by former Sen. Max Cleland, who resigned from the commission last November with the words, "Bush is scamming America."
> Cleland attacked his own commission after the other members cut a deal to accept highly limited access to CIA reports to the White House that may indicate advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the Bush administration. "This is a scam," Cleland said. "It's disgusting. America is being cheated."
> 
> "As each day goes by," Cleland said, "we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before September 11 than it has ever admitted.... Let's chase this rabbit into the ground. They had a plan to go to war and when 9/11 happened that's what they did; they went to war."
> The 911 OS is a proven lie, and this is just some of the indisputable creditable and scientific facts that prove the OS is a lie.
> 
> If you own the courthouses, no amount of proof will be able to prosecute people with that amount of power and who are politically untouchable, for now. This is what tyranny is all about, it is deliberately stifleling  anything anyone has to say about 9-11, that contradicts their criminal agenda.
> Do you think that because the criminals say what is proof and what isn't, there is no proof?? The defendants are in charge of what is considered evidence??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that you want a new investigation.  But it seems to me that you are saying that the investigations that have been performed so far, have been influenced, if not taken over, by "some" element of our government.  You referred in your last post to the "vast power that the government has over the researchers who have contrary theories".  If that is the case, then won't the government just take over a new investigation as well?
> If a new investigation were to happen, and the out come still doesn't align with what you think happened, would that be the end of it for you?  Or would you claim that the "vast power of the government" hi-jacked the investigation?  Please understand, I'm not trying to be rude here.  I'm just asking, where does it end?  If the government has the power to influence anything they want, and they want to cover this up, then no investigation is ever going to solve it.
> As I'm sure you already guessed, I don't believe the government pulled this off.  I think they are too incompetent.  What they ARE good at, is covering their own asses.  And I believe the "cover-up" is of their massive failure to do their job!
> As for a new investigation.  I would be in favor.  Because I think an investigation may hold the people accountable that failed to do their job.  But I don't believe it will change the physical evidence of what happened to the buildings and the planes.  But if I am wrong, I would gladly concede.
Click to expand...


----------



## SFC Ollie

> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you want a new investigation.  But it seems to me that you are saying that the investigations that have been performed so far, have been influenced, if not taken over, by "some" element of our government.  You referred in your last post to the "vast power that the government has over the researchers who have contrary theories".  If that is the case, then won't the government just take over a new investigation as well?
> If a new investigation were to happen, and the out come still doesn't align with what you think happened, would that be the end of it for you?  Or would you claim that the "vast power of the government" hi-jacked the investigation?  Please understand, I'm not trying to be rude here.  I'm just asking, where does it end?  If the government has the power to influence anything they want, and they want to cover this up, then no investigation is ever going to solve it.
> As I'm sure you already guessed, I don't believe the government pulled this off.  I think they are too incompetent.  What they ARE good at, is covering their own asses.  And I believe the "cover-up" is of their massive failure to do their job!
> As for a new investigation.  I would be in favor.  Because I think an investigation may hold the people accountable that failed to do their job.  But I don't believe it will change the physical evidence of what happened to the buildings and the planes.  But if I am wrong, I would gladly concede.
Click to expand...


You aren't wrong. But the conspiracy loons are. They list people who claim the government was wrong but they hide what these people say is wrong. Just like saying that the writers of the 911CR claim that they don't believe what they wrote was true. They don't tell you that what they believe is that different agencies lied a little about what they did or didn't do that morning because it was either classified or they were playing CYA because they screwed up.

They claim there was active thermitic  material found in the WTC dust. But don't mention that a pack of matches is  active thermitic   material. And they pretend that there couldn't be rust and aluminum present (rust + aluminum = thermite)

So they dream about what they want to be true, we don't know why. Me I've volunteered to be one of the readers at a 10 year remembrance ceremony this September. We'll be reading a list of those who died that day. I can do that and point out the stupidity on these boards. But mostly they ignore the facts. But hey, it keeps them happy and off the streets......


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> You still don't understand that the problem is the removal of resistance that is needed to achieve the very fast "essentially at free fall speeds" that NIST even admitted to.



Free fall speeds? 

Let me ask you something before we continue. What actually fell at free fall speeds in your opinion?

Are you suggesting that the towers were completely gone in 9 to 11 seconds or are you saying that the top "block" (notice the quotes around the word block) crushed the bottom "block" and reached the ground in 9 to 11 seconds?


----------



## Gamolon

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTC engineer John Skilling said the perimeter columns alone, which were not the structures' main support (the cores were) could handle an increase in live loads of 2000% before failure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones. Please elaborate.
> 
> What does this actually mean in your opinion? What was the purpose of the perimeter columns? What were they designed to resist?
Click to expand...


And this?


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't understand that the problem is the removal of resistance that is needed to achieve the very fast "essentially at free fall speeds" that NIST even admitted to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free fall speeds?
> 
> Let me ask you something before we continue. What actually fell at free fall speeds in your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look at the NIST report, and THEY say that they fell "at essentially free fall speeds"
> The 9-11 commission excepts a 10 sec. collapse...So that is what we go with. Do you say different, and go against NIST and the commission?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that the towers were completely gone in 9 to 11 seconds or are you saying that the top "block" (notice the quotes around the word block) crushed the bottom "block" and reached the ground in 9 to 11 seconds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again we are going with your experts here, if you have a problem with your sources, say so, and we'll proceed.
Click to expand...


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTC engineer John Skilling said the perimeter columns alone, which were not the structures' main support (the cores were) could handle an increase in live loads of 2000% before failure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones. Please elaborate.
> 
> What does this actually mean in your opinion? What was the purpose of the perimeter columns? What were they designed to resist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this?
Click to expand...


You must have missed this-
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3780309-post1244.html


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones. Please elaborate.
> 
> What does this actually mean in your opinion? What was the purpose of the perimeter columns? What were they designed to resist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must have missed this-
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3780309-post1244.html
Click to expand...


And you seem to have missed one of my questions above. What do YOU think Skilling meant by 2000% of the live load?

Funny, but in your link above I see nothing mentioned about the fact that the MAIN purpose of the perimeter walls was to handle the WIND LOADS, which are LATERAL forces against the tower, not vertical. 

So, when Skiliing said "2000%", was he referring to the actual LATERAL WIND LIVE LOAD for which the perimeter walls were designed for or the live GRAVITY load?

Please explain.


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't understand that the problem is the removal of resistance that is needed to achieve the very fast "essentially at free fall speeds" that NIST even admitted to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the NIST report, and THEY say that they fell "at essentially free fall speeds"
> The 9-11 commission excepts a 10 sec. collapse...So that is what we go with. Do you say different, and go against NIST and the commission?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that the towers were completely gone in 9 to 11 seconds or are you saying that the top "block" (notice the quotes around the word block) crushed the bottom "block" and reached the ground in 9 to 11 seconds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again we are going with your experts here, if you have a problem with your sources, say so, and we'll proceed.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


What Jones is incapable of understanding is the simple fact that if you have enough mass to overcome the resistance of the structures under that mass, the resistance isn't going to slow the mass down all that much.  That is why the NIST said the following and why Jones didn't quote the NIST because it makes him look like a retarded jackass once again.



			
				NIST said:
			
		

> &#8220;&#8230; the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
> 
> Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.&#8221;



Source

As for the 10 seconds claim, once again we can see the utter dishonesty of Jones' claims.  

The 9/11 commission report claims the SOUTH tower fell in 10 seconds.  Free fall acceleration from the very top of the tower would be 9.25 seconds, but that is not where we start from, is it.  No, the collapse starts some thirty floors lower.


----------



## Patriot911

So, Jones.... when are you going to present us with one piece of real evidence or admit you're nothing but a lowlife liar?  People are starting to wonder by now why you haven't been able to produce what you have repeatedly claimed to have.


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Look at the NIST report, and THEY say that they fell "at essentially free fall speeds"
> The 9-11 commission excepts a 10 sec. collapse...So that is what we go with. Do you say different, and go against NIST and the commission?



From the NIST site here:


> NIST estimated the elapsed times for the* first exterior panels* to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).
> 
> As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
> 
>  the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
> 
> Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.
> 
> In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.
> 
> From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.



So no, the towers didn't totally collapse in 9 or 11 seconds.


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> You aren't wrong. But the conspiracy loons are. They list people who claim the government was wrong but they hide what these people say is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong Ollie, try to keep and quit avoiding thread responses,
> The answer to your response is here, in the links are what "these people say is wrong"
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3781201-post1248.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like saying that the writers of the 911CR claim that they don't believe what they wrote was true. They don't tell you that what they believe is that different agencies lied a little about what they did or didn't do that morning because it was either classified or they were playing CYA because they screwed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if the 9-11 commission panel, say these things in red, what the hell makes you think that they DON'T think they were mislead, therefore the report turns out to be less then accurate??
> It's common sense Ollie! They themselves say they were lied to, and we probably do not know what we should, (for whatever reason it may be), they still said these things about their investigation!
> So despite this revelation, do you expect rational thinking Americans,  to have confidence of its accuracy, or truthfulness? When they themselves allude it is NOT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They claim there was active thermitic  material found in the WTC dust. But don't mention that a pack of matches is  active thermitic   material. And they pretend that there couldn't be rust and aluminum present (rust + aluminum = thermite)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you fail to comprehend, either out of ignorance, or willful denial of what the 9 scientists actually found! It was a NANO THERMITIC chemical compound.. Nano...very small, AND A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE! That could only be made in a sophisticated laboratory. Try reading about the facts of something and its truthfulness before you go around making asinine claims they only found what amounts to matches!
> It is an incendiary and an explosive,
> 
> "Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as *superthermites *that combine *nanometals* such as *nanoaluminum* with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos."
> Military Reloads with Nanotech - Technology Review
> 
> So these scientists didn't find ORDINARY _matches _
> *"Nano-thermites contain an oxidizer and a reducing agent, which are intimately mixed on the nanometer scale.*" Do you think Al Qaeda has the sophisticated technology to make this stuff?
> 
> "Now the question is are these "new types of bombs" only "being researched," or were they actually used on 9-11? Well to begin to answer that question let's compare a few excerpts of the article with excerpts from the peer-reviewed nano-thermite paper entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe."
> Nano-thermite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> VS
> Bentham Science Publishers Ltd. Home Page
> 
> The article (Wiki) begins with a super citation:
> "Nano-thermite, also called 'super-thermite',[1] is the common name for a subset of metastable intermolecular composites (MICs) characterized by a highly exothermic reaction after ignition."
> 
> The article also informs us that:
> 
> "Super-thermites are generally developed for military use, propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics. Nanosized thermitic materials are being researched by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs that are several times more powerful than conventional explosives."[3]
> 
> The Wikipedia quotes are in RED and the Jones paper in BLUE
> 
> The products of a thermite reaction, resulting from ignition of the thermitic mixture, are usually metal oxides and elemental metals...
> Nano-thermites contain an oxidizer and a reducing agent, which are intimately mixed on the nanometer scale.
> What separates MICs from traditional thermites is that the oxidizer and a reducing agent, normally iron oxide and aluminum are not a fine powder, but rather nanoparticles.
> 
> We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in significant numbers in dust associated with the World Trade Center destruction. The red material is most interesting...
> It is composed of intimately mixed aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon and carbon. Lesser amounts of other potentially reactive elements are sometimes present, such as potassium, sulfur, barium, lead and copper.
> Iron oxide appears in faceted grains roughly 100 nanometers across whereas the aluminum appears in plate-like structures approximately 40 nanometers thick.
> 
> These are all features of a nano-engineered material. It is not possible that such a material was formed as a by-product of the destruction of the Twin Towers...
> Although these elements -- aluminum, iron, oxygen, and silicon -- were all abundant in building materials used in the Twin Towers, it is not possible that such materials *milled themselves **into fine powder and assembled themselves into a chemically optimized aluminothermic composite as a by-product of the destruction of the Twin Towers.*
> 
> Nope, these materials certainly didn't mill themselves, so who did mill them? The Wikipedia article states that-
> A method for producing nanoscale, or ultra fine grain (UFG) aluminum powders, a key component of most nano-thermitic materials, is the dynamic gas-phase condensation method, pioneered by Wayne Danen and Steve Son at Los Alamos National Laboratory. A variant of the method is being used at the Indian Head Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center
> 
> Funny thing about the Naval Surface Warfare Center-
> The Indian Head Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, (a branch of the Naval Sea Systems Command or NAVSEA), described in 1999 as the "national center for energetics"[1], "the only reliable source of aluminum nanopowders in the United States"[2] and in 2008 as "probably the most prominent US center for nano-thermite technology"[3], alleges via Freedom of Information Act replies that records "regarding research and development of nano-sized or Ultra Fine Grained (UFG) aluminum powders, nano-sized or Ultra Fine Grained (UFG) iron oxide powders or other metal oxide powders and Metastable Intermolecular Composites prior to 2002" do not exist. According to Indian Head, "research may have been conducted by Indian Head Division personnel but not submitted."- Source: 10:00am Diane Rehm show | 911Blogger.com
> 
> AND-
> Naval Surface Warfare Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> At the temperatures prevailing during the reaction, the products can be solid, liquid or gaseous, depending on the components of the mixture.[12] Super-thermite electric matches developed by LANL can create simple sparks, hot slag, droplet, or flames as thermal-initiating outputs to ignite other incendiaries or explosives.[1]
> 
> After igniting several red/gray chips in a differential scanning calorimeter run to 700ÂºC, we found numerous iron-rich spheres and spheroids in the residue, indicating that a very high-temperature reaction had occurred, since the iron-rich product clearly must have been molten to form these shapes. In several spheres, elemental iron was verified since the iron content significantly exceeded the oxygen content. We conclude that a high-temperature reduction-oxidation reaction has occurred in the heated chips, namely, the thermite reaction.
> "Super-thermite electric matches" have been developed at Los Alamos National Laboratory for which applications include triggering explosives for ... demolition
> It is indeed possible that such matches, which are designed to be ignited by a simple electric pulse, could contain material similar to the red material we have found in the WTC dust
> 
> Nothing suspicious there, I'm sure bin Laden made the materials.
> So as anyone who takes the time to read this, should quickly learn that what you are spreading here is utter BS, because you belittle and try to tell people these intelligent scientists found only what amounts to regular chemicals found in ordinary matches, when in reality, what they found was a sophisticated chemical compound, that only the military labs could make in a controlled environment, AND at the time , were the only RELIABLE source of  "aluminum nanopowders in the United States"!!
> 
> There are much more interesting FACTS about this technology, and its uses relating to thermobaric weaponry.
> ""Thermobaric weapons are considered to be a promising application of nanoenergetic materials."
> Considering what these people have found in their studies, and how it can be applied to the explanation of the WTC, it is more plausible then the 'fire" explanations given by NIST that have all been mostly rebuked, and debunked.
> 
> Debunking the Debunkers: Super-Duper Thermite: A Year in Review
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they dream about what they want to be true, we don't know why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is NO dream Ollie, these are facts that have been found, and written about, that verify what these scientists said is true. The problem with folks like yourself, is that you continue to follow what the so called 'debunker" sites peddle, in which the hide, or distort, and severely misinform you.
> Do you really think that if there was an easy explanation for the findings of these sophisticated substances, these people would put their reputations on the line in front of their peers in the scientific community?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me I've volunteered to be one of the readers at a 10 year remembrance ceremony this September. We'll be reading a list of those who died that day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And as you do I hope in the back of your mind, you realize that those people were victims of a criminal conspiracy and cover up, that demand justice with an honest re-investigation of the REAL facts, and not some hogwash, BS story.
> After you re-educate yourself on the facts, of what dedicated independent researchers are saying and have found, hopefully you will have a better understanding of just why there are so many dedicated Americans trying so hard to liberate our country from the lies and deceit, of the liberty stealing bastards.
> You are going to put yourself up on a pedestal and read the names in memory of the victims, yet you have no understanding of the justice that the truth movement and millions worldwide truly seek for those very same victims!
> Reading names in front of a crowd isn't doing jack shit for them or their memory, getting informed and involved in seeking REAL justice for them IS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can do that and point out the stupidity on these boards. But mostly they ignore the facts. But hey, it keeps them happy and off the streets......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your stupidity and ignorance, hidden behind misplaced "patriotism" has been duly pointed out in this post.
Click to expand...


----------



## Patriot911

Anyone else find it hilarious that Jones can question anyone else when he refuses to supply one real piece of evidence his bullshit fantasies are true?    Come on.  All we're asking for is one real piece of evidence there was controlled demolition.  There should literally be tons of it if your paranoid delusions were true.  

Until you can produce this evidence or admit to everyone you were lying your ass off about the evidence you claimed to have, you really don't have the right to call others names or question their claims.


----------



## Rationalist1016

Mr Jones, you might find these articles interesting.

More Bad Science Surrounding the &#8220;Nano-Thermite&#8221; Red Herring « American Everyman

Thermite myth debunked repeatedly...thruther ignore science and facts


----------



## SFC Ollie

Ah yes I remember reading one of the articles about the so called nano thermite.

They claimed that this unburnt nano thermite made up .01% of the dust they tested. And they found this in four different samples taken from 4 different places.

So at .01% there was tons of this stuff that didn't ignite?


  

I don't believe it for a minute.... I've used thermite, once it starts it burns, all of it.....


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the NIST report, and THEY say that they fell "at essentially free fall speeds"
> The 9-11 commission excepts a 10 sec. collapse...So that is what we go with. Do you say different, and go against NIST and the commission?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the NIST site here:
> 
> 
> 
> NIST estimated the elapsed times for the* first exterior panels* to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).
> 
> As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
> 
>  the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
> 
> Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.
> 
> In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.
> 
> From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no, the towers didn't totally collapse in 9 or 11 seconds.
Click to expand...


Oh then what are the NIST collapse estimate times for both towers? They seem to estimate 11 and 9 secs, and even try to explain away these fast times with BS about minimal resistance from the lower parts, but offer no calculations or evidence to suggest this would be normal. You are doing a fine job of pointing out the obvious arguments that the researchers have with the NIST theory, but that is all you are doing. Repeating what NIST reported isn't addressing the counter claims.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the NIST report, and THEY say that they fell "at essentially free fall speeds"
> The 9-11 commission excepts a 10 sec. collapse...So that is what we go with. Do you say different, and go against NIST and the commission?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the NIST site here:
> 
> 
> 
> NIST estimated the elapsed times for the* first exterior panels* to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).
> 
> As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
> 
>  the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
> 
> Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.
> 
> In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.
> 
> From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no, the towers didn't totally collapse in 9 or 11 seconds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh then what are the NIST collapse estimate times for both towers? They seem to estimate 11 and 9 secs, and even try to explain away these fast times with BS about minimal resistance from the lower parts, but offer no calculations or evidence to suggest this would be normal. You are doing a fine job of pointing out the obvious arguments that the researchers have with the NIST theory, but that is all you are doing. Repeating what NIST reported isn't addressing the counter claims.
Click to expand...


What part of first external panels is so hard to understand? You can see them in the videos way ahead of the collapse.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must have missed this-
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3780309-post1244.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you seem to have missed one of my questions above. What do YOU think Skilling meant by 2000% of the live load?
> 
> Funny, but in your link above I see nothing mentioned about the fact that the MAIN purpose of the perimeter walls was to handle the WIND LOADS, which are LATERAL forces against the tower, not vertical.
> 
> So, when Skiliing said "2000%", was he referring to the actual LATERAL WIND LIVE LOAD for which the perimeter walls were designed for or the live GRAVITY load?
> 
> Please explain.
Click to expand...

 So you are implying that the perimeter columns had no trusses connected to them to support the floors??
Therefore were not important to holding up the buildings loads??
*The 47 core columns held up approximately 60% of the vertical load, and the 244 perimeter columns distributed the remaining 40% across the four walls, 10% per wall.

One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. 7   Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns. (at the same time by fire temps, to allow a no resistance scenario, and collapse sequentially in 9-11 secs)

There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut. 8   Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." 9  
9-11 Research: Towers' Design Parameters

What are live loads??
LIVE LOADS
Live Loads are not permanent and can change in magnitude. They include items found within a building such as furniture, pianos, safes, people, books, cars, computers, machinery, or stored materials, as well as environmental effects such as loads due to the sun, earth or weather. Wind and earthquakes loads are put into the special category of lateral live loads due to the severity of their action upon a building and their potential to cause failure. 
Lecture 17: Primary Loads


Here is more on what a live load is and what it is not-
http://www.aij.or.jp/jpn/symposium/2006/loads/Chapter4_com.pdf

Can you imagine someone building the tower for a 2000% wind load?? Above its already designed 200mph rating? Get real man, he isn't talking about the fucking wind! 1000s of mph winds? Pft 

So the argument goes like this...The NIST did not provide any calculation in which safety factors, and material strength and composition was taken into account. Namely tensile strength, and the 2 forces colliding against each other, and the subsequent resistance the falling part would have met.
 They simply state the lower portions only provided minimal resistance, so they fell "essentially at free fall speeds", and estimating 11 and 9 seconds..And walk away.
You again have provided no proof that NIST was at all accurate, or had any strong indisputable evidence or proof that they are correct, in their assumptions.
I have provided a list of rebuttals and articles that provide evidence
of credible counter points by researchers, not only about NIST but about other parts of the 9-11 attacks. Proof and evidence, in those links what more do you need, and what points are you trying to make??  
You only continue to point out the obvious deficiencies in their report?*


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the NIST site here:
> 
> 
> So no, the towers didn't totally collapse in 9 or 11 seconds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh then what are the NIST collapse estimate times for both towers? They seem to estimate 11 and 9 secs, and even try to explain away these fast times with BS about minimal resistance from the lower parts, but offer no calculations or evidence to suggest this would be normal. You are doing a fine job of pointing out the obvious arguments that the researchers have with the NIST theory, but that is all you are doing. Repeating what NIST reported isn't addressing the counter claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of first external panels is so hard to understand? You can see them in the videos way ahead of the collapse.
Click to expand...


Save yourself the trouble Ollie and please go to reading the thermite links I took the time to provide for you, or you can post what NIST should have estimated for collapse times instead, and explain for them why only minimal resistance should have been expected without taking other considerations into account.


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the NIST report, and THEY say that they fell "at essentially free fall speeds"
> The 9-11 commission excepts a 10 sec. collapse...So that is what we go with. Do you say different, and go against NIST and the commission?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the NIST site here:
> 
> 
> 
> NIST estimated the elapsed times for the* first exterior panels* to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).
> 
> As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
> 
>  the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
> 
> Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.
> 
> In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.
> 
> From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no, the towers didn't totally collapse in 9 or 11 seconds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh then what are the NIST collapse estimate times for both towers? They seem to estimate 11 and 9 secs, and even try to explain away these fast times with BS about minimal resistance from the lower parts, but offer no calculations or evidence to suggest this would be normal. You are doing a fine job of pointing out the obvious arguments that the researchers have with the NIST theory, but that is all you are doing. Repeating what NIST reported isn't addressing the counter claims.
Click to expand...


What part of *"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2."* didn't you understand?

Were you using 9 and 11 seconds as the time it took the towers to be completely gone from the time of collapse initiation????


----------



## Rationalist1016

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh then what are the NIST collapse estimate times for both towers? They seem to estimate 11 and 9 secs, and even try to explain away these fast times with BS about minimal resistance from the lower parts, but offer no calculations or evidence to suggest this would be normal. You are doing a fine job of pointing out the obvious arguments that the researchers have with the NIST theory, but that is all you are doing. Repeating what NIST reported isn't addressing the counter claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of first external panels is so hard to understand? You can see them in the videos way ahead of the collapse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save yourself the trouble Ollie and please go to reading the thermite links I took the time to provide for you, or you can post what NIST should have estimated for collapse times instead, and explain for them why only minimal resistance should have been expected without taking other considerations into account.
Click to expand...


Mr. Jones, you haven't commented on the links that I posted for you.


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> (at the same time by fire temps, to allow a no resistance scenario, and collapse sequentially in 9-11 secs)



Thanks for answering my question.

So you DO think the towers completely collapsed in 9 and 11 seconds. This is COMPLETELY wrong.


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must have missed this-
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3780309-post1244.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you seem to have missed one of my questions above. What do YOU think Skilling meant by 2000% of the live load?
> 
> Funny, but in your link above I see nothing mentioned about the fact that the MAIN purpose of the perimeter walls was to handle the WIND LOADS, which are LATERAL forces against the tower, not vertical.
> 
> So, when Skiliing said "2000%", was he referring to the actual LATERAL WIND LIVE LOAD for which the perimeter walls were designed for or the live GRAVITY load?
> 
> Please explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are implying that the perimeter columns had no trusses connected to them to support the floors??
> Therefore were not important to holding up the buildings loads??
> *The 47 core columns held up approximately 60% of the vertical load, and the 244 perimeter columns distributed the remaining 40% across the four walls, 10% per wall.
> 
> One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. 7   Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns. (at the same time by fire temps, to allow a no resistance scenario, and collapse sequentially in 9-11 secs)
> 
> There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut. 8   Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." 9
> 9-11 Research: Towers' Design Parameters
> 
> What are live loads??
> LIVE LOADS
> Live Loads are not permanent and can change in magnitude. They include items found within a building such as furniture, pianos, safes, people, books, cars, computers, machinery, or stored materials, as well as environmental effects such as loads due to the sun, earth or weather. Wind and earthquakes loads are put into the special category of lateral live loads due to the severity of their action upon a building and their potential to cause failure.
> Lecture 17: Primary Loads
> 
> 
> Here is more on what a live load is and what it is not-
> http://www.aij.or.jp/jpn/symposium/2006/loads/Chapter4_com.pdf
> 
> Can you imagine someone building the tower for a 2000% wind load?? Above its already designed 200mph rating? Get real man, he isn't talking about the fucking wind! 1000s of mph winds? Pft
> 
> So the argument goes like this...The NIST did not provide any calculation in which safety factors, and material strength and composition was taken into account. Namely tensile strength, and the 2 forces colliding against each other, and the subsequent resistance the falling part would have met.
> They simply state the lower portions only provided minimal resistance, so they fell "essentially at free fall speeds", and estimating 11 and 9 seconds..And walk away.
> You again have provided no proof that NIST was at all accurate, or had any strong indisputable evidence or proof that they are correct, in their assumptions.
> I have provided a list of rebuttals and articles that provide evidence
> of credible counter points by researchers, not only about NIST but about other parts of the 9-11 attacks. Proof and evidence, in those links what more do you need, and what points are you trying to make??
> You only continue to point out the obvious deficiencies in their report?*
Click to expand...

*

So you think that these:





Should have resisted this:





I get it now.

*


----------



## Mr. Jones

Rationalist1016 said:


> Mr Jones, you might find these articles interesting.
> 
> More Bad Science Surrounding the Nano-Thermite Red Herring « American Everyman
> 
> Thermite myth debunked repeatedly...thruther ignore science and facts



Yes of course there are deniers of Jones and co, they are addressed here.
Debunking the Debunkers: Super-Duper Thermite: A Year in Review

Debunking the Debunkers: Thermite Denial - A Year in Review

As far as I know there have been no peer reviewed published rebuttals concerning the Jones paper. This is one of many things I would like to see debated in a new investigation.
But lets remember, this is only one part of the whole concerning 9-11, there are many other parts of it that the OCT does not add up, make sense, or even been acknowledged. The people that are against a new investigation befuddle me, as I don't understand what the hell they have against possibly finding out what really happened, or how the political connections and imperialistic military aspirations and policies played a role in the deaths of the victims, and the subsequent deaths of many of our military personnel whose lives were cut short because of lies.
Not to mention the innocent civilians who were murdered, many for sport.
Why not stand up for your country and freedoms, instead of taking on faith, the words of known proven liars, whose policies are destroying our way of life and what America is supposed to be for all of us? The lies in the OCT are shown to exist thanks to the many whistle blowers and researchers, and witnesses whose findings make sense, and add up.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> (at the same time by fire temps, to allow a no resistance scenario, and collapse sequentially in 9-11 secs)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for answering my question.
> 
> So you DO think the towers completely collapsed in 9 and 11 seconds. This is COMPLETELY wrong.
Click to expand...


So lets see, NIST gives an estimate, you don't agree with NIST, but don't bother to post your estimated times of collapse?
What first panels fell off the building first, and arrived on the ground, before the rest of the building then?
You think the collapse took more time then NIST estimated...what are your times then...easy enough..right?


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you seem to have missed one of my questions above. What do YOU think Skilling meant by 2000% of the live load?
> 
> Funny, but in your link above I see nothing mentioned about the fact that the MAIN purpose of the perimeter walls was to handle the WIND LOADS, which are LATERAL forces against the tower, not vertical.
> 
> So, when Skiliing said "2000%", was he referring to the actual LATERAL WIND LIVE LOAD for which the perimeter walls were designed for or the live GRAVITY load?
> 
> Please explain.
> 
> 
> 
> So you are implying that the perimeter columns had no trusses connected to them to support the floors??
> Therefore were not important to holding up the buildings loads??
> *The 47 core columns held up approximately 60% of the vertical load, and the 244 perimeter columns distributed the remaining 40% across the four walls, 10% per wall.
> 
> One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. 7   Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns. (at the same time by fire temps, to allow a no resistance scenario, and collapse sequentially in 9-11 secs)
> 
> There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut. 8   Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." 9
> 9-11 Research: Towers' Design Parameters
> 
> What are live loads??
> LIVE LOADS
> Live Loads are not permanent and can change in magnitude. They include items found within a building such as furniture, pianos, safes, people, books, cars, computers, machinery, or stored materials, as well as environmental effects such as loads due to the sun, earth or weather. Wind and earthquakes loads are put into the special category of lateral live loads due to the severity of their action upon a building and their potential to cause failure.
> Lecture 17: Primary Loads
> 
> 
> Here is more on what a live load is and what it is not-
> http://www.aij.or.jp/jpn/symposium/2006/loads/Chapter4_com.pdf
> 
> Can you imagine someone building the tower for a 2000% wind load?? Above its already designed 200mph rating? Get real man, he isn't talking about the fucking wind! 1000s of mph winds? Pft
> 
> So the argument goes like this...The NIST did not provide any calculation in which safety factors, and material strength and composition was taken into account. Namely tensile strength, and the 2 forces colliding against each other, and the subsequent resistance the falling part would have met.
> They simply state the lower portions only provided minimal resistance, so they fell "essentially at free fall speeds", and estimating 11 and 9 seconds..And walk away.
> You again have provided no proof that NIST was at all accurate, or had any strong indisputable evidence or proof that they are correct, in their assumptions.
> I have provided a list of rebuttals and articles that provide evidence
> of credible counter points by researchers, not only about NIST but about other parts of the 9-11 attacks. Proof and evidence, in those links what more do you need, and what points are you trying to make??
> You only continue to point out the obvious deficiencies in their report?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> So you think that these:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should have resisted this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get it now.
> 
> *
Click to expand...

*

Lol, it's not as simple as that, though you try to make it seem as though it is. You have done nothing to prove your point Gamolon.
You have still not posted anything that NIST said, that is indisputable. You haven't shown us why those many trusses all failed at the same time other then just a picture...no explanation as to how the NIST is correct in determining "minimal resistance, leading to essentially free fall speeds"*


----------



## Patriot911

So when are you going to stop whining about the NIST and produce the evidence you claim to have that proves the NIST is wrong and that you are right?  Come on.  How hard can it be to produce just ONE piece out of the tons of evidence you claim to have?  Well, it is REALLY damn hard when you're lying your ass off about the evidence, but other than that it should have been a piece of cake.


----------



## Rationalist1016

Mr. Jones said:


> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Jones, you might find these articles interesting.
> 
> More Bad Science Surrounding the Nano-Thermite Red Herring « American Everyman
> 
> Thermite myth debunked repeatedly...thruther ignore science and facts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes of course there are deniers of Jones and co, they are addressed here.
> Debunking the Debunkers: Super-Duper Thermite: A Year in Review
> 
> Debunking the Debunkers: Thermite Denial - A Year in Review
> 
> As far as I know there have been no peer reviewed published rebuttals concerning the Jones paper. This is one of many things I would like to see debated in a new investigation.
> But lets remember, this is only one part of the whole concerning 9-11, there are many other parts of it that the OCT does not add up, make sense, or even been acknowledged. The people that are against a new investigation befuddle me, as I don't understand what the hell they have against possibly finding out what really happened, or how the political connections and imperialistic military aspirations and policies played a role in the deaths of the victims, and the subsequent deaths of many of our military personnel whose lives were cut short because of lies.
> Not to mention the innocent civilians who were murdered, many for sport.
> Why not stand up for your country and freedoms, instead of taking on faith, the words of known proven liars, whose policies are destroying our way of life and what America is supposed to be for all of us? The lies in the OCT are shown to exist thanks to the many whistle blowers and researchers, and witnesses whose findings make sense, and add up.
Click to expand...


Well, I think we can play this "debunker" game all day.  Nothing in the links you posted convinced me of anything.  Nothing in the links that I posted for you convinced you of anything.  It all boils down to who we find to be credible.
Every claim has been debunked.  Then that debunked claim gets debunked.  At some level, facts have to be seen as facts.  Neither of us, apparently, are going to concede the others "facts".


----------



## SFC Ollie

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh then what are the NIST collapse estimate times for both towers? They seem to estimate 11 and 9 secs, and even try to explain away these fast times with BS about minimal resistance from the lower parts, but offer no calculations or evidence to suggest this would be normal. You are doing a fine job of pointing out the obvious arguments that the researchers have with the NIST theory, but that is all you are doing. Repeating what NIST reported isn't addressing the counter claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of first external panels is so hard to understand? You can see them in the videos way ahead of the collapse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save yourself the trouble Ollie and please go to reading the thermite links I took the time to provide for you, or you can post what NIST should have estimated for collapse times instead, and explain for them why only minimal resistance should have been expected without taking other considerations into account.
Click to expand...


Nope, if you are so ignorant that you refuse to accept what everyone in the world can see, then there is no hope for you. Not one of us can help you, you will remain ignorant and in fear for eternity.  So sad.......


----------



## SFC Ollie

Rationalist1016 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Jones, you might find these articles interesting.
> 
> More Bad Science Surrounding the Nano-Thermite Red Herring « American Everyman
> 
> Thermite myth debunked repeatedly...thruther ignore science and facts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes of course there are deniers of Jones and co, they are addressed here.
> Debunking the Debunkers: Super-Duper Thermite: A Year in Review
> 
> Debunking the Debunkers: Thermite Denial - A Year in Review
> 
> As far as I know there have been no peer reviewed published rebuttals concerning the Jones paper. This is one of many things I would like to see debated in a new investigation.
> But lets remember, this is only one part of the whole concerning 9-11, there are many other parts of it that the OCT does not add up, make sense, or even been acknowledged. The people that are against a new investigation befuddle me, as I don't understand what the hell they have against possibly finding out what really happened, or how the political connections and imperialistic military aspirations and policies played a role in the deaths of the victims, and the subsequent deaths of many of our military personnel whose lives were cut short because of lies.
> Not to mention the innocent civilians who were murdered, many for sport.
> Why not stand up for your country and freedoms, instead of taking on faith, the words of known proven liars, whose policies are destroying our way of life and what America is supposed to be for all of us? The lies in the OCT are shown to exist thanks to the many whistle blowers and researchers, and witnesses whose findings make sense, and add up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I think we can play this "debunker" game all day.  Nothing in the links you posted convinced me of anything.  Nothing in the links that I posted for you convinced you of anything.  It all boils down to who we find to be credible.
> Every claim has been debunked.  Then that debunked claim gets debunked.  At some level, facts have to be seen as facts.  Neither of us, apparently, are going to concede the others "facts".
Click to expand...


Are you kidding, they will even tell you that those were not the right planes that we all saw hit the towers, that those planes landed safely in Cleveland......... God only knows where the people are today.....


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> So, Jones.... when are you going to present us with one piece of real evidence or admit you're nothing but a lowlife liar?  People are starting to wonder by now why you haven't been able to produce what you have repeatedly claimed to have.



people ? what people ?...the people I know think you are a disgusting troll that has zero evidence to support your theories


----------



## Rationalist1016

SFC Ollie said:


> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes of course there are deniers of Jones and co, they are addressed here.
> Debunking the Debunkers: Super-Duper Thermite: A Year in Review
> 
> Debunking the Debunkers: Thermite Denial - A Year in Review
> 
> As far as I know there have been no peer reviewed published rebuttals concerning the Jones paper. This is one of many things I would like to see debated in a new investigation.
> But lets remember, this is only one part of the whole concerning 9-11, there are many other parts of it that the OCT does not add up, make sense, or even been acknowledged. The people that are against a new investigation befuddle me, as I don't understand what the hell they have against possibly finding out what really happened, or how the political connections and imperialistic military aspirations and policies played a role in the deaths of the victims, and the subsequent deaths of many of our military personnel whose lives were cut short because of lies.
> Not to mention the innocent civilians who were murdered, many for sport.
> Why not stand up for your country and freedoms, instead of taking on faith, the words of known proven liars, whose policies are destroying our way of life and what America is supposed to be for all of us? The lies in the OCT are shown to exist thanks to the many whistle blowers and researchers, and witnesses whose findings make sense, and add up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I think we can play this "debunker" game all day.  Nothing in the links you posted convinced me of anything.  Nothing in the links that I posted for you convinced you of anything.  It all boils down to who we find to be credible.
> Every claim has been debunked.  Then that debunked claim gets debunked.  At some level, facts have to be seen as facts.  Neither of us, apparently, are going to concede the others "facts".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding, they will even tell you that those were not the right planes that we all saw hit the towers, that those planes landed safely in Cleveland......... God only knows where the people are today.....
Click to expand...


Well, that's true.  That is one of those subjects that is beyond debate.  But, Mr. Jones hasn't made that claim, at least not as far as I know.
I HOPE that we all agree that commercial planes where used on that day and that the people on them actually died in those crashes.  I know there is still debate about the Pentagon and Pennsylvania.  But, I've heard all the evidence I need to convince me of those crashes.


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are implying that the perimeter columns had no trusses connected to them to support the floors??
> Therefore were not important to holding up the buildings loads??
> *The 47 core columns held up approximately 60% of the vertical load, and the 244 perimeter columns distributed the remaining 40% across the four walls, 10% per wall.
> 
> One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. 7   Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns. (at the same time by fire temps, to allow a no resistance scenario, and collapse sequentially in 9-11 secs)
> 
> There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut. 8   Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." 9
> 9-11 Research: Towers' Design Parameters
> 
> What are live loads??
> LIVE LOADS
> Live Loads are not permanent and can change in magnitude. They include items found within a building such as furniture, pianos, safes, people, books, cars, computers, machinery, or stored materials, as well as environmental effects such as loads due to the sun, earth or weather. Wind and earthquakes loads are put into the special category of lateral live loads due to the severity of their action upon a building and their potential to cause failure.
> Lecture 17: Primary Loads
> 
> 
> Here is more on what a live load is and what it is not-
> http://www.aij.or.jp/jpn/symposium/2006/loads/Chapter4_com.pdf
> 
> Can you imagine someone building the tower for a 2000% wind load?? Above its already designed 200mph rating? Get real man, he isn't talking about the fucking wind! 1000s of mph winds? Pft
> 
> So the argument goes like this...The NIST did not provide any calculation in which safety factors, and material strength and composition was taken into account. Namely tensile strength, and the 2 forces colliding against each other, and the subsequent resistance the falling part would have met.
> They simply state the lower portions only provided minimal resistance, so they fell "essentially at free fall speeds", and estimating 11 and 9 seconds..And walk away.
> You again have provided no proof that NIST was at all accurate, or had any strong indisputable evidence or proof that they are correct, in their assumptions.
> I have provided a list of rebuttals and articles that provide evidence
> of credible counter points by researchers, not only about NIST but about other parts of the 9-11 attacks. Proof and evidence, in those links what more do you need, and what points are you trying to make??
> You only continue to point out the obvious deficiencies in their report?*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> So you think that these:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should have resisted this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get it now.
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> Lol, it's not as simple as that, though you try to make it seem as though it is. You have done nothing to prove your point Gamolon.
> You have still not posted anything that NIST said, that is indisputable. You haven't shown us why those many trusses all failed at the same time other then just a picture...no explanation as to how the NIST is correct in determining "minimal resistance, leading to essentially free fall speeds"*
Click to expand...

*

Three things. 

1. I have proved my point. The perimeter column floor truss connections are in no way designed to handle the downward force of that upper assembly (better than using "block" yes?) coming down on them. The mass of the upper assembly came down on the floor which transferred the load to the truss connections which sheared/bent them. That is a fact that you can't deny. 

That's why, at :11 sec of this next video, you see the perimeter columns peel away from the tower proper. It's that simple. That's what happened. Video evidence to prove it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkpOPA45M4c]YouTube - &#x202a;WTC2 Perimeter Peel&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]

2. So your saying that the 61 perimeter column truss connections are supposed to resist the assembly coming down on them??? You're nuts. Take that to a structural engineer and have them explain it to you. THEY'LL tell you your nuts.

3. As has been explained to you, 9 and 11 seconds was the time it took the first panel assemble to hit the ground NOT the elapsed time for the towers to be completely destroyed. Get it straight.*


----------



## eots

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think that these:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should have resisted this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get it now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, it's not as simple as that, though you try to make it seem as though it is. You have done nothing to prove your point Gamolon.
> You have still not posted anything that NIST said, that is indisputable. You haven't shown us why those many trusses all failed at the same time other then just a picture...no explanation as to how the NIST is correct in determining "minimal resistance, leading to essentially free fall speeds"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Three things.
> 
> 1. I have proved my point. The perimeter column floor truss connections are in no way designed to handle the downward force of that upper assembly (better than using "block" yes?) coming down on them. The mass of the upper assembly came down on the floor which transferred the load to the truss connections which sheared/bent them. That is a fact that you can't deny.
> 
> That's why, at :11 sec of this next video, you see the perimeter columns peel away from the tower proper. It's that simple. That's what happened. Video evidence to prove it.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkpOPA45M4c]YouTube - &#x202a;WTC2 Perimeter Peel&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]
> 
> LOL...
Click to expand...


----------



## Mr. Jones

Rationalist1016 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Jones, you might find these articles interesting.
> 
> More Bad Science Surrounding the Nano-Thermite Red Herring « American Everyman
> 
> Thermite myth debunked repeatedly...thruther ignore science and facts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes of course there are deniers of Jones and co, they are addressed here.
> Debunking the Debunkers: Super-Duper Thermite: A Year in Review
> 
> Debunking the Debunkers: Thermite Denial - A Year in Review
> 
> As far as I know there have been no peer reviewed published rebuttals concerning the Jones paper. This is one of many things I would like to see debated in a new investigation.
> But lets remember, this is only one part of the whole concerning 9-11, there are many other parts of it that the OCT does not add up, make sense, or even been acknowledged. The people that are against a new investigation befuddle me, as I don't understand what the hell they have against possibly finding out what really happened, or how the political connections and imperialistic military aspirations and policies played a role in the deaths of the victims, and the subsequent deaths of many of our military personnel whose lives were cut short because of lies.
> Not to mention the innocent civilians who were murdered, many for sport.
> Why not stand up for your country and freedoms, instead of taking on faith, the words of known proven liars, whose policies are destroying our way of life and what America is supposed to be for all of us? The lies in the OCT are shown to exist thanks to the many whistle blowers and researchers, and witnesses whose findings make sense, and add up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I think we can play this "debunker" game all day.  Nothing in the links you posted convinced me of anything.  Nothing in the links that I posted for you convinced you of anything.  It all boils down to who we find to be credible.
> Every claim has been debunked.  Then that debunked claim gets debunked.  At some level, facts have to be seen as facts.  Neither of us, apparently, are going to concede the others "facts".
Click to expand...


The point in all of this is, that there IS credible proof, and evidence that reputable intellectuals provide, from scientists, engineers, military, whistle blowers, and more, from all walks of life,  that  counter the theories of NIST and others, with respect to 9-11.
They clearly prove that what they have uncovered in their research, that the events of 9-11 as told by the government and its agencies are incorrect, and that a new investigation is warranted.
No one on here, has been able to provide any evidence that shows NIST has made an indisputable finding as to what, or how the buildings collapsed.
I have posted links to various people who have countered the OCT, have provided witnesses, and calculations in those links.
If people are stubborn and want to say there is no evidence or proof  they are wrong, as I have shown that there is.


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of first external panels is so hard to understand? You can see them in the videos way ahead of the collapse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Save yourself the trouble Ollie and please go to reading the thermite links I took the time to provide for you, or you can post what NIST should have estimated for collapse times instead, and explain for them why only minimal resistance should have been expected without taking other considerations into account.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, if you are so ignorant that *you refuse to accept what everyone in the world can see*, then there is no hope for you. Not one of us can help you, you will remain ignorant and in fear for eternity.  So sad.......
Click to expand...


Your appeal is a fallacy 
Ad populum
Definition: The Latin name of this fallacy means "to the people." *There are several versions of the ad populum fallacy, but what they all have in common is that in them, the arguer takes advantage of the desire most people have to be liked and to fit in with others and uses that desire to try to get the audience to accept his or her argument.* One of the most common versions is the bandwagon fallacy, in which the arguer tries to convince the audience to do or believe something because everyone else (supposedly) does.

You people have a desire to run with the crowd, thus your comment is a common one used to avoid the facts that have been presented to you.
You have shown a willful ignorance to anything that has been presented, and have provided no reasonable opinions other then your appeal to authority and the "bandwagon' mentality.


----------



## Mr. Jones

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, it's not as simple as that, though you try to make it seem as though it is. You have done nothing to prove your point Gamolon.
> You have still not posted anything that NIST said, that is indisputable. You haven't shown us why those many trusses all failed at the same time other then just a picture...no explanation as to how the NIST is correct in determining "minimal resistance, leading to essentially free fall speeds"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Three things.
> 
> 1. I have proved my point. The perimeter column floor truss connections are in no way designed to handle the downward force of that upper assembly (better than using "block" yes?) coming down on them. The mass of the upper assembly came down on the floor which transferred the load to the truss connections which sheared/bent them. That is a fact that you can't deny.
> 
> That's why, at :11 sec of this next video, you see the perimeter columns peel away from the tower proper. It's that simple. That's what happened. Video evidence to prove it.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkpOPA45M4c]YouTube - &#x202a;WTC2 Perimeter Peel&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]
> 
> LOL...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a guess that leaves out many variables, and has been shown and proven by calculations from expert engineers to be false, and not likely to happen in the amount of time NIST estimated. But Gamolon seems to not want to take those calculations and facts and use them in any debate. He thinks that the weight on a few truss supports, and the deceiving pictures explains everything
> He still hasn't even said by how much NIST was wrong in their estimation of the collapse times, if he ever does, perhaps he can notify NIST and have them make corrections, like Mr. Chandler did in regards to the free fall time of WTC 7.
> Until then the NIST theory remains debunked and rebuked, with serious flaws, and he has proven nothing, only what  we already knew.
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

Mr. Jones said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Three things.
> 
> 1. I have proved my point. The perimeter column floor truss connections are in no way designed to handle the downward force of that upper assembly (better than using "block" yes?) coming down on them. The mass of the upper assembly came down on the floor which transferred the load to the truss connections which sheared/bent them. That is a fact that you can't deny.
> 
> That's why, at :11 sec of this next video, you see the perimeter columns peel away from the tower proper. It's that simple. That's what happened. Video evidence to prove it.
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;WTC2 Perimeter Peel&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> LOL...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a guess that leaves out many variables, and has been shown and proven by calculations from expert engineers to be false, and not likely to happen in the amount of time NIST estimated. But Gamolon seems to not want to take those calculations and facts and use them in any debate. He thinks that the weight on a few truss supports, and the deceiving pictures explains everything
> He still hasn't even said by how much NIST was wrong in their estimation of the collapse times,* if he ever does, perhaps he can notify NIST and have them make corrections*, like Mr. Chandler did in regards to the free fall time of WTC 7.
> Until then the NIST theory remains debunked and rebuked, with serious flaws, and he has proven nothing, only what  we already knew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AWESOME
Click to expand...


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think that these:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should have resisted this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get it now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, it's not as simple as that, though you try to make it seem as though it is. You have done nothing to prove your point Gamolon.
> You have still not posted anything that NIST said, that is indisputable. You haven't shown us why those many trusses all failed at the same time other then just a picture...no explanation as to how the NIST is correct in determining "minimal resistance, leading to essentially free fall speeds"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Three things.
> 
> 1. I have proved my point. The perimeter column floor truss connections are in no way designed to handle the downward force of that upper assembly (better than using "block" yes?) coming down on them. The mass of the upper assembly came down on the floor which transferred the load to the truss connections which sheared/bent them. That is a fact that you can't deny.
> 
> That's why, at :11 sec of this next video, you see the perimeter columns peel away from the tower proper. It's that simple. That's what happened. Video evidence to prove it.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkpOPA45M4c]YouTube - &#x202a;WTC2 Perimeter Peel&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]
> 
> 2. So your saying that the 61 perimeter column truss connections are supposed to resist the assembly coming down on them??? You're nuts. Take that to a structural engineer and have them explain it to you. THEY'LL tell you your nuts.
> 
> 3. As has been explained to you, 9 and 11 seconds was the time it took the first panel assemble to hit the ground NOT the elapsed time for the towers to be completely destroyed. Get it straight.
Click to expand...


You still haven't shown us why all the trusses failed in such a short amount of time, nor taken into consideration anything I have said, in all the prior postings!
You simply post a picture, of a few truss supports and the top half of one of the towers and want us to assume that is what happened, when there is a lot more to it then that.
No consideration of the mass that fell over the sides and was pulverized, therefore can't be used to calculate, weight/mass/kinetic energy properly in your failed explanation.
Also no real proof that can't be disputed is provided, to even begin to explain what initiated the collapses.
Sorry dude you failed, and only repeated what has been rebuked already.

"Condemnation without investigation is the highest form of ignorance."


----------



## Rationalist1016

> The point in all of this is, that there IS credible *proof*, and evidence that reputable intellectuals provide, from scientists, engineers, military, whistle blowers, and more, from all walks of life,  that  counter the *theories* of NIST and others, with respect to 9-11.
> They clearly prove that what they have uncovered in their research, that the events of 9-11 as told by the government and its agencies are incorrect, and that a new investigation is warranted.
> *No one on here, has been able to provide any evidence that shows NIST has made an indisputable finding as to what, or how the buildings collapsed.*
> I have posted links to various people who have countered the OCT, have provided witnesses, and calculations in those links.
> If people are stubborn and want to say there is no evidence or proof  they are wrong, as I have shown that there is.


Well, there's where we differ.  You are calling all the "other" claims *proof*.  While you call NIST claims *theory*.  NIST is the one that compiled their report from people that were on that site.  Touched those beams & saw the scattering of those buildings.  They didn't sit in a conference room and "guess" what happened.  They did the best they could with the evidence that they had.  There were mistakes, there were things they left out.  NOBODY knows or can know every single detail that took place while those buildings were failing.  Especially not people that are doing all their work on what they think buildings SHOULD look like when they fail.
You say that nobody can prove that NISTs claims are indisputable.  Again, we are back to who we find credible!


----------



## SFC Ollie

Rationalist1016 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I think we can play this "debunker" game all day.  Nothing in the links you posted convinced me of anything.  Nothing in the links that I posted for you convinced you of anything.  It all boils down to who we find to be credible.
> Every claim has been debunked.  Then that debunked claim gets debunked.  At some level, facts have to be seen as facts.  Neither of us, apparently, are going to concede the others "facts".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding, they will even tell you that those were not the right planes that we all saw hit the towers, that those planes landed safely in Cleveland......... God only knows where the people are today.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's true.  That is one of those subjects that is beyond debate.  But, Mr. Jones hasn't made that claim, at least not as far as I know.
> I HOPE that we all agree that commercial planes where used on that day and that the people on them actually died in those crashes.  I know there is still debate about the Pentagon and Pennsylvania.  But, I've heard all the evidence I need to convince me of those crashes.
Click to expand...


Actually he does allude to that theory in a manner of speaking in this post:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3781201-post1248.html


----------



## SFC Ollie

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Save yourself the trouble Ollie and please go to reading the thermite links I took the time to provide for you, or you can post what NIST should have estimated for collapse times instead, and explain for them why only minimal resistance should have been expected without taking other considerations into account.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, if you are so ignorant that *you refuse to accept what everyone in the world can see*, then there is no hope for you. Not one of us can help you, you will remain ignorant and in fear for eternity.  So sad.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your appeal is a fallacy
> Ad populum
> Definition: The Latin name of this fallacy means "to the people." *There are several versions of the ad populum fallacy, but what they all have in common is that in them, the arguer takes advantage of the desire most people have to be liked and to fit in with others and uses that desire to try to get the audience to accept his or her argument.* One of the most common versions is the bandwagon fallacy, in which the arguer tries to convince the audience to do or believe something because everyone else (supposedly) does.
> 
> You people have a desire to run with the crowd, thus your comment is a common one used to avoid the facts that have been presented to you.
> You have shown a willful ignorance to anything that has been presented, and have provided no reasonable opinions other then your appeal to authority and the "bandwagon' mentality.
Click to expand...


Oh horse shit. You want to believe that NIST says the towers fell in 9 to 11 seconds, you go right on believing that. The only person who looks like an idiot is you. If you cannot see the parts of the building falling ahead of the collapse then you truly are in need of professional help.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Rationalist1016 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I think we can play this "debunker" game all day.  Nothing in the links you posted convinced me of anything.  Nothing in the links that I posted for you convinced you of anything.  It all boils down to who we find to be credible.
> Every claim has been debunked.  Then that debunked claim gets debunked.  At some level, facts have to be seen as facts.  Neither of us, apparently, are going to concede the others "facts".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding, they will even tell you that those were not the right planes that we all saw hit the towers, that those planes landed safely in Cleveland......... God only knows where the people are today.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's true.  That is one of those subjects that is beyond debate.  But, Mr. Jones hasn't made that claim, at least not as far as I know.
> I HOPE that we all agree that commercial planes where used on that day and that the people on them actually died in those crashes.  I know there is still debate about the Pentagon and Pennsylvania.  But, I've heard all the evidence I need to convince me of those crashes.
Click to expand...

Now Ollie is resorting to strawman fallacy arguments, and generalizing because he has lost the ability to say anything intelligent.
I for one have never made such a crazy claim, I have shown you all the links to the sources that have disputes with the OCT, I have shown you proof of the evidence that exists that counters NIST and the governments version.
I believed the OS when it first happened, but I'll be damned if I will sit around and not speak out when I am clearly being lied to, and if anybody thinks the OCT is the undisputed truth, post your damned evidence, and I can guarantee you there will be a problem with it.
Do you people seriously think, that after all the flaws have been found in the OCT from all the many different, credible sources, that it can possibly be true and stand up to scrutiny?
If so, then it is you people that live in a fantasy world and subscribe to the most outrageous conspiracy theory ever foisted on the American public, and you should have your asses debrainwashed.

I can understand the denial process, I really can as I myself experienced it, but when these MFKERS continue to try to use their positions of power and authority to make us look like total fucking clueless imbeciles, that's it man, I call it for what it is and that is BS!

Look around, read your history, and witness how bad Americans ( and the rest of the world) have been fucked over for decades, If you insist on not wanting to believe what has been done, STFU, and at least let people who are aware of the atrocities use their rights to speak out, and try to hold the lying fucks accountable.


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding, they will even tell you that those were not the right planes that we all saw hit the towers, that those planes landed safely in Cleveland......... God only knows where the people are today.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's true.  That is one of those subjects that is beyond debate.  But, Mr. Jones hasn't made that claim, at least not as far as I know.
> I HOPE that we all agree that commercial planes where used on that day and that the people on them actually died in those crashes.  I know there is still debate about the Pentagon and Pennsylvania.  But, I've heard all the evidence I need to convince me of those crashes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually he does allude to that theory in a manner of speaking in this post:
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3781201-post1248.html
Click to expand...


Why don't you be a man and quote me directly Ollie? You are embarrassing yourself by reaching in your ass and pulling pure shit out now.


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, if you are so ignorant that *you refuse to accept what everyone in the world can see*, then there is no hope for you. Not one of us can help you, you will remain ignorant and in fear for eternity.  So sad.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your appeal is a fallacy
> Ad populum
> Definition: The Latin name of this fallacy means "to the people." *There are several versions of the ad populum fallacy, but what they all have in common is that in them, the arguer takes advantage of the desire most people have to be liked and to fit in with others and uses that desire to try to get the audience to accept his or her argument.* One of the most common versions is the bandwagon fallacy, in which the arguer tries to convince the audience to do or believe something because everyone else (supposedly) does.
> 
> You people have a desire to run with the crowd, thus your comment is a common one used to avoid the facts that have been presented to you.
> You have shown a willful ignorance to anything that has been presented, and have provided no reasonable opinions other then your appeal to authority and the "bandwagon' mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh horse shit. You want to believe that NIST says the towers fell in 9 to 11 seconds, you go right on believing that. The only person who looks like an idiot is you. If you cannot see the parts of the building falling ahead of the collapse then you truly are in need of professional help.
Click to expand...


I believe NIST is wrong and flat out lied in many instances about the collapses. NIST has an estimate for collapse times, that you all posted, and they claim that those times occurred because the towers "provided minimal resistance" without even explaining why.
So why don't you tell us what NIST should have estimated those times to be?? Instead of making up lies about me, and  begging for us to believe you about anything because in your opinion" the whole world believes NIST" and the OCT.


----------



## eots

Rationalist1016 said:


> The point in all of this is, that there IS credible *proof*, and evidence that reputable intellectuals provide, from scientists, engineers, military, whistle blowers, and more, from all walks of life,  that  counter the *theories* of NIST and others, with respect to 9-11.
> They clearly prove that what they have uncovered in their research, that the events of 9-11 as told by the government and its agencies are incorrect, and that a new investigation is warranted.
> *No one on here, has been able to provide any evidence that shows NIST has made an indisputable finding as to what, or how the buildings collapsed.*
> I have posted links to various people who have countered the OCT, have provided witnesses, and calculations in those links.
> If people are stubborn and want to say there is no evidence or proof  they are wrong, as I have shown that there is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there's where we differ.  You are calling all the "other" claims *proof*.  While you call NIST claims *theory*.  NIST is the one that compiled their report from people that were on that site.  Touched those beams & saw the scattering of those buildings.  They didn't sit in a conference room and "guess" what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ARE YOU SAYING SHYAM SUNDER WAS AT GROUND ZERO ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did the best they could with the evidence that they had.  There were mistakes, there were things they left out.  NOBODY knows or can know every single detail that took place while those buildings were failing.  Especially not people that are doing all their work on what they think buildings SHOULD look like when they fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ??????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that nobody can prove that NISTs claims are indisputable.  Again, we are back to who we find credible!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, WE ARE BACK TO ARE PROPER FACT DRIVEN INVESTIGATION WITH AUTHORITY NEEDS TO BE DONE
> STARTING WITH THE COLLAPSE OF WTC 7
Click to expand...


----------



## SFC Ollie

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's true.  That is one of those subjects that is beyond debate.  But, Mr. Jones hasn't made that claim, at least not as far as I know.
> I HOPE that we all agree that commercial planes where used on that day and that the people on them actually died in those crashes.  I know there is still debate about the Pentagon and Pennsylvania.  But, I've heard all the evidence I need to convince me of those crashes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually he does allude to that theory in a manner of speaking in this post:
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3781201-post1248.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you be a man and quote me directly Ollie? You are embarrassing yourself by reaching in your ass and pulling pure shit out now.
Click to expand...


Do you deny that you posted this as part of your argument?



> United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash - According To ATC/Radar
> 04/28/09 (PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Recently it has been brought to our attention that Air Traffic Control (ATC) transcripts reveal United 93 as being airborne after it's alleged crash. Similar scenarios have been offered with regard to American 77 and American 11 showing an aircraft target continuing past its alleged crash point in the case of American 11, or past the turn-around point in the case of American 77. However, both these issues can be easily explained by "Coast Mode" radar tracking. This is not the case with United 93.
> Full Article Here
> -By Gordon Ross
> AE911Truth.org...



Don't doubt me numb nuts...... I certainly didn't make it up....


----------



## Trojan

Curious, say you get a new investigation -- who should perform the investigation?  I'd like to know who you think is qualified.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your appeal is a fallacy
> Ad populum
> Definition: The Latin name of this fallacy means "to the people." *There are several versions of the ad populum fallacy, but what they all have in common is that in them, the arguer takes advantage of the desire most people have to be liked and to fit in with others and uses that desire to try to get the audience to accept his or her argument.* One of the most common versions is the bandwagon fallacy, in which the arguer tries to convince the audience to do or believe something because everyone else (supposedly) does.
> 
> You people have a desire to run with the crowd, thus your comment is a common one used to avoid the facts that have been presented to you.
> You have shown a willful ignorance to anything that has been presented, and have provided no reasonable opinions other then your appeal to authority and the "bandwagon' mentality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh horse shit. You want to believe that NIST says the towers fell in 9 to 11 seconds, you go right on believing that. The only person who looks like an idiot is you. If you cannot see the parts of the building falling ahead of the collapse then you truly are in need of professional help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe NIST is wrong and flat out lied in many instances about the collapses. NIST has an estimate for collapse times, that you all posted, and they claim that those times occurred because the towers "provided minimal resistance" without even explaining why.
> So why don't you tell us what NIST should have estimated those times to be?? Instead of making up lies about me, and  begging for us to believe you about anything because in your opinion" the whole world believes NIST" and the OCT.
Click to expand...


NIST did that for you, if you only read a little bit more than what your handlers want you to.



> From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.



NIST's Investigation of the Sept. 11 World Trade Center Disaster - Frequently Asked Questions

Now i know you have a hard time understanding all this so I'll tell you again.

The 9 and 11 second time periods were for the first unobstructed pieces of the buildings to hit the ground. The buildings were still collapsing at this time, and didn't finish collapsing for at least another 15 to 25 seconds.....

It's soooo simple. 

You can see the pieces that hit the ground first in most videos.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA]YouTube - &#x202a;9/11: South Tower "Collapse" video compilation&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## Rationalist1016

Trojan said:


> Curious, say you get a new investigation -- who should perform the investigation?  I'd like to know who you think is qualified.



That is a good question.  Because, apparently, there is a "vast power that the government has over the researchers who have contrary theories"(quote from Mr. Jones).  So, using that premise, who could possibly do this investigation?  If a committee WAS established, that had no government ties, & where all independent researchers, scientists, & engineers, would that be good enough?  I don't believe it would.  As soon as the committee submitted a report that didn't align with their claims, all we would hear is "the government (or some element of) derailed the investigation!!"  You can't keep moving the goal post back when you don't like the answer.
I have already had this conversation with Mr. Jones.  Although, I don't think he ever addressed this question.


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually he does allude to that theory in a manner of speaking in this post:
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3781201-post1248.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you be a man and quote me directly Ollie? You are embarrassing yourself by reaching in your ass and pulling pure shit out now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you deny that you posted this as part of your argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash - According To ATC/Radar
> 04/28/09 (PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Recently it has been brought to our attention that Air Traffic Control (ATC) transcripts reveal United 93 as being airborne after it's alleged crash. Similar scenarios have been offered with regard to American 77 and American 11 showing an aircraft target continuing past its alleged crash point in the case of American 11, or past the turn-around point in the case of American 77. However, both these issues can be easily explained by "Coast Mode" radar tracking. This is not the case with United 93.
> Full Article Here
> -By Gordon Ross
> AE911Truth.org...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't doubt me numb nuts...... I certainly didn't make it up....
Click to expand...


Poor Ollie, has to take things out of context and twist it to fit his sorry argument.
So you take something out of a huge list, that I posted in response  to people wanting to see proof or evidence of problems with the OCT? And this after the discussion was on NIST and the WTC collapses? Way to make yourself look foolish 
It's no surprise you would try to do an idiotic thing like this,as you have nothing useful to say in response to what had been talked about by everyone else.
Typical of you to take the time to go through previous posts to use this way instead of actually reading the given links and learning something about the issues


----------



## SFC Ollie

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you be a man and quote me directly Ollie? You are embarrassing yourself by reaching in your ass and pulling pure shit out now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you deny that you posted this as part of your argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash - According To ATC/Radar
> 04/28/09 (PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Recently it has been brought to our attention that Air Traffic Control (ATC) transcripts reveal United 93 as being airborne after it's alleged crash. Similar scenarios have been offered with regard to American 77 and American 11 showing an aircraft target continuing past its alleged crash point in the case of American 11, or past the turn-around point in the case of American 77. However, both these issues can be easily explained by "Coast Mode" radar tracking. This is not the case with United 93.
> Full Article Here
> -By Gordon Ross
> AE911Truth.org...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't doubt me numb nuts...... I certainly didn't make it up....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor Ollie, has to take things out of context and twist it to fit his sorry argument.
> So you take something out of a huge list, that I posted in response  to people wanting to see proof or evidence of problems with the OCT? And this after the discussion was on NIST and the WTC collapses? Way to make yourself look foolish
> It's no surprise you would try to do an idiotic thing like this,as you have nothing useful to say in response to what had been talked about by everyone else.
> Typical of you to take the time to go through previous posts to use this way instead of actually reading the given links and learning something about the issues
Click to expand...


So you are posting things that you don't believe are true? OK. I think I understand. We are not to believe that you believe anything that you post unless of course you tell us that you believe it. So just what do you believe?


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh horse shit. You want to believe that NIST says the towers fell in 9 to 11 seconds, you go right on believing that. The only person who looks like an idiot is you. If you cannot see the parts of the building falling ahead of the collapse then you truly are in need of professional help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe NIST is wrong and flat out lied in many instances about the collapses. NIST has an estimate for collapse times, that you all posted, and they claim that those times occurred because the towers "provided minimal resistance" without even explaining why.
> So why don't you tell us what NIST should have estimated those times to be?? Instead of making up lies about me, and  begging for us to believe you about anything because in your opinion" the whole world believes NIST" and the OCT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NIST did that for you, if you only read a little bit more than what your handlers want you to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NIST's Investigation of the Sept. 11 World Trade Center Disaster - Frequently Asked Questions
> 
> Now i know you have a hard time understanding all this so I'll tell you again.
> 
> The 9 and 11 second time periods were for the first unobstructed pieces of the buildings to hit the ground. The buildings were still collapsing at this time, and didn't finish collapsing for at least another 15 to 25 seconds.....
> 
> It's soooo simple.
> 
> You can see the pieces that hit the ground first in most videos.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA]YouTube - &#x202a;9/11: South Tower "Collapse" video compilation&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]
Click to expand...


 So by your estimate we are supposed to take 9 secs+another 15 to 25secs? Are you that stupid..really?  OMG!
I'm surprised you don't just go ahead and start your clock when pieces of the tower started to fall right after the plane impacts!!

Perhaps you could contribute to NIST, and set the 9-11 commission report straight while you're at it. 
Complete collapse times vary, here one of your favorite "debunker" sites has it no more then 15-16 secs.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_collapse_time_estimates.html

Again the commission excepts 10 secs, and you all rave about how no one can dispute the "9-11 commission"
It is generally excepted between 10 and 16 secs, FYI. Still over twice as fast as should have taken.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Wow, The intelligence level in here just fell by 50 points......


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you deny that you posted this as part of your argument?
> 
> 
> 
> Don't doubt me numb nuts...... I certainly didn't make it up....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Ollie, has to take things out of context and twist it to fit his sorry argument.
> So you take something out of a huge list, that I posted in response  to people wanting to see proof or evidence of problems with the OCT? And this after the discussion was on NIST and the WTC collapses? Way to make yourself look foolish
> It's no surprise you would try to do an idiotic thing like this,as you have nothing useful to say in response to what had been talked about by everyone else.
> Typical of you to take the time to go through previous posts to use this way instead of actually reading the given links and learning something about the issues
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are posting things that you don't believe are true? OK. I think I understand. We are not to believe that you believe anything that you post unless of course you tell us that you believe it. So just what do you believe?
Click to expand...

Seriously Ollie are you that dense man? There are many different things about 9-11 that researchers have doubts about, and what I posted are the many different people, places and things that are in debate, and dispute. The discussion was about NIST and the WTC, then you bring up planes and try to drag me into a side session about flight 93? wtf does that have to do with NIST and the WTC??

 Please, if you wish to discuss flight 93 start a thread about that, or try to find the right time to interject that when it has relevance to the conversation at hand.
Getting back on point,
Again you are wrong about NIST, it's accuracy, and the times of collapse, would you like to explain your theories about the collapse initiations, times or kinetic forces etc or anything else that pertains to the NIST and the WTC?
I have posted many links concerning this that clearly show the vast amount of opposition, evidence they supply as proof, and the rebuttals to NIST.


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> Wow, The intelligence level in here just fell by 50 points......


 Yes it did, thanks to your recent idiotic posts


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, The intelligence level in here just fell by 50 points......
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it did, thanks to your recent idiotic posts
Click to expand...


Jones, you are a fucking douche.  Always have been.  Always will be.  Fortunately one can always spot you in real life from the trail of slime you leave behind where ever you go.

Now why don't you grow a pair of balls for once in your pathetic life and either supply us with a piece of real evidence you claim to have, or man up and admit you've been lying your ass off the whole time.

You know.... sooner or later whatever credibility you have left is going to disappear as you continue to run like a little bitch from this very simple request..... well..... simple if you were being honest.  But we both know you're not.  You're only here to preach your lies in a vain attempt to overthrow the government.   

Like I said.  What a fucking douche.  Good thing no woman would touch you.  Could you imagine a mini truthtard with a bad attitude.


----------



## eots

patriot911 said:


> mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow, the intelligence level in here just fell by 50 points......
> 
> 
> 
> yes it did, thanks to your recent idiotic posts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> jones, you are a fucking douche.  Always have been.  Always will be.  Fortunately one can always spot you in real life from the trail of slime you leave behind where ever you go.
> 
> Now why don't you grow a pair of balls for once in your pathetic life and either supply us with a piece of real evidence you claim to have, or man up and admit you've been lying your ass off the whole time.
> 
> You know.... Sooner or later whatever credibility you have left is going to disappear as you continue to run like a little bitch from this very simple request..... Well..... Simple if you were being honest.  But we both know you're not.  You're only here to preach your lies in a vain attempt to overthrow the government.
> 
> Like i said.  What a fucking douche.  Good thing no woman would touch you.  Could you imagine a mini truthtard with a bad attitude.
Click to expand...


 my god are you an idiot


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes it did, thanks to your recent idiotic posts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jones, you are a fucking douche.  Always have been.  Always will be.  Fortunately one can always spot you in real life from the trail of slime you leave behind where ever you go.
> 
> Now why don't you grow a pair of balls for once in your pathetic life and either supply us with a piece of real evidence you claim to have, or man up and admit you've been lying your ass off the whole time.
> 
> You know.... Sooner or later whatever credibility you have left is going to disappear as you continue to run like a little bitch from this very simple request..... Well..... Simple if you were being honest.  But we both know you're not.  You're only here to preach your lies in a vain attempt to overthrow the government.
> 
> Like i said.  What a fucking douche.  Good thing no woman would touch you.  Could you imagine a mini truthtard with a bad attitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> my god are you an idiot
Click to expand...


Well, like nearly everything else you post, you're wrong.

Speaking of dishonest idiots, I've asked you to present one real piece of evidence your bullshit theories are true.  So where is it?


----------



## SFC Ollie

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Ollie, has to take things out of context and twist it to fit his sorry argument.
> So you take something out of a huge list, that I posted in response  to people wanting to see proof or evidence of problems with the OCT? And this after the discussion was on NIST and the WTC collapses? Way to make yourself look foolish
> It's no surprise you would try to do an idiotic thing like this,as you have nothing useful to say in response to what had been talked about by everyone else.
> Typical of you to take the time to go through previous posts to use this way instead of actually reading the given links and learning something about the issues
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are posting things that you don't believe are true? OK. I think I understand. We are not to believe that you believe anything that you post unless of course you tell us that you believe it. So just what do you believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously Ollie are you that dense man? There are many different things about 9-11 that researchers have doubts about, and what I posted are the many different people, places and things that are in debate, and dispute. The discussion was about NIST and the WTC, then you bring up planes and try to drag me into a side session about flight 93? wtf does that have to do with NIST and the WTC??
> 
> Please, if you wish to discuss flight 93 start a thread about that, or try to find the right time to interject that when it has relevance to the conversation at hand.
> Getting back on point,
> Again you are wrong about NIST, it's accuracy, and the times of collapse, would you like to explain your theories about the collapse initiations, times or kinetic forces etc or anything else that pertains to the NIST and the WTC?
> I have posted many links concerning this that clearly show the vast amount of opposition, evidence they supply as proof, and the rebuttals to NIST.
Click to expand...


I may get serious when you learn to understand English. But you have your head so screwed up you can't see fact from fiction. Once again. NIST said that the first pieces of the towers hit the ground in 9 and 11 seconds. The buildings were still collapsing when that happened....
A 3rd grader could understand this. Real shame that you can't.


----------



## Rationalist1016

> ARE YOU SAYING SHYAM SUNDER WAS AT GROUND ZERO ?



No, that is not what I am saying.  
Admittedly, I used a poor choice of words.





> ??????



I'm not sure what you didn't understand.  My choice of words must of been off on this one too.



> NO, WE ARE BACK TO ARE PROPER FACT DRIVEN INVESTIGATION WITH AUTHORITY NEEDS TO BE DONE
> STARTING WITH THE COLLAPSE OF WTC 7



Nope..............it is YOUR CHOICE of facts that you are referring to.  There is a difference between claims & facts.


----------



## eots

You have yet to  clarify what constitutes evidence in our mind


----------



## Trojan

Rationalist1016 said:


> Trojan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Curious, say you get a new investigation -- who should perform the investigation?  I'd like to know who you think is qualified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a good question.  Because, apparently, there is a "vast power that the government has over the researchers who have contrary theories"(quote from Mr. Jones).  So, using that premise, who could possibly do this investigation?  If a committee WAS established, that had no government ties, & where all independent researchers, scientists, & engineers, would that be good enough?  I don't believe it would.  As soon as the committee submitted a report that didn't align with their claims, all we would hear is "the government (or some element of) derailed the investigation!!"  You can't keep moving the goal post back when you don't like the answer.
> I have already had this conversation with Mr. Jones.  Although, I don't think he ever addressed this question.
Click to expand...


Exactly, the members would have to have no ties to government, no ties to govenment funding, so eliminate virually the entire academic community, good lord, they best not work for a company that does or ever did government work, imagine if they worked for a company that once had ties to Marvin Bush?  wow, and they would have to be individuals that had no ties to friendly governments

perhaps there are some Iranian and North Korean engineers and architects with experience in nanothermite?  they would also have to be forensic investigators --- but wait, what if the CIA had infiltrated their agency

Ok, I give up

who should do the investigation -- and mind you, they should be independent of the truthers themselves

c'mon, help me out

who gets the contract for the next investigation?


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are posting things that you don't believe are true? OK. I think I understand. We are not to believe that you believe anything that you post unless of course you tell us that you believe it. So just what do you believe?
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously Ollie are you that dense man? There are many different things about 9-11 that researchers have doubts about, and what I posted are the many different people, places and things that are in debate, and dispute. The discussion was about NIST and the WTC, then you bring up planes and try to drag me into a side session about flight 93? wtf does that have to do with NIST and the WTC??
> 
> Please, if you wish to discuss flight 93 start a thread about that, or try to find the right time to interject that when it has relevance to the conversation at hand.
> Getting back on point,
> Again you are wrong about NIST, it's accuracy, and the times of collapse, would you like to explain your theories about the collapse initiations, times or kinetic forces etc or anything else that pertains to the NIST and the WTC?
> I have posted many links concerning this that clearly show the vast amount of opposition, evidence they supply as proof, and the rebuttals to NIST.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I may get serious when you learn to understand English. But you have your head so screwed up you can't see fact from fiction. Once again. NIST said that the first pieces of the towers hit the ground in 9 and 11 seconds. The buildings were still collapsing when that happened....
> A 3rd grader could understand this. Real shame that you can't.
Click to expand...


ok then please tell us how many SECS is it


----------



## Trojan

eots said:


> You have yet to  clarify what constitutes evidence in our mind



I doubt anyone wants to know what constitutes evidence in your mind ... good lord, what a frightening thought


----------



## eots

Trojan said:


> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trojan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Curious, say you get a new investigation -- who should perform the investigation?  I'd like to know who you think is qualified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a good question.  Because, apparently, there is a "vast power that the government has over the researchers who have contrary theories"(quote from Mr. Jones).  So, using that premise, who could possibly do this investigation?  If a committee WAS established, that had no government ties, & where all independent researchers, scientists, & engineers, would that be good enough?  I don't believe it would.  As soon as the committee submitted a report that didn't align with their claims, all we would hear is "the government (or some element of) derailed the investigation!!"  You can't keep moving the goal post back when you don't like the answer.
> I have already had this conversation with Mr. Jones.  Although, I don't think he ever addressed this question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly, the members would have to have no ties to government, no ties to govenment funding, so eliminate virually the entire academic community, good lord, they best not work for a company that does or ever did government work, imagine if they worked for a company that once had ties to Marvin Bush?  wow, and they would have to be individuals that had no ties to friendly governments
> 
> perhaps there are some Iranian and North Korean engineers and architects with experience in nanothermite?  they would also have to be forensic investigators --- but wait, what if the CIA had infiltrated their agency
> 
> Ok, I give up
> 
> who should do the investigation -- and mind you, they should be independent of the truthers themselves
> 
> c'mon, help me out
> 
> who gets the contract for the next investigation?
Click to expand...


I would love to see Deets and DR Quintero involved and the family steering committee


----------



## eots

Trojan said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to  clarify what constitutes evidence in our mind
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt anyone wants to know what constitutes evidence in your mind ... good lord, what a frightening thought
Click to expand...


ya nice way of avoiding the question


----------



## SFC Ollie

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously Ollie are you that dense man? There are many different things about 9-11 that researchers have doubts about, and what I posted are the many different people, places and things that are in debate, and dispute. The discussion was about NIST and the WTC, then you bring up planes and try to drag me into a side session about flight 93? wtf does that have to do with NIST and the WTC??
> 
> Please, if you wish to discuss flight 93 start a thread about that, or try to find the right time to interject that when it has relevance to the conversation at hand.
> Getting back on point,
> Again you are wrong about NIST, it's accuracy, and the times of collapse, would you like to explain your theories about the collapse initiations, times or kinetic forces etc or anything else that pertains to the NIST and the WTC?
> I have posted many links concerning this that clearly show the vast amount of opposition, evidence they supply as proof, and the rebuttals to NIST.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I may get serious when you learn to understand English. But you have your head so screwed up you can't see fact from fiction. Once again. NIST said that the first pieces of the towers hit the ground in 9 and 11 seconds. The buildings were still collapsing when that happened....
> A 3rd grader could understand this. Real shame that you can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok then please tell us how many SECS is it
Click to expand...


Now Eots, you know that I am not an engineer. And you also know that the NIST did not give a time for the total collapse of either tower.


> From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.



But it was obviously longer than 9 and 11 seconds.......


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> You have yet to  clarify what constitutes evidence in our mind



Already did.  So far you've ignored it like you do everything you don't like and can't address.


----------



## Rationalist1016

eots said:


> You have yet to  clarify what constitutes evidence in our mind



Physical evidence:  Example, if you believe bombs or thermite where in the buildings.  Evidence would be a piece that is indisputably part of a bomb or the rigging for a thermite charge.  Not claims that there is something in the dust that "can only be explained by thermite use".  Why? Because that is in dispute.  It is not accepted across the board, that the dust contains thermite.  There are so-called experts on both sides of that one.
There is "evidence" of planes hitting the buildings.  There is video of it and airplane parts in the rubble.............that equals evidence.

Example, if you believe that the Bush administration orchestrated the events of that day.  Evidence would be recorded conversations or official memos dated before Sept. 11, 2001 that make reference to the attacks.  Not claims that because he said he saw the first plane hit the towers on TV that day, he is lying about what he knows.

Evidence is something that we can universally agree points to the same conclusion.


----------



## eots

> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to  clarify what constitutes evidence in our mind
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Physical evidence:  Example, if you believe bombs or thermite where in the buildings.  Evidence would be a piece that is indisputably part of a bomb or the rigging for a thermite charge.  Not claims that there is something in the dust that "can only be explained by thermite use".  Why? Because that is in dispute.  It is not accepted across the board, that the dust contains thermite.  There are so-called experts on both sides of that one.
> There is "evidence" of planes hitting the buildings.  There is video of it and airplane parts in the rubble.............that equals evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that is evidence  planes  hit buildings and nothing more and No plane hit wtc 7 your claims termite charges would be found is not accurate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Example,
> if you believe that the Bush administration orchestrated the events of that day.  Evidence would be recorded conversations or official memos dated before Sept. 11, 2001 that make reference to the attacks.  Not claims that because he said he saw the first plane hit the towers on TV that day, he is lying about what he knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I BELIEVE SAYING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ORCHESTRATED HE ATTACKS AS FAR TOO SIMPLISTIC..HOWEVER WE HAVE BUSH SAYING HE WITNESSED THE FIRST PLANE HIT THE TOWERS AND MULTIPLE REPORTS OF EXPLOSIONS IN THE BUILDING ABSOLUTELY DENIED BY NIST
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence is something that we can universally agree points to the same conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THAT IS NOT THE DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

sfc ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> i may get serious when you learn to understand english. But you have your head so screwed up you can't see fact from fiction. Once again. Nist said that the first pieces of the towers hit the ground in 9 and 11 seconds. The buildings were still collapsing when that happened....
> A 3rd grader could understand this. Real shame that you can't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok then please tell us how many secs is it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> now eots, you know that i am not an engineer. And you also know that the nist did not give a time for the total collapse of either tower.
> 
> 
> 
> from video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of wtc 1 and 40 stories of wtc 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but it was obviously longer than 9 and 11 seconds.......
Click to expand...


so if we throw you a sec or two..do you think it some how explains the complete collapse of a 110 story building  in secs ?


----------



## eots

patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have yet to  clarify what constitutes evidence in our mind
> 
> 
> 
> 
> already did.  So far you've ignored it like you do everything you don't like and can't address.
Click to expand...


this debwunker is almost as pathetic as that dwivecon clot
anytime he wants to avoid answering a question he makes the false claim.... _he already has_


----------



## Trojan

eots said:


> Trojan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a good question.  Because, apparently, there is a "vast power that the government has over the researchers who have contrary theories"(quote from Mr. Jones).  So, using that premise, who could possibly do this investigation?  If a committee WAS established, that had no government ties, & where all independent researchers, scientists, & engineers, would that be good enough?  I don't believe it would.  As soon as the committee submitted a report that didn't align with their claims, all we would hear is "the government (or some element of) derailed the investigation!!"  You can't keep moving the goal post back when you don't like the answer.
> I have already had this conversation with Mr. Jones.  Although, I don't think he ever addressed this question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, the members would have to have no ties to government, no ties to govenment funding, so eliminate virually the entire academic community, good lord, they best not work for a company that does or ever did government work, imagine if they worked for a company that once had ties to Marvin Bush?  wow, and they would have to be individuals that had no ties to friendly governments
> 
> perhaps there are some Iranian and North Korean engineers and architects with experience in nanothermite?  they would also have to be forensic investigators --- but wait, what if the CIA had infiltrated their agency
> 
> Ok, I give up
> 
> who should do the investigation -- and mind you, they should be independent of the truthers themselves
> 
> c'mon, help me out
> 
> who gets the contract for the next investigation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would love to see Deets and DR Quintero involved and the family steering committee
Click to expand...


who are Deets and Dr Quintero == how are two people going to do this?  if they are truthers who make money from their theories, they cannot touch the investigation

and the family steering committe would clearly have a conflict of interest, and I seriously doubt any have the required experience


----------



## eots

Trojan said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trojan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, the members would have to have no ties to government, no ties to govenment funding, so eliminate virually the entire academic community, good lord, they best not work for a company that does or ever did government work, imagine if they worked for a company that once had ties to Marvin Bush?  wow, and they would have to be individuals that had no ties to friendly governments
> 
> perhaps there are some Iranian and North Korean engineers and architects with experience in nanothermite?  they would also have to be forensic investigators --- but wait, what if the CIA had infiltrated their agency
> 
> Ok, I give up
> 
> who should do the investigation -- and mind you, they should be independent of the truthers themselves
> 
> c'mon, help me out
> 
> who gets the contract for the next investigation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to see Deets and DR Quintero involved and the family steering committee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> who are Deets and Dr Quintero == how are two people going to do this?  if they are truthers who make money from their theories, they cannot touch the investigation
> 
> and the family steering committe would clearly have a conflict of interest, and I seriously doubt any have the required experience
Click to expand...


I see no conflict of interest with family steering committee having some input and over sight there are some very intelligent informed and capable family members that do not required specialized training to call bullshit when they see it and I never said two people would do it I said I would like to see Deets and DR Q  involved



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcxjJDlbnC4]YouTube - &#x202a;Kissinger Vs. the 9/11 Families&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]
*
 James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division,*
OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

*Dwain Deets, MS Physics, MS Eng &#8211; Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research* Center.  Before this appointment, he served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden.  Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988).  Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics, a distinguished speaking engagement sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) (1986).  Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000.  Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers.  Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology.  37 year NASA career.


Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## Rationalist1016

eots said:


> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THAT IS NOT THE DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't ask for the textbook definition................you asked what I meant by evidence.
> 
> Also, why would there not be evidence of a thermite charge if one were used?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5IgqJXyLbg]YouTube - &#x202a;Tom Sullivan - Explosives Technician -- Loader&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have yet to  clarify what constitutes evidence in our mind
> 
> 
> 
> 
> already did.  So far you've ignored it like you do everything you don't like and can't address.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this debwunker is almost as pathetic as that dwivecon clot
> anytime he wants to avoid answering a question he makes the false claim.... _he already has_
Click to expand...


As usual, it is SOOOOOO easy to prove you're nothing but a pathetic two-bit loser of a liar.

Me providing definition of evidence to eots earlier.  So.... are you going to man up and admit you were lying your ass off or are you going to run away and hide like usual?


----------



## Patriot911

Rationalist1016 said:


> You didn't ask for the textbook definition................you asked what I meant by evidence.
> 
> Also, why would there not be evidence of a thermite charge if one were used?



There would be.  There would be molten iron (not steel) from the reaction all over the steel.  Numerous forensic experts examined the steel before it was destroyed, yet not one instance of someone finding melted steel beams with iron all around it.  

Unless, of course, eots has evidence of a new form of thermite that leaves no evidence and leaves the steel looking like it was damaged in the collapse.....


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> YouTube - &#x202a;Tom Sullivan - Explosives Technician -- Loader&#x202c;&rlm;



I see your "explosives loader", and submit a true expert's viewpoints and evidence it was not a controlled demolition.


----------



## SFC Ollie

eots said:


> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok then please tell us how many secs is it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> now eots, you know that i am not an engineer. And you also know that the nist did not give a time for the total collapse of either tower.
> 
> 
> 
> from video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of wtc 1 and 40 stories of wtc 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but it was obviously longer than 9 and 11 seconds.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so if we throw you a sec or two..do you think it some how explains the complete collapse of a 110 story building  in secs ?
Click to expand...


Indisputable evidence that you're stupid....... Thank you.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;Tom Sullivan - Explosives Technician -- Loader&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see your "explosives loader", and submit a true expert's viewpoints and evidence it was not a controlled demolition.
Click to expand...


Truth is that Eots keeps showing us how wrong he can be. His explosives loader tells us all the steps to weaken a steel framed building that could not have been accomplished in the WTC complex...

How many stairwells were weakened?
How many elevators were removed?
How many support beams were cut?

Zero
Zero
and Zero....


----------



## Rationalist1016

eots said:


> YouTube - &#x202a;Tom Sullivan - Explosives Technician -- Loader&#x202c;&rlm;



I have to admit, this guy SOUNDS good in the interview.  There seems to be some dispute whether he actually worked for CDI.  From what I have found on the subject, he did work for them for a short time...............as a photographer and assistant.  Which tells me that he is obviously familiar with demolitions.  He knows the terminology, he has witnessed multiple demolitions.  Even seems to know the process that they go through in setting up a demolition.  So, essentially he knows what they look like and sound like.  Unfortunately, this doesn't qualify him as an EXPERT in the field.
He does address what you and I were talking about...........that is evidence of an explosive in the debris pile.  But he is referring to a thermite shaped charge.  A term that only seems to exist on conspiracy sites.  You can google shaped charge and get a definition.  You can google thermite and get a definition.  A thermite shaped charge doesn't seem to have a definition.  If you can point me to it, I would be glad to read it.
Also, this brings up a bit of a contradiction.  The claim is that there is evidence of thermite in the dust.  Fine.  But then the witnesses that said they heard explosions are considered more proof.  The problem is, explosives wouldn't leave elements in the dust, they break the steel.  Thermite doesn't go BOOM.  It is a chemical reaction that cuts the steel.
So.............it was either thermite, which is quiet and the witnesses are hearing things.  Or, if you go with the witnesses, it was explosives, which doesn't work with your dust problem.


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;Tom Sullivan - Explosives Technician -- Loader&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see your "explosives loader", and submit a true expert's viewpoints and evidence it was not a controlled demolition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truth is that Eots keeps showing us how wrong he can be. His explosives loader tells us all the steps to weaken a steel framed building that could not have been accomplished in the WTC complex...
> 
> How many stairwells were weakened?
> How many elevators were removed?
> How many support beams were cut?
> 
> Zero
> Zero
> and Zero....
Click to expand...


no one said elevators removed...dont lie to sound more rational Ollie and almost no evidence was kept from wtc 7 almost all of was destroyed


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;Tom Sullivan - Explosives Technician -- Loader&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see your "explosives loader", and submit a true expert's viewpoints and evidence it was not a controlled demolition.
Click to expand...


implosion world and controlled demolition inc front company .. responsible for the removal and destruction of evidence


----------



## Rationalist1016

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see your "explosives loader", and submit a true expert's viewpoints and evidence it was not a controlled demolition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truth is that Eots keeps showing us how wrong he can be. His explosives loader tells us all the steps to weaken a steel framed building that could not have been accomplished in the WTC complex...
> 
> How many stairwells were weakened?
> How many elevators were removed?
> How many support beams were cut?
> 
> Zero
> Zero
> and Zero....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no one said elevators removed...dont lie to sound more rational Ollie and almost no evidence was kept from wtc 7 almost all of was destroyed
Click to expand...



Are you saying that in the Tom Sullivan interview...........he doesn't say the elevator cars are removed?..........when prepping a building for demolition.
I think you may need to watch that again.


----------



## eots

The explosive nature of nanothermite
Posted on June 19, 2011 by ultruth
In the last few years, a series of peer-reviewed scientific articles has been published that establish the presence of thermitic materials at the World Trade Center (WTC).  [A-D]

Although we know that nanothermite has been found in the WTC dust, we do not know what purpose it served in the deceptive demolition of the WTC buildings.  It could be that the nanothermite was used simply to drive fires in the impact zones and elevator areas &#8211; fires which would otherwise have gone out too early or not been present at all &#8211; and thereby create the deception that jet fuel-induced fires could wreak the havoc seen.  Nanothermite might also have been used to produce the explosions necessary to destroy the structural integrity of the buildings

The explosive nature of nanothermite | Dig Within


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6D4dla17aA]YouTube - &#x202a;Dutch Controlled Demolition expert 9/11&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## eots

Rationalist1016 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truth is that Eots keeps showing us how wrong he can be. His explosives loader tells us all the steps to weaken a steel framed building that could not have been accomplished in the WTC complex...
> 
> How many stairwells were weakened?
> How many elevators were removed?
> How many support beams were cut?
> 
> Zero
> Zero
> and Zero....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no one said elevators removed...dont lie to sound more rational Ollie and almost no evidence was kept from wtc 7 almost all of was destroyed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that in the Tom Sullivan interview...........he doesn't say the elevator cars are removed?..........when prepping a building for demolition.
> I think you may need to watch that again.
Click to expand...


yes elevator..cars removed...not elevators removed


----------



## Rationalist1016

eots said:


> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> no one said elevators removed...dont lie to sound more rational Ollie and almost no evidence was kept from wtc 7 almost all of was destroyed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that in the Tom Sullivan interview...........he doesn't say the elevator cars are removed?..........when prepping a building for demolition.
> I think you may need to watch that again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes elevator..cars removed...not elevators removed
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what you are claiming is the difference!?
The definition of elevator is "A platform or an enclosure raised and lowered in a vertical shaft to transport people or freight."
If one says they are removing the elevator................they are talking about the "car".

I hate to debt such an useless point.  But you did call someone out as a liar, when in fact, he did not!


----------



## SFC Ollie

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see your "explosives loader", and submit a true expert's viewpoints and evidence it was not a controlled demolition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truth is that Eots keeps showing us how wrong he can be. His explosives loader tells us all the steps to weaken a steel framed building that could not have been accomplished in the WTC complex...
> 
> How many stairwells were weakened?
> How many elevators were removed?
> How many support beams were cut?
> 
> Zero
> Zero
> and Zero....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no one said elevators removed...dont lie to sound more rational Ollie and almost no evidence was kept from wtc 7 almost all of was destroyed
Click to expand...


Just going through the steps that your expert said they had to go through to prepare for a controlled demolition. Glad to see that you agree that the buildings were never prepared.


----------



## SFC Ollie

And eots don't be an ass, you know damned well what was meant.


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truth is that Eots keeps showing us how wrong he can be. His explosives loader tells us all the steps to weaken a steel framed building that could not have been accomplished in the WTC complex...
> 
> How many stairwells were weakened?
> How many elevators were removed?
> How many support beams were cut?
> 
> Zero
> Zero
> and Zero....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no one said elevators removed...dont lie to sound more rational Ollie and almost no evidence was kept from wtc 7 almost all of was destroyed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just going through the steps that your expert said they had to go through to prepare for a controlled demolition. Glad to see that you agree that the buildings were never prepared.
Click to expand...


we have two demolition experts saying prep work could be done it that time with a small skilled team...whats your expertise on estimating prep time again ?


----------



## eots

Rationalist1016 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that in the Tom Sullivan interview...........he doesn't say the elevator cars are removed?..........when prepping a building for demolition.
> I think you may need to watch that again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes elevator..cars removed...not elevators removed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you are claiming is the difference!?
> The definition of elevator is "A platform or an enclosure raised and lowered in a vertical shaft to transport people or freight."
> If one says they are removing the elevator................they are talking about the "car".
> 
> I hate to debt such an useless point.  But you did call someone out as a liar, when in fact, he did not!
Click to expand...


there is a building elevator.. which includes all of its components one of those components is the elevator car


----------



## SFC Ollie

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> no one said elevators removed...dont lie to sound more rational Ollie and almost no evidence was kept from wtc 7 almost all of was destroyed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just going through the steps that your expert said they had to go through to prepare for a controlled demolition. Glad to see that you agree that the buildings were never prepared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we have two demolition experts saying prep work could be done it that time with a small skilled team...whats your expertise on estimating prep time again ?
Click to expand...


What amount of time? it takes weeks to prepare a building. months for doing it without anyone knowing. Know how many Elevator cars were removed from these buildings?


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, The intelligence level in here just fell by 50 points......
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it did, thanks to your recent idiotic posts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jones, you are a fucking douche.  Always have been.  Always will be.  Fortunately one can always spot you in real life from the trail of slime you leave behind where ever you go.
> 
> Now why don't you grow a pair of balls for once in your pathetic life and either supply us with a piece of real evidence you claim to have, or man up and admit you've been lying your ass off the whole time.
> 
> You know.... sooner or later whatever credibility you have left is going to disappear as you continue to run like a little bitch from this very simple request..... well..... simple if you were being honest.  But we both know you're not.  You're only here to preach your lies in a vain attempt to overthrow the government.
> 
> Like I said.  What a fucking douche.  Good thing no woman would touch you.  Could you imagine a mini truthtard with a bad attitude.
Click to expand...


is this some kind of thinly veiled attack on spouses and children ?


----------



## Rationalist1016

eots said:


> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes elevator..cars removed...not elevators removed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you are claiming is the difference!?
> The definition of elevator is "A platform or an enclosure raised and lowered in a vertical shaft to transport people or freight."
> If one says they are removing the elevator................they are talking about the "car".
> 
> I hate to debt such an useless point.  But you did call someone out as a liar, when in fact, he did not!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there is a building elevator.. which includes all of its components one of those components is the elevator car
Click to expand...


We can split hairs on the "elevator" all day..............but I noticed you didn't address the fact the you called someone a liar, when they did no such thing.  Is he a liar simply because he disagrees with you?


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;Tom Sullivan - Explosives Technician -- Loader&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see your "explosives loader", and submit a true expert's viewpoints and evidence it was not a controlled demolition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> implosion world and controlled demolition inc front company .. responsible for the removal and destruction of evidence
Click to expand...


Pretty pathetic excuse.  Where is your evidence or are you once again pulling "facts" out of your ass?


----------



## eots

The cleanup was a massive operation coordinated by the City of New York Department of Design and Construction. On September 22, a preliminary cleanup plan was delivered by Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Maryland.[72] It involved round-the-clock operations, many contractors and subcontractors, and cost hundreds of millions of dollars.[73] The large pile of debris left on the site burned for three months, resisting attempts to extinguish the blaze until the majority of the rubble was finally removed from the site.[74][75] By early November, with a third of the debris removed, officials began to reduce the number of firefighters and police officers assigned to recovering the remains of victims, in order to prioritize the removal of debris. This caused confrontations with firefighters.[76] In 2007, the demolition of the surrounding damaged buildings was still ongoing as new construction proceeded on the World Trade Center's replacement, 1 World Trade Center.

Collapse of the World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just going through the steps that your expert said they had to go through to prepare for a controlled demolition. Glad to see that you agree that the buildings were never prepared.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we have two demolition experts saying prep work could be done it that time with a small skilled team...whats your expertise on estimating prep time again ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What amount of time? it takes weeks to prepare a building. months for doing it without anyone knowing. Know how many Elevator cars were removed from these buildings?
Click to expand...


your expertise on prep time compared to controlled demolition experts is what again ?


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> The cleanup was a massive operation coordinated by the City of New York Department of Design and Construction. On September 22, a preliminary cleanup plan was delivered by Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Maryland.[72] It involved round-the-clock operations, many contractors and subcontractors, and cost hundreds of millions of dollars.[73] The large pile of debris left on the site burned for three months, resisting attempts to extinguish the blaze until the majority of the rubble was finally removed from the site.[74][75] By early November, with a third of the debris removed, officials began to reduce the number of firefighters and police officers assigned to recovering the remains of victims, in order to prioritize the removal of debris. This caused confrontations with firefighters.[76] In 2007, the demolition of the surrounding damaged buildings was still ongoing as new construction proceeded on the World Trade Center's replacement, 1 World Trade Center.
> 
> Collapse of the World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I am not debating that CDI, among many other companies, helped clean up ground zero.  I am debating your bullshit claim that CDI is a front company.


----------



## Trojan

eots said:


> Trojan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to see Deets and DR Quintero involved and the family steering committee
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who are Deets and Dr Quintero == how are two people going to do this?  if they are truthers who make money from their theories, they cannot touch the investigation
> 
> and the family steering committe would clearly have a conflict of interest, and I seriously doubt any have the required experience
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see no conflict of interest with family steering committee having some input and over sight there are some very intelligent informed and capable family members that do not required specialized training to call bullshit when they see it and I never said two people would do it I said I would like to see Deets and DR Q  involved
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcxjJDlbnC4]YouTube - &#x202a;Kissinger Vs. the 9/11 Families&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]
> *
> James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division,*
> OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
> 
> *Dwain Deets, MS Physics, MS Eng  Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research* Center.  Before this appointment, he served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden.  Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988).  Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics, a distinguished speaking engagement sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) (1986).  Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000.  Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers.  Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology.  37 year NASA career.
> 
> 
> Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
Click to expand...


So you want a former NASA enginer and a former NIST engineer - but do you accept them for their credentials or do you except them for what the say?  

Have Deets or Quintiere published on the subject?


----------



## Patriot911

Trojan said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trojan said:
> 
> 
> 
> who are Deets and Dr Quintero == how are two people going to do this?  if they are truthers who make money from their theories, they cannot touch the investigation
> 
> and the family steering committe would clearly have a conflict of interest, and I seriously doubt any have the required experience
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see no conflict of interest with family steering committee having some input and over sight there are some very intelligent informed and capable family members that do not required specialized training to call bullshit when they see it and I never said two people would do it I said I would like to see Deets and DR Q  involved
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcxjJDlbnC4]YouTube - &#x202a;Kissinger Vs. the 9/11 Families&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]
> *
> James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division,*
> OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
> 
> *Dwain Deets, MS Physics, MS Eng  Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research* Center.  Before this appointment, he served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden.  Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988).  Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics, a distinguished speaking engagement sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) (1986).  Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000.  Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers.  Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology.  37 year NASA career.
> 
> 
> Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want a former NASA enginer and a former NIST engineer - but do you accept them for their credentials or do you except them for what the say?
> 
> Have Deets or Quintiere published on the subject?
Click to expand...


Quintiere has, but neither eots nor Jones accept his conclusions.  They like him because he has credentials and questions the NIST report.  Eots is only looking for someone people would find credible to whine for his new investigation.  They would never accept his conclusions though because he doesn't believe the controlled demolition theories.


----------



## Trojan

Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NISTs conclusions and its investigatory process, *he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives*. If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the conspiracy theories that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, its one of the floors falling down.


----------



## SFC Ollie

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have two demolition experts saying prep work could be done it that time with a small skilled team...whats your expertise on estimating prep time again ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What amount of time? it takes weeks to prepare a building. months for doing it without anyone knowing. Know how many Elevator cars were removed from these buildings?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your expertise on prep time compared to controlled demolition experts is what again ?
Click to expand...


I must have learned from the experts you keep posting....

By the way, it took 4 months to prepare the Landmark Tower in Houston TX.....

Just saying.....


----------



## eots

Trojan said:


> Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NISTs conclusions and its investigatory process, *he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives*. If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the conspiracy theories that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, its one of the floors falling down.



ya so ?


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What amount of time? it takes weeks to prepare a building. months for doing it without anyone knowing. Know how many Elevator cars were removed from these buildings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your expertise on prep time compared to controlled demolition experts is what again ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I must have learned from the experts you keep posting....
> 
> By the way, it took 4 months to prepare the Landmark Tower in Houston TX.....
> 
> Just saying.....
Click to expand...


ya with liability issues to concern themselves with..union workers...expense considerations...inspectors...removing all windows..they couldn't just drop the building and bury half of downtown and people in it in carcinogenic dust, damage other buildings...just sayin


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> Trojan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see no conflict of interest with family steering committee having some input and over sight there are some very intelligent informed and capable family members that do not required specialized training to call bullshit when they see it and I never said two people would do it I said I would like to see Deets and DR Q  involved
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;Kissinger Vs. the 9/11 Families&#x202c;&rlm;
> *
> James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division,*
> OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
> 
> *Dwain Deets, MS Physics, MS Eng &#8211; Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research* Center.  Before this appointment, he served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden.  Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988).  Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics, a distinguished speaking engagement sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) (1986).  Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000.  Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers.  Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology.  37 year NASA career.
> 
> 
> Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you want a former NASA enginer and a former NIST engineer - but do you accept them for their credentials or do you except them for what the say?
> 
> Have Deets or Quintiere published on the subject?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quintiere has, but neither eots nor Jones accept his conclusions.  They like him because he has credentials and questions the NIST report.  Eots is only looking for someone people would find credible to whine for his new investigation.  They would never accept his conclusions though because he doesn't believe the controlled demolition theories.
Click to expand...


*his conclusion was the investigation was blocked and fact finding deterred and a independent fact driven re-investigation is required...something you can not seem to except*


----------



## techieny

Anybody hear about a substantial movement of military equipment throughout the I95 corridor? This have been going on the past few weeks. Several reports of weapons and others mics. gear being shipped via private carriers!

Techieny


----------



## SFC Ollie

techieny said:


> Anybody hear about a substantial movement of military equipment throughout the I95 corridor? This have been going on the past few weeks. Several reports of weapons and others mics. gear being shipped via private carriers!
> 
> Techieny



It's probably time for Exercise Solid Shield conducted each year by Units at Ft Bragg and Camp Lejune.....


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trojan said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you want a former NASA enginer and a former NIST engineer - but do you accept them for their credentials or do you except them for what the say?
> 
> Have Deets or Quintiere published on the subject?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quintiere has, but neither eots nor Jones accept his conclusions.  They like him because he has credentials and questions the NIST report.  Eots is only looking for someone people would find credible to whine for his new investigation.  They would never accept his conclusions though because he doesn't believe the controlled demolition theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *his conclusion was the investigation was blocked and fact finding deterred and a independent fact driven re-investigation is required...something you can not seem to except*
Click to expand...


At least I am intelligent enough to understand and use the English language.  That is something you cannot accept either.  ;-)  

Quintiere has his opinions.  He has no evidence to back them up.  He believes his own theory more than the NIST theory and the NIST theory more than the bullshit theories of you lowlifes and your controlled demolition.  Him being in charge of a new investigation would only produce a result you and your fellow retards could not and will not live with.  Thus you will demand a new NEW investigation, this time with Alex Jones, Richard Gage, and Judy Woods leading the investigation just to insure yourselves SOMEONE will validate you and your theories.  It would be meaningless because none of the above have any kind of real world credibility.  Not only that, but Jones, Gage, and Woods have differing theories.  They would have to agree and that is something truthtards are notoriously bad at.  

So I'm still waiting for one real piece of evidence from you, eots.  You've already been caught lying your ass off once.  Care to finally be a man and admit you were doing so about evidence as well?


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quintiere has, but neither eots nor Jones accept his conclusions.  They like him because he has credentials and questions the NIST report.  Eots is only looking for someone people would find credible to whine for his new investigation.  They would never accept his conclusions though because he doesn't believe the controlled demolition theories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *his conclusion was the investigation was blocked and fact finding deterred and a independent fact driven re-investigation is required...something you can not seem to except*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least I am intelligent enough to understand and use the English language.  That is something you cannot accept either.  ;-)
> 
> Quintiere has his opinions.  He has no evidence to back them up.  He believes his own theory more than the NIST theory and the NIST theory more than the bullshit theories of you lowlifes and your controlled demolition.  Him being in charge of a new investigation would only produce a result you and your fellow retards could not and will not live with.  Thus you will demand a new NEW investigation, this time with Alex Jones, Richard Gage, and Judy Woods leading the investigation just to insure yourselves SOMEONE will validate you and your theories.  It would be meaningless because none of the above have any kind of real world credibility.  Not only that, but Jones, Gage, and Woods have differing theories.  They would have to agree and that is something truthtards are notoriously bad at.
> 
> So I'm still waiting for one real piece of evidence from you, eots.  You've already been caught lying your ass off once.  Care to finally be a man and admit you were doing so about evidence as well?
Click to expand...


you are so full of shit and the only way you can debate anything is to state the other persons postion for them and make up little imaginings of what people _would_ say.._ if_...you are a clown show troll, nothing more


----------



## Trojan

eots said:


> Trojan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NISTs conclusions and its investigatory process, *he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives*. If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the conspiracy theories that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, its one of the floors falling down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ya so ?
Click to expand...


seriously

Nist thinks its a collie, Quintire thinks its a labrodor and you think its a unicorn == so how do you think he supports you, he thinks you are insane


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quintiere has, but neither eots nor Jones accept his conclusions.  They like him because he has credentials and questions the NIST report.  Eots is only looking for someone people would find credible to whine for his new investigation.  They would never accept his conclusions though because he doesn't believe the controlled demolition theories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *his conclusion was the investigation was blocked and fact finding deterred and a independent fact driven re-investigation is required...something you can not seem to except*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least I am intelligent enough to understand and use the English language.  That is something you cannot accept either.  ;-)
> 
> Quintiere has his opinions.  He has no evidence to back them up.  He believes his own theory more than the NIST theory and the NIST theory more than the bullshit theories of you lowlifes and your controlled demolition.  Him being in charge of a new investigation would only produce a result you and your fellow retards could not and will not live with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> look how he shows a complete lack of comprehension about what the purpose and procedure of  a fact driven scientific investigation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus you will demand a new NEW investigation, this time with Alex Jones, Richard Gage, and Judy Woods leading the investigation just to insure yourselves SOMEONE will validate you and your theories.
> It would be meaningless because none of the above have any kind of real world credibility
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> now he is off into his own little imaginings again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only that, but Jones, Gage, and Woods have differing theories.  They would have to agree and that is something truthtards are notoriously bad at
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> more rambling nonsense showing once again no understanding of scientific method
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I'm still waiting for one real piece of evidence from you, eots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yet he can not even define the word evidence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've already been caught lying your ass off once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ?????...about ?..just more of his empty narative
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to finally be a man and admit you were doing so about evidence as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> be a man...lol what would a child like you know about being a man ?
Click to expand...


----------



## Meister

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it did, thanks to your recent idiotic posts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jones, you are a fucking douche.  Always have been.  Always will be.  Fortunately one can always spot you in real life from the trail of slime you leave behind where ever you go.
> 
> Now why don't you grow a pair of balls for once in your pathetic life and either supply us with a piece of real evidence you claim to have, or man up and admit you've been lying your ass off the whole time.
> 
> You know.... sooner or later whatever credibility you have left is going to disappear as you continue to run like a little bitch from this very simple request..... well..... simple if you were being honest.  But we both know you're not.  You're only here to preach your lies in a vain attempt to overthrow the government.
> 
> Like I said.  What a fucking douche.  Good thing no woman would touch you.  Could you imagine a mini truthtard with a bad attitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> is this some kind of thinly veiled attack on spouses and children ?
Click to expand...


*Family attack?  Where?*


----------



## eots

Meister said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jones, you are a fucking douche.  Always have been.  Always will be.  Fortunately one can always spot you in real life from the trail of slime you leave behind where ever you go.
> 
> Now why don't you grow a pair of balls for once in your pathetic life and either supply us with a piece of real evidence you claim to have, or man up and admit you've been lying your ass off the whole time.
> 
> You know.... sooner or later whatever credibility you have left is going to disappear as you continue to run like a little bitch from this very simple request..... well..... simple if you were being honest.  But we both know you're not.  You're only here to preach your lies in a vain attempt to overthrow the government.
> 
> Like I said.  What a fucking douche.  Good thing no woman would touch you.  Could you imagine a mini truthtard with a bad attitude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is this some kind of thinly veiled attack on spouses and children ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Family attack?  Where?*
Click to expand...


it was a question not a statement...and what ever it is this type of poster should go to the flame zone if all he wants to do is spew obscenities and make* endless* sick little imaginings of sex and woman and children etc
the odd jab that way can be amusing..but this guys takes it to the point of some kind of illness


----------



## Mr. Jones

eots said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> is this some kind of thinly veiled attack on spouses and children ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Family attack?  Where?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it was a question not a statement...and what ever it is this type of poster should go to the flame zone if all he wants to do is spew obscenities and make* endless* sick little imaginings of sex and woman and children etc
> the odd jab that way can be amusing..but this guys takes it to the point of some kind of illness
Click to expand...


Absolutely, I have said for a long time now this poster is a sicko that uses the USMB as his personal launching pad to attack others.
I have an extensive list of his activity and passed it on.
Once you read and study the psychology of these trolls, you begin to understand the mental sickness they have, is why they exhibit this kind of behavior that many times leads them to a self projection of themselves subconsciously. In other words they wrongly portray in others, what they themselves are plagued with. It really is quite fascinating, and you can learn more about it here-

ANTI - TROLL . ORG


----------



## techieny

SFC Ollie said:


> techieny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody hear about a substantial movement of military equipment throughout the I95 corridor? This have been going on the past few weeks. Several reports of weapons and others mics. gear being shipped via private carriers!
> 
> Techieny
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's probably time for Exercise Solid Shield conducted each year by Units at Ft Bragg and Camp Lejune.....
Click to expand...


Thank you. I should have been more specific. There reports are indicating movement throughout the New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut areas. I'll try and nail down some credible sources and post/link them to this thread!

Techieny


----------



## eots

techieny said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> techieny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody hear about a substantial movement of military equipment throughout the I95 corridor? This have been going on the past few weeks. Several reports of weapons and others mics. gear being shipped via private carriers!
> 
> Techieny
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's probably time for Exercise Solid Shield conducted each year by Units at Ft Bragg and Camp Lejune.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you. I should have been more specific. There reports are indicating movement throughout the New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut areas. I'll try and nail down some credible sources and post/link them to this thread!
> 
> Techieny
Click to expand...


and this has what to do with the unexplained collapse of wtc 7


----------



## Patriot911

Not a single truther has stepped forward to submit one real piece of evidence for everyone to see their bullshit paranoid delusions are true and everything else is false.  All they can do is whine about other posters making them look foolish.    I would claim credit for reducing them to that state, but they started there and they will finish there.  They don't have the ability to be more than they are and they can't sink any lower because they are already bottomfeeders.


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Family attack?  Where?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it was a question not a statement...and what ever it is this type of poster should go to the flame zone if all he wants to do is spew obscenities and make* endless* sick little imaginings of sex and woman and children etc
> the odd jab that way can be amusing..but this guys takes it to the point of some kind of illness
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely, I have said for a long time now this poster is a sicko that uses the USMB as his personal launching pad to attack others.
> I have an extensive list of his activity and passed it on.
> Once you read and study the psychology of these trolls, you begin to understand the mental sickness they have, is why they exhibit this kind of behavior that many times leads them to a self projection of themselves subconsciously. In other words they wrongly portray in others, what they themselves are plagued with. It really is quite fascinating, and you can learn more about it here-
> 
> ANTI - TROLL . ORG
Click to expand...


Thus says the biggest hypocrite on the board.


----------



## techieny

eots said:


> techieny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's probably time for Exercise Solid Shield conducted each year by Units at Ft Bragg and Camp Lejune.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. I should have been more specific. There reports are indicating movement throughout the New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut areas. I'll try and nail down some credible sources and post/link them to this thread!
> 
> Techieny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and this has what to do with the unexplained collapse of wtc 7
Click to expand...


Well forgive me Father I obviously posted my ? in the wrong thread. I deeply regret doing that. Bye now.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> it was a question not a statement...and what ever it is this type of poster should go to the flame zone if all he wants to do is spew obscenities and make* endless* sick little imaginings of sex and woman and children etc
> the odd jab that way can be amusing..but this guys takes it to the point of some kind of illness
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely, I have said for a long time now this poster is a sicko that uses the USMB as his personal launching pad to attack others.
> I have an extensive list of his activity and passed it on.
> Once you read and study the psychology of these trolls, you begin to understand the mental sickness they have, is why they exhibit this kind of behavior that many times leads them to a self projection of themselves subconsciously. In other words they wrongly portray in others, what they themselves are plagued with. It really is quite fascinating, and you can learn more about it here-
> 
> ANTI - TROLL . ORG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thus says the biggest hypocrite on the board.
Click to expand...


You signed up here and started your insults and troll tactics and fallacy arguments from the get go, and started the personal attacks on people, now you want to cry hypocrisy when people defend themselves from your idiotic and vulgar attacks? 
I can fill a list of page long instances where you are proven to be the most vulgar sick hypocrite people have ever come across.
The topics in the link above fit you to a T.
The only one you have ever made look foolish is yourself.


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely, I have said for a long time now this poster is a sicko that uses the USMB as his personal launching pad to attack others.
> I have an extensive list of his activity and passed it on.
> Once you read and study the psychology of these trolls, you begin to understand the mental sickness they have, is why they exhibit this kind of behavior that many times leads them to a self projection of themselves subconsciously. In other words they wrongly portray in others, what they themselves are plagued with. It really is quite fascinating, and you can learn more about it here-
> 
> ANTI - TROLL . ORG
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus says the biggest hypocrite on the board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You signed up here and started your insults and troll tactics and fallacy arguments from the get go, and started the personal attacks on people, now you want to cry hypocrisy when people defend themselves from your idiotic and vulgar attacks?
Click to expand...

Judging from your reply, you have no clue what a hypocrite is.  Why don't you go look it up and realize it has nothing to do with me.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> I can fill a list of page long instances where you are proven to be the most vulgar sick hypocrite people have ever come across.


  Does this make you feel like a big boy?  Wow!  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> The topics in the link above fit you to a T.
> The only one you have ever made look foolish is yourself.


Wrong yet again.

So why don't you present us with a real piece of evidence to back up your paranoid delusional fantasies that you pretend you have all kinds of evidence for?  Or are you finally going to admit to everyone that you are lying your ass off.  

The more you ignore this, the more obvious it becomes what the truth really is.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Patriot911 said:


> Not a single truther has stepped forward to submit one real piece of evidence for everyone to see their bullshit paranoid delusions are true and everything else is false.  All they can do is whine about other posters making them look foolish.    I would claim credit for reducing them to that state, but they started there and they will finish there.  They don't have the ability to be more than they are and they can't sink any lower because they are already bottomfeeders.



Utter BS and nonsense. Many parts about the NIST fantasy have been rebuked and I have posted the links to the credible sources that explain their proof and evidence why NIST is FOS like yourself.
People have tried to debate and have reasonable discussions with you about it, to no avail as you ALWAYS resort to sick personal attacks, and hope that people get tired of your BS go away, and when some do you claim a victory!
You have failed at every attempt to prove NIST is anywhere at all correct in their guesses of what happened, and we have provided the links to back it up.
All you can do is ridicule then resort to the personal attacks on members including their families, because you are nothing but a vile coward who would face serious consequences if this was attempted somewhere other then behind the anonymity of the internet.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus says the biggest hypocrite on the board.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You signed up here and started your insults and troll tactics and fallacy arguments from the get go, and started the personal attacks on people, now you want to cry hypocrisy when people defend themselves from your idiotic and vulgar attacks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Judging from your reply, you have no clue what a hypocrite is.  Why don't you go look it up and realize it has nothing to do with me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can fill a list of page long instances where you are proven to be the most vulgar sick hypocrite people have ever come across.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does this make you feel like a big boy?  Wow!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The topics in the link above fit you to a T.
> The only one you have ever made look foolish is yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong yet again.
> 
> So why don't you present us with a real piece of evidence to back up your paranoid delusional fantasies that you pretend you have all kinds of evidence for?  Or are you finally going to admit to everyone that you are lying your ass off.
> 
> The more you ignore this, the more obvious it becomes what the truth really is.
Click to expand...


The evidence and proof  that independent researchers have discovered are well documented and have been posted many times. They are the reasons the NIST theory has been proven to be false and flawed. Your arguments for NIST are inconsistent with the rules you are applying for other view points. Such as NIST has NOT proven their theory is correct by providing indisputable evidence as anyone who has read the report will readily see, yet you demand what NIST does not and could not provide, from other alternative theories, that is a hypocrite clear as daylight. And quit with the appeal to authority and how great NIST is, that is a false argument also, as NIST has been shown to be wrong many times, especially by Chandler.
So you have failed to provide the indisputable proof that NIST is correct, while demanding proof we are correct? Ain't working that way. What we have provided is proof that shows they are wrong, among many other instances of inadequacies and inconsistencies.

Put up indisputable proof NIST got it right or STFU, and face the reality that they have been shown to be wrong on many fronts. Hell they even admit they may be wrong, and come to think of it so have you.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Isn't Chandler the guy who thinks NIST was wrong because he believes that the fires were hotter than what they claimed?

I can buy that. Either one proves there was no controlled demolition.....


----------



## Mr. Jones

Patriot911 said:


> Judging from your reply, you have no clue what a hypocrite is.  Why don't you go look it up and realize it has nothing to do with me.


You are a HYPOCRITE. You fling personal attacks against others, and when they defend themselves and insult you back, you have the nerve to look even more foolish, but calling them out for attacking you back  You really don't care how stupid you look on these boards, perhaps you don't even realize it. 
Here are the instances you have instigated and been involved in with different people throughout your short time here.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/3101121-post270.html


http://www.usmessageboard.com/3547196-post225.html


http://www.usmessageboard.com/3785359-post1307.html 

Here is the lone thread started by you letting be known of your intention in a mission statement that screams internet troll-
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3060027-post1.html

Patriot911-
http://www.usmessageboard.com/profile.php?do=buddylist

More insults from Patriot911-
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3702014-post46.html

Continues with insults 
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3103427-post279.html

And again with the insults-
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3083717-post35.html

More insults on other members-
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3640165-post517.html

New member faces the same by Patriot911 and responds-
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3699403-post768.html

Here is an example of his hypocrisy about insults-
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3640161-post516.html

Example of other USMB member and Partiot911-
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3083805-post37.html

Partiot911 warns others for spamming infraction, but his behavior that degrades the USMB forums is OK?-
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3083704-post4.html


Patriot911 is on other forums as a troll with same behavior-
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3097158-post8.html

MORE HYPOCRISY AND PERSONAL ATTACKS-


Patriot911 said:


> More bullshit lies and ad hominem from the king of the fucktards.  You "respect" what the OCT put out?    You're SUCH a fucking liar!
> You're a fucking loser.  I bet you always have been.  I know you always will be.  There is no redemption for someone as lowlife as you.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/3732701-post1025.html

Are you fucking kidding?!!

Patriot911 has caused people who just sign up to abandon USMB as a good place to frequent-
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3701660-post783.html
Check last activity of this poster?

Seriously why does USMB tolerate this behavior?


Patriot911 said:


> Naw.  You're a pussy.  I know it.  You know it.  It's obvious.  As for making points, I am addressing the points you make, you ignorant fuck!  Which is why it isn't surprising when you go running to your mama like a little bitch when you get your ass handed to you instead of being a man and either admitting fault or standing up for what you pretend you believe in.
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3701693-post785.html
> 
> Another new member with no recent activity because of the behavior allowed by Patriot911-
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3701166-post776.html
> 
> Same member being 'WELCOMED" to USMB by Patriot911-
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3698906-post760.html
> 
> USMB member appeals for rational discussion and end to name calling-
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3657964-post605.html
> 
> More hypocrisy and namecalling-
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3653647-post580.html
> 
> Another new member leaves USMB as a result of allowing threads to be derailed and obstucted by Patriot911-
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3647785-post559.html
> 
> Fed up USMB member-
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3592309-post429.html
> 
> Others notice Patriot911 and complain to him-
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3763939-post46.html
> 
> My Response to Patriot911 and warning to others-with examples of his past behavior
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3773934-post1168.html
> 
> Everyone of those instances, and there are even more, was started by you attacking others. In many your hypocrisy is on full display.
> You have resorted to harassment by continually asking questions that have been answered many times.
> You are a member that has no credibility, and if people really pay attention and analyze your ramblings, they will come to find that you either consciously or subconsciously, display serious mental problems and paranoid delusions.
> Here is a post where you actually think you are doing a good service for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission!
> 
> "Claims like Jones' erode the public's confidence in the nuclear reactors based on nothing but fearmongering and lies, not the truth. How can that be good for the nuclear industry? Here in Colorado a plant was just denied construction in Pueblo based on public opinion that was extremely negative. People like Jones pretend they bear no responsibility for the consequences of their irresponsible BS. I don't think that is right, so I speak up and expose the lies for what they are.
> Is this a bad thing? Or should we just let the lies rot and fester in the minds of the readers?"
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3786607-post77.html
> 
> My response in part was--
> I think I have a good guess at figuring you out, here's my take.
> Your problem is that you have an inner fear that makes you panic as soon as you might hear or suspect something is wrong, (any situation I assume will do) so you scramble to find comfort in anything that counters the threat, ( you immediately look for anything from any source) and if you find something, you then call those that expose the threat or even mention it as news LIARS!! and you get all pissed off at us because you blame us for you panic attacks, while you pretend you are a crusader of sorts and are on a mission to ("protect America, the Nuclear Industry etc..) quell all the "LIES" that make you feel uncomfortable and stressed out.
> You must go through boatloads of benzos Your mental problems are quite apparent.
> 
> You are a very sick and twisted individual, that is why I ignore you many times, you are too irrational, use every known logical fallacy know, and try to steer the discussion by making up your own arguments and positioning others statements to do so. Then when that doesn't work you resort to more insults, flaming and personal attacks including the use of family members, sex, pedophilia, you name it.
> People like you should be on a permanent vacation for this type of behavior.


----------



## Obamerican

Mr. Jones said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single truther has stepped forward to submit one real piece of evidence for everyone to see their bullshit paranoid delusions are true and everything else is false.  All they can do is whine about other posters making them look foolish.    I would claim credit for reducing them to that state, but they started there and they will finish there.  They don't have the ability to be more than they are and they can't sink any lower because they are already bottomfeeders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utter BS and nonsense. Many parts about the NIST fantasy have been rebuked and I have posted the links to the credible sources that explain their proof and evidence why NIST is FOS like yourself.
> People have tried to debate and have reasonable discussions with you about it, to no avail as you ALWAYS resort to sick personal attacks, and hope that people get tired of your BS go away, and when some do you claim a victory!
> You have failed at every attempt to prove NIST is anywhere at all correct in their guesses of what happened, and we have provided the links to back it up.
> All you can do is ridicule then resort to the personal attacks on members including their families, because you are nothing but a vile coward who would face serious consequences if this was attempted somewhere other then behind the anonymity of the internet.
Click to expand...

Let me guess. The NIST report is "guesses" but your "sources" are the truth?


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> Isn't Chandler the guy who thinks NIST was wrong because he believes that the fires were hotter than what they claimed?
> 
> I can buy that. Either one proves there was no controlled demolition.....



Chandler is the teacher that forced NIST to confirm free fall indeed occurred at WTC 7. He also is in contact and corresponds with many who have differing opinions. With what has been analyzed and discovered, some form of assistance was provided to destroy the buildings the short time the towers fell is but one analysis.

Isn't it you who also admitted that NIST could be wrong? Isn't it you that goes against everybody's collapse time estimate?


----------



## Mr. Jones

Obamerican said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single truther has stepped forward to submit one real piece of evidence for everyone to see their bullshit paranoid delusions are true and everything else is false.  All they can do is whine about other posters making them look foolish.    I would claim credit for reducing them to that state, but they started there and they will finish there.  They don't have the ability to be more than they are and they can't sink any lower because they are already bottomfeeders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utter BS and nonsense. Many parts about the NIST fantasy have been rebuked and I have posted the links to the credible sources that explain their proof and evidence why NIST is FOS like yourself.
> People have tried to debate and have reasonable discussions with you about it, to no avail as you ALWAYS resort to sick personal attacks, and hope that people get tired of your BS go away, and when some do you claim a victory!
> You have failed at every attempt to prove NIST is anywhere at all correct in their guesses of what happened, and we have provided the links to back it up.
> All you can do is ridicule then resort to the personal attacks on members including their families, because you are nothing but a vile coward who would face serious consequences if this was attempted somewhere other then behind the anonymity of the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me guess. The NIST report is "guesses" but your "sources" are the truth?
Click to expand...


No I'm not saying that, we all know that guesses are part of making up a theory. My problem is with people putting NIST work on a pedestal and claiming it to be beyond reproach. Then when people ask for the evidence and proof of that I posted it.
NIST did not nor could not come to a more reasonable conclusion that they did, because they did not look at all the things they should have, and had to fudge data to arrive at their preconceived conclusions, and the other researchers show us that in their work too.


----------



## Mr. Jones

techieny said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> techieny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. I should have been more specific. There reports are indicating movement throughout the New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut areas. I'll try and nail down some credible sources and post/link them to this thread!
> 
> Techieny
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and this has what to do with the unexplained collapse of wtc 7
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well forgive me Father I obviously posted my ? in the wrong thread. I deeply regret doing that. Bye now.
Click to expand...


 Happens to us all, BTW I have heard of what you mentioned but don't know what is going on. I saw a Utube video of them hauling explosives, or at least the trucks in the convoy were tagged as such.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't Chandler the guy who thinks NIST was wrong because he believes that the fires were hotter than what they claimed?
> 
> I can buy that. Either one proves there was no controlled demolition.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chandler is the teacher that forced NIST to confirm free fall indeed occurred at WTC 7. He also is in contact and corresponds with many who have differing opinions. With what has been analyzed and discovered, some form of assistance was provided to destroy the buildings the short time the towers fell is but one analysis.
> 
> Isn't it you who also admitted that NIST could be wrong? Isn't it you that goes against everybody's collapse time estimate?
Click to expand...


Um, no, I have always maintained that the 911CR and the NIST reports were correct on the major items. You and eots are the ones confused about times.... Along with several others who can't see past their own noses....


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't Chandler the guy who thinks NIST was wrong because he believes that the fires were hotter than what they claimed?
> 
> I can buy that. Either one proves there was no controlled demolition.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chandler is the teacher that forced NIST to confirm free fall indeed occurred at WTC 7. He also is in contact and corresponds with many who have differing opinions. With what has been analyzed and discovered, some form of assistance was provided to destroy the buildings the short time the towers fell is but one analysis.
> 
> Isn't it you who also admitted that NIST could be wrong? Isn't it you that goes against everybody's collapse time estimate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, no, I have always maintained that the 911CR and the NIST reports were correct on the major items. You and eots are the ones confused about times.... Along with several others who can't see past their own noses....
Click to expand...


Out of curiosity, could you set this straight for me? What exactly are the revered "main points" you speak of? Do you mean obvious things like how many planes the date etc?? I keep hearing this from you people but no one has ever listed what they are. write it down and get back to me on this ok? It might be an interesting new thread topic.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chandler is the teacher that forced NIST to confirm free fall indeed occurred at WTC 7. He also is in contact and corresponds with many who have differing opinions. With what has been analyzed and discovered, some form of assistance was provided to destroy the buildings the short time the towers fell is but one analysis.
> 
> Isn't it you who also admitted that NIST could be wrong? Isn't it you that goes against everybody's collapse time estimate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no, I have always maintained that the 911CR and the NIST reports were correct on the major items. You and eots are the ones confused about times.... Along with several others who can't see past their own noses....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Out of curiosity, could you set this straight for me? What exactly are the revered "main points" you speak of? Do you mean obvious things like how many planes the date etc?? I keep hearing this from you people but no one has ever listed what they are. write it down and get back to me on this ok? It might be an interesting new thread topic.
Click to expand...


You must skip a lot of posts.....This has been stated many times.

1. The plot was carried out by A Q
2. The US Government had no fore knowledge of the attack
3. The US Government had nothing to do with the planning or execution of the attack.
4. There were no pre-planted explosives.
5. The entire WTC complex was destroyed by 2 planes.
6. Flight 77 hit the pentagon
7. Flight 93 crashed in PA.
8. There were no stand down orders.
9. We were caught with our pants down.
10. It will probably happen again...........(That ones from me)


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no, I have always maintained that the 911CR and the NIST reports were correct on the major items. You and eots are the ones confused about times.... Along with several others who can't see past their own noses....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Out of curiosity, could you set this straight for me? What exactly are the revered "main points" you speak of? Do you mean obvious things like how many planes the date etc?? I keep hearing this from you people but no one has ever listed what they are. write it down and get back to me on this ok? It might be an interesting new thread topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must skip a lot of posts.....This has been stated many times.
> 
> 1. The plot was carried out by A Q
> 2. The US Government had no fore knowledge of the attack
> 3. The US Government had nothing to do with the planning or execution of the attack.
> 4. There were no pre-planted explosives.
> 5. The entire WTC complex was destroyed by 2 planes.
> 6. Flight 77 hit the pentagon
> 7. Flight 93 crashed in PA.
> 8. There were no stand down orders.
> 9. We were caught with our pants down.
> 10. It will probably happen again...........(That ones from me)
Click to expand...


So these are the main points that you agree with? Every single on of them cab be shown to be in dispute, and there is evidence that proves the disputes validity. Some like #4 were not even looked inot by NIST! So they can't claim that is true at all, since they didn't even investigate it!


----------



## SillyWabbit

Mr. Jones said:


> YouTube - &#x202a;Help put this TV Ad on the Air -- Go to RememberBuilding7.org&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> Spread the word and research what the real issues are with the NIST investigation and the problems the families of the victims of 9-11 and many others have with the explanation that was told to the country.


 
Stupid is as stupid does. Are we stupid? Yes, we are. Thanks for dying, America. Thanks for dying.

Can we get a goldfish now?


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Out of curiosity, could you set this straight for me? What exactly are the revered "main points" you speak of? Do you mean obvious things like how many planes the date etc?? I keep hearing this from you people but no one has ever listed what they are. write it down and get back to me on this ok? It might be an interesting new thread topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must skip a lot of posts.....This has been stated many times.
> 
> 1. The plot was carried out by A Q
> 2. The US Government had no fore knowledge of the attack
> 3. The US Government had nothing to do with the planning or execution of the attack.
> 4. There were no pre-planted explosives.
> 5. The entire WTC complex was destroyed by 2 planes.
> 6. Flight 77 hit the pentagon
> 7. Flight 93 crashed in PA.
> 8. There were no stand down orders.
> 9. We were caught with our pants down.
> 10. It will probably happen again...........(That ones from me)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So these are the main points that you agree with? Every single on of them cab be shown to be in dispute, and there is evidence that proves the disputes validity. Some like #4 were not even looked inot by NIST! So they can't claim that is true at all, since they didn't even investigate it!
Click to expand...


So show us the real evidence you constantly claim to have, yet to date have never produced a real piece of.  

BTW, #4 WAS looked at and proven to be false given all the evidence you ignore.... like no seismic evidence, no audio evidence, no steel blown apart by explosives, and no physical evidence of the paraphanalia used for high explosives like detonators.  

More lies from you that are easily disproven and well documented.  You lose.  Again.


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Judging from your reply, you have no clue what a hypocrite is.  Why don't you go look it up and realize it has nothing to do with me.
> 
> 
> 
> You are a HYPOCRITE. You fling personal attacks against others, and when they defend themselves and insult you back, you have the nerve to look even more foolish, but calling them out for attacking you back  You really don't care how stupid you look on these boards, perhaps you don't even realize it.
> Here are the instances you have instigated and been involved in with different people throughout your short time here.
> .....blah blah blah...... a bunch of pussy whining by Jones.....
Click to expand...


You STILL don't know what a hypocrite is.  Again, it has nothing to do with me.  Try to figure this out.  Have someone with an IQ higher than your age explain it to you.  It isn't hard.  

So when are you going to actually produce the real evidence that proves your bullshit that you constantly claim you have?  You have yet to produce a single piece.  

Come on, Jonesie.  How hard is it to back up your bullshit?  You've had almost ten years now, yet you don't have even one piece?


----------



## eots

patriot911 said:


> mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> judging from your reply, you have no clue what a hypocrite is.  Why don't you go look it up and realize it has nothing to do with me.
> 
> 
> 
> you are a hypocrite. You fling personal attacks against others, and when they defend themselves and insult you back, you have the nerve to look even more foolish, but calling them out for attacking you back  You really don't care how stupid you look on these boards, perhaps you don't even realize it.
> Here are the instances you have instigated and been involved in with different people throughout your short time here.
> .....blah blah blah...... A bunch of pussy whining by jones.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you still don't know what a hypocrite is.  Again, it has nothing to do with me.  Try to figure this out.  Have someone with an iq higher than your age explain it to you.  It isn't hard.
> 
> So when are you going to actually produce the real evidence that proves your bullshit that you constantly claim you have?  You have yet to produce a single piece.
> 
> Come on, jonesie.  How hard is it to back up your bullshit?  You've had almost ten years now, yet you don't have even one piece?
Click to expand...


why have you not defined evidence yet ?


----------



## Mr. Jones

eots said:


> patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are a hypocrite. You fling personal attacks against others, and when they defend themselves and insult you back, you have the nerve to look even more foolish, but calling them out for attacking you back  You really don't care how stupid you look on these boards, perhaps you don't even realize it.
> Here are the instances you have instigated and been involved in with different people throughout your short time here.
> .....blah blah blah...... A bunch of pussy whining by jones.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you still don't know what a hypocrite is.  Again, it has nothing to do with me.  Try to figure this out.  Have someone with an iq higher than your age explain it to you.  It isn't hard.
> 
> So when are you going to actually produce the real evidence that proves your bullshit that you constantly claim you have?  You have yet to produce a single piece.
> 
> Come on, jonesie.  How hard is it to back up your bullshit?  You've had almost ten years now, yet you don't have even one piece?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why have you not defined evidence yet ?
Click to expand...


This is a circular argument he constantly presents. Evidence of the problems with NIST is in the researchers works that I have posted a few pages back. Proof of the discrepancies in NISTs theories is in the links. Once again he acts like an idiot and pretends it has never been presented. And he has yet to provide anything that NIST produced that can be claimed as indisputable.
He is a hypocrite, while trying to say the same of others. He has nothing, nor is he sensible in his reasoning or responses.


----------



## Mr. Jones

eots said:


> patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are a hypocrite. You fling personal attacks against others, and when they defend themselves and insult you back, you have the nerve to look even more foolish, but calling them out for attacking you back  You really don't care how stupid you look on these boards, perhaps you don't even realize it.
> Here are the instances you have instigated and been involved in with different people throughout your short time here.
> .....blah blah blah...... A bunch of pussy whining by jones.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you still don't know what a hypocrite is.  Again, it has nothing to do with me.  Try to figure this out.  Have someone with an iq higher than your age explain it to you.  It isn't hard.
> 
> So when are you going to actually produce the real evidence that proves your bullshit that you constantly claim you have?  You have yet to produce a single piece.
> 
> Come on, jonesie.  How hard is it to back up your bullshit?  You've had almost ten years now, yet you don't have even one piece?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why have you not defined evidence yet ?
Click to expand...


Yeah let's see what he thinks qualifys as evidence, after all NIST used distorted data and misrepresentations and he allows that as evidence. I'm waiting on his answer....


----------



## Mr. Jones

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Judging from your reply, you have no clue what a hypocrite is.  Why don't you go look it up and realize it has nothing to do with me.
> 
> 
> 
> You are a HYPOCRITE. You fling personal attacks against others, and when they defend themselves and insult you back, you have the nerve to look even more foolish, but calling them out for attacking you back  You really don't care how stupid you look on these boards, perhaps you don't even realize it.
> Here are the instances you have instigated and been involved in with different people throughout your short time here.
> .....blah blah blah...... a bunch of pussy whining by Jones.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You STILL don't know what a hypocrite is.  Again, it has nothing to do with me.  Try to figure this out.  Have someone with an IQ higher than your age explain it to you.  It isn't hard.
> 
> So when are you going to actually produce the real evidence that proves your bullshit that you constantly claim you have?  You have yet to produce a single piece.
> 
> Come on, Jonesie.  How hard is it to back up your bullshit?  You've had almost ten years now, yet you don't have even one piece?
Click to expand...


I have, and here is how you are a hypocrite.
In almost every exchange with someone that has differing viewpoints about 9-11 then your own, you personally attack them and start tirades of name calling, ( ad hominem) then when someone defends themselves and slings a few insults your way, you accuse them of "ad hominem attacks"! Which is precisely what you do in the first place!
Anyone can read the links I posted where you are stone cold guilty of this. Now provide us with your definition of evidence is that you claim the 9-11truth researchers are lacking, and or are of no relevance, or STFU and go away with your hypocritical self.


----------



## Jessica Blume

Look, 9 11 was an inside job. It's time to grow up now, and, if you are not aware of this, start looking at the facts. It was to suspend our rights, and the fourth amendment in particular. Bush didn't just decide to do it, as false flag operations have been going on for a long time. June 8th, 1967, Israel attacked us then. Hitler did it with the Reichstag fires. Where to begin? Perhaps learn the history of money. Then perhaps study words, such as "parliament", and study law; Our law, and how it is based, Constitutional law, the history of it. It isn't just like someone decided, "hey, let's just blow up some buildings! Hah hah!" Stop thinking one dimensional. It's just so unattractive.


----------



## Fizz

Jessica Blume said:


> Look, 9 11 was an inside job. It's time to grow up now, and, if you are not aware of this, start looking at the facts.



ok.

got any?


----------



## Mr. Jones

Fizz said:


> Jessica Blume said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, 9 11 was an inside job. It's time to grow up now, and, if you are not aware of this, start looking at the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok.
> 
> got any?
Click to expand...

In this post are links to help you along, quit pretending you aren't aware of them.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3781201-post1248.html


----------



## Mr. Jones

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must skip a lot of posts.....This has been stated many times.
> 
> 1. The plot was carried out by A Q
> 2. The US Government had no fore knowledge of the attack
> 3. The US Government had nothing to do with the planning or execution of the attack.
> 4. There were no pre-planted explosives.
> 5. The entire WTC complex was destroyed by 2 planes.
> 6. Flight 77 hit the pentagon
> 7. Flight 93 crashed in PA.
> 8. There were no stand down orders.
> 9. We were caught with our pants down.
> 10. It will probably happen again...........(That ones from me)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So these are the main points that you agree with? Every single on of them cab be shown to be in dispute, and there is evidence that proves the disputes validity. Some like #4 were not even looked inot by NIST! So they can't claim that is true at all, since they didn't even investigate it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So show us the real evidence you constantly claim to have, yet to date have never produced a real piece of.
> 
> BTW, #4 WAS looked at and proven to be false given all the evidence you ignore.... like no seismic evidence, no audio evidence, no steel blown apart by explosives, and no physical evidence of the paraphanalia used for high explosives like detonators.
> 
> More lies from you that are easily disproven and well documented.  You lose.  Again.
Click to expand...


BS. You are proven wrong.
paraphernalia used for high explosives like detonators would not be found as they would be consumed.
You are deceptively assuming conventional explosives and methods were used in a CD that would be intended to LOOK LIKE PLANES AND FIRES WERE TO BLAME. This is explained by Tom Sullivan in the video linked on here many times. Stop lying your ass off.

Many eyewitnesses who were near the South Tower when it began its precipitous collapse reported sights and sounds of explosions.
Where are they mentioned in the NIST report?

 The towers' destruction cannot be accurately described without the word 'explosion.' Huge clouds billowed out from the towers, starting around the crash zones, and grew rapidly as they consumed each tower, converting them to fine powder and fragments of steel, and depositing the bulk of the remains outside of each tower's footprint in a radial pattern.
The cores were obliterated. There is no gravity collapse scenario that can account for the complete leveling of the massive columns of the towers' cores. Where's NIST calculations and explanation for this in their report?

Nearly all the concrete was pulverized in the air, so finely that it blanketed parts of Lower Manhattan with inches of dust. In a gravity collapse, there would not have been enough energy to pulverize the concrete until it hit the ground, if then.The towers exploded into immense clouds of dust, which were several times the original volumes of the buildings by the time their disintegration reached the ground.  Where is NISTS calculations and explanation for this in their report?

Parts of the towers were thrown 500 feet laterally. The downward forces of a gravity collapse cannot account for the energetic lateral ejection of pieces.  Where is NISTS calculations and explanation for this in their report?

Explosive events were visible before many floors had collapsed. 





















The towers had just started to collapse...So where does NIST adequately explain this in their report?

Since overpressures are the only possible explanations for the explosive dust plumes emerging from the buildings, the top would have to be falling to produce them in a gravity collapse. But in the South Tower collapse, energetic dust ejections are first seen while the top is only slightly tipping, not falling. Where is NISTS calculations and explanation for this in their report?

A three-second movie shows about 2.5 seconds of the South Tower collapse starting at about three seconds into the plunge of the tower's top. The short movie shows the roughly spherical debris cloud nearly double in size, even accounting for the perspective. The leading edge of the wave is about to reach the 44th-floor sky lobby when the camera operator turns to run. The movie (mpeg) was found on plaguepuppy's cafe with the following description. 

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/docs/wtc_2_demolition_waves.mpg

Though the view of the building is brief, looking at it in slow motion reveals some peculiar features. At the very start of the clip we can see how perfectly even the collapse is, advancing with what looks for all the world like rows of explosions progressing in a perfectly straight line around the building, and advancing down in an extremely uniform way. As the demolition wave advances there is only dust and smoke where the top of the building used to be, and a great quantity of dust mixed with small pieces of structural steel is ejected out horizontally at high speed.

Here&#8217;s NIST&#8217;s Statement from their website &#8220;Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. &#8230;&#8221;
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

They lie their asses off just like you do.
Fire Fighters For 9-11 Truth » Evidence

Extremism- N.F.P.A. 921- 19.4.8.2.6
During an investigation, many things must be considered. Aside from the physical evidence, and witness testimony, suspect criminal history also must be analyzed. The investigation must include past history and the Modus Operandi, &#8220;M.O.&#8221; for short.

N.F.P.A. 921 19.4.8.2.6 &#8211; Extremism&#8221; addresses terrorism specifically. It reads:
Extremism-motivated firesetting is committed to further a social, political, or religious cause. Fires have been used as a weapon of social protest since revolutions first began. Extremist firesetters may work in groups or as individuals. Also, due to planning aspects and the selection of their targets, extremist firesetters generally have a great degree of organization, as reflected in their use of more elaborate ignition or incendiary devices. Subcategories of extremist firesetting are identified as follows.
(a) Terrorism. The targets set by terrorists may appear to be at random; however, target locations are generally selected with some degree of political or economic significance. Political targets generally include government offices, newspapers, universities, political party headquarters, and military or law enforcement installations. Political terrorists may also target diverse properties such as animal research facilities or abortion clinics. Economic targets may include business offices, distribution facilities of utility providers, banks, or companies thought to have an adverse impact on the environments. Fires or explosions become a means of creation confusion fear, or anarchy. THE TERRORIST MAY INCLUDE FIRE AS BUT ONE OF A VARITETY OF WEAPONS, ALONG WITH EXPLOSIVES, USED IN FURTHERING HIS OR HER GOAL&#8230;

It very clearly states the Terrorist may use explosives along with fire to further their goal. Did NIST investigate for explosives in conducting a thorough investigation? Fuck no.

Fire Fighters For 9-11 Truth » Blog Archive » Extremism- N.F.P.A. 921- 19.4.8.2.6


9-11 Research: Explosions

PlaguePuppy's Caf and Sanctuary for the Unspeakable Truth, Home

So show everybody the proof of calculations and explanations by NIST concerning all of this? 
You can't because NIST leaves any verifiable explanations and calculations out, by simply ignoring this, thus you are proven wrong that they did, thus you are proven a liar and are exposed for spreading misinformation and more lies. I have posted evidence and proof of NIST deceptions and lies like you have been crying about, now it's your turn. Show us what NIST has.
Your opinions are no proof of anything, post links about NIST that prove your claims or STFU and go away you loser.


----------



## SFC Ollie

You gotta be shitting me...................

You have a handful of people, a very small percentage of architects and engineers (like 0.01%) who actually believe there were explosives, and you want to call that proof?

Take it to court, I want to see this....

I don't know what kind of idiots you want to believe but if those buildings were blown there would have been evidence. And no,  there wasn't some super secret silent explosives involved either......


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> You gotta be shitting me...................
> 
> You have a handful of people, a very small percentage of architects and engineers (like 0.01%) who actually believe there were explosives, and you want to call that proof?
> 
> Take it to court, I want to see this....
> 
> I don't know what kind of idiots you want to believe but if those buildings were blown there would have been evidence. And no,  there wasn't some super secret silent explosives involved either......



You aren't addressing anything they say. You aren't showing us where NIST has all this indisputable proof. I have shown that NIST is FOS. Denying they aren't by opinion only is no evidence to back their theory up.
There is vast amount of reasonable doubt concerning the OCT and NIST. Now you all can shut up about it, and move on to explain why despite the credible objections to the OCT story, you insist on running from what has been in your faces all this time.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You gotta be shitting me...................
> 
> You have a handful of people, a very small percentage of architects and engineers (like 0.01%) who actually believe there were explosives, and you want to call that proof?
> 
> Take it to court, I want to see this....
> 
> I don't know what kind of idiots you want to believe but if those buildings were blown there would have been evidence. And no,  there wasn't some super secret silent explosives involved either......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't addressing anything they say. You aren't showing us where NIST has all this indisputable proof. I have shown that NIST is FOS. Denying they aren't by opinion only is no evidence to back their theory up.
> There is vast amount of reasonable doubt concerning the OCT and NIST. Now you all can shut up about it, and move on to explain why despite the credible objections to the OCT story, you insist on running from what has been in your faces all this time.
Click to expand...


Shut up? You are telling me to shut up? I don't think I will. What I will do is remind you that the official investigation still stands as the official investigation. I don't have any need to prove it is right.

You believe it to be wrong;  prove it. And no so far you don't have any credible objections that say you are right. If you did it would have already gone to court. What has happened is that your 911 support groups sent a letter to NIST asking them to change their report on several different points and on each point they were shot down and told NO.... 
Why? Because they were wrong.....

So when you do have something credible, take it to court. Because as long as you are just talking trash on the internet, you got nothing.....


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You gotta be shitting me...................
> 
> You have a handful of people, a very small percentage of architects and engineers (like 0.01%) who actually believe there were explosives, and you want to call that proof?
> 
> Take it to court, I want to see this....
> 
> I don't know what kind of idiots you want to believe but if those buildings were blown there would have been evidence. And no,  there wasn't some super secret silent explosives involved either......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't addressing anything they say. You aren't showing us where NIST has all this indisputable proof. I have shown that NIST is FOS. Denying they aren't by opinion only is no evidence to back their theory up.
> There is vast amount of reasonable doubt concerning the OCT and NIST. Now you all can shut up about it, and move on to explain why despite the credible objections to the OCT story, you insist on running from what has been in your faces all this time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shut up? You are telling me to shut up? I don't think I will. What I will do is remind you that the official investigation still stands as the official investigation. I don't have any need to prove it is right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well thats fortunate for you because you couldn't if your life depended on it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You believe it to be wrong;  prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you believe it to be _kinda sort of right._..prove it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And no so far you don't have any credible objections that say you are right. If you did it would have already gone to court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> right..._ sure it would of.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> What has happened is that your 911 support groups sent a letter to NIST asking them to change their report on several different points and on each point they were shot down and told NO....
> Why? Because they were wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ....
> 
> NIST constantly adapted its report to counter debunking through out the so called investigation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when you do have something credible, take it to court. Because as long as you are just talking trash on the internet, you got nothing....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sure he does..the court of public opinion and he is winning
Click to expand...


----------



## SFC Ollie

LOL you funny...............


----------



## Mr. Jones

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't addressing anything they say. You aren't showing us where NIST has all this indisputable proof. I have shown that NIST is FOS. Denying they aren't by opinion only is no evidence to back their theory up.
> There is vast amount of reasonable doubt concerning the OCT and NIST. Now you all can shut up about it, and move on to explain why despite the credible objections to the OCT story, you insist on running from what has been in your faces all this time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well thats fortunate for you because you couldn't if your life depended on it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you believe it to be _kinda sort of right._..prove it
> 
> 
> 
> right..._ sure it would of.
> _
> ....
> 
> NIST constantly adapted its report to counter debunking through out the so called investigation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when you do have something credible, take it to court. Because as long as you are just talking trash on the internet, you got nothing....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sure he does..the court of public opinion and he is winning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People are trying, I'm thankful for that.
> 8 House Members to Mull 2nd Draft Bill on Science/Tech Probe of WTC Destruction Causes « WTC RESEARCH ALLIANCE
> 
> Draft Bill to Reinvestigate Collapse of World Trade Center: 2010 « WTC RESEARCH ALLIANCE
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> LOL you funny...............



ya great rebuttal there maestro


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You gotta be shitting me...................
> 
> You have a handful of people, a very small percentage of architects and engineers (like 0.01%) who actually believe there were explosives, and you want to call that proof?
> 
> Take it to court, I want to see this....
> 
> I don't know what kind of idiots you want to believe but if those buildings were blown there would have been evidence. And no,  there wasn't some super secret silent explosives involved either......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't addressing anything they say. You aren't showing us where NIST has all this indisputable proof. I have shown that NIST is FOS. Denying they aren't by opinion only is no evidence to back their theory up.
> There is vast amount of reasonable doubt concerning the OCT and NIST. Now you all can shut up about it, and move on to explain why despite the credible objections to the OCT story, you insist on running from what has been in your faces all this time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shut up? You are telling me to shut up? I don't think I will. What I will do is remind you that the official investigation still stands as the official investigation. I don't have any need to prove it is right.
> 
> You believe it to be wrong;  prove it. And no so far you don't have any credible objections that say you are right. If you did it would have already gone to court. What has happened is that your 911 support groups sent a letter to NIST asking them to change their report on several different points and on each point they were shot down and told NO....
> Why? Because they were wrong.....
> 
> So when you do have something credible, take it to court. Because as long as you are just talking trash on the internet, you got nothing.....
Click to expand...


Deny deny deny, without even trying to rebuke the evidence presented by the researchers, nor have you presented any indisputable evidence from NIST. Your argumentative points are all circular, and you have no reasonable responses that make any sense. only your opinion based on an appeal to authority that have been proven the best of liars 
Your appeal to authority is baseless, and unfounded, as has been shown to you over and over again. 
You are a most irrational person Ollie. Bye bye now, there is a breach at one of the NE. NUKE PLANTS I'm going to look at for a while but feel free to post any reasonable rebuttals to the things we have mentioned to you, and I'll get back to you.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Mr. Jones said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> well thats fortunate for you because you couldn't if your life depended on it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you believe it to be _kinda sort of right._..prove it
> 
> 
> 
> right..._ sure it would of.
> _
> ....
> 
> NIST constantly adapted its report to counter debunking through out the so called investigation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sure he does..the court of public opinion and he is winning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People are trying, I'm thankful for that.
> 8 House Members to Mull 2nd Draft Bill on Science/Tech Probe of WTC Destruction Causes « WTC RESEARCH ALLIANCE
> 
> Draft Bill to Reinvestigate Collapse of World Trade Center: 2010 « WTC RESEARCH ALLIANCE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying what? I urge everyone who wants a good laugh to read these two links. Absolutely hilarious.
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> People are trying, I'm thankful for that.
> 8 House Members to Mull 2nd Draft Bill on Science/Tech Probe of WTC Destruction Causes « WTC RESEARCH ALLIANCE
> 
> Draft Bill to Reinvestigate Collapse of World Trade Center: 2010 « WTC RESEARCH ALLIANCE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trying what? I urge everyone who wants a good laugh to read these two links. Absolutely hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are all the chuckles we need...
Click to expand...


----------



## SFC Ollie

Glad to be of service...........................................


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> People are trying, I'm thankful for that.
> 8 House Members to Mull 2nd Draft Bill on Science/Tech Probe of WTC Destruction Causes « WTC RESEARCH ALLIANCE
> 
> Draft Bill to Reinvestigate Collapse of World Trade Center: 2010 « WTC RESEARCH ALLIANCE



So two pretend bills than never made it to the floor are suppose to be your evidence?  Of what?  The massive incompetence of the TBM?  

How about some real, actionable evidence that proves your bullshit paranoid delusions are real.  You keep claiming you have the evidence.  Post it.  Or run away once again and prove just what a scared little impotent bitch you are.


----------



## Obamerican

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL you funny...............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ya great rebuttal there maestro
Click to expand...

It's better than most of the drivel you post, moron. Go ahead and give me neg rep. It's been at least three days since the last time. Still wearing that dick sucking hat you use to have in your avatar, little man?


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> Take it to court, I want to see this....


The problem is getting a federal judge to have the balls to except the evidence that is presented and conducting a proper hearing of it. 

An example of justice being denied is the case of April Gallup. They tried testing the waters, and to no great surprise no judge had the guts to let it proceed, despite having sufficient merit to the plaintiffs allegations. Now there are some parts of it I might have a problem with in a criminal trial, but those parts are there because it was a civil suit they were trying to pursue.
Even when they presented a huge conflict of interest in that one of the judges is related to GWB.
What people don't seem to want to understand is that -
The defendants are men of power, with resources, financial, legal, and political, beyond most people's ability to comprehend. 
Were an inquiry into a crime of this magnitude to be properly conducted, *by an arm of government *or *special prosecutor*, it would require legions of lawyers and investigators, not to mention the support those people would have to rely on. Our aim is to conduct the lawsuit as our resources permit, appealing to the public to help us to replicate what a similarly disposed arm of government would bring to the task. 

The attacks of September 11th were part of a complex and elaborate psychological operation that created in each citizen to a greater or lesser degree a fortress of denial, which has prevented many from any forthright attempt to investigate the truth about 9/11. 
I believe that even if any insider actually confessed, no AG would be allowed to go after them either, we would hear BS reasons like "matters of national security" being tossed about.
Center for 9/11 Justice

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Again the problem isn't the lack of evidence, or proving that evidence even exist at all. It truly is a David vs Goliath type of fight when it comes to taking on a government, especially a corrupt one like the one that we allow ourselves to be governed by.


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take it to court, I want to see this....
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is getting a federal judge to have the balls to except the evidence that is presented and conducting a proper hearing of it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, especially since you have no evidence.  It is REALLY hard to convince anyone based on your lameassed opinions that are not backed up by facts.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> An example of justice being denied is the case of April Gallup. They tried testing the waters, and to no great surprise no judge had the guts to let it proceed, despite having sufficient merit to the plaintiffs allegations. Now there are some parts of it I might have a problem with in a criminal trial, but those parts are there because it was a civil suit they were trying to pursue.


Gee.  I wonder why?  She was accusing people with zero evidence they were behind the attack or acted improperly.  Evidence provided?  Bullshit truthtard claims like nobody can agree on the flight path taken.    What does that prove other than truthtards will cling to any retarded theory regardless of the facts?  I am surprised she found a lawyer retarded enough to bring this piece of bullshit before a judge.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Even when they presented a huge conflict of interest in that one of the judges is related to GWB.


Bush wasn't one of the defendants in the case.  Cheney and Rumsfeld were.    How is it a conflict of interest when you're listening to an appeal when you're not related to the defendants?  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> What people don't seem to want to understand is that -
> The defendants are men of power, with resources, financial, legal, and political, beyond most people's ability to comprehend.


OR Judges are actually doing their job and throwing out bullshit cases with no evidence.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Were an inquiry into a crime of this magnitude to be properly conducted, *by an arm of government *or *special prosecutor*, it would require legions of lawyers and investigators, not to mention the support those people would have to rely on.


But first you need evidence your bullshit theories are in any way, shape or form true.  Opinions don't cut it.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Our aim is to conduct the lawsuit as our resources permit, appealing to the public to help us to replicate what a similarly disposed arm of government would bring to the task.


In other words, they want to bilk you silly saps out of your money to keep bringing up frivolous lawsuits.  You've been duped again!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> The attacks of September 11th were part of a complex and elaborate psychological operation that created in each citizen to a greater or lesser degree a fortress of denial, which has prevented many from any forthright attempt to investigate the truth about 9/11.


Pretty pathetic excuse, even for a bunch of truthtards.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> I believe that even if any insider actually confessed, no AG would be allowed to go after them either, we would hear BS reasons like "matters of national security" being tossed about.


Yeah, right.  Yet another really pathetic excuse for something that STILL hasn't happened almost ten years later.   



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Again the problem isn't the lack of evidence, or proving that evidence even exist at all.


Bull fucking shit.  It is ALL about the evidence when you're dealing with justice.  Who the fuck are you to pretend you can re-write the judicial system just because it rejects your bullshit claims based on a complete and total lack of evidence?  Oh, we all know you like to CLAIM you have evidence, but it is glaringly obvious you are lying your ass off given the fact you STILL haven't been able to produce a single piece of real evidence.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> It truly is a David vs Goliath type of fight when it comes to taking on a government, especially a corrupt one like the one that we allow ourselves to be governed by.


Wrong yet again.  It is the insane vs. the rational.  On the insane side you have a bunch of disgruntaled pricks pretending that their paranoid delusions deserve a day in court.  On the sane side, you have a judicial system correctly throwing the case out based on a complete lack of evidence.  Why do you think you truthtards should get special treatment in the eyes of the law besides the fact you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of actually producing any evidence to prove your case?


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You gotta be shitting me...................
> 
> You have a handful of people, a very small percentage of architects and engineers (like 0.01%) who actually believe there were explosives, and you want to call that proof?
> 
> Take it to court, I want to see this....
> 
> I don't know what kind of idiots you want to believe but if those buildings were blown there would have been evidence. And no,  there wasn't some super secret silent explosives involved either......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't addressing anything they say. You aren't showing us where NIST has all this indisputable proof. I have shown that NIST is FOS. Denying they aren't by opinion only is no evidence to back their theory up.
> There is vast amount of reasonable doubt concerning the OCT and NIST. Now you all can shut up about it, and move on to explain why despite the credible objections to the OCT story, you insist on running from what has been in your faces all this time.
Click to expand...


Mr. Jones.

What do you think of Richard Gage's research?


----------



## Mr. Jones

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take it to court, I want to see this....
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is getting a federal judge to have the balls to except the evidence that is presented and conducting a proper hearing of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, especially since you have no evidence.  It is REALLY hard to convince anyone based on your lameassed opinions that are not backed up by facts.
> 
> 
> Gee.  I wonder why?  She was accusing people with zero evidence they were behind the attack or acted improperly.  Evidence provided?  Bullshit truthtard claims like nobody can agree on the flight path taken.    What does that prove other than truthtards will cling to any retarded theory regardless of the facts?  I am surprised she found a lawyer retarded enough to bring this piece of bullshit before a judge.
> 
> 
> Bush wasn't one of the defendants in the case.  Cheney and Rumsfeld were.    How is it a conflict of interest when you're listening to an appeal when you're not related to the defendants?
> 
> 
> OR Judges are actually doing their job and throwing out bullshit cases with no evidence.
> 
> 
> But first you need evidence your bullshit theories are in any way, shape or form true.  Opinions don't cut it.
> 
> 
> In other words, they want to bilk you silly saps out of your money to keep bringing up frivolous lawsuits.  You've been duped again!
> 
> 
> Pretty pathetic excuse, even for a bunch of truthtards.
> 
> 
> Yeah, right.  Yet another really pathetic excuse for something that STILL hasn't happened almost ten years later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again the problem isn't the lack of evidence, or proving that evidence even exist at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bull fucking shit.  It is ALL about the evidence when you're dealing with justice.  Who the fuck are you to pretend you can re-write the judicial system just because it rejects your bullshit claims based on a complete and total lack of evidence?  Oh, we all know you like to CLAIM you have evidence, but it is glaringly obvious you are lying your ass off given the fact you STILL haven't been able to produce a single piece of real evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It truly is a David vs Goliath type of fight when it comes to taking on a government, especially a corrupt one like the one that we allow ourselves to be governed by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong yet again.  It is the insane vs. the rational.  On the insane side you have a bunch of disgruntaled pricks pretending that their paranoid delusions deserve a day in court.  On the sane side, you have a judicial system correctly throwing the case out based on a complete lack of evidence.  Why do you think you truthtards should get special treatment in the eyes of the law besides the fact you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of actually producing any evidence to prove your case?
Click to expand...


All about the evidence eh? Well  what about the indisputable NIST evidence I keep asking you to produce?

 What about the evidence to actually charge OBL, that the FBI said didn't exist but the goverment and people like you were quick to scream OBL was the "mastermind" and he was responsible for such a sophisticated attack that "only AlQaeda could pull off" according to all the "experts" on terrorism that came out of the woodwork starting that very same day?
What about the tortured "evidence" used to convict Zacarias Moussaoui?
See it is only classified as "justice" or "proof" or "evidence" when THEY say it is. They who "run" the system and basically own it and use it the way THEY want to protect their associates and themselves.
It is the realist vs the deniers. It is about those that want to change this country from the facisim police state it was allowed to evolve into, vs the fascist that are comfortably in power and control.
It is not a level playing field in the least.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You gotta be shitting me...................
> 
> You have a handful of people, a very small percentage of architects and engineers (like 0.01%) who actually believe there were explosives, and you want to call that proof?
> 
> Take it to court, I want to see this....
> 
> I don't know what kind of idiots you want to believe but if those buildings were blown there would have been evidence. And no,  there wasn't some super secret silent explosives involved either......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't addressing anything they say. You aren't showing us where NIST has all this indisputable proof. I have shown that NIST is FOS. Denying they aren't by opinion only is no evidence to back their theory up.
> There is vast amount of reasonable doubt concerning the OCT and NIST. Now you all can shut up about it, and move on to explain why despite the credible objections to the OCT story, you insist on running from what has been in your faces all this time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones.
> 
> What do you think of Richard Gage's research?
Click to expand...


IMO Gage is more of a spokesman for A&E. I read the work of many of the members, and feel they make valid points, to which NIST has not responded. Though Gage has credentials in building construction, and he makes valid observations about the NIST flaws.


----------



## Rationalist1016

Mr. Jones said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See it is only classified as "justice" or "proof" or "evidence" when THEY say it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow............almost rendered speechless.
> You seem to be lost in the difference between "facts" and "claims".  Facts are always facts.  Claims may or may not be factual.  Those require some corroborating "evidence".
> 
> And the "THEY" conspiracy.....................REALLY!?
> We live in a police state now?  Your freedoms are evenly slightly different than they were on 9/10/01?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't addressing anything they say. You aren't showing us where NIST has all this indisputable proof. I have shown that NIST is FOS. Denying they aren't by opinion only is no evidence to back their theory up.
> There is vast amount of reasonable doubt concerning the OCT and NIST. Now you all can shut up about it, and move on to explain why despite the credible objections to the OCT story, you insist on running from what has been in your faces all this time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones.
> 
> What do you think of Richard Gage's research?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IMO Gage is more of a spokesman for A&E. I read the work of many of the members, and feel they make valid points, to which NIST has not responded. Though Gage has credentials in building construction, and he makes valid observations about the NIST flaws.
Click to expand...


Valid observations huh?

Let's discuss his "valid" observations. You continually try and show NIST's mistakes and how they invalidate their theory.

Answer a few questions about Gage's research will you? Since you consider him to make "valid" observations of the NIST flaws.

1. Here is a quote from Gage. 


			
				Gage said:
			
		

> What was the energy source, and through what mechanism was it applied, that pulverized 400,000 cubic yards of concrete into a fine powder that blanketed Manhattan? Calculations show that the energy requirement for this was greater than the available gravitational potential energy of the structures. Is this the same energy source that is responsible for the complete obliteration of more than 1,100 human bodies that were never found?



If anyone finds errors in my math below, please point it out.

Can you tell me how Gage got 400,000 cubic yards of concrete? Tell you what. You tell me how many cubic yards of concrete were contained above ground between both towers. See if you come up with 400,000 cubic yards.

My math. 208' x 208' x 4" = 12979.2 cubic feet. MINUS the core area of 3471.3 (87' x 137' x 4") cubic feet gives us  9507.9 cubic feet or 352.122 cubic yards of 4" concrete per floor. So 220 (floors) x 352.122 = 77466.84 cubic yards of concrete above ground in BOTH towers. That's 322533.16 cubic yards off! 

2.Another quote from Gage.


			
				Gage said:
			
		

> Why were virtually no floors found at the base of either Twin Tower? There were originally 110 floors  each of them one acre in size. What explains the disappearance of 220 acres of four-inch thick concrete and steel decking?



220 acres of 4" thick concrete and steel decking? Really? Was he aware the the core of the towers had elevators in them? The core of each tower was 87' x 133'. That makes each floor about .7275 acres, which gives us 160 acres, not 220. How did he mess up by 60 acres in his calculation?

3. Gage says that WTC7's facade came down in 6.6 seconds. Can you explain how he came up with that time frame? What video did he use to come up with this since there is no video showing the facade AFTER it disappeared behind the building. Compare Gage's 6.6 seconds for complete collapse to Chandler's video. Interesting isn't it? Chandler kind of makes Gag'es time frame a little impossible?


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones.

Can you also explain something else to me.

If explosives were used to make the facade immediately fall at free fall by blowing out 8 floors worth of 57 columns, why does Chandler's video show that the free fall collapse did not start immediately upon the roof-line's descent?


----------



## Mr. Jones

Rationalist1016 said:


> Wow............almost rendered speechless.
> You seem to be lost in the difference between "facts" and "claims".  Facts are always facts.  Claims may or may not be factual.
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that the OCT "facts" regarding 9-11 and WTC collapses do not stand up to scrutiny, and many "facts" used in the NIST hypothesis are from altered data to fit their hypothesis. They have admitted as such in their report, that they do not know exactly  what happened and only examined the events prior to collapse initiation. 10,000 pages to tell us what we saw put together in a fancy worded report, that screams "believe us , we're NIST!" We're the authority! Same for the government reports about 9-11, "we're the government, you must trust and believe us"
> It is the same when individuals side with NIST and the government, they have people brainwashed into thinking they are such a benevolent entity, that they couldn't possibly be involved in such horrendous activities, but an honest objective researcher will find that to not be the case.
> For the record, I do not blame the entire government, but people who worked within the government in positions of authority and power, all the way up to the president himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those require some corroborating "evidence".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And just where is NISTs corroborating evidence? Evidence that can't be disputed and found to be without alternative explanations? NIST has used every thing at their disposal, to make their guess be more believable, but that included leaving out much that counters their hypotheses. A proper study would have taken ALL available evidence and witnesses, and done so with proper calculations. Come to think of it a proper investigation would not have included shipping out most of the available evidence, so the fix was in from the getgo, make evidence vanish, but they still had the eutectic steel to answer to, and apparently didn't.
> Why don't people want to open their minds and honestly view and study the alternative evidence that counters NIST? Because it would destroy their perceptions of America, and the betrayal is more then they can handle, there wouldn't be enough Soloft to go around either. Denial is the worst form of ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the "THEY" conspiracy.....................REALLY!?
> We live in a police state now?  Your freedoms are evenly slightly different than they were on 9/10/01?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely, read how the laws have changed in favor of more government control and less personal freedoms and how the constitution and rights of American citizens have been ignored.
> Evidence of this is everywhere! Even in MSM headlines.
> You can start with the Patriot act, and the Geneva convention also. Are you going to say that torture and the targeting of American citizens for assassination have always been something the USA has endorsed?
Click to expand...


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones.
> 
> What do you think of Richard Gage's research?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMO Gage is more of a spokesman for A&E. I read the work of many of the members, and feel they make valid points, to which NIST has not responded. Though Gage has credentials in building construction, and he makes valid observations about the NIST flaws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Valid observations huh?
> 
> Let's discuss his "valid" observations. You continually try and show NIST's mistakes and how they invalidate their theory.
> 
> Answer a few questions about Gage's research will you? Since you consider him to make "valid" observations of the NIST flaws.
> 
> 1. Here is a quote from Gage.
> 
> 
> 
> Gage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was the energy source, and through what mechanism was it applied, that pulverized 400,000 cubic yards of concrete into a fine powder that blanketed Manhattan? Calculations show that the energy requirement for this was greater than the available gravitational potential energy of the structures. Is this the same energy source that is responsible for the complete obliteration of more than 1,100 human bodies that were never found?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If anyone finds errors in my math below, please point it out.
> 
> Can you tell me how Gage got 400,000 cubic yards of concrete? Tell you what. You tell me how many cubic yards of concrete were contained above ground between both towers. See if you come up with 400,000 cubic yards.
> 
> My math. 208' x 208' x 4" = 12979.2 cubic feet. MINUS the core area of 3471.3 (87' x 137' x 4") cubic feet gives us  9507.9 cubic feet or 352.122 cubic yards of 4" concrete per floor. So 220 (floors) x 352.122 = 77466.84 cubic yards of concrete above ground in BOTH towers. That's 322533.16 cubic yards off!
> 
> 2.Another quote from Gage.
> 
> 
> 
> Gage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why were virtually no floors found at the base of either Twin Tower? There were originally 110 floors  each of them one acre in size. What explains the disappearance of 220 acres of four-inch thick concrete and steel decking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 220 acres of 4" thick concrete and steel decking? Really? Was he aware the the core of the towers had elevators in them? The core of each tower was 87' x 133'. That makes each floor about .7275 acres, which gives us 160 acres, not 220. How did he mess up by 60 acres in his calculation?
> 
> 3. Gage says that WTC7's facade came down in 6.6 seconds. Can you explain how he came up with that time frame? What video did he use to come up with this since there is no video showing the facade AFTER it disappeared behind the building. Compare Gage's 6.6 seconds for complete collapse to Chandler's video. Interesting isn't it? Chandler kind of makes Gag'es time frame a little impossible?
Click to expand...


Could you post a link of the article you are getting your quotes from?That would be where I would want to start.


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> All about the evidence eh? Well  what about the indisputable NIST evidence I keep asking you to produce?


Already gone over that.  The fact you choose to ignore it isn't anyone's fault but your own.  The evidence the NIST went off of is well documented and included videos, audio, eyewitness accounts, seismic evidence, and the debris left behind by the collapse.  NOTHING in the accumulated evidence was indicitive of controlled demolition and much of it precluded controlled demolitions / explosives.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> What about the evidence to actually charge OBL, that the FBI said didn't exist but the goverment and people like you were quick to scream OBL was the "mastermind" and he was responsible for such a sophisticated attack that "only AlQaeda could pull off" according to all the "experts" on terrorism that came out of the woodwork starting that very same day?


Who carried out 9/11?  OBL or Al Qaeda?  I know you dishonest truthtards like to pretend it was only OBL, but it wasn't.  The evidence is against Al Qaeda of whom OBL WAS the leader.  This has been gone over ad nauseum in the past and you got your ass handed to you every time.  I am surprised you're stupid enough to bring it up again.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> What about the tortured "evidence" used to convict Zacarias Moussaoui?


Really?  They tortured flight manifests?  They tortured witnesses who testified to training the pilots?  They tortured items recovered from the wreckage?  They tortured the paper trail left behind by the hijackers?  Or are you just being a dumbass again by pretending the only evidence against Moussaoui was what was gained by torture.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> See it is only classified as "justice" or "proof" or "evidence" when THEY say it is.


Wrong yet again.  I've presented you with the evidence.  Can you do the same?  Not even close.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> They who "run" the system and basically own it and use it the way THEY want to protect their associates and themselves.


Wrong yet again.  Refute the evidence presented.  Better yet, present like evidence your bullshit paranoid delusions are real.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> It is the realist vs the deniers.


No, it is the theory that fits the evidence vs. the theory that HAS NO evidence.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> It is about those that want to change this country from the facisim police state it was allowed to evolve into, vs the fascist that are comfortably in power and control.


And this is the crux of the situation.  Thank you for finally admitting the truth.  This has nothing to do with the truth to you, but it is all about overthrowing the government and putting in one of your own.  I've been saying this time and time again and have been repeatedly called a liar by you for stating what you just stated above.  Thank you for proving your own dishonesty and complete lack of credibility while boosting my own credibility for accurately calling exactly what it is you are doing.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> It is not a level playing field in the least.


It would be if you had any evidence.

So how about it.  One real piece of evidence that would hold up in a court of law.  I've shown you tons of examples.  I've shown you how the evidence proves the theory.  All you have is your paranoid delusions and a bad attitude.  Bad combination.


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> IMO Gage is more of a spokesman for A&E. I read the work of many of the members, and feel they make valid points, to which NIST has not responded. Though Gage has credentials in building construction, and he makes valid observations about the NIST flaws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valid observations huh?
> 
> Let's discuss his "valid" observations. You continually try and show NIST's mistakes and how they invalidate their theory.
> 
> Answer a few questions about Gage's research will you? Since you consider him to make "valid" observations of the NIST flaws.
> 
> 1. Here is a quote from Gage.
> 
> 
> If anyone finds errors in my math below, please point it out.
> 
> Can you tell me how Gage got 400,000 cubic yards of concrete? Tell you what. You tell me how many cubic yards of concrete were contained above ground between both towers. See if you come up with 400,000 cubic yards.
> 
> My math. 208' x 208' x 4" = 12979.2 cubic feet. MINUS the core area of 3471.3 (87' x 137' x 4") cubic feet gives us  9507.9 cubic feet or 352.122 cubic yards of 4" concrete per floor. So 220 (floors) x 352.122 = 77466.84 cubic yards of concrete above ground in BOTH towers. That's 322533.16 cubic yards off!
> 
> 2.Another quote from Gage.
> 
> 
> 
> Gage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why were virtually no floors found at the base of either Twin Tower? There were originally 110 floors  each of them one acre in size. What explains the disappearance of 220 acres of four-inch thick concrete and steel decking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 220 acres of 4" thick concrete and steel decking? Really? Was he aware the the core of the towers had elevators in them? The core of each tower was 87' x 133'. That makes each floor about .7275 acres, which gives us 160 acres, not 220. How did he mess up by 60 acres in his calculation?
> 
> 3. Gage says that WTC7's facade came down in 6.6 seconds. Can you explain how he came up with that time frame? What video did he use to come up with this since there is no video showing the facade AFTER it disappeared behind the building. Compare Gage's 6.6 seconds for complete collapse to Chandler's video. Interesting isn't it? Chandler kind of makes Gag'es time frame a little impossible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could you post a link of the article you are getting your quotes from?That would be where I would want to start.
Click to expand...


Sure thing.

Info Item


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> IMO Gage is more of a spokesman for A&E. I read the work of many of the members, and feel they make valid points, to which NIST has not responded. Though Gage has credentials in building construction, and he makes valid observations about the NIST flaws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valid observations huh?
> 
> Let's discuss his "valid" observations. You continually try and show NIST's mistakes and how they invalidate their theory.
> 
> Answer a few questions about Gage's research will you? Since you consider him to make "valid" observations of the NIST flaws.
> 
> 1. Here is a quote from Gage.
> 
> 
> If anyone finds errors in my math below, please point it out.
> 
> Can you tell me how Gage got 400,000 cubic yards of concrete? Tell you what. You tell me how many cubic yards of concrete were contained above ground between both towers. See if you come up with 400,000 cubic yards.
> 
> My math. 208' x 208' x 4" = 12979.2 cubic feet. MINUS the core area of 3471.3 (87' x 137' x 4") cubic feet gives us  9507.9 cubic feet or 352.122 cubic yards of 4" concrete per floor. So 220 (floors) x 352.122 = 77466.84 cubic yards of concrete above ground in BOTH towers. That's 322533.16 cubic yards off!
> 
> 2.Another quote from Gage.
> 
> 
> 
> Gage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why were virtually no floors found at the base of either Twin Tower? There were originally 110 floors  each of them one acre in size. What explains the disappearance of 220 acres of four-inch thick concrete and steel decking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 220 acres of 4" thick concrete and steel decking? Really? Was he aware the the core of the towers had elevators in them? The core of each tower was 87' x 133'. That makes each floor about .7275 acres, which gives us 160 acres, not 220. How did he mess up by 60 acres in his calculation?
> 
> 3. Gage says that WTC7's facade came down in 6.6 seconds. Can you explain how he came up with that time frame? What video did he use to come up with this since there is no video showing the facade AFTER it disappeared behind the building. Compare Gage's 6.6 seconds for complete collapse to Chandler's video. Interesting isn't it? Chandler kind of makes Gag'es time frame a little impossible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could you post a link of the article you are getting your quotes from?That would be where I would want to start.
Click to expand...


The 6.5 (sorry not 6.6) second total collapse of WTC7 claim is in his presentations.

Richard Gage ~ 9/11 TruthSaturday AM Opening Keynote
Richard Gage, AIA, Blueprint for Truth - Valley 9/11 Truth (Northampton, MA) - Meetup


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones.
> 
> Can you also explain something else to me.
> 
> If explosives were used to make the facade immediately fall at free fall by blowing out 8 floors worth of 57 columns, why does Chandler's video show that the free fall collapse did not start immediately upon the roof-line's descent?


Have you ever seen a CD, and how there is a very slight delay just before the entire structure collapses? This appears to be quite normal. 
Perhaps it is because even air provides resistance that has to briefly be overcome. Potential energy gets expended doing the work of pushing a lot of air out of the way in order for the object to fall.
As a result, not all of the potential gravitational energy can go towards accelerating the object downward at gravity's maximal rate of 32 ft/sec/sec. 
In other words, only when there is zero resistance can any falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic energy. Anything which interferes with any falling object's downward progress will cause its acceleration to be reduced from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet per second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed doing work overcoming resistance. 
But in air, once a falling object reaches a certain speed, its propensity to fall will be matched by air's resistance to the fall. At that point the object will continue to fall, but its speed will no longer increase over time.

There is a maximum possible rate at which objects fall, and if any of gravity's potential energy is consumed doing anything other than accelerate the object downward -- even just having to push air out of the way -- there will be less energy available to accelerate the object downward, and so that object's downward acceleration will be diminished. 
So we are told that on 9-11 and only on 9-11-
The undamaged stories below the impact zone offered zero resistance to the collapse ( with no plausible explanation)
The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy ( with no plausible explanation)
On 9/11, gravity was much stronger than gravity ( with no plausible explanation)
On 9/11, energy was not conserved (with no plausible explanation)

The better question is what caused all the resistance to be removed that caused the few secs of free fall in the first place?
And why did NIST, a heavily funded group of experts not admit to this that a lowly high school physics teacher did? How could something so obvious be "overlooked". First they say absoluetly no free fall happened because there would be resistance...then they say free fall happened, leading to the obvious conclusion that resistance vanished...somehow..without even explaining, nor so much as an apology for "overlooking" such a "blunder".
These are hard facts that NIST again fails to address properly.
I also find it hilarious when apologists for the demise of WTC 7 as told by NIST, say a 110 ten story building "fell on WTC 7" when even NIST says that had no bearing on the actual collapse!
I mean their theory is so full of shit, it is so obvious!

911blimp Proof: Free-Fall Physics (the towers fell too fast)


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones.
> 
> Can you also explain something else to me.
> 
> If explosives were used to make the facade immediately fall at free fall by blowing out 8 floors worth of 57 columns, why does Chandler's video show that the free fall collapse did not start immediately upon the roof-line's descent?
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever seen a CD, and how there is a very slight delay just before the entire structure collapses? This appears to be quite normal.
Click to expand...


Really? Quite normal?

Tell you what. You show me a demolition video where ALL the supporting columns are blown at the same time to remove ALL resistance and it shows a delay before the upper assembly starts to fall at free fall.

Let's see the study you are basing this claim on. According to you and your cohorts, when there is NO RESISTANCE, free fall ensues.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Moussaoui was tortured? I must have missed that....


----------



## Patriot911

SFC Ollie said:


> Moussaoui was tortured? I must have missed that....



No, the evidence was tortured.  I guess they waterboarded the papertrail, put the witnesses on the rack, threatened to adjust the hue and color on the videos and you don't even WANNA know what they did to the hard evidence.....


----------



## Rationalist1016

Mr. Jones said:


> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow............almost rendered speechless.
> You seem to be lost in the difference between "facts" and "claims".  Facts are always facts.  Claims may or may not be factual.
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that the OCT "facts" regarding 9-11 and WTC collapses do not stand up to scrutiny, and many "facts" used in the NIST hypothesis are from altered data to fit their hypothesis. They have admitted as such in their report, that they do not know exactly  what happened and only examined the events prior to collapse initiation. 10,000 pages to tell us what we saw put together in a fancy worded report, that screams "believe us , we're NIST!" We're the authority! Same for the government reports about 9-11, "we're the government, you must trust and believe us"
> It is the same when individuals side with NIST and the government, they have people brainwashed into thinking they are such a benevolent entity, that they couldn't possibly be involved in such horrendous activities, but an honest objective researcher will find that to not be the case.
> For the record, I do not blame the entire government, but people who worked within the government in positions of authority and power, all the way up to the president himself.
> 
> 
> And just where is NISTs corroborating evidence? Evidence that can't be disputed and found to be without alternative explanations? NIST has used every thing at their disposal, to make their guess be more believable, but that included leaving out much that counters their hypotheses. A proper study would have taken ALL available evidence and witnesses, and done so with proper calculations. Come to think of it a proper investigation would not have included shipping out most of the available evidence, so the fix was in from the getgo, make evidence vanish, but they still had the eutectic steel to answer to, and apparently didn't.
> Why don't people want to open their minds and honestly view and study the alternative evidence that counters NIST? Because it would destroy their perceptions of America, and the betrayal is more then they can handle, there wouldn't be enough Soloft to go around either. Denial is the worst form of ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the "THEY" conspiracy.....................REALLY!?
> We live in a police state now?  Your freedoms are evenly slightly different than they were on 9/10/01?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely, read how the laws have changed in favor of more government control and less personal freedoms and how the constitution and rights of American citizens have been ignored.
> Evidence of this is everywhere! Even in MSM headlines.
> You can start with the Patriot act, and the Geneva convention also. Are you going to say that torture and the targeting of American citizens for assassination have always been something the USA has endorsed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you name some specific freedoms that we have lost?  What rights have been ignored?
> I'll agree the government used the event to try and harness some more power.  The Patriot act is B.S., you won't get any argument here.  But the idea that they are using that power to "torture" or "target American citizens for assassination"?  That's a little much.
> Do you believe that we no longer have "Habeas Corpus" or are entitled to "do process"?
Click to expand...


----------



## Patriot911

Anyone else notice Mr. Jones is still running from either presenting real evidence or admitting he is nothing but a lowlife liar?    He's thrown up excuses claiming nobody else has real evidence either, but that was a blatant lie.  I would have pity on him if he weren't such a low life degenerate.


----------



## eots

Rationalist1016 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that the OCT "facts" regarding 9-11 and WTC collapses do not stand up to scrutiny, and many "facts" used in the NIST hypothesis are from altered data to fit their hypothesis. They have admitted as such in their report, that they do not know exactly  what happened and only examined the events prior to collapse initiation. 10,000 pages to tell us what we saw put together in a fancy worded report, that screams "believe us , we're NIST!" We're the authority! Same for the government reports about 9-11, "we're the government, you must trust and believe us"
> It is the same when individuals side with NIST and the government, they have people brainwashed into thinking they are such a benevolent entity, that they couldn't possibly be involved in such horrendous activities, but an honest objective researcher will find that to not be the case.
> For the record, I do not blame the entire government, but people who worked within the government in positions of authority and power, all the way up to the president himself.
> 
> 
> And just where is NISTs corroborating evidence? Evidence that can't be disputed and found to be without alternative explanations? NIST has used every thing at their disposal, to make their guess be more believable, but that included leaving out much that counters their hypotheses. A proper study would have taken ALL available evidence and witnesses, and done so with proper calculations. Come to think of it a proper investigation would not have included shipping out most of the available evidence, so the fix was in from the getgo, make evidence vanish, but they still had the eutectic steel to answer to, and apparently didn't.
> Why don't people want to open their minds and honestly view and study the alternative evidence that counters NIST? Because it would destroy their perceptions of America, and the betrayal is more then they can handle, there wouldn't be enough Soloft to go around either. Denial is the worst form of ignorance.
> 
> Absolutely, read how the laws have changed in favor of more government control and less personal freedoms and how the constitution and rights of American citizens have been ignored.
> Evidence of this is everywhere! Even in MSM headlines.
> You can start with the Patriot act, and the Geneva convention also. Are you going to say that torture and the targeting of American citizens for assassination have always been something the USA has endorsed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name some specific freedoms that we have lost?  What rights have been ignored?
> I'll agree the government used the event to try and harness some more power.  The Patriot act is B.S., you won't get any argument here.  But the idea that they are using that power to "torture" or "target American citizens for assassination"?  That's a little much.
> Do you believe that we no longer have "Habeas Corpus" or are entitled to "do process"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> only if they decide to give it to you
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> Anyone else notice Mr. Jones is still running from either presenting real evidence or admitting he is nothing but a lowlife liar?    He's thrown up excuses claiming nobody else has real evidence either, but that was a blatant lie.  I would have pity on him if he weren't such a low life degenerate.



No,but I did notice you can not even define evidence and your complete lack of character


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone else notice Mr. Jones is still running from either presenting real evidence or admitting he is nothing but a lowlife liar?    He's thrown up excuses claiming nobody else has real evidence either, but that was a blatant lie.  I would have pity on him if he weren't such a low life degenerate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No,but I did notice you can not even define evidence and your complete lack of character
Click to expand...


Already gave you the definition of evidence.  The fact you wish to sit here and lie your ass off about it only hurts your credibility, not mine.  

As for "character", someone with a complete lack of character would STILL beat the living shit out of a fucked up retard like you.  Unfortunately for you, I have TONS of character!    Suck it, eots!  You lose!  AGAIN!


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone else notice Mr. Jones is still running from either presenting real evidence or admitting he is nothing but a lowlife liar?    He's thrown up excuses claiming nobody else has real evidence either, but that was a blatant lie.  I would have pity on him if he weren't such a low life degenerate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No,but I did notice you can not even define evidence and your complete lack of character
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already gave you the definition of evidence.  The fact you wish to sit here and lie your ass off about it only hurts your credibility, not mine.
> 
> As for "character", someone with a complete lack of character would STILL beat the living shit out of a fucked up retard like you.  Unfortunately for you, I have TONS of character!    Suck it, eots!  You lose!  AGAIN!
Click to expand...


you have never defined evidence you foul little man


----------



## Mr. Jones

Patriot911 said:


> Anyone else notice Mr. Jones is still running from either presenting real evidence or admitting he is nothing but a lowlife liar?    He's thrown up excuses claiming nobody else has real evidence either, but that was a blatant lie.  I would have pity on him if he weren't such a low life degenerate.


You're fucking stupid, I have presented the evidence the researchers have many pages ago, and have also supplied how the courts will not allow it, and the reasons why. You on the other hand have not provided any indisputable evidence or proof that NIST is correct, and continue to run away from answering this, nor have you defined your definition of what you consider proof! Do you not consider evidence good enough simply because the defendants have the power over the federal judges? That is the problem as I have explained this also.
Your being irrational and arguing in circles once again, resorting to the usual BS personal attacks because you can't defend your position without doing so, and seem to think it solidifies  it somehow 
You refuse to acknowledge what I and others have posted as a response to your questions, and continue to say we haven't responded  
People who worked for the government and or its agencies are considered defendants, these people have the power to "persuade" others including judges, this has been explained to you. They can and do control many aspects and outcomes of any legal litigation that anyone tries to peruse against them.
Deny it all you want, it is a provable fact, but it is a waste of time pointing this out to you with links or proof of this as you will simply resort to saying how it isn't excepted by the courts, and around we go again, with me having to explain it all again, so fuck off, and quit wasting others time with your BS, and saying I am blatantly lying, and a degenerate, because I have shown everyone here who those labels fit and it is by far a perfect description of you.


----------



## Mr. Jones

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone else notice Mr. Jones is still running from either presenting real evidence or admitting he is nothing but a lowlife liar?    He's thrown up excuses claiming nobody else has real evidence either, but that was a blatant lie.  I would have pity on him if he weren't such a low life degenerate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No,but I did notice you can not even define evidence and your complete lack of character
Click to expand...




Patriot911 said:


> Anyone else notice Mr. Jones is still running from either presenting real evidence or admitting he is nothing but a lowlife liar?    He's thrown up excuses claiming nobody else has real evidence either, but that was a blatant lie.  I would have pity on him if he weren't such a low life degenerate.


Aw what's the matter poor Parrot can't respond with anything other then appeals to others to help him out?
Can't answer questions posed, so he resorts to starting his childish name calling, instead of acting like a man and responding like one?
Can't post any links to show us where he gets his opinions?
 How pathetic,  seems like no one took the time to show him how to act like a man, and instead educated him on being a  low life instead, and they did a good job of it too.
Too bad, he would have turned out to be a better human being by the authorities intervening  or removing himself from such an environment and joining the Boys and Girls Clubs, or a decent foster home instead.
He's probably considered a social success where he comes from.  Cream of the lowlife crop. 

I've presented my facts, proof, and evidence while showing how justice is being denied and this moron continues to pretend I haven't  But this is all he ever does, and when he has to face that he is the liar and the distorter facts and of threads, he resorts to his usual low life slime ball no class tactics that he is famous for. I have called him out and pointed his BS out for all to see and he sinks lower into his own pile of shit that he created!
This poster has been shown to be the most lying disingenuous spreader of BS anywhere on the net, and has no class or moral character and does not care, as he has already sunk so low, his credibility is irretrievably destroyed.
Even if someone wanted to believe the OCT, he has singlehandedly ruined what ever it might have had going for it, what a great spokesman he turned out to be eh?
He seems to think personally attacking people gives him some sort of legitimacy   What a sad sorry ass loser poor Parrot911 is. Nice job showing us all what a weak mental misfit you are Parrot, way to go


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone else notice Mr. Jones is still running from either presenting real evidence or admitting he is nothing but a lowlife liar?    He's thrown up excuses claiming nobody else has real evidence either, but that was a blatant lie.  I would have pity on him if he weren't such a low life degenerate.
> 
> 
> 
> You're fucking stupid, I have presented the evidence the researchers have many pages ago, and have also supplied how the courts will not allow it, and the reasons why.
Click to expand...

Wrong yet again.  That "evidence" is their opinion, not fact and not evidence.  What I want is one real piece of evidence.  You know.... something that is concrete evidence of a controlled demolition.  There should be tons of evidence around that you cannot get around.  Seismic records.  People admitting to helping plant the explosives.  People admitting to cleaning up evidence of explosives.  Steel showing signs of being destroyed with explosives.  Videos with more than just the rumble of the internal collapse on them.  You know.... EVIDENCE.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> You on the other hand have not provided any indisputable evidence or proof that NIST is correct, and continue to run away from answering this, nor have you defined your definition of what you consider proof! Do you not consider evidence good enough simply because the defendants have the power over the federal judges? That is the problem as I have explained this also.


Wrong yet again.  I already owned your sorry ass in this respect several posts ago.  You ran away from that post as well.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Your being irrational and arguing in circles once again, resorting to the usual BS personal attacks because you can't defend your position without doing so, and seem to think it solidifies  it somehow


Wrong yet again.  All I want is one piece of hard evidence that proves your bullshit paranoid delusions.  Come on.  You CLAIM to have tons of it!  So do you have ANY of this evidence or are you just lying out your ass again?



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> You refuse to acknowledge what I and others have posted as a response to your questions, and continue to say we haven't responded


Wrong yet again, you fucking liar!  I responded to what you posted.  Your post was nothing but the whining of a pathetic little bitch who got caught lying his ass off.  Instead of presenting evidence, you cried about everyone ELSE not having evidence either.  Except every instance you listed had hard evidence that backed them up even when you had to lie your ass off about what happened.  I loved the evidence got tortured in the Moussaoui case!  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> People who worked for the government and or its agencies are considered defendants, these people have the power to "persuade" others including judges, this has been explained to you.


And you have zero evidence to back up THIS bullshit as well.  You also were never able to address the fact that this "persuasion", if discovered, makes the person who was persuaded an accomplice to 3,000 counts of first degree murder.  Your bullshit paranoid delusions don't hold up to the cold hard facts of reality.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> They can and do control many aspects and outcomes of any legal litigation that anyone tries to peruse against them.


According to the piece of shit liar who is constantly trying to pretend his opinion is fact even though he has no evidence to back up his bullshit.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Deny it all you want, it is a provable fact, but it is a waste of time pointing this out to you with links or proof of this as you will simply resort to saying how it isn't excepted by the courts, and around we go again, with me having to explain it all again, so fuck off, and quit wasting others time with your BS, and saying I am blatantly lying, and a degenerate, because I have shown everyone here who those labels fit and it is by far a perfect description of you.


Yeah, all you've shown them is you have no evidence you claim you have and that you are more than willing to lie your ass off about it.    Congratulations on exposing just what a piece of shit you really are!


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone else notice Mr. Jones is still running from either presenting real evidence or admitting he is nothing but a lowlife liar?    He's thrown up excuses claiming nobody else has real evidence either, but that was a blatant lie.  I would have pity on him if he weren't such a low life degenerate.
> 
> 
> 
> Aw what's the matter poor Parrot can't respond with anything other then appeals to others to help him out?
Click to expand...

Another BLATANT lie from fucktard Jones.  Where did I appeal to anyone else?  I was just pointing out your dishonesty and the FACT you can't actually produce any of the evidence you claim you have.  The unproven bullshit opinions of your "expert" shitbags isn't going to cut it. 



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Can't answer questions posed, so he resorts to starting his childish name calling, instead of acting like a man and responding like one?


Another BLATANT lie from you.  Where have I not answered the questions posed?  Keep digging, asshole!  You're just destroying your own credibility.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Can't post any links to show us where he gets his opinions?


This tired lie again?    You've aready been proven a liar on this one, but I guess you just don't care anymore how ridiculous and pathetic you look.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> How pathetic,  seems like no one took the time to show him how to act like a man, and instead educated him on being a  low life instead, and they did a good job of it too.


  You're one to talk about acting like a man.  Since when is "acting like a man" mean lying one's ass off, running from the truth, and in general, acting like an immature asshole?  You wouldn't know what being a man is like if John Wayne were to come back from the dead and give you personal lessons.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Too bad, he would have turned out to be a better human being by the authorities intervening  or removing himself from such an environment and joining the Boys and Girls Clubs, or a decent foster home instead.


This all you got?    Like the rest of your claims..... PATHETIC!  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> He's probably considered a social success where he comes from.  Cream of the lowlife crop.


I think I sense some extreme jealousy and more than a little projection.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> I've presented my facts, proof, and evidence while showing how justice is being denied and this moron continues to pretend I haven't


No, you've presented other people's work that is NOT backed up by any evidence and pretend that they are telling the truth while EVERYONE ELSE is lying.   



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> But this is all he ever does, and when he has to face that he is the liar and the distorter facts and of threads, he resorts to his usual low life slime ball no class tactics that he is famous for. I have called him out and pointed his BS out for all to see and he sinks lower into his own pile of shit that he created!


  The more you lie about this the worse you look.  Keep it up!  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> This poster has been shown to be the most lying disingenuous spreader of BS anywhere on the net, and has no class or moral character and does not care, as he has already sunk so low, his credibility is irretrievably destroyed.


Wrong yet again!  You tried once to prove I lied and you got your ass handed to you.  I proved you lied and you had to pathetically try to reinvent the meaning of words to cover your lies.  You're no Bill Clinton.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Even if someone wanted to believe the OCT, he has singlehandedly ruined what ever it might have had going for it, what a great spokesman he turned out to be eh?


  Still pissed off you can't defend your own theories or debunk the OCT, eh?  I would be too if I were a dishonest prick like you, but then again, I don't pick bullshit lies to defend in order to try and overthrow the government by your own admission.    That was classic!  I love it when you go and prove I was right all along despite your whining that I am lying about you.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> He seems to think personally attacking people gives him some sort of legitimacy   What a sad sorry ass loser poor Parrot911 is. Nice job showing us all what a weak mental misfit you are Parrot, way to go


You still don't know what a hypocrite is, do you, fucktard!    What a loser!


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> No,but I did notice you can not even define evidence and your complete lack of character
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already gave you the definition of evidence.  The fact you wish to sit here and lie your ass off about it only hurts your credibility, not mine.
> 
> As for "character", someone with a complete lack of character would STILL beat the living shit out of a fucked up retard like you.  Unfortunately for you, I have TONS of character!    Suck it, eots!  You lose!  AGAIN!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you have never defined evidence you foul little man
Click to expand...


  How did I know you were going to step into your own fetid shit yet again and prove yourself a liar?  You already made this claim.  I already proved you wrong.  



> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> already did.  So far you've ignored it like you do everything you don't like and can't address.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this debwunker is almost as pathetic as that dwivecon clot
> anytime he wants to avoid answering a question he makes the false claim.... _he already has_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, it is SOOOOOO easy to prove you're nothing but a pathetic two-bit loser of a liar.
> 
> Me providing definition of evidence to eots earlier.  So.... are you going to man up and admit you were lying your ass off or are you going to run away and hide like usual?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Source

So once again, thanks for proving what a low life liar you are, eots.  It's like fishing in a barrel with a shotgun with you guys!


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> You on the other hand have not provided any indisputable evidence or proof that NIST is correct,



Let's turn this around Mr. Jones. Where is YOUR proof and evidence that Niels Harritt's claim that nano-thermite was used to bring down the towers is correct? I mean, let's use the same type of thiking you are applying to NIST. As an example, see below about your thought process.

1. An event happened. NIST says the buildings collapsed and explain how it was possible. You want proof hat NIST is correct. 

Yet,

2. An event happened. Harritt says nano-thermite was used in a demolition of the towers and explains how. You except it as is and demand no proof that Harritt is correct.

Why the double standard?


----------



## eots

Nist did not explain how it was was possible


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> Nist did not explain how it was was possible



  Yet another incredibly ignorant claim from eots.  Anyone surprised?  

So the report simply states the collapse happened and nothing else?  REALLY?    All that talk about column 79 never really happened?  

Thanks for the laughs eots!


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nist did not explain how it was was possible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another incredibly ignorant claim from eots.  Anyone surprised?
> 
> So the report simply states the collapse happened and nothing else?  REALLY?    All that talk about column 79 never really happened?
> 
> Thanks for the laughs eots!
Click to expand...


they made up a highly improbable story


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nist did not explain how it was was possible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another incredibly ignorant claim from eots.  Anyone surprised?
> 
> So the report simply states the collapse happened and nothing else?  REALLY?    All that talk about column 79 never really happened?
> 
> Thanks for the laughs eots!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they made up a highly improbable story
Click to expand...


Really?  As opposed to bullshit flights of fancy where there are explosives and thermites and absolutely no evidence to back it up?   

And if it is so highly improbable, why is it the "people" who question it are the people who can barely understand what is said in the report?  Meanwhile, agencies, universities and engineering firms the world over have studied the reports, commented on them, and not ONE of them has come back with "highly improbable".  

Unfortunately for your side, the legitimate people who have questioned the report all reject your paranoid delusions as highly improbable and actually discuss other plausible scenarios they believe happened.  None of them involve explosives or thermite of any kind.  This includes Dr. Quintiere.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones.
> 
> Can you also explain something else to me.
> 
> If explosives were used to make the facade immediately fall at free fall by blowing out 8 floors worth of 57 columns, why does Chandler's video show that the free fall collapse did not start immediately upon the roof-line's descent?
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever seen a CD, and how there is a very slight delay just before the entire structure collapses? This appears to be quite normal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Quite normal?
> 
> Tell you what. You show me a demolition video where ALL the supporting columns are blown at the same time to remove ALL resistance and it shows a delay before the upper assembly starts to fall at free fall.
> 
> Let's see the study you are basing this claim on. According to you and your cohorts, when there is NO RESISTANCE, free fall ensues.
Click to expand...

Look you are the one saying it isn't possible perhaps you should be the one doing the looking. You have a lot of questions that can be answered satifactorily by researching material yourself, and yes that would include the particulars of the theory you are against.
I have looked at the NIST report and found what the researchers are talking about and it makes sense to me and others.
I have provided links to their work, proof to justify what they say, and the evidence they use to back it up as well.

You insist on disparaging the researchers, and that is your what you try to use to dismiss their work. Why don't you concentrate on the lack of detail NIST leaves out in their work? Concentrate on what is being presented instead.
True absolute Free fall can only really happen in a vacuum. Everything has to at least over come the resistance provided by air, as the linked article I provided you explains. Still the buildings came down with an admitted rate of near free fall, with no explanations as to what removed the resistance.
That's the problem you don't want to address and resort to character assassination instead.


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another incredibly ignorant claim from eots.  Anyone surprised?
> 
> So the report simply states the collapse happened and nothing else?  REALLY?    All that talk about column 79 never really happened?
> 
> Thanks for the laughs eots!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they made up a highly improbable story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  As opposed to bullshit flights of fancy where there are explosives and thermites and absolutely no evidence to back it up?
> 
> And if it is so highly improbable, why is it the "people" who question it are the people who can barely understand what is said in the report?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHY DO YOU LIE TO SUPPORT YOUR THEORY ???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, agencies, universities and engineering firms the world over have studied the reports, commented on them, and not ONE of them has come back with "highly improbable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ".
> 
> NIST said their theory had a low probability
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for your side, the legitimate people who have questioned the report all reject your paranoid delusions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> another story of yours backed with nothing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as highly improbable and actually discuss other plausible scenarios they believe happened.  None of them involve explosives or thermite of any kind.  This includes Dr. Quintiere
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he is a man of science he made no statement of absolutes except that the investigation was blocked, fact finding deterred and a re-investigation is required
Click to expand...


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> Moussaoui was tortured? I must have missed that....



Not if you dismiss a shock belt installed on a defendant.
And he was denied witnesses at his trial, who were tortured.


----------



## Mr. Jones

eots said:


> Nist did not explain how it was was possible


Exactly! And NIST is supposed to be the "official" authority that is tax payer funded. They made the assertion, and have to explain how they came to their conclusions. They didn't. So again I ask anyone to post any indisputable evidence from NIST, on the buildings demise, with explanations on why they say the buildings offered only "minimal resistance" and fell at "essentially free fall rates".


----------



## Mr. Jones

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> they made up a highly improbable story
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHY DO YOU LIE TO SUPPORT YOUR THEORY ???
> 
> 
> 
> ".
> 
> NIST said their theory had a low probability
> 
> 
> 
> another story of yours backed with nothing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as highly improbable and actually discuss other plausible scenarios they believe happened.  None of them involve explosives or thermite of any kind.  This includes Dr. Quintiere
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he is a man of science he made no statement of absolutes except that the investigation was blocked, fact finding deterred and a re-investigation is required
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are talking about the collapse of the buildings and the problems with the NIST theory, and this clown now wants to dismiss what credible researchers say about these collapse events, because they may not adhere to or discuss the multitudes of other aspects about the OCT conspiracy theory the government put out?
> I'm done with this dirt bag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the report simply states the collapse happened and nothing else?  REALLY?    All that talk about column 79 never really happened?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice no posting of how or why NIST explains the idiotic column 79, he simply asserts NIST does and walks away providing nothing more. All that talk proves nothing but what a failure you are at trying to convince people NIST is anywhere near correct in their theories. What led to the columns failure is said to be thermal expansion? Where is the indisputable proof of this? Fact is NIST theories are flawed and proven to be flawed. It is a bunch of unproven BS, and only tolerated by others in the fields that are relevant because everyone knows the scandalous shit and ridicule that happens to them if they go against the government in any way. The independent researchers have shown it,and people wont accept it because it leads to the most horrific conclusions, and people are scared. That is it in a nutshell, because the contrary evidence shows it, and ignoring wont make it go away nor does it prove in any way that it is not valid.
> 
> Anyone want to have a reasonable discussion I'm game, but I will not be responding to Parrot911 as I have had enough of his circular and asinine name calling posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> WHY DO YOU LIE TO SUPPORT YOUR THEORY ???


where did I lie?  Truthtards are the liars, remember?  Like when you said the NIST didn't explain how the collapse was possible?  Or when you said I never explained what evidence was?  



			
				eots said:
			
		

> NIST said their theory had a low probability


Care to back that up with something other than your "good word"?  Especially since we all know your "good word" isn't worth dog shit!



			
				eots said:
			
		

> another story of yours backed with nothing


Wrong yet again.  I already linked you to the external studies done on the towers and how they disagreed with the NIST.  Of course, they disagreed with your sorry ass even more, but that is beside the point.



			
				eots said:
			
		

> he is a man of science he made no statement of absolutes except that the investigation was blocked, fact finding deterred and a re-investigation is required


Where did I state he stated anything absolutely?  I said he had another theory.  His theory is still light years away from your delusional bullshit.


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> We are talking about the collapse of the buildings and the problems with the NIST theory, and this clown now wants to dismiss what credible researchers say about these collapse events, because they may not adhere to or discuss the multitudes of other aspects about the OCT conspiracy theory the government put out?


  You mean the lying sacks of shit over at AE911?    Yeah, like Richard Gage playing with boxes to prove the impossibility of it is credible!  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> I'm done with this dirt bag.


You're done period.  You've lost.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Anyone want to have a reasonable discussion I'm game, but I will not be responding to Parrot911 as I have had enough of his circular and asinine name calling posts.


Still haven't looked up hypocrite I see.    Two bit whores have more respectability than you do.


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nist did not explain how it was was possible
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! And NIST is supposed to be the "official" authority that is tax payer funded. They made the assertion, and have to explain how they came to their conclusions. They didn't. So again I ask anyone to post any indisputable evidence from NIST, on the buildings demise, with explanations on why they say the buildings offered only "minimal resistance" and fell at "essentially free fall rates".
Click to expand...


  What a dumbass!!!  Eots gets his ass handed to him for making a retarded claim that is blatantly false, and you chime in with EXACTLY!!!!    That's what happens when you have your head up eots' ass.


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moussaoui was tortured? I must have missed that....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you dismiss a shock belt installed on a defendant.
Click to expand...

Really?  And how often was he shocked during the trial?  And since when has delivering a shock to control someone been classified as torture?  Wow.  Our entire police force is engaging in torture with their tazers.  Guess they should just shoot everyone instead.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> And he was denied witnesses at his trial, who were tortured.


You mean the same witnesses who continue to state they are guilty?  The ones you try to pretend don't matter because they were tortured so ANYTHING they say is to be thrown out?    Fuck you, Jones.


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6WSDxErgBE&feature=feedlik]YouTube - &#x202a;9/11: INTERCEPTED - Full Film&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> YouTube - &#x202a;9/11: INTERCEPTED - Full Film&#x202c;&rlm;



How about just telling us what relevant points you are trying to make instead of making everyone watch yet another 40+ minute lameassed film full of errors, lies and bullshit.


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;9/11: INTERCEPTED - Full Film&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about just telling us what relevant points you are trying to make instead of making everyone watch yet another 40+ minute lameassed film full of errors, lies and bullshit.
Click to expand...


why don't you speak for yourself instead of your imaginary _everyone_ ?


----------



## SFC Ollie

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;9/11: INTERCEPTED - Full Film&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about just telling us what relevant points you are trying to make instead of making everyone watch yet another 40+ minute lameassed film full of errors, lies and bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why don't you speak for yourself instead of your imaginary _everyone_ ?
Click to expand...


I have to agree with patriot. I would guess that I have watched at least 200 and probably up to 300 hours of video presented by conspiracy theorists. I doubt I will sit and watch another one anytime soon unless there's a really good reason for it. Like something new......


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F40xoAlnCKo&feature=related]YouTube - &#x202a;Interview With A Fighter Pilot - Lt Col.Guy Razer&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## Mr. Jones

Patriot911 said:


> Two bit whores have more respectability than you do.


Of course you would think that, it is understandable,  since those are probably the only females that would offer their companionship to you? (for a price of course) and that would ever stoop so low to be with a scum bag like you? 

I can't imagine that any female would see any desirable traits in you, or would want to produce any off spring from the likes of you.. of course there's always someone out there for you, a short drive and 20$ away huh? You have to pay for it from "2 bit whores" that you have "respectability" for 

And of course you would have the utmost respect for a "2 bit whore" since you sound like you spent a lot of time around them. 
Were you indoctrinated in social etiquette and life in general, somewhere along the way, (were you abandoned?) by "2 bit whores" during a most critical and impressionable time in your life, probably in an area in Denver were you say you live, like West Colfax Avenue?

Are you one of the sickos posting here? I wouldn't doubt it..
World Sex Guide Escort Reviews: North America/United States/Colorado/Denver

Given all the nasty shit you post and the filthy attitude you display on this forum, that would explain why you would have first hand knowledge and respect for "2 bit whores" that you allude to.

It's probably all the "love" and attention you've ever known. Poor thing...
How sad. Intervening services weren't there for you as a youngster? 
Too bad. Did you fall through the cracks and weren't taught how to be a decent and good human being by a loving and nurturing village? (that's probably what it would've taken) and now you carry all that anger from your trauma around with you and display it all over the internet forums you frequent.

Maybe this can explain why you are such a vile and angry person...
"Human beings tend to have an innate desire for nurturing love and to be loved as well. There are even some scientific studies that show children who grow up in loving, nurturing environments tend to be healthier and better adjusted to the world around them than those who do not."
Nurturing Love In Relationships Can Lead To Much More | Lifescript.com 

Anyway the result is what you are today, a sorry sad sack of shit that can't cope or debate any issues rationally, and is not well adjusted to the world around him, and self projects his inadequacies as an internet troll hiding behind a computer monitor.
 It's no wonder that you think the state of the nation you live in is just fine and dandy, and why you side with all that is wrong with America, and opposes those that speak out on the Fascism/corporatism and destruction of America and its values. You have no values, as no sense of decency was instilled in you.

 You have no idea what that even is, you act like you were never taught, and are too lazy to look it up and correct your problems.
But you also were never taught about American values, or the history of the struggle to make this nation the greatest in the world and what it is supposed to stand for.
Your definition of a Patriot is skewed and perverted.
 Your thinking is, hell your life sucks, so why shouldn't everyone elses?
 You are a prime example of why abortion should be a viable alternative instead of allowing children to languish and suffer to become monsters and unrepairable head cases with mental and social problems in our society. 
Your DNA strain should be strictly controlled for lab testing purposes only to show students of genetics what can go go wrong when mixing donkey and human DNA, or perhaps even eliminated from human society especially if you are an example of what spawns from it.


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about just telling us what relevant points you are trying to make instead of making everyone watch yet another 40+ minute lameassed film full of errors, lies and bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why don't you speak for yourself instead of your imaginary _everyone_ ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to agree with patriot. I would guess that I have watched at least 200 and probably up to 300 hours of video presented by conspiracy theorists. I doubt I will sit and watch another one anytime soon unless there's a really good reason for it. Like something new......
Click to expand...


We understand you can't comprehend much anyways, and can't make any sense of the information, just stick to your TV and your indoctrinated habits, no big loss.


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two bit whores have more respectability than you do.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you would think that, it is understandable,  since those are probably the only females that would offer their companionship to you? (for a price of course) and that would ever stoop so low to be with a scum bag like you?
> 
> I can't imagine that any female would see any desirable traits in you, or would want to produce any off spring from the likes of you.. of course there's always someone out there for you, a short drive and 20$ away huh? You have to pay for it from "2 bit whores" that you have "respectability" for
> 
> And of course you would have the utmost respect for a "2 bit whore" since you sound like you spent a lot of time around them.
> Were you indoctrinated in social etiquette and life in general, somewhere along the way, (were you abandoned?) by "2 bit whores" during a most critical and impressionable time in your life, probably in an area in Denver were you say you live, like West Colfax Avenue?
> 
> Are you one of the sickos posting here? I wouldn't doubt it..
> World Sex Guide Escort Reviews: North America/United States/Colorado/Denver
> 
> Given all the nasty shit you post and the filthy attitude you display on this forum, that would explain why you would have first hand knowledge and respect for "2 bit whores" that you allude to.
> 
> It's probably all the "love" and attention you've ever known. Poor thing...
> How sad. Intervening services weren't there for you as a youngster?
> Too bad. Did you fall through the cracks and weren't taught how to be a decent and good human being by a loving and nurturing village? (that's probably what it would've taken) and now you carry all that anger from your trauma around with you and display it all over the internet forums you frequent.
> 
> Maybe this can explain why you are such a vile and angry person...
> "Human beings tend to have an innate desire for nurturing love and to be loved as well. There are even some scientific studies that show children who grow up in loving, nurturing environments tend to be healthier and better adjusted to the world around them than those who do not."
> Nurturing Love In Relationships Can Lead To Much More | Lifescript.com
> 
> Anyway the result is what you are today, a sorry sad sack of shit that can't cope or debate any issues rationally, and is not well adjusted to the world around him, and self projects his inadequacies as an internet troll hiding behind a computer monitor.
> It's no wonder that you think the state of the nation you live in is just fine and dandy, and why you side with all that is wrong with America, and opposes those that speak out on the Fascism/corporatism and destruction of America and its values. You have no values, as no sense of decency was instilled in you.
> 
> You have no idea what that even is, you act like you were never taught, and are too lazy to look it up and correct your problems.
> But you also were never taught about American values, or the history of the struggle to make this nation the greatest in the world and what it is supposed to stand for.
> Your definition of a Patriot is skewed and perverted.
> Your thinking is, hell your life sucks, so why shouldn't everyone elses?
> You are a prime example of why abortion should be a viable alternative instead of allowing children to languish and suffer to become monsters and unrepairable head cases with mental and social problems in our society.
> Your DNA strain should be strictly controlled for lab testing purposes only to show students of genetics what can go go wrong when mixing donkey and human DNA, or perhaps even eliminated from human society especially if you are an example of what spawns from it.
Click to expand...


Awwww..... isn't that cute!  The fucktard thinks he is somehow relevant because he can insult people!  What a joke!  Grow up and fuck off.


----------



## Patriot911

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> why don't you speak for yourself instead of your imaginary _everyone_ ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to agree with patriot. I would guess that I have watched at least 200 and probably up to 300 hours of video presented by conspiracy theorists. I doubt I will sit and watch another one anytime soon unless there's a really good reason for it. Like something new......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We understand you can't comprehend much anyways, and can't make any sense of the information, just stick to your TV and your indoctrinated habits, no big loss.
Click to expand...


So why post videos if it is only for the fucked in the head indoctrinated truthtards?    You stupid fucks don't even realize just how irrelevant you've become.


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;9/11: INTERCEPTED - Full Film&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about just telling us what relevant points you are trying to make instead of making everyone watch yet another 40+ minute lameassed film full of errors, lies and bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why don't you speak for yourself instead of your imaginary _everyone_ ?
Click to expand...


Figures.  You can't even figure out what relevant points you believe anymore.  Not surprised.  That is why you've been reduced to one liners and posting shitty videos that make you lot look like the total douchebags you are.


----------



## eots

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, U.S. Army Reserve (ret) &#8211; Former Chief of the Army&#8217;s Controlled HUMINT (Human Intelligence) Program, overseeing Army Intelligence and Security Command&#8217;s global controlled HUMINT efforts. A former member of the Able Danger data mining program that targeted Al Qaeda&#8217;s global structure. Former Commander of Special Troops Battalion, 9th Theater Support Command. Awarded the Bronze Star for bravery. Fellow, Center for Advanced Defense Studies. 23-year military intelligence career.

Personal endorsement of a New Investigation into 9/11 as described in the New York City Ballot Initiative: NYC 911 Ballot Initiative - NYC 911 Ballot Initiative


----------



## Rationalist1016

eots said:


> Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, U.S. Army Reserve (ret)  Former Chief of the Armys Controlled HUMINT (Human Intelligence) Program, overseeing Army Intelligence and Security Commands global controlled HUMINT efforts. A former member of the Able Danger data mining program that targeted Al Qaedas global structure. Former Commander of Special Troops Battalion, 9th Theater Support Command. Awarded the Bronze Star for bravery. Fellow, Center for Advanced Defense Studies. 23-year military intelligence career.
> 
> Personal endorsement of a New Investigation into 9/11 as described in the New York City Ballot Initiative: NYC 911 Ballot Initiative - NYC 911 Ballot Initiative



I can believe that those people would be in favor of backing that petition.  It is presented as a rational inquiry regarding the governments knowledge of the threats before hand and the extent that they were covering there asses for failing us afterword.  When a logical approach to the issue is taken, it is bound to gain the attention of people who might make a difference.
But a movement loses it's credibility when they start petitioning to re-investigate based on half-cock claims, opinions and implausible theories.


----------



## eots

*Jörg Schneider, Dr hc &#8211; Professor Emeritus, Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.  Former President, Joint Committee on Structural Safety, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.  Elected member of the Swiss Academy of Engineering Sciences.  Former Vice President and honorary lifetime member of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering*.


_Tages Anzeiger Article 9/9/06: " In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished," says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH [Swiss Federal Institute of Technology] - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction.  And also Jörg Schneider, likewise emeritus ETH - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that "the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished."_ 

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## Patriot911

eots said:


> *Jörg Schneider, Dr hc  Professor Emeritus, Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.  Former President, Joint Committee on Structural Safety, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.  Elected member of the Swiss Academy of Engineering Sciences.  Former Vice President and honorary lifetime member of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering*.
> 
> 
> _Tages Anzeiger Article 9/9/06: " In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished," says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH [Swiss Federal Institute of Technology] - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction.  And also Jörg Schneider, likewise emeritus ETH - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that "the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished."_
> 
> Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


Opinions are like assholes.  Everyone has them and some are far more foul than others.

So we're suppose to believe the off the cuff opinion of some professor who only looked at the videos over the NIST and their detailed analysis.    So how does the professor explain the complete lack of evidence of a "professional demolition"?  You would think a professor would understand that you can't judge an event by a video and have to look at ALL the evidence.  Otherwise you just end up a hated truthtard.


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever seen a CD, and how there is a very slight delay just before the entire structure collapses? This appears to be quite normal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Quite normal?
> 
> Tell you what. You show me a demolition video where ALL the supporting columns are blown at the same time to remove ALL resistance and it shows a delay before the upper assembly starts to fall at free fall.
> 
> Let's see the study you are basing this claim on. According to you and your cohorts, when there is NO RESISTANCE, free fall ensues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look you are the one saying it isn't possible perhaps you should be the one doing the looking. You have a lot of questions that can be answered satifactorily by researching material yourself, and yes that would include the particulars of the theory you are against.
> I have looked at the NIST report and found what the researchers are talking about and it makes sense to me and others.
> I have provided links to their work, proof to justify what they say, and the evidence they use to back it up as well.
> 
> You insist on disparaging the researchers, and that is your what you try to use to dismiss their work. Why don't you concentrate on the lack of detail NIST leaves out in their work? Concentrate on what is being presented instead.
> True absolute Free fall can only really happen in a vacuum. Everything has to at least over come the resistance provided by air, as the linked article I provided you explains. Still the buildings came down with an admitted rate of near free fall, with no explanations as to what removed the resistance.
> That's the problem you don't want to address and resort to character assassination instead.
Click to expand...


Is this how it works? You make a claim, I question it and ask you to provide me the sources on which you base your claim, and then you turn around and tell me I need to find them??

Look hotshot. YOU made the claim that there is a slight delay before an object starts to fall at free fall speed and made mention of it being normal in controlled demolitions.

YOU need to provide the sources used for making this claim. That's how it works. So where are they?


----------



## Gamolon

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> You on the other hand have not provided any indisputable evidence or proof that NIST is correct,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's turn this around Mr. Jones. Where is YOUR proof and evidence that Niels Harritt's claim that nano-thermite was used to bring down the towers is correct? I mean, let's use the same type of thiking you are applying to NIST. As an example, see below about your thought process.
> 
> 1. An event happened. NIST says the buildings collapsed and explain how it was possible. You want proof hat NIST is correct.
> 
> Yet,
> 
> 2. An event happened. Harritt says nano-thermite was used in a demolition of the towers and explains how. You except it as is and demand no proof that Harritt is correct.
> 
> Why the double standard?
Click to expand...


SO, Mr. Jones.

Why the double standard?


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> IMO Gage is more of a spokesman for A&E. I read the work of many of the members, and feel they make valid points, to which NIST has not responded. Though Gage has credentials in building construction, and he makes valid observations about the NIST flaws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valid observations huh?
> 
> Let's discuss his "valid" observations. You continually try and show NIST's mistakes and how they invalidate their theory.
> 
> Answer a few questions about Gage's research will you? Since you consider him to make "valid" observations of the NIST flaws.
> 
> 1. Here is a quote from Gage.
> 
> 
> If anyone finds errors in my math below, please point it out.
> 
> Can you tell me how Gage got 400,000 cubic yards of concrete? Tell you what. You tell me how many cubic yards of concrete were contained above ground between both towers. See if you come up with 400,000 cubic yards.
> 
> My math. 208' x 208' x 4" = 12979.2 cubic feet. MINUS the core area of 3471.3 (87' x 137' x 4") cubic feet gives us  9507.9 cubic feet or 352.122 cubic yards of 4" concrete per floor. So 220 (floors) x 352.122 = 77466.84 cubic yards of concrete above ground in BOTH towers. That's 322533.16 cubic yards off!
> 
> 2.Another quote from Gage.
> 
> 
> 
> Gage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why were virtually no floors found at the base of either Twin Tower? There were originally 110 floors  each of them one acre in size. What explains the disappearance of 220 acres of four-inch thick concrete and steel decking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 220 acres of 4" thick concrete and steel decking? Really? Was he aware the the core of the towers had elevators in them? The core of each tower was 87' x 133'. That makes each floor about .7275 acres, which gives us 160 acres, not 220. How did he mess up by 60 acres in his calculation?
> 
> 3. Gage says that WTC7's facade came down in 6.6 seconds. Can you explain how he came up with that time frame? What video did he use to come up with this since there is no video showing the facade AFTER it disappeared behind the building. Compare Gage's 6.6 seconds for complete collapse to Chandler's video. Interesting isn't it? Chandler kind of makes Gag'es time frame a little impossible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could you post a link of the article you are getting your quotes from?That would be where I would want to start.
Click to expand...


No answer yet?


----------



## Rationalist1016

eots said:


> *Jörg Schneider, Dr hc  Professor Emeritus, Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.  Former President, Joint Committee on Structural Safety, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.  Elected member of the Swiss Academy of Engineering Sciences.  Former Vice President and honorary lifetime member of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering*.
> 
> 
> _Tages Anzeiger Article 9/9/06: " In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished," says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH [Swiss Federal Institute of Technology] - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction.  And also Jörg Schneider, likewise emeritus ETH - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that "the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished."_
> 
> Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report



These people definitely have the credentials to say what they are saying.  But it still seems to be their "opinion".  Granted, it's the opinion of well educated people in the correct field, but have they done the research?  Have they down any scientific models to test their opinion?  Have they spoken with any of the researchers that were involved in the investigation?
As for the buildings, I read a lot of "looked like a controlled demolition" or "the building didn't behave like one would expect".  All great observations, but where is the PROOF to back up their claims?  I don't think you can compare these events to "normal situations".  Just as with the plane crashes, I read a lot of "as with other plane crashes" or "when a plane crashes you usually find.....".  These were not usual plane crashes.  In a usual plane crash there is a failure by the plane or by the pilot.  And the pilot is trying to minimize the damage of an impact to save their lives.  These crashes where just the opposite, the pilot was trying to cause maximum damage.
So, like I said, these people have the credentials to speak to these issues, but until they have the proof that the other researchers are wrong, their "opinions" are no better than mine or yours.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> why don't you speak for yourself instead of your imaginary _everyone_ ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to agree with patriot. I would guess that I have watched at least 200 and probably up to 300 hours of video presented by conspiracy theorists. I doubt I will sit and watch another one anytime soon unless there's a really good reason for it. Like something new......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We understand you can't comprehend much anyways, and can't make any sense of the information, just stick to your TV and your indoctrinated habits, no big loss.
Click to expand...


Other than an occasional movie and the morning news I don't do TV... 

As far as indoctrinated, I've been called worse.  If you want to see worse,  just take a look in the nearest mirror.


----------



## Patriot911

Rationalist1016 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Jörg Schneider, Dr hc  Professor Emeritus, Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.  Former President, Joint Committee on Structural Safety, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.  Elected member of the Swiss Academy of Engineering Sciences.  Former Vice President and honorary lifetime member of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering*.
> 
> 
> _Tages Anzeiger Article 9/9/06: " In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished," says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH [Swiss Federal Institute of Technology] - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction.  And also Jörg Schneider, likewise emeritus ETH - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that "the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished."_
> 
> Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These people definitely have the credentials to say what they are saying.  But it still seems to be their "opinion".  Granted, it's the opinion of well educated people in the correct field, but have they done the research?  Have they down any scientific models to test their opinion?  Have they spoken with any of the researchers that were involved in the investigation?
> As for the buildings, I read a lot of "looked like a controlled demolition" or "the building didn't behave like one would expect".  All great observations, but where is the PROOF to back up their claims?  I don't think you can compare these events to "normal situations".  Just as with the plane crashes, I read a lot of "as with other plane crashes" or "when a plane crashes you usually find.....".  These were not usual plane crashes.  In a usual plane crash there is a failure by the plane or by the pilot.  And the pilot is trying to minimize the damage of an impact to save their lives.  These crashes where just the opposite, the pilot was trying to cause maximum damage.
> So, like I said, these people have the credentials to speak to these issues, but until they have the proof that the other researchers are wrong, their "opinions" are no better than mine or yours.
Click to expand...


The professor admitted to only looking at the videos and this was before the NIST report came out that details the evidence and theory.

What I want to know is what kind of professor of engineering would make a claim based on a video without wanting to look at the structure involved and getting a detailed accounting of what happened.


----------



## eots

Patriot911 said:


> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Jörg Schneider, Dr hc  Professor Emeritus, Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.  Former President, Joint Committee on Structural Safety, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.  Elected member of the Swiss Academy of Engineering Sciences.  Former Vice President and honorary lifetime member of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering*.
> 
> 
> _Tages Anzeiger Article 9/9/06: " In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished," says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH [Swiss Federal Institute of Technology] - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction.  And also Jörg Schneider, likewise emeritus ETH - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that "the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished."_
> 
> Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These people definitely have the credentials to say what they are saying.  But it still seems to be their "opinion".  Granted, it's the opinion of well educated people in the correct field, but have they done the research?  Have they down any scientific models to test their opinion?  Have they spoken with any of the researchers that were involved in the investigation?
> As for the buildings, I read a lot of "looked like a controlled demolition" or "the building didn't behave like one would expect".  All great observations, but where is the PROOF to back up their claims?  I don't think you can compare these events to "normal situations".  Just as with the plane crashes, I read a lot of "as with other plane crashes" or "when a plane crashes you usually find.....".  These were not usual plane crashes.  In a usual plane crash there is a failure by the plane or by the pilot.  And the pilot is trying to minimize the damage of an impact to save their lives.  These crashes where just the opposite, the pilot was trying to cause maximum damage.
> So, like I said, these people have the credentials to speak to these issues, but until they have the proof that the other researchers are wrong, their "opinions" are no better than mine or yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The professor admitted to only looking at the videos and this was before the NIST report came out that details the evidence and theory.
> 
> What I want to know is what kind of professor of engineering would make a *claim based on a video without wanting to look at the structure involved *and getting a detailed accounting of what happened.
Click to expand...


the structure involved ??? huh ?


----------



## eots

*Joel S. Hirschhorn, BS Metallurgical Engineering, MS Metallurgical Engineering, PhD Materials Engineering* &#8211; Professor of Metallurgical Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison 1965 - 1978.  Senior Staff Member, Congressional Office of Technology Assessment 1978 - 1990.  *Testified more than 50 times before Congress on technology, science, and environmental issues*.  Former Director of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources, National Governors Association.  Dr. Hirschhorn has been a consultant to industrial and chemical companies, DOE laboratories, state governments, and public interest organizations.  Co-founder of Friends of the Article V Convention at Friends Of the Article V Convention.  Member, Board of Directors, National Foundation for Environmental Education.  Member, Board of Directors, Sustainability Now!  Author of more than 150 papers, articles, guest editorials, and book chapters on environmental science and technology



"Scholars and professionals with various kinds of expertise---including architects, engineers, firefighters, intelligence officers, lawyers, medical professionals, military officers, philosophers, religious leaders, physical scientists, and pilots---have spoken out about radical discrepancies between the official account of the 9/11 attacks and what they, as independent researchers, have learned. 

*They have established beyond any reasonable doubt that the official account of 9/11 is false and that, therefore, the official &#8220;investigations&#8221; have really been cover-up operations.* 

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## Mr. Jones

Rationalist1016 said:


> But a movement loses it's credibility when they start petitioning to re-investigate based on half-cock claims, opinions and implausible theories.


How are they losing credibility, when they are simply pointing out the "half-cock claims, opinions and implausible theories" that the USG and their agencies claim?
Remember the research done by these people have backing in the form of physical, technical, analytical and circumstantial evidence. Far more than any _unprejudiced_ person needs to understand far beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever, that  the USG case is fatally flawed, as well as the investigation and theory the NIST report is based on.
FWIW, looking at the the whole OCT and not just analyzing the NIST reports, some of the theories involve and Israeli connection when political associations and connections are taken into account, but that is debate for another thread.
All research suggests NIST theory is flawed and not to be trusted as indisputable, nor scientifically sound.


----------



## Mr. Jones

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people definitely have the credentials to say what they are saying.  But it still seems to be their "opinion".  Granted, it's the opinion of well educated people in the correct field, but have they done the research?  Have they down any scientific models to test their opinion?  Have they spoken with any of the researchers that were involved in the investigation?
> As for the buildings, I read a lot of "looked like a controlled demolition" or "the building didn't behave like one would expect".  All great observations, but where is the PROOF to back up their claims?  I don't think you can compare these events to "normal situations".  Just as with the plane crashes, I read a lot of "as with other plane crashes" or "when a plane crashes you usually find.....".  These were not usual plane crashes.  In a usual plane crash there is a failure by the plane or by the pilot.  And the pilot is trying to minimize the damage of an impact to save their lives.  These crashes where just the opposite, the pilot was trying to cause maximum damage.
> So, like I said, these people have the credentials to speak to these issues, but until they have the proof that the other researchers are wrong, their "opinions" are no better than mine or yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The professor admitted to only looking at the videos and this was before the NIST report came out that details the evidence and theory.
> 
> What I want to know is what kind of professor of engineering would make a *claim based on a video without wanting to look at the structure involved *and getting a detailed accounting of what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the structure involved ??? huh ?
Click to expand...


Isn't that precisely what NIST and their engineers claimed they did?
All the while leaving out or ignoring other details, data, fudging the data, exaggerating the data, and making the data that led to their conclusions unavailable?


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to agree with patriot. I would guess that I have watched at least 200 and probably up to 300 hours of video presented by conspiracy theorists. I doubt I will sit and watch another one anytime soon unless there's a really good reason for it. Like something new......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We understand you can't comprehend much anyways, and can't make any sense of the information, just stick to your TV and your indoctrinated habits, no big loss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other than an occasional movie and the morning news I don't do TV...
> 
> As far as indoctrinated, I've been called worse.  If you want to see worse,  just take a look in the nearest mirror.
Click to expand...


You are an example of an indoctrinated closed mind, that fails to grasp many things that are clear to others because of it,  all the while moving the goal posts in debates, while nitpicking details of the side you oppose, along with questioning their credibility and character and totally avoiding the same rules of scrutiny you use, when it comes to the side you defend.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nist did not explain how it was was possible
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! And NIST is supposed to be the "official" authority that is tax payer funded. They made the assertion, and have to explain how they came to their conclusions. They didn't. So again I ask anyone to post any indisputable evidence from NIST, on the buildings demise, with explanations on why they say the buildings offered only "minimal resistance" and fell at "essentially free fall rates".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a dumbass!!!  Eots gets his ass handed to him for making a retarded claim that is blatantly false, and you chime in with EXACTLY!!!!    That's what happens when you have your head up eots' ass.
Click to expand...

 It's true NIST did not explain how many things about the collapse were possible.


----------



## eots

Mr. Jones said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The professor admitted to only looking at the videos and this was before the NIST report came out that details the evidence and theory.
> 
> What I want to know is what kind of professor of engineering would make a *claim based on a video without wanting to look at the structure involved *and getting a detailed accounting of what happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the structure involved ??? huh ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't that precisely what NIST and their engineers claimed they did?
> All the while leaving out or ignoring other details, data, fudging the data, exaggerating the data, and making the data that led to their conclusions unavailable?
Click to expand...


yes. other than a unverified, first time ever computer simulation, that is all the evidence they have to support the NIST theory


----------



## SFC Ollie

eots said:


> *Joel S. Hirschhorn, BS Metallurgical Engineering, MS Metallurgical Engineering, PhD Materials Engineering*  Professor of Metallurgical Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison 1965 - 1978.  Senior Staff Member, Congressional Office of Technology Assessment 1978 - 1990.  *Testified more than 50 times before Congress on technology, science, and environmental issues*.  Former Director of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources, National Governors Association.  Dr. Hirschhorn has been a consultant to industrial and chemical companies, DOE laboratories, state governments, and public interest organizations.  Co-founder of Friends of the Article V Convention at Friends Of the Article V Convention.  Member, Board of Directors, National Foundation for Environmental Education.  Member, Board of Directors, Sustainability Now!  Author of more than 150 papers, articles, guest editorials, and book chapters on environmental science and technology
> 
> 
> 
> "Scholars and professionals with various kinds of expertise---including architects, engineers, firefighters, intelligence officers, lawyers, medical professionals, military officers, philosophers, religious leaders, physical scientists, and pilots---have spoken out about radical discrepancies between the official account of the 9/11 attacks and what they, as independent researchers, have learned.
> 
> *They have established beyond any reasonable doubt that the official account of 9/11 is false and that, therefore, the official investigations have really been cover-up operations.*
> 
> Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report




Quotes from your link:

Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11

[T]he debris found outside the Pentagon is inconsistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 or any aircraft of comparable dimensions.  (Yet they found engine parts, wheels, and the black boxes)

Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds  (wrong)

It is clear that the World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7 were brought down in a contrived and controlled demolition from within.   ( It is clear that there is no physical evidence to back up this statement)

Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that "the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished." 

"Bachmann could imagine that the perpetrators had installed explosives on key supports in a lower floor before the attack."  If the perpetrators had rented office space, then these "explosive tenants" could have calmly placed explosive charges on the vulnerable parts of the building "without having anyone notice."   (Really?)


I could continue with this for hours, but real life calls and I must go for an hour or two.... Enjoy......


----------



## eots

business and the ol gin joint ?


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> You insist on disparaging the researchers, and that is your what you try to use to dismiss their work.



Is that why I posted some of Richard Gage's "research" and asked you why he makes large mistakes with his "research"?

You still have yet to address what I posted about his "work". 

Why is that?

You want to claim he he valid criticism about NIST's work, yet his claims are fraught with mistakes. Mistakes you obviously don;t want to address.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> You insist on disparaging the researchers, and that is your what you try to use to dismiss their work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why I posted some of Richard Gage's "research" and asked you why he makes large mistakes with his "research"?
> 
> You still have yet to address what I posted about his "work".
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> You want to claim he he valid criticism about NIST's work, yet his claims are fraught with mistakes. Mistakes you obviously don;t want to address.
Click to expand...


I haven't bothered to check his calculations do to time constraints, on the amount of concrete and the other things you asked about, it is irrelevant anyway IMO, and I have no idea how or where he got those figures. Perhaps he was rounding them out as many people tend to do. However, 
It doesn't make the NIST farce any more valid, as their report has so many glaring fuck ups in it.
If Mr. Gage says 400,000 tons, half a million tons of concrete, what difference does that make really? NIST didn't They didn't even bother to quantify any of their BS, or even try to explain how they arrived at their conclusions, about many things.
Again, trying to disparage Gages qualifications, does not in any way explain or advance the NIST report or explain away the comminution of the concrete.


----------



## Mr. Jones

eots said:


> business and the ol gin joint ?


LOL!!


----------



## SFC Ollie

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> You insist on disparaging the researchers, and that is your what you try to use to dismiss their work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why I posted some of Richard Gage's "research" and asked you why he makes large mistakes with his "research"?
> 
> You still have yet to address what I posted about his "work".
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> You want to claim he he valid criticism about NIST's work, yet his claims are fraught with mistakes. Mistakes you obviously don;t want to address.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't bothered to check his calculations do to time constraints, on the amount of concrete and the other things you asked about, it is irrelevant anyway IMO, and I have no idea how or where he got those figures. Perhaps he was rounding them out as many people tend to do. However,
> It doesn't make the NIST farce any more valid, as their report has so many glaring fuck ups in it.
> If Mr. Gage says 400,000 tons, half a million tons of concrete, what difference does that make really? NIST didn't They didn't even bother to quantify any of their BS, or even try to explain how they arrived at their conclusions, about many things.
> Again, trying to disparage Gages qualifications, does not in any way explain or advance the NIST report or explain away the comminution of the concrete.
Click to expand...


Really? They never explained anything? I think you have a lot of reading to do. You can start here.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1.pdf


----------



## Gamolon

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> You insist on disparaging the researchers, and that is your what you try to use to dismiss their work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why I posted some of Richard Gage's "research" and asked you why he makes large mistakes with his "research"?
> 
> You still have yet to address what I posted about his "work".
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> You want to claim he he valid criticism about NIST's work, yet his claims are fraught with mistakes. Mistakes you obviously don;t want to address.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't bothered to check his calculations do to time constraints, on the amount of concrete and the other things you asked about, it is irrelevant anyway IMO, and I have no idea how or where he got those figures. Perhaps he was rounding them out as many people tend to do. However,
> It doesn't make the NIST farce any more valid, as their report has so many glaring fuck ups in it.
> If Mr. Gage says 400,000 tons, half a million tons of concrete, what difference does that make really? NIST didn't They didn't even bother to quantify any of their BS, or even try to explain how they arrived at their conclusions, about many things.
> Again, trying to disparage Gages qualifications, does not in any way explain or advance the NIST report or explain away the comminution of the concrete.
Click to expand...




I figured as much.

The whole point, which is CLEARLY evident by your above post, is that you are a hypocrite. You bitch and moan about the mistakes in the NIST report, but won't discuss the mistakes made by the supposed "valid point makers" that try and refute NIST. I showed you three major mistakes and you just handwaved them away.

Whatever.

As I have said all along you people don't care about the truth. It doesn't matter one bit anyone is wrong or right, you support them as long as they are against anything that supports the government's "official story". Isn't that right Mr. Jones? Is it wasn't you'd be saying that same garbage about your man Gage that you do about the NIST research.

It's pathetic really.


----------



## Mr. Jones

> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why I posted some of Richard Gage's "research" and asked you why he makes large mistakes with his "research"?
> 
> You still have yet to address what I posted about his "work".
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> I have responded to you. I explained the insignificance of 400,000 tons to 500,000 tons, and where this came from or who is saying different does not matter, when the entire NIST report and what happened in reality are so different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to claim he he valid criticism about NIST's work, yet his claims are fraught with mistakes. Mistakes you obviously don;t want to address.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His claims are hardly "fraught with mistakes" and saying so is stretching the truth or an out right lie by you. Tell us why such an insignificant difference in calculation concerning the amount of concrete, would in any way explain the fact that NIST hasn't bothered to explain  the important and crucial events of the actual collapse?
> I have no idea how you can consider such BS, in using it to discredit the whole of the A&E observations, calculations, and theory.
> We don't know anything about you said he said in any detail, we can only assume the man rounded out some numbers. And if you think this small discrepancy, if it even is one  somehow absolves NIST or provides any concrete proof they are remotely accurate, you are sadly mistaken.
> 
> I haven't bothered to check his calculations do to time constraints, on the amount of concrete and the other things you asked about, it is irrelevant anyway IMO, and I have no idea how or where he got those figures. Perhaps he was rounding them out as many people tend to do. However,
> It doesn't make the NIST farce any more valid, as their report has so many glaring fuck ups in it.
> If Mr. Gage says 400,000 tons, half a million tons of concrete, what difference does that make really? NIST didn't They didn't even bother to quantify any of their BS, or even try to explain how they arrived at their conclusions, about many things.
> Again, trying to disparage Gages qualifications, does not in any way explain or advance the NIST report or explain away the comminution of the concrete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I figured as much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I stand by my statement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole point, which is CLEARLY evident by your above post, is that you are a hypocrite. You bitch and moan about the mistakes in the NIST report, but won't discuss the mistakes made by the supposed "valid point makers" that try and refute NIST. I showed you three major mistakes and you just handwaved them away.
> 
> Whatever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go ahead and list them again, and I'll take a look at them when I have time to filter your BS claims out, but like I said above, it is a reach on your part, and another attempt by you to try to show NIST in a better light by nitpicking insignificant small details about others, all the while not responding to my assertions that NIST investigation is bogus, and flawed.
> You have yet to tell us what indisputable evidence NIST has given about their theory, nor showed how they explained how the buildings fell "essentially at free fall", or explain why they displayed only "minimal resistance"
> What you do is try to avoid answering these very important subjects by attacking minuscule and irrelevant things that Gage may have said, or the context they were delivered in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have said all along you people don't care about the truth. It doesn't matter one bit anyone is wrong or right, you support them as long as they are against anything that supports the government's "official story". Isn't that right Mr. Jones? Is it wasn't you'd be saying that same garbage about your man Gage that you do about the NIST research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you try to answer what has been asked of you? You go around it by pointing out what amounts to insignificant figures, that may or not be accurate, in a weal attempt to show Gage might or might not have an error in a calculation, that even if it is wrong, does not show his arguments about the NIST are anywhere near wrong!!
> Now that IS  pathetic!
> 
> Have you bothered to look at all the "miscalculations" NIST made? The "corrections" they did? Or the vast other points made by others against NIST and their flawed report? Just so you know, Gage isn't the only person who has spoken out about NIST and gone on record to publish their valid points about their "report" or it's "investigation"!
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Mr. Jones

> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you tell me how Gage got 400,000 cubic yards of concrete? Tell you what. You tell me how many cubic yards of concrete were contained above ground between both towers. See if you come up with 400,000 cubic yards.
> 
> 
> 
> A cursory check and you would have found this-
> World Trade Center Stats
> 
> * 200,000 tons of steel
> * 425,000 cubic yards of concrete
> * 43,600 windows
> * 12,000 miles of electric cables
> * Had its own zip code, 10048
> Read more: World Trade Center History  Infoplease.com World Trade Center History &mdash; Infoplease.com
> There were originally 110 floors  each of them one acre in size. What explains the disappearance of 220 acres of four-inch thick concrete and steel decking, a good estimation when writing about the tower/s!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.Another quote from Gage.
> 
> 220 acres of 4" thick concrete and steel decking? Really? Was he aware the the core of the towers had elevators in them? The core of each tower was 87' x 133'. That makes each floor about .7275 acres, which gives us 160 acres, not 220. How did he mess up by 60 acres in his calculation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again another estimation used to make a point on just how insane the NIST report actually is..So what!! Does this somehow absolve NIST? DOES IT MAKE THE NIST REPORT ANY MORE CREDIBLE?!! You're reaching about this is pathetic man, really it is.
> Did NIST ever respond to these questions and calculations, in the letter that was sent to Congressman Robert Wexler, did he even ask NIST about any of these concerns regarding the discrepancies Gage and co. found??
> BTW,...How could NIST put out a so called "comprehensive" and full report when they DO NOT address any of these important points?
> Even if we are to assume a 60 acre error....Does it answer the NIST flaws any better??
> No in the least!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Gage says that WTC7's facade came down in 6.6 seconds. Can you explain how he came up with that time frame? What video did he use to come up with this since there is no video showing the facade AFTER it disappeared behind the building. Compare Gage's 6.6 seconds for complete collapse to Chandler's video. Interesting isn't it? Chandler kind of makes Gag'es time frame a little impossible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And ???? NIST left out the fact WTC7 experienced free fall, altogether they even said it would be impossible because the buildings would provide resistance, until they were forced to because it was so apparent to intellectuals studying the collapse and their report!
> Then they say they came down "essentially at free fall" with "minimal resistance" Kind of makes NISTs claims impossible to believe?? Are you starting to understand a little better now as to why a new investigation and re-evaluation is needed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No answer yet?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answered
> 
> Richard Gage's 5 minute presentation is a very strong argument based on credible facts.
> You try to make a lot out of nothing, while not being able to destroy A&E's strong evidence, against NIST.
> NIST has finally acknowledged that there were no diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.
> Inherent in their 12-18-07 report is an acknowledgment that the debris damage did not have a significant effect on the initiating event that led to the implosion of WTC7.
> That leaves office fires heating columns weighing over many tons per floor to 1,000° F. And the independent researchers have shown us how this would be next to impossible, while NIST the "official" investigating agency, leaves plausible explanations  out!
Click to expand...


----------



## SFC Ollie

When are you dicks going to stop being so dishonest?

WTC7 was never in free fall. The north facade was for 2.25 seconds.

That is not the building, it is a part of the building.

Everytime you say it you are lying and you know it,  hell the entire intelligent world knows it.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> You insist on disparaging the researchers, and that is your what you try to use to dismiss their work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why I posted some of Richard Gage's "research" and asked you why he makes large mistakes with his "research"?
> 
> You still have yet to address what I posted about his "work".
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> You want to claim he he valid criticism about NIST's work, yet his claims are fraught with mistakes. Mistakes you obviously don;t want to address.
Click to expand...


Do you remember all the experts going on TV immediately following the disaster, and in some cases during it. Remember how many stated the fires "melted" the steel?

Do you remember when  Donald Rumsfeld made a comment that a "missile" hit the Pentagon?
That hasn't been proven, but does that mean major points on the 9-11 attacks are not to be believed?  
 Remember how many times the peddlers of the OCT have been proven wrong, and the many times they flat out fucking lied, even on national TV? And now you want to use  BS piddly dick shit to somehow use to out weigh the massive fraud and BS that IS the OCT?? Fucking hilarious, and weak at the same time 

So in summary, the NIST investigation is flawed-
The flaws are pointed out, proven, and documented-
Not by me, mind you, but by credible people in the various fields on the subject-
You people seem to intentionally "misunderstand" that the PTB use their power and influence to squelch the information contrary to the OCT, by using various methods, including the judicial system-
Then say the alternative research and theories developed because of the research is not valid, because the PTB say so!

When so much political power is involved, there's going to be a series of false reports, disinformation and lies put forth to obscure the real story, red herrings to throw off the dogs, and all available resources will be used to spread their version, while squashing anything to the contrary, including sstatements like "you're either with us, or your with the terrorists"-GWB 
And if you protest civil liberty losses and laws that infringe on them, or complain about shit like what the TSA does, it is being ingrained in the stupid minds of the public, that you must be with the terrorists!

All the while providing no proof or evidence to back up the PTB in the defense of the OCT, THAT IS INDISPUTABLE!!
Is it possible to be anymore close minded and biased then that?? 

Are you a 9-11 CONSPIRACY THEORISTS? It is frequently difficult to know if you're communicating with a CT, or someone who is sincerely interested in filling in the 9-11 accuracy gaps with information gained from actual investigation.
You seem to belong to the 9-11 conspiracy theory movement. This movement should not be confused with the 9-11 truth movement, they are very different movements.
The 9-11 truth movement is vastly more patriotic as the majority of the participants want the restoration of the rule of law, and honesty and integrity back in the American government.
While the 9-11 conspiracy movement are seemingly against these things, and in the process are knowingly, or not, supporting a different form of American government that is exactly what the founders of the nation feared, and were against, and more closely resembles Fascism.
America has been infiltrated and turned into a vastly different place, and was allowed to by/of the blind ignorance, willful or not, of its people, among many other reasons, not the least of by infiltration by those who have the interests and are loyal to outside states and entities.


----------



## JackDan

Would anyone like to take bets on Mr jones's Iq level? 

Over or under 105?

I would have to say under.  There is no way it surpasses 110. 

and no, online tests don't count.


----------



## SFC Ollie

JackDan said:


> Would anyone like to take bets on Mr jones's Iq level?
> 
> Over or under 105?
> 
> I would have to say under.  There is no way it surpasses 110.
> 
> and no, online tests don't count.



I think it may actually drop a bit every time he posts that WTC7 fell at free fall speed.


----------



## Mr. Jones

> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When are you dicks going to stop being so dishonest?
> 
> 
> 
> You may be able to fool yourself Ollie, but some of us, while not having an engineers or physics degree, at least have the common sense to realize how fucking impossible it is to believe the BS you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTC7 was never in free fall. The north facade was for 2.25 seconds.
> That is not the building, it is a part of the building.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire building collapsed, with the first 8 stories resistance removed so fast, that it achieved a 2.25 second free fall. THESE ARE FACTS.
> 
> Do you think that the outer part was NOT connected to the internals at all!?? That such a collapse
> would not involve or include the outer parts in any way, shape, or form?? Are you blind? I don't see only a "part" of the building collapse! You are insane! I can clearly see all 4 corners falling at the same time, not just the northern part!
> Holy shit..I can't believe you actually brainwash yourself to letting yourself think such utter and total BS.. Watch the videos.
> Do you only see a part of the building falling down? Seriously?
> Like I said, you are only fooling yourself. How very sad, you embarrass yourself to this level. You really out did yourself with this nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everytime you say it you are lying and you know it,  hell the entire intelligent world knows it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every time you say this, or even allude to it, you are lying to yourself and to everybody else! And no Ollie, there are many people in the world who have the common sense and the intelligence to know the NIST explanation for WTC7 demise is utterly full of shit, and defies the laws of science and probability.
> Just like their BS and totally unproven theory about the twins.
> They basically say "here.. this is what happened" without providing enough detail or evidence to put together a convincing story.
> "Here, watch our computer animation that looks nothing like what you saw" but because "we're NIST" we're indisputably right? BS.
> 
> So tell us old wise one, how did WTC7 collapse again?
> Did the massive building take the time to collapse internally, or all of a sudden (like we all, for the most part saw?), or... one beam and column at a time?  Many connections giving up at the same time to allow a 2.25 sec. free fall time??....?
> 
> I know how hard this may be to except but, try to understand, that buildings never have nor are they supposed to fall at near free fall speed by accidental fire without some help from explosives or something else *intended* to make them fall that way.
> 
> Keep in mind that the fires were not indisputably proven to have been started by WTC tower debris..It is assumed..Where's the proof?
> Did the falling debris of the twins hit the column 80 or 79?? Did the fires even start there?
> 
> Has arson in WTC7 ever been ruled out?
> 
> 
> Have you noticed that in the NIST computer simulation, they have the "facade" twisting and deforming? And there was no evidence of that in what we actually saw?
> Does the computer translate the data, and then generate a simulation based on what data is entered into it?
> So it is supposed to show what should have occurred?
> If so, it clearly does not animate what we saw does it?
> 
> Keep in mind that the NIST computer model, or any computer model, would give you results according to what data is put into it.
> Try to take into consideration, that the *secret collapse sequence software program * that provided the computer simulation (that NIST is not allowing access to, no source code, no public access) shows that _heat from fires _caused the "new type of building collapse"
> NOT THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL OR VIDEO EVIDENCE!
> 
> Are you saying all of the *chaotic and unpredictable* events, all the connection failures, leading up to global collapse could have happened within a second or less of each other? Perhaps even at the same time?
> 
> Have another look to refresh your perspective.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvx904dAw0o&feature=list_related&playnext=1&list=PL3D30132C75A35683]YouTube - &#x202a;9/11: DAN RATHER SAYS WTC COLLAPSES LOOK LIKE DEMOLITIONS&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]
> 
> A mostly unpredictable destructive force (fire) causes such a level and symmetrical collapse
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atbrn4k55lA&feature=related]YouTube - &#x202a;9/11: WTC Building 7 "Collapse" video compilation&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]
> 
> And that during the time all the chaotic and unpredictable events were occurring, that NOT A SINGLE ONE  piece of the collapsing parts could have or should have been connected to the outer part/s of the buildings 47 STORY "facade", thus explaining why NO VISIBLE DEFORMITY WAS NOTICED ON THE LOWER OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING?? And the only deformity we see is ON THE TOP? The penthouse??
> Not even a column , beam or other falling piece finding its way through a lower floor window at least?
> That was connected to columns 79 or 80?
> 
> From what I am gathering about what you're saying...You're of the opinion that this huge massive internal collapse happens...involving many many connections of columns, beams, floor connections, etc.. in a huge chain reaction on the lower 8 floors....
> 
> A huge chain reaction.. that by the time it showed any signs of collapsing...involved many connections, where one connection is tied to another connection and to another and so on etc. etc.. all of these connection failures are happening, as a result of fire alone, which is unpredictable in its own right,  as far as temperature, location, and intensity is concerned...
> 
> without showing any signs to the outside parts of the building....  UNTIL ...the penthouse falls into the building... but almost immediately followed by the ENTIRE REST OF THE BUILDING.. that we see with our own eyes falling down in symmetrical fashion! (as witnessed on the many videos available) and we see the 4 corners of the structure fall down AT THE SAME FUCKING TIME!
> Videos show that the roof stayed level and shows that the building was in free fall across the entire width of it.
> 
> You don't think we can all see that this happens within seconds?
> The removal/displacement of TONS of support simply just gone so fast, that free fall occurs for the first 8 stories?
> 
> Do you really think everyone believes it is  possible for all of these  connections that supported the building to simply give way in just seconds? At the same time?
> Wouldn't it make more sense, for the thing to collapse a little here, or a little there, where the fires are the hottest and more intense?
> 
> 
> Or were these "smart fires" that knew just precisely where to go and how hot they needed to be?
> Perhaps we're expecting to see it lean towards the weakest and more heavily damaged portion?
> Nope according to you, all this is perfectly normal and within bounds, with nothing to back this up, other then highly dubious NIST science? LOL!
> 
> Or do you think that even despite the massive reinforcements done to the building throughout its history, ONE single COLUMN being "displaced" would allow this massive building to fall straight down, all 4 corners falling at the same time, so damn near perfect?
> 
> Let me ask you...Have you seen or has anyone come forward and said they SAW huge amounts of dust shooting out of the lower lobby or floors right before the onset of collapse?
> and/or debris accumulating in the lobby or lower floors of the building, due to this mystical internal collapse of yours occurring FIRST as you always say, while the "facade" waited patiently for its turn to fall?
> How long did this internal collapse take to happen again?
> 
> Do you understand that no matter how hard you try to pretend otherwise in your mind..... that this collapse happens in only a few seconds?..
> How can you try to say that first all these columns and beams, and floor assembly's gave way followed by the floor structures, then followed by everything else giving way...then when ALL THAT finished, it was the facade that remained standing and ONLY THEN did the NORTH SIDE "FACADE" collapse while experiencing a 2.25 sec. free fall time?!
> 
> Where did all the massive supporting internals that supported the buildings huge weight go to at the same time?
> The only thing keeping a building from falling at free fall speed is it being slowed down by the underlying structure.
> You  say that the underlying /internal structure collapsed BEFORE the facade. So how long did this internal structure take to collapse again?
> How long was the time between the internal collapse and the "facade" collapse do you estimate?  What does NIST estimate this difference in time to be again?
> 
> According to you they had collapsed down somewhere conveniently out of the way...and the "facade" decided to just wait until ALL OF THAT WAS DONE AND FINISHED, before it remembered it had NO SUPPORTING STRUCTURE TO HOLD ITSELF UP WITH ANY LONGER, and then AND ONLY then felt the need to COLLAPSE?!
> 
> You are nutz, and the videos of the WTC7 collapse prove you wrong.
> They do not show the "north side facade" falling first!
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

> *would* anyone like to take bets on *mr** jones's* *iq* level?
> 
> Over or under 105?
> 
> I would have to say under.  There is no way it surpasses 110.
> 
> And no, online tests don't count.



110 is an above average IQ bone head....you fail


----------



## SFC Ollie

7 seconds in between the fall of the east penthouse and the first movement of the facade. Who knows what was going on inside that structure before the penthouse fell into it?

But the building fell at free fall speed?     No it did not.     As we can all see on the video.


----------



## slackjawed

The best explanation to date from;

UnNews:911 conspiracies explained by a sandwich - Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

"911 conspiracies explained by a sandwich
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

This article is part of UnNews, your source for up-to-the-microsecond misinformation.

6 April 2011
"This sandwich tells us everything we need to know about 911" according to James Harvey Witchhunt, founder of the website 911IsYOU!.com

NEW YORK, New York -- Crowing to the world at a crowded press conference at The Plaza Hotel in New York that he's finally come up with an easy way to explain the quirks, goof-ups, and lollygagging in the official 911 Commission Report, conspiracy expert James Harvey Witchhunt unveiled a two-and-a-half foot sandwich. He then whipped out his laser pen. "


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> 7 seconds in between the fall of the east penthouse and the first movement of the facade. Who knows what was going on inside that structure before the penthouse fell into it?
> 
> But the building fell at free fall speed?     No it did not.     As we can all see on the video.


 Ollie I am only trying to appeal to your sense of reason.
We see what  happens in the video! How on Earth can you say otherwise? You should be questioning NIST, and not abandon your own eyes, and the common sense God gave you to help guide you through this life.

This NIST report and computer simulation fits that analogy. 
Do you realize the improbabilities involved we are talking about here? Do you also realize that NIST has finally admitted free fall for this building? After telling us how impossible it would be, because the building *"would definitely provide resistance"*?

There comes a point when the BS overload factor comes into play for most folks, and this WTC7 fiasco is it for many people.
A careful side by side discernment of what NIST says, and what actually happened is the only way to cut through the BS fog.

"The point is there is only so much GPE stored in any stationary object, such as a building. The only way an object can fall to the ground, at free fall acceleration, is if all of its gravitational potential energy is converted to KINETIC energy.

If some of the GPE (gravitational potential energy) is used to do other work, such as crushing steel, (or concrete) then the object can not drop at free fall acceleration.
CDs are one way a building can drop at free fall acceleration for a short time, if segments of supporting beams are removed by explosives ( or exotics?) the building will drop at free fall acceleration until the undamaged floors hit the ground, then it will no longer accelerate as quickly, or perhaps not at all, because it is doing WORK crushing the undamaged floors."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgOGmUo9O2Y]YouTube - &#x202a;NIST Lies: Final Report on World Trade Center Building Seven&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie

We see nothing that says the internal building fell? this is what your video says.

But if you look at the videos, the penthouse disappears into the interior of the building. And if you look close enough you can see daylight through the top row of windows. Because there is nothing behind them.

You ignore anything that doesn't fit into your world.

But that's OK, you've got the right to be wrong.


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> You ignore anything that doesn't fit into your world.


 No I question things that don't make sense, and when I am admonished for questioning those things, I question THAT and the motive behind it, and study into the reasons why.

It is you that seems to be ignoring the details here. 
All the small ones that add up to bigger discrepencies.
I admit the entire 9-11 boondoggle is a difficult matter to sort through, but they were counting on the complexity of it to turn people away and go on blind faith that they are honest and correct, anybody you has spent time on planet Earth, and in America should know better then to do that.
After studying what NIST says and doesn't say, and what the problems are with their report and investigation, and how they came to their conclusions, only someone disinterested in the truth, or finds things too difficult to understand, would say they have made their case beyond any reasonable doubt.


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> We see nothing that says the internal building fell? this is what your video says.
> 
> But if you look at the videos, the penthouse disappears into the interior of the building. And if you look close enough you can see daylight through the top row of windows. Because there is nothing behind them.
> 
> You ignore anything that doesn't fit into your world.
> 
> But that's OK, you've got the right to be wrong.



if Ollie cant see the flaws in the simulation or refuses to acknowledged them then ,we are clearly dealing with pure denial


----------



## Mr. Jones

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see nothing that says the internal building fell? this is what your video says.
> 
> But if you look at the videos, the penthouse disappears into the interior of the building. And if you look close enough you can see daylight through the top row of windows. Because there is nothing behind them.
> 
> You ignore anything that doesn't fit into your world.
> 
> But that's OK, you've got the right to be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if Ollie cant see the flaws in the simulation or refuses to acknowledged them then ,we are clearly dealing with pure denial
Click to expand...


I see where he mentions about the sunlight showing through the building when the east penthouse falls into the building. What he does not understand is that the resisting structure was removed on the lower floors, column 79-80 etc.

What I think NIST is describing is where the weakening and destruction of the columns failed where any cutter charges would have been placed and used to bring about the buildings collapse. The problem is that they blame fire and thermal expansion (a new form of building collapse) and that has been shown to be wrong. as fire could not simultaneously remove tons of resisting structure all at once to cause free fall acceleration.
Fire is too unpredictable and  too uneven for it to have caused such an even collapse. 
BTW, the real collapse continued all the way to the ground but the simulation stopped abruptly after three seconds. 

* What happened during the collapse, AFTER the simulation ENDS, is the heart of the controversy- the 2.25 second interval of free fall acceleration. No honest simulation of a fire collapse will reproduce free fall. Why not? Because WEAKENED, bending steel retains SOME strength.
* David Chandler and even Dr. Sunder of NIST made the same point. 2.25 seconds means many floors of vertical support suddenly gone. Not weakened GONE. Not weakened gradually by fire, GONE SUDDENLY.

* Dr. Sunder of NIST has explained why fire distortions CANNOT explain free fall. He admits the building would have resistance!
* He explained that free fall means NO support, not weakened support. Dr. Sunder's explanation of why free fall is impossible was given at the time when NIST still denied free fall actually happened!

* Dr. Sunder is not the only one to have verified free fall. See David Chandler. It is really not controversial any more. The INTERPRETATION is controversial.
* The fact that NIST did a dishonest simulation of a bomb instead of cutter charges is evidence of a guilty intent to cover up rather than impartially evaluate evidence. The thermite theory is that the critical supports were quietly weakened by heating to the point of failure, then the cutter charges set off to mix in with the sound of the falling building.

* Read page 48 final release of the NIST report last paragraph. It states that eight floors fell for 2.25 seconds at gravitational acceleration. How did that happen? It doesn't explain that, because for that to happen NOTHING has to be underneath it!

* Dr. Sunder squirmed and stammered when confronted by David Chandler. Dr. Sunder cannot undermine his employer, nor can he lie. Thus his discomfort.

* The simulation didn't show free fall, nevertheless the whole lateral progression of the exterior failure is utter bullshit, why would the exterior wait for complete core collapse and then all of the sudden collapse? Doesn't make sense at all!


----------



## eots

It is hard to take anyone seriously that supports the NIST investigation..this is why I respect DR Q despite the fact that he believes there are more likely explanations than controlled demolition..he fully recognizes that fact finding was intentionally deterred and blocked in the initial investigation,the investigative procedure did not follow protocol,what the correct remedy for that fact is  ,he also realizes that without that re-investigation everything including his own opinion is theory


----------



## eots

Dr. Quintiere, one of the world&#8217;s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. &#8220;I hope to convince you to perhaps become '*Conspiracy Theorists'*, but in a proper way"


" I think it&#8217;s the legal structure that* cloaks *the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, *those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.&#8221;*

&#8220;In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and *by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding "*.


 &#8220;If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the &#8216;conspiracy theories&#8217; that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, *more likely*, it&#8217;s one of the floors falling down.&#8221;


http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm


----------



## SFC Ollie

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see nothing that says the internal building fell? this is what your video says.
> 
> But if you look at the videos, the penthouse disappears into the interior of the building. And if you look close enough you can see daylight through the top row of windows. Because there is nothing behind them.
> 
> You ignore anything that doesn't fit into your world.
> 
> But that's OK, you've got the right to be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if Ollie cant see the flaws in the simulation or refuses to acknowledged them then ,we are clearly dealing with pure denial
Click to expand...


Where are your explosives? There is not a hint of a piece of evidence for them. There's your denial.


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see nothing that says the internal building fell? this is what your video says.
> 
> But if you look at the videos, the penthouse disappears into the interior of the building. And if you look close enough you can see daylight through the top row of windows. Because there is nothing behind them.
> 
> You ignore anything that doesn't fit into your world.
> 
> But that's OK, you've got the right to be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if Ollie cant see the flaws in the simulation or refuses to acknowledged them then ,we are clearly dealing with pure denial
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are your explosives? There is not a hint of a piece of evidence for them. There's your denial.
Click to expand...


I do not know, as we have determined a proper investigation was never done...where is your forensic proof of the cause of structural failure or the temperatures predicted as necessary for failure ??


----------



## Mr. Jones

eots said:


> ..where is your forensic proof of the cause of structural failure or the temperatures predicted as necessary for failure ??





SFC Ollie said:


> Where are your explosives? There is not a hint of a piece of evidence for them. There's your denial.


 Oh really?

Good questions. Now we are following the steps to discover what the hell assisted these buildings in collapsing. After further review and with the help of science, and the laws of physics it is apparent that these massive buildings were assisted in collapsing by SOMETHING.
But what?
Well, the majority of the steel in the rubble would have shown what, but it was quickly hauled away and sold without ever having been properly looked at. That was the very first thing done to cover up and hinder any investigation.
But there were a few pieces that clearly showed abnormalities, and it is documented.

*Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform "limited metallurgical examination" of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence ...*

_Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel._
...
_The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation._
...
_The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper._
...
_liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel._
...
_The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. _

Sulfur is used in explosives-
In it it states...

_Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. 
( this would make spaghetti steel, no?) 

This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a &#8220;blacksmith&#8217;s weld&#8221; in a hand forge._

Severe corrosion, intergranular melting, and abundance of sulfur are consistent with the theory of thermite arson, and the use of explosives. 

Now when you combine that evidence, with the other facts about the collapses, and eye witnesses who heard explosions at various times, that leads to conclude these buildings collapses were assisted by something that caused a chemical reaction, OTHER then FIRE.

NISTs excuse for ruling out 'explosives" is bogus as there are other ways to assist the collpases without ear shattering, rock concert level decibels!

*Explosive materials may be categorized by the speed at which they expand. Materials that detonate (explode faster than the speed of sound) are said to be high explosives and materials that deflagrate are said to be low explosives. Explosives may also be categorized by their sensitivity. Sensitive materials that can be initiated by a relatively small amount of heat or pressure are primary explosives and materials that are relatively insensitive are secondary explosives.*

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

The answers, are there for anyone who takes the time to look a little deeper then the rest.


The "Deep Mystery" of Melted Steel

There is no indication that any of the fires in the World Trade Center buildings were hot enough to melt the steel framework. Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering, has repeatedly reminded the public that steel--which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit--may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.

Materials science professors Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr. confirmed the presence of eutectic formations by examining steel samples under optical and scanning electron microscopes. A preliminary report was published in JOM, the journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society. A more detailed analysis comprises Appendix C of the FEMA report. The New York Times called these findings "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." The significance of the work on a sample from Building 7 and a structural column from one of the twin towers becomes apparent only when one sees these heavy chunks of damaged metal. 

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.

A eutectic compound is a mixture of two or more substances that melts at the *lowest temperature *of any mixture of its components. Blacksmiths took advantage of this property by welding over fires of sulfur-rich charcoal, which lowers the melting point of iron. In the World Trade Center fire, the presence of oxygen, sulfur and heat caused iron oxide and iron sulfide to form at the surface of structural steel members. This liquid slag corroded through intergranular channels into the body of the metal, causing severe erosion and a loss of structural integrity.

The important questions," says Biederman, "are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from? The answer could be as simple--and this is scary- as acid rain." 

Acid rain  So perhaps all the buildings ever designed are susceptible to free fall collapse because of acid rain??  

Give me a break! Look the facts of the collapses remain..and something other then fires helped in making them fall.

WPI - Transformations: The "Deep Mystery" of Melted Steel

9-11 Research: Forensic Metallurgy

An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7


----------



## SFC Ollie

Wow, what to believe?

You do realize that once again you have provided opinion.

Your link

An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7

And another article from the same web site.

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation


Personally I would like to see a picture of this Steel beam that looked like Swiss cheese. One would think that something that apparent and with holes as big as silver dollars would be worth a picture that people could identify.... You would also think that it would have been focused on in an investigation......


----------



## Mr. Jones

SFC Ollie said:


> Wow, what to believe?
> 
> You do realize that once again you have provided opinion.
> 
> Your link
> 
> An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7
> 
> And another article from the same web site.
> 
> Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation


 So now all of this is just _opinion_? What do you think you have been posting and saying in defense of NIST and the OCT in general?? _NOT_ *opinion?*  Try to get over you're denial..these are FACTS! Scientific, and proven facts about the steel! That clearly point to something assisting these huge collapses.




> Personally I would like to see a picture of this Steel beam that looked like Swiss cheese.


 Here is a link with the pictures accompanied  with explanations.

*It is possible and likely, however, that even if grain boundary melting did not occur, substantial penetration by a solid state diffusion mechanism would have occurred as evidenced by the high concentration of sulfides in the grain interiors near the oxide layer. Temperatures in this region of the steel were likely to be in the range of 700800 °C (1,2901,470 °F).*

This could explain the high temps in the rubble, and the molten metal claims.

Appendix C: Limited Metallurgical Examination




> One would think that something that apparent and with holes as big as silver dollars would be worth a picture that people could identify.... You would also think that it would have been focused on in an investigation......


 I totally agree, hence the demand for a new investigation. The deeper you dig, the more is found and understood about the claims the researchers are making, and how the science lends credence and proof this isn't just some bunch of crazies with an agenda to " instigate treason" or take over the government, as some wackos on here have said numerous times  

*FEMA's WTC Building Performance Study
Mirror of the PDFs Comprising FEMA's 2002 Report*

In May of 2002, the Federal Emergency Management Agency published its World Trade Center Building Performance Study -- the product of an investigation by volunteers from the American Society of Civil Engineers. FEMA has since reorganized its website, making it difficult to locate the original documents. Although the entire report is still available at FEMA's website here,
FEMA: World Trade Center Building Performance Study

 we provide this mirror as a permanent archive for the documents. 

9-11 Research: FEMA's WTC Building Performance Study


----------



## SFC Ollie

Fema report says that there is no clear explanation for the presence of the sulfur they found in 2 flanges (I wonder how many flanges were in the three buildings.)

Now I ask you, how much sulfur is found gypsum board, and how much gypsum board was in these buildings?

You found another error by Fema.


----------



## Obamerican

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> if Ollie cant see the flaws in the simulation or refuses to acknowledged them then ,we are clearly dealing with pure denial
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where are your explosives? There is not a hint of a piece of evidence for them. There's your denial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not know, as we have determined a proper investigation was never done...where is your forensic proof of the cause of structural failure or the temperatures predicted as necessary for failure ??
Click to expand...

This is tough for me but I'm going to say it. I agree with Eots. I have no problem doing another investigation. Why? Because there are unanswered questions but I don't think the results will be what Eots thinks it will be. IMHO


----------



## SFC Ollie

Obamerican said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are your explosives? There is not a hint of a piece of evidence for them. There's your denial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not know, as we have determined a proper investigation was never done...where is your forensic proof of the cause of structural failure or the temperatures predicted as necessary for failure ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is tough for me but I'm going to say it. I agree with Eots. I have no problem doing another investigation. Why? Because there are unanswered questions but I don't think the results will be what Eots thinks it will be. IMHO
Click to expand...


The problem is that unless the government is to blame any further investigations will not be believed by these people. They want the government to be the bad guy, and unless it is they won't believe it. Sure there are some questions which will probably never be answered. But there were no pre planted explosives. There were no controlled demolitions. And unless a new investigation shows that there were, they won't accept it. So how many investigations do we do, and who is to do them?


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not know, as we have determined a proper investigation was never done...where is your forensic proof of the cause of structural failure or the temperatures predicted as necessary for failure ??
> 
> 
> 
> This is tough for me but I'm going to say it. I agree with Eots. I have no problem doing another investigation. Why? Because there are unanswered questions but I don't think the results will be what Eots thinks it will be. IMHO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that unless the government is to blame any further investigations will not be believed by these people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> these people ??...  you mean the ones that have diligently shown the many flaws of the NIST investigation ?...what do you base this assumption on ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They want the government to be the bad guy, and unless it is they won't believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if fact finding was deterred and the investigation blocked the government is already the bad guy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure there are some questions which will probably never be answered. But there were no pre planted explosives. There were no controlled demolitions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why can questions not be answered ?...how do you know explosives were not utilized in some way ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And unless a new investigation shows that there were, they won't accept it. So how many investigations do we do, and who is to do them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> an independent group of engineers and scientist with full authority and subpoena power, approved by the family steering committee with full disclosure and media scrutiny
Click to expand...


----------



## SFC Ollie

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is tough for me but I'm going to say it. I agree with Eots. I have no problem doing another investigation. Why? Because there are unanswered questions but I don't think the results will be what Eots thinks it will be. IMHO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> these people ??...  you mean the ones that have diligently shown the many flaws of the NIST investigation ?...what do you base this assumption on ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if fact finding was deterred and the investigation blocked the government is already the bad guy
> 
> 
> 
> why can questions not be answered ?...how do you know explosives were not utilized in some way ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And unless a new investigation shows that there were, they won't accept it. So how many investigations do we do, and who is to do them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> an independent group of engineers and scientist with full authority and subpoena power, approved by the family steering committee with full disclosure and media scrutiny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Approved by a group that already has decided that the government lied? I would think not.
Click to expand...


----------



## Obamerican

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is tough for me but I'm going to say it. I agree with Eots. I have no problem doing another investigation. Why? Because there are unanswered questions but I don't think the results will be what Eots thinks it will be. IMHO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> these people ??...  you mean the ones that have diligently shown the many flaws of the NIST investigation ?...what do you base this assumption on ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if fact finding was deterred and the investigation blocked the government is already the bad guy
> 
> 
> 
> why can questions not be answered ?...how do you know explosives were not utilized in some way ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And unless a new investigation shows that there were, they won't accept it. So how many investigations do we do, and who is to do them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *an independent group of engineers and scientist with full authority and subpoena power, approved by the family steering committee with full disclosure and media scrutiny*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Their agenda is just as biased as the government. Bad call, Eots.
Click to expand...


----------



## Mr. Jones

Obamerican said:


> This is tough for me but I'm going to say it. I agree with Eots. I have no problem doing another investigation. Why? Because there are unanswered questions but I don't think the results will be what Eots thinks it will be. IMHO


One thing I am sure a new investigation would reveal, is that the previous one was deserving of the criticism it received.



SFC Ollie said:


> The problem is that unless the government is to blame any further investigations will not be believed by these people. They want the government to be the bad guy, and unless it is they won't believe it.



 I have learned that to say "the government" is painting the blame with too broad a brush in some cases. I hold onto the belief that there are but a few who serve/ed in positions within the government,  that are probably responsible. 
The ones who had authority over the rest and had the power to give orders that their underlings followed without questioning because they trusted them.
And do you know who "these people" are that you refer to?
"These people" are those that are sick and tired of watching this nation be destroyed, by enemies from within it.
That's who "these people" are!
We are the ones who are no longer willing to say"oh well, that's just the way it goes" and be treated like 2nd class imbeciles.
We want our country back from the powerful criminals that have used their influence to buy politicians with bribes, or use blackmail and threats to influence policy for themselves. 
We are also sick of them controlling the media as their soapbox to use as their main weapon to spread their propaganda, distortions, omissions, and outright lies to influence public opinions.



SFC Ollie said:


> Sure there are some questions which will probably never be answered. But there were no pre planted explosives. There were no controlled demolitions. And unless a new investigation shows that there were, they won't accept it. So how many investigations do we do, and who is to do them?


 We need to demand answers, not assume we don't deserve them. That is the reason criminals in positions of power within the government and its agencies think they can get away with it. 
They know that the public are mostly idiots that don't know anything, or even care to learn anything about their nation, its policies, its finances and the media, or who is really in control of any of these things, and how it directly affects them and their families.

They just know that we are so divided amongst ourselves that we'll never really do anything to protest and make demands that will amount to a hill of beans!
Hell, all they have to do is point a finger at somebody and call them a "conspiracy theorist" and most run away. A little ridicule goes a long way for them.
They don't even worry that we'll ever figure out what a "conspiracy theory" even is cause the majority of us are too stupid and lazy to look up what it really is and why this term is used, or that almost everything we were ever taught or were told is connected to a "conspiracy theory" in one way or another.... the whole damned world is made up of shitloads of "conspiracy theories".
The 9-11 story they have told us is one of the biggest and craziest conspiracy theory of all time!

Take a look at this video....It's fucking sickening to think that this is how Americans are portrayed nowadays!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Aa9PmxB3E&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - &#x202a;Americans are NOT stupid - WITH SUBTITLES&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]

WTF!?? Is this a joke, or are people really this ignorant in America?
If this video is legit,
It's no wonder this country is being financially raped, and "they" can count on the American public swallowing anything they are told...over and over again. 

You can't say conclusively that there were no explosives, especially since there is evidence of the possibility of them, and they have not been ruled out. 
They just say there isn't or it would be "impossible" without having to worry about actually proving or explaining anything in detail to us, they know we wont stop to think about just how important decisions about explosives and proper investigative techniques are.
Because they know they have tricked us into believing they are such  honest and benevolent souls...

These decisions are the difference between life and death, decisions between economic ruin and prosperity, decisions between tyranny and liberty...and many other things that these types of decisions lead to!
These are the reasons for calling for an independent investigation, with amnesty offered to certain people in certain cases, with whistle blower protections in place if need be..There was so much riding on the decisions that were made pertaining to 9-11, and still do.

 A new investigation needs to at least answer all the questions that  to date remain unanswered, to the best of their abilities, using all available resources, including science, physics, people videos...everything and anything, and really explain in detail how the buildings collapsed by fire, and how 9-11 really went down, and not leave out ANY important details.
And if they can not explain how planes and fires alone did it, then the emphasis turns to examining what else did. 
If another means of facilitating the WTC collapses is proven to exists, then we go to the who (or who else), how (or how else) and the reasons why. (motive/s)

I believe the independent research has shown that planes and fire alone did not destroy those buildings, and I am not alone.
That leaves the door open to other possibilities, like it or not, it's way past time to demand honesty and accountability from the government that is supposed to serve the people, not make the people afraid to ask anything or be afraid of it.
It's supposed to be OUR government, for US..Not just for THEM!
to do as they wish!

 That's not how America is supposed to be, that's not what everyone goes around saying about America is it? That we are just subjects, or serfs?
 Land of the free and home of the brave and all that,.. is that not what is said??
Well guess what?
We really aren't that free, and we really aren't all that brave if we allow our own government, and the shit they are doing to us to continue, are we?
Sometimes I think the people in other country's like Greece, Iceland and the "Arab Spring" nations, have more guts then we do here.

It's tyranny plain and simple, being implemented 4 years at a time it seems, and it wont be stopped, or be curtailed, and will only get worse, until we get pissed off, grow some balls and speak out, while also in the process, point out to our civil servants from the top all the way down to the police, the Bill Of Rights, and the Constitution and the laws of this land, and how it was designed to function.
Appeal to _*our *_brothers and sisters who are supposed to protect the citizens in the police and the military.
As was done in Egypt.
Take no actions, or follow no orders, that go against our Bill of Rights and Constitution.

For years now, our own civil servants seem to think the American public is the enemy, especially when we protest against their actions, and or policies.
Elected officials seem to think that once _we _elect _them,_ it gives them carte blanche to bypass the laws that were set in place to protect _us_, (the ones they swore to abide by), while ruling over us like tyrants, and or being loyal to other states, entities and peoples, other then Americans and America!

Our national sovereignty is being taken away or sold.
We actually need to protect _ourselves_ from the very ones _we _install to protect _us_!!?
Think about that for a minute!

Have you looked around and noticed the shape this nation is in, and its people lately? 
Do you really think we are being told the reality of situations detrimental to our well being? I don't think so.

It is the way it is because of some of what I just mentioned, but there are other reasons, but it mostly comes down to us allowing it to happen.

 America and Americans don't come first in the minds of the shit politicians we are stupid enough to bicker and fight over and then _elect_! (we even know about voting fraud in our own elections and do nothing about that, yet we try to insure fair elections elsewhere?) 

 We just sit on our asses, or play their game with loaded dice, and hope for the best intentions of the 2 evils, selected for us all the time, while we slowly lose our liberties, our homes, our jobs and  lives of our mostly young people to wars based on lies, national policy, theft, and BS that they just know all too well we'll faithfully swallow hook line and sinker, because we always have.
Because we're just that stupid, uninformed and afraid..

Because we all have the attitude of "oh well, we'll probably never know anything anyways"?

To hell with that!
We have the manpower and the resources to change the course of destruction that we and our country is on, if we really want to.
But we wont because..all they have to do is continue to promise us _change_, and we'll fall for it like always, then we'll get stabbed in the back all over again, and say shit like "oh well that's just the way it is"...while we hang our flags out and eat our 4th of July GMO meals and shoot off fireworks in celebration of our _"Freedoms"_


----------



## eots

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> these people ??...  you mean the ones that have diligently shown the many flaws of the NIST investigation ?...what do you base this assumption on ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if fact finding was deterred and the investigation blocked the government is already the bad guy
> 
> 
> 
> why can questions not be answered ?...how do you know explosives were not utilized in some way ?
> 
> 
> 
> an independent group of engineers and scientist with full authority and subpoena power, approved by the family steering committee with full disclosure and media scrutiny
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Approved by a group that already has decided that the government lied? I would think not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what do you know about the family steering committee
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

Obamerican said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> these people ??...  you mean the ones that have diligently shown the many flaws of the NIST investigation ?...what do you base this assumption on ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if fact finding was deterred and the investigation blocked the government is already the bad guy
> 
> why can questions not be answered ?...how do you know explosives were not utilized in some way ?
> 
> 
> 
> *an independent group of engineers and scientist with full authority and subpoena power, approved by the family steering committee with full disclosure and media scrutiny*
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Their agenda is just as biased as the government. Bad call, Eots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what do you know about their agenda ? the family steering committee proved itself in the 9/11 commission's report as being intelligent , efficient level headed people, with a strong desire for truth furthermore they are some of the best educated people on 9/11 you will ever find
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

funny how debwunkers like to speak for the families and evoke their names to play on emotions claiming 9/11 truth is respectful toward them, yet they do not respect them enough to oversee a re-investigation.....I suppose you find Kissinger to be a  better choice to oversee any re-investigation


----------



## Rationalist1016

I would think the best people for a re-investigation would be people we haven't heard of.  Scientists, engineers, physicists, metallurgists, etc.., that have not shown an interest in the case.  They are likely to have the least bias.  If you want a new investigation, you also want a new set of eyes on everything.  Although it would be practically impossible to find people that know NOTHING about the case.  I would go as far as suggesting that nobody participates in a new investigation that "volunteers" to do so.  All participates are "selected".  Of course, there has to be committee to select the participates.  The committee needs would need to be balanced and least bias as possible.  Also, the committee would have no participation in the investigation what so ever once the investigation team was selected.

With that said, I still believe a new investigation won't change anything.  If the result of that investigation was to in anyway support the "official story" we have now, those that are convinced that the "official story" is all lies won't change their minds.  The claims that the government affected the investigation would start immediately.  Of course, SOME people that believe there was a conspiracy would change their minds.  But not the ones that are out on the fringe.  They KNOW there were bombs in those buildings planted by the government.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Rationalist1016 said:


> I would think the best people for a re-investigation would be people we haven't heard of.  Scientists, engineers, physicists, metallurgists, etc.., that have not shown an interest in the case.  They are likely to have the least bias.  If you want a new investigation, you also want a new set of eyes on everything.  Although it would be practically impossible to find people that know NOTHING about the case.  I would go as far as suggesting that nobody participates in a new investigation that "volunteers" to do so.  All participates are "selected".  Of course, there has to be committee to select the participates.  The committee needs would need to be balanced and least bias as possible.  Also, the committee would have no participation in the investigation what so ever once the investigation team was selected.
> 
> With that said, I still believe a new investigation won't change anything.  If the result of that investigation was to in anyway support the "official story" we have now, those that are convinced that the "official story" is all lies won't change their minds.  The claims that the government affected the investigation would start immediately.  Of course, SOME people that believe there was a conspiracy would change their minds.  But not the ones that are out on the fringe.  They KNOW there were bombs in those buildings planted by the government.



*Draft Bill to Reinvestigate Collapse of World Trade Center: 2010*

_...This proposed bill would address those significant shortcomings by establishing an independent investigatory committee of renown national and international scientific and technical experts. It also would end the widespread and global suspicion that the official explanation was based on deliberate omission or misinformation. This Act would provide the most comprehensive, credible, and evidence-based investigation of the major theories provided in this bill relative to the seven WTC buildings. It also would make recommendations for legislative action&#8212;&#8212;if necessary. _

_....The importance of this bill resides in the fact that the events surrounding the WTC destruction have been the engine driving nearly a decade of two endless wars and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan costing trillions of dollars and the blood and property of millions&#8212;&#8212;including more than 6,000 dead Americans and the nearly 3,000 who died at the World Trade Center. It has aroused hatred of our country around the globe, even from one-time allies, and spawned a new generation of terrorists abroad. _

_...If the WTC destruction&#8212;&#8212;including the 47-story WTC 7, that was never hit by aircraft&#8212;&#8212;has been the capstone of such tragic consequences, and if *62% of those polled in 2007 by Scripps-Howard still do not believe the Bush Administration&#8217;s explanation&#8212;*&#8212;two airliners hijacked by Arabs struck WTC 1 and 2&#8212;&#8212;this proposed bill offers Congress a scientific and technological avenue by which to finally settle this issue. _

Draft Bill to Reinvestigate Collapse of World Trade Center: 2010 « WTC RESEARCH ALLIANCE


----------



## Rationalist1016

Mr. Jones said:


> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would think the best people for a re-investigation would be people we haven't heard of.  Scientists, engineers, physicists, metallurgists, etc.., that have not shown an interest in the case.  They are likely to have the least bias.  If you want a new investigation, you also want a new set of eyes on everything.  Although it would be practically impossible to find people that know NOTHING about the case.  I would go as far as suggesting that nobody participates in a new investigation that "volunteers" to do so.  All participates are "selected".  Of course, there has to be committee to select the participates.  The committee needs would need to be balanced and least bias as possible.  Also, the committee would have no participation in the investigation what so ever once the investigation team was selected.
> 
> With that said, I still believe a new investigation won't change anything.  If the result of that investigation was to in anyway support the "official story" we have now, those that are convinced that the "official story" is all lies won't change their minds.  The claims that the government affected the investigation would start immediately.  Of course, SOME people that believe there was a conspiracy would change their minds.  But not the ones that are out on the fringe.  They KNOW there were bombs in those buildings planted by the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Draft Bill to Reinvestigate Collapse of World Trade Center: 2010*
> 
> _...This proposed bill would address those significant shortcomings by establishing an independent investigatory committee of renown national and international scientific and technical experts. It also would end the widespread and global suspicion that the official explanation was based on deliberate omission or misinformation. This Act would provide the most comprehensive, credible, and evidence-based investigation of the major theories provided in this bill relative to the seven WTC buildings. It also would make recommendations for legislative actionif necessary. _
> 
> _....The importance of this bill resides in the fact that the events surrounding the WTC destruction have been the engine driving nearly a decade of two endless wars and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan costing trillions of dollars and the blood and property of millionsincluding more than 6,000 dead Americans and the nearly 3,000 who died at the World Trade Center. It has aroused hatred of our country around the globe, even from one-time allies, and spawned a new generation of terrorists abroad. _
> 
> _...If the WTC destructionincluding the 47-story WTC 7, that was never hit by aircrafthas been the capstone of such tragic consequences, and if *62% of those polled in 2007 by Scripps-Howard still do not believe the Bush Administrations explanation*two airliners hijacked by Arabs struck WTC 1 and 2this proposed bill offers Congress a scientific and technological avenue by which to finally settle this issue. _
> 
> Draft Bill to Reinvestigate Collapse of World Trade Center: 2010 « WTC RESEARCH ALLIANCE
Click to expand...


That's sounds like a pretty reasonable request.  I think the only thing that I would change, would be that NONE of the previous investigating bodies be involved.  New eyes on all new research, new tests etc..  The least amount of reference to the previous research would be the preference.  Obviously some information would have to be pulled from the original work.  Like information gathered about the steel and debris that is no longer available for examination.
Also, I think that the decisions made would have to be unanimous.  One hold out will leave enough doubt that the decision could then be further argued................regardless of the conclusion that it points to.

If this were to be the case, I would say a new investigation would be of value.

But, again, I'll say it.  I don't think even THAT investigation, done in that matter, would quite the "truth movement", if it doesn't decide in their favor.  At least the HARDCORE truth movement.

Now, on the other side of the coin, if a committee of 20 or so (not sure of the number) people where able to look at all the evidence, do all the tests & experiments needed, and interview everybody they can and unanimously told us that there is no doubt that something other than fires & aircraft impact damage caused those buildings to fall.................I would have to believe that.
Now if that were to be the case, a lot of people that are on the side of "no conspiracy" are going to claim FOUL on the investigation.  So, either way, this thing is never going to be OVER.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Rationalist1016 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would think the best people for a re-investigation would be people we haven't heard of.  Scientists, engineers, physicists, metallurgists, etc.., that have not shown an interest in the case.  They are likely to have the least bias.  If you want a new investigation, you also want a new set of eyes on everything.  Although it would be practically impossible to find people that know NOTHING about the case.  I would go as far as suggesting that nobody participates in a new investigation that "volunteers" to do so.  All participates are "selected".  Of course, there has to be committee to select the participates.  The committee needs would need to be balanced and least bias as possible.  Also, the committee would have no participation in the investigation what so ever once the investigation team was selected.
> 
> With that said, I still believe a new investigation won't change anything.  If the result of that investigation was to in anyway support the "official story" we have now, those that are convinced that the "official story" is all lies won't change their minds.  The claims that the government affected the investigation would start immediately.  Of course, SOME people that believe there was a conspiracy would change their minds.  But not the ones that are out on the fringe.  They KNOW there were bombs in those buildings planted by the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Draft Bill to Reinvestigate Collapse of World Trade Center: 2010*
> 
> _...This proposed bill would address those significant shortcomings by establishing an independent investigatory committee of renown national and international scientific and technical experts. It also would end the widespread and global suspicion that the official explanation was based on deliberate omission or misinformation. This Act would provide the most comprehensive, credible, and evidence-based investigation of the major theories provided in this bill relative to the seven WTC buildings. It also would make recommendations for legislative actionif necessary. _
> 
> _....The importance of this bill resides in the fact that the events surrounding the WTC destruction have been the engine driving nearly a decade of two endless wars and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan costing trillions of dollars and the blood and property of millionsincluding more than 6,000 dead Americans and the nearly 3,000 who died at the World Trade Center. It has aroused hatred of our country around the globe, even from one-time allies, and spawned a new generation of terrorists abroad. _
> 
> _...If the WTC destructionincluding the 47-story WTC 7, that was never hit by aircrafthas been the capstone of such tragic consequences, and if *62% of those polled in 2007 by Scripps-Howard still do not believe the Bush Administrations explanation*two airliners hijacked by Arabs struck WTC 1 and 2this proposed bill offers Congress a scientific and technological avenue by which to finally settle this issue. _
> 
> Draft Bill to Reinvestigate Collapse of World Trade Center: 2010 « WTC RESEARCH ALLIANCE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's sounds like a pretty reasonable request.  I think the only thing that I would change, would be that NONE of the previous investigating bodies be involved.  New eyes on all new research, new tests etc..  The least amount of reference to the previous research would be the preference.  Obviously some information would have to be pulled from the original work.  Like information gathered about the steel and debris that is no longer available for examination.
> Also, I think that the decisions made would have to be unanimous.  One hold out will leave enough doubt that the decision could then be further argued................regardless of the conclusion that it points to.
> 
> If this were to be the case, I would say a new investigation would be of value.
> 
> But, again, I'll say it.  I don't think even THAT investigation, done in that matter, would quite the "truth movement", if it doesn't decide in their favor.  At least the HARDCORE truth movement.
> 
> Now, on the other side of the coin, if a committee of 20 or so (not sure of the number) people where able to look at all the evidence, do all the tests & experiments needed, and interview everybody they can and unanimously told us that there is no doubt that something other than fires & aircraft impact damage caused those buildings to fall.................I would have to believe that.
> Now if that were to be the case, a lot of people that are on the side of "no conspiracy" are going to claim FOUL on the investigation.  So, either way, this thing is never going to be OVER.
Click to expand...


I think that the very same people that made the claims how 9-11 happened the way it did, including the destruction of the complex, pentagon, flight 93, etc.., should have the right to go toe to toe with the folks that have any contrary views, proofs, and evidence.
The cases both sides present should be ruled as true or false by the panel. 
However for the sake of simply determining whether the  OCT is true and valid, they can just start with the destruction of the complex, obviously including WTC 7, because if it is determined that they way the buildings were destroyed are false, we can pretty much be assured that the rest of the story is not at all accurate either.
 This is very serious as the future of the country is at stake.
The 9-11 attacks have changed America in so many ways, and the ones who benefited from the OCT being believed as it was told then, and who have used it when it effecting many different policy matters from then to the present day, 
they will use all their resources and might, to continue to squash any new light onto the subject of 9-11, as they have done from day one.
The problem remains, who could be trusted to not allow the influence, by any means, including death, by the mighty and powerful
people who basically control all things 9-11 OCT?
Who can be trusted to not cave into to such corruptible power?

Can the safety of those that are willing to expose the criminals, traitors, and wrong doers be guaranteed?
The list of mysterious deaths, and "suicides" has grown, and a death squad to deal with potential hazards to the perps of the OCT, IMO is not a far fetched concern.
This thing has global implications, and reaches to other nations, primarily Israel, and Saudi Arabia among others.
The 9-11 attacks are tied to other people, events and policies, that with only establishing the conclusion that the WTC buildings were assisted in their destruction by other means, will severely effect.
This is why the cover up within the OCT is so important to the powerful who either assisted, allowed it, or had hands in it in some way or another.
That is way laws are being passed that deal with "homegrown terrorists" and are including in that definition, anyone who even speaks out against them/it, and has been rammed into the collective psyche
of Americans and the world.
It is a story that has had vast implications, and built like a huge house of cards, that can fall far and reach a wide range of people and countries.
But it has to be done, and the American public has to be brave enough to demand it, and willing to weather the storm of whatever any disclosures, or realities the truth will unleash, as our very foundation as a a nation, and the principals it was designed to exist under are increasingly threatened and face extinction altogether, if the cover up, and policies that were implicated as a result of 9-11 are allowed to remain in place.


----------



## Rationalist1016

Mr. Jones said:


> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Draft Bill to Reinvestigate Collapse of World Trade Center: 2010*
> 
> _...This proposed bill would address those significant shortcomings by establishing an independent investigatory committee of renown national and international scientific and technical experts. It also would end the widespread and global suspicion that the official explanation was based on deliberate omission or misinformation. This Act would provide the most comprehensive, credible, and evidence-based investigation of the major theories provided in this bill relative to the seven WTC buildings. It also would make recommendations for legislative actionif necessary. _
> 
> _....The importance of this bill resides in the fact that the events surrounding the WTC destruction have been the engine driving nearly a decade of two endless wars and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan costing trillions of dollars and the blood and property of millionsincluding more than 6,000 dead Americans and the nearly 3,000 who died at the World Trade Center. It has aroused hatred of our country around the globe, even from one-time allies, and spawned a new generation of terrorists abroad. _
> 
> _...If the WTC destructionincluding the 47-story WTC 7, that was never hit by aircrafthas been the capstone of such tragic consequences, and if *62% of those polled in 2007 by Scripps-Howard still do not believe the Bush Administrations explanation*two airliners hijacked by Arabs struck WTC 1 and 2this proposed bill offers Congress a scientific and technological avenue by which to finally settle this issue. _
> 
> Draft Bill to Reinvestigate Collapse of World Trade Center: 2010 « WTC RESEARCH ALLIANCE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's sounds like a pretty reasonable request.  I think the only thing that I would change, would be that NONE of the previous investigating bodies be involved.  New eyes on all new research, new tests etc..  The least amount of reference to the previous research would be the preference.  Obviously some information would have to be pulled from the original work.  Like information gathered about the steel and debris that is no longer available for examination.
> Also, I think that the decisions made would have to be unanimous.  One hold out will leave enough doubt that the decision could then be further argued................regardless of the conclusion that it points to.
> 
> If this were to be the case, I would say a new investigation would be of value.
> 
> But, again, I'll say it.  I don't think even THAT investigation, done in that matter, would quite the "truth movement", if it doesn't decide in their favor.  At least the HARDCORE truth movement.
> 
> Now, on the other side of the coin, if a committee of 20 or so (not sure of the number) people where able to look at all the evidence, do all the tests & experiments needed, and interview everybody they can and unanimously told us that there is no doubt that something other than fires & aircraft impact damage caused those buildings to fall.................I would have to believe that.
> Now if that were to be the case, a lot of people that are on the side of "no conspiracy" are going to claim FOUL on the investigation.  So, either way, this thing is never going to be OVER.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that the very same people that made the claims how 9-11 happened the way it did, including the destruction of the complex, pentagon, flight 93, etc.., should have the right to go toe to toe with the folks that have any contrary views, proofs, and evidence.
> The cases both sides present should be ruled as true or false by the panel.
> However for the sake of simply determining whether the  OCT is true and valid, they can just start with the destruction of the complex, obviously including WTC 7, because if it is determined that they way the buildings were destroyed are false, we can pretty much be assured that the rest of the story is not at all accurate either.
> This is very serious as the future of the country is at stake.
> The 9-11 attacks have changed America in so many ways, and the ones who benefited from the OCT being believed as it was told then, and who have used it when it effecting many different policy matters from then to the present day,
> they will use all their resources and might, to continue to squash any new light onto the subject of 9-11, as they have done from day one.
> The problem remains, who could be trusted to not allow the influence, by any means, including death, by the mighty and powerful
> people who basically control all things 9-11 OCT?
> Who can be trusted to not cave into to such corruptible power?
> 
> Can the safety of those that are willing to expose the criminals, traitors, and wrong doers be guaranteed?
> The list of mysterious deaths, and "suicides" has grown, and a death squad to deal with potential hazards to the perps of the OCT, IMO is not a far fetched concern.
> This thing has global implications, and reaches to other nations, primarily Israel, and Saudi Arabia among others.
> The 9-11 attacks are tied to other people, events and policies, that with only establishing the conclusion that the WTC buildings were assisted in their destruction by other means, will severely effect.
> This is why the cover up within the OCT is so important to the powerful who either assisted, allowed it, or had hands in it in some way or another.
> That is way laws are being passed that deal with "homegrown terrorists" and are including in that definition, anyone who even speaks out against them/it, and has been rammed into the collective psyche
> of Americans and the world.
> It is a story that has had vast implications, and built like a huge house of cards, that can fall far and reach a wide range of people and countries.
> But it has to be done, and the American public has to be brave enough to demand it, and willing to weather the storm of whatever any disclosures, or realities the truth will unleash, as our very foundation as a a nation, and the principals it was designed to exist under are increasingly threatened and face extinction altogether, if the cover up, and policies that were implicated as a result of 9-11 are allowed to remain in place.
Click to expand...


Well, I don't know if a new investigation is the right forum for a debate.  An investigation is to be a fact finding mission, not two or more sides to present there sides and be judged a "winner".  Investigators looking into a murder, don't round up people with different theories and have them present their evidence to them.  They look at the evidence, and conclude what happened by that evidence.
If the investigation is handled like a debate, all that does is the leave the door open for the side that doesn't like the outcome, to make any claims that something or someone was influenced.  And if your are saying that there is no way to ensure that the investigation can be handled fairly and uninfluenced, that also leaves the door open for claims to fly that it was influenced.
So, if I understand your position, you want the two sides to present their evidence to a committee?  But you also feel that there is no way to insure that the committee will be fair and unbiased?  I guess I don't understand what you feel a new investigation will accomplish then.  If I misstated something, please correct me.

But, with that said, I would like to see a debate between NIST, FEMA and/or Popular Mechanics (whoever you feel is "presenting" the official story) and the "truth movement" (whoever you feel is "presenting" the conspiracy story).  I think it would make for some great debate and possibly show both sides some information that they may not be aware of.  But that "debate" can't be confused with an "investigation".


----------



## Mr. Jones

Rationalist1016 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's sounds like a pretty reasonable request.  I think the only thing that I would change, would be that NONE of the previous investigating bodies be involved.  New eyes on all new research, new tests etc..  The least amount of reference to the previous research would be the preference.  Obviously some information would have to be pulled from the original work.  Like information gathered about the steel and debris that is no longer available for examination.
> Also, I think that the decisions made would have to be unanimous.  One hold out will leave enough doubt that the decision could then be further argued................regardless of the conclusion that it points to.
> 
> If this were to be the case, I would say a new investigation would be of value.
> 
> But, again, I'll say it.  I don't think even THAT investigation, done in that matter, would quite the "truth movement", if it doesn't decide in their favor.  At least the HARDCORE truth movement.
> 
> Now, on the other side of the coin, if a committee of 20 or so (not sure of the number) people where able to look at all the evidence, do all the tests & experiments needed, and interview everybody they can and unanimously told us that there is no doubt that something other than fires & aircraft impact damage caused those buildings to fall.................I would have to believe that.
> Now if that were to be the case, a lot of people that are on the side of "no conspiracy" are going to claim FOUL on the investigation.  So, either way, this thing is never going to be OVER.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the very same people that made the claims how 9-11 happened the way it did, including the destruction of the complex, pentagon, flight 93, etc.., should have the right to go toe to toe with the folks that have any contrary views, proofs, and evidence.
> The cases both sides present should be ruled as true or false by the panel.
> However for the sake of simply determining whether the  OCT is true and valid, they can just start with the destruction of the complex, obviously including WTC 7, because if it is determined that they way the buildings were destroyed are false, we can pretty much be assured that the rest of the story is not at all accurate either.
> This is very serious as the future of the country is at stake.
> The 9-11 attacks have changed America in so many ways, and the ones who benefited from the OCT being believed as it was told then, and who have used it when it effecting many different policy matters from then to the present day,
> they will use all their resources and might, to continue to squash any new light onto the subject of 9-11, as they have done from day one.
> The problem remains, who could be trusted to not allow the influence, by any means, including death, by the mighty and powerful
> people who basically control all things 9-11 OCT?
> Who can be trusted to not cave into to such corruptible power?
> 
> Can the safety of those that are willing to expose the criminals, traitors, and wrong doers be guaranteed?
> The list of mysterious deaths, and "suicides" has grown, and a death squad to deal with potential hazards to the perps of the OCT, IMO is not a far fetched concern.
> This thing has global implications, and reaches to other nations, primarily Israel, and Saudi Arabia among others.
> The 9-11 attacks are tied to other people, events and policies, that with only establishing the conclusion that the WTC buildings were assisted in their destruction by other means, will severely effect.
> This is why the cover up within the OCT is so important to the powerful who either assisted, allowed it, or had hands in it in some way or another.
> That is way laws are being passed that deal with "homegrown terrorists" and are including in that definition, anyone who even speaks out against them/it, and has been rammed into the collective psyche
> of Americans and the world.
> It is a story that has had vast implications, and built like a huge house of cards, that can fall far and reach a wide range of people and countries.
> But it has to be done, and the American public has to be brave enough to demand it, and willing to weather the storm of whatever any disclosures, or realities the truth will unleash, as our very foundation as a a nation, and the principals it was designed to exist under are increasingly threatened and face extinction altogether, if the cover up, and policies that were implicated as a result of 9-11 are allowed to remain in place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I don't know if a new investigation is the right forum for a debate.  An investigation is to be a fact finding mission, not two or more sides to present there sides and be judged a "winner".  Investigators looking into a murder, don't round up people with different theories and have them present their evidence to them.  They look at the evidence, and conclude what happened by that evidence.
> If the investigation is handled like a debate, all that does is the leave the door open for the side that doesn't like the outcome, to make any claims that something or someone was influenced.  And if your are saying that there is no way to ensure that the investigation can be handled fairly and uninfluenced, that also leaves the door open for claims to fly that it was influenced.
> So, if I understand your position, you want the two sides to present their evidence to a committee?  But you also feel that there is no way to insure that the committee will be fair and unbiased?  I guess I don't understand what you feel a new investigation will accomplish then.  If I misstated something, please correct me.
> 
> But, with that said, I would like to see a debate between NIST, FEMA and/or Popular Mechanics (whoever you feel is "presenting" the official story) and the "truth movement" (whoever you feel is "presenting" the conspiracy story).  I think it would make for some great debate and possibly show both sides some information that they may not be aware of.  But that "debate" can't be confused with an "investigation".
Click to expand...


What I meant was, since there are so many that think that a new investigation is not warranted, a panel to hear the counter evidence of the WTC collapses, and or the parts of the OCT that don't add up,  should perhaps first be implemented, and this panel will be authorized to determine if indeed a new investigation is needed.

 Many say that there is no proof, or evidence to support a fresh look, so that would be determined rather quickly with the evidence the researchers have, and put that to rest.
Then they could proceed with officially ordering the new 9-11 investigation, and let it be known that ALL evidence, old and new, is on the table for examination.
What I fear is what is always feared in hearings, or inquests, or trials.
That the accused or subjects, will use their influence to squash or silence anything or anybody against them.
Like someone that testifies against the Mafia...they had to be protected, and hidden before and after any proceedings.
After all, we are dealing with a group even more powerful then the mob here, and we could potentially see a rash of "suicides" or disappearances like never before.
Think of the consequences those responsible will face?


----------



## Mr. Jones

9-11 Commission Campaign | The campaign for a transparent citizens&#039; 9-11 investigative commission.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Good grief! All of this hoopla. Hours of debate and people still believe you can have free fall acceleration coupled with resistance. WTC7 achieved free fall. The building fell near symmetrical. David Chandler even made videos that he dumbed down enough for my 13 year old nephew to grasp the concept.

:facepalm:


----------



## Rationalist1016

Mr. Jones said:


> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the very same people that made the claims how 9-11 happened the way it did, including the destruction of the complex, pentagon, flight 93, etc.., should have the right to go toe to toe with the folks that have any contrary views, proofs, and evidence.
> The cases both sides present should be ruled as true or false by the panel.
> However for the sake of simply determining whether the  OCT is true and valid, they can just start with the destruction of the complex, obviously including WTC 7, because if it is determined that they way the buildings were destroyed are false, we can pretty much be assured that the rest of the story is not at all accurate either.
> This is very serious as the future of the country is at stake.
> The 9-11 attacks have changed America in so many ways, and the ones who benefited from the OCT being believed as it was told then, and who have used it when it effecting many different policy matters from then to the present day,
> they will use all their resources and might, to continue to squash any new light onto the subject of 9-11, as they have done from day one.
> The problem remains, who could be trusted to not allow the influence, by any means, including death, by the mighty and powerful
> people who basically control all things 9-11 OCT?
> Who can be trusted to not cave into to such corruptible power?
> 
> Can the safety of those that are willing to expose the criminals, traitors, and wrong doers be guaranteed?
> The list of mysterious deaths, and "suicides" has grown, and a death squad to deal with potential hazards to the perps of the OCT, IMO is not a far fetched concern.
> This thing has global implications, and reaches to other nations, primarily Israel, and Saudi Arabia among others.
> The 9-11 attacks are tied to other people, events and policies, that with only establishing the conclusion that the WTC buildings were assisted in their destruction by other means, will severely effect.
> This is why the cover up within the OCT is so important to the powerful who either assisted, allowed it, or had hands in it in some way or another.
> That is way laws are being passed that deal with "homegrown terrorists" and are including in that definition, anyone who even speaks out against them/it, and has been rammed into the collective psyche
> of Americans and the world.
> It is a story that has had vast implications, and built like a huge house of cards, that can fall far and reach a wide range of people and countries.
> But it has to be done, and the American public has to be brave enough to demand it, and willing to weather the storm of whatever any disclosures, or realities the truth will unleash, as our very foundation as a a nation, and the principals it was designed to exist under are increasingly threatened and face extinction altogether, if the cover up, and policies that were implicated as a result of 9-11 are allowed to remain in place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't know if a new investigation is the right forum for a debate.  An investigation is to be a fact finding mission, not two or more sides to present there sides and be judged a "winner".  Investigators looking into a murder, don't round up people with different theories and have them present their evidence to them.  They look at the evidence, and conclude what happened by that evidence.
> If the investigation is handled like a debate, all that does is the leave the door open for the side that doesn't like the outcome, to make any claims that something or someone was influenced.  And if your are saying that there is no way to ensure that the investigation can be handled fairly and uninfluenced, that also leaves the door open for claims to fly that it was influenced.
> So, if I understand your position, you want the two sides to present their evidence to a committee?  But you also feel that there is no way to insure that the committee will be fair and unbiased?  I guess I don't understand what you feel a new investigation will accomplish then.  If I misstated something, please correct me.
> 
> But, with that said, I would like to see a debate between NIST, FEMA and/or Popular Mechanics (whoever you feel is "presenting" the official story) and the "truth movement" (whoever you feel is "presenting" the conspiracy story).  I think it would make for some great debate and possibly show both sides some information that they may not be aware of.  But that "debate" can't be confused with an "investigation".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I meant was, since there are so many that think that a new investigation is not warranted, a panel to hear the counter evidence of the WTC collapses, and or the parts of the OCT that don't add up,  should perhaps first be implemented, and this panel will be authorized to determine if indeed a new investigation is needed.
> 
> Many say that there is no proof, or evidence to support a fresh look, so that would be determined rather quickly with the evidence the researchers have, and put that to rest.
> Then they could proceed with officially ordering the new 9-11 investigation, and let it be known that ALL evidence, old and new, is on the table for examination.
> What I fear is what is always feared in hearings, or inquests, or trials.
> That the accused or subjects, will use their influence to squash or silence anything or anybody against them.
> Like someone that testifies against the Mafia...they had to be protected, and hidden before and after any proceedings.
> After all, we are dealing with a group even more powerful then the mob here, and we could potentially see a rash of "suicides" or disappearances like never before.
> Think of the consequences those responsible will face?
Click to expand...


As for the committee, I would agree with that.  To basically have a hearing to decide if a new investigation is warranted.

As for the "influence to squash or silence anything or anybody against them" statement, I think this is where we differ.
There is no doubt that people can, & have, been silenced in cases against a powerful person.  Cannot disagree with that at all.
But I think the difference between you and I, is that I attribute those "powers" to the person.  You cannot sue "the government".  You sue the person with a government position.  Now that person may have powers to silence someone, to keep them out of trouble.  But I don't see that as "the government".  The government doesn't operate as a single entity.  It is made up of "people".  People that are looking out for themselves.  Now, a lot of those people have common interests, there is no doubt about that.
Also, any claims against "the government" are going to be mainly towards the Bush Administration for the 9/11 attacks correct?  Many of these people, mainly Bush and Cheney, no longer hold public office.  They are civilians, so they can be sued like anybody else.  Obviously, they still have contacts and more power than the normal civilian.  But I don't see "the government" sending in the black helicopters to silence someone that is going after Bush or Cheney.

Please note, this is JUST MY OPINION.

But on the overall subject, yes I think a new investigation, if done properly, would be a good thing.  It could help quite some of the accusations out there that have no basis.  But I sure don't think it is going to bring the two "sides" together.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

> Also, any claims against "the government" are going to be mainly towards the Bush Administration for the 9/11 attacks correct? Many of these people, mainly Bush and Cheney, no longer hold public office. They are civilians, so they can be sued like anybody else. Obviously, they still have contacts and more power than the normal civilian. But I don't see "the government" sending in the black helicopters to silence someone that is going after Bush or Cheney.



Bush and Cheney can and should still be impeached. That statement has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and everything to do with massive war crimes, executive branch unconstitutional power grabs (signing statements, manipulating the justice dept. etc...), torture and the geneva convention breaches.
The problem is no one is going to do it. Obama and his "look forward" theory on how to handle crime from the executive branch (crimes he himself is now guilty of)...

Bush and Cheney are beside the point of a new investigation. IF a new investigation, free of any white wash or stonewall, determined that the executive branch or any of its entities (the CIA, the military, etc...) had anything to do with what happened, even that of complacency, THEN they shoud be held accountable for what could be the biggest government scandal in US history.


----------



## Rationalist1016

TakeAStepBack said:


> Also, any claims against "the government" are going to be mainly towards the Bush Administration for the 9/11 attacks correct? Many of these people, mainly Bush and Cheney, no longer hold public office. They are civilians, so they can be sued like anybody else. Obviously, they still have contacts and more power than the normal civilian. But I don't see "the government" sending in the black helicopters to silence someone that is going after Bush or Cheney.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush and Cheney can and should still be impeached. That statement has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and everything to do with massive war crimes, executive branch unconstitutional power grabs (signing statements, manipulating the justice dept. etc...), torture and the geneva convention breaches.
> The problem is no one is going to do it. Obama and his "look forward" theory on how to handle crime from the executive branch (crimes he himself is now guilty of)...
> 
> Bush and Cheney are beside the point of a new investigation. IF a new investigation, free of any white wash or stonewall, determined that the executive branch or any of its entities (the CIA, the military, etc...) had anything to do with what happened, even that of complacency, THEN they shoud be held accountable for what could be the biggest government scandal in US history.
Click to expand...


My point with Bush & Cheney was just to clarify my point about going after the person/persons that may have committed a crime, not "the government".

As for your comment about the new investigation, I agree.  If a new investigation was to take place, and members of our government where found to have something to do with it, I think they should be held accountable.
I feel like I have made myself clear on that point, but somehow still defending it to people with the same opinion.

Where I differ with some others on this board, is that I don't think the members of our government facilitated 9/11.  I think there IS a cover-up and that is of those members that failed in doing their jobs, which is to protect us, one of our governments most basic duties.  And I believe those people should be held accountable.
I just haven't seen the evidence that points to "the government" orchestrating 9/11.  I think they are too incompetent as a group to pull that off.
But if a new investigation was to prove me wrong, I would gladly concede.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Fair enough.

The people in the executive branch, the evidence that has come to light regarding the plan to invade Iraq before 2001, looking at who profited considerably from the entire event, the New American Century neoconservative base surrounding the white house and a host of other eye brow raisers, is what really makes this one look like a false flag. 

Especially the whole psuedo-science thing, to me, is what makes this look like a crime cover-up, verse a "we failed to do our job so we're gonna cover our ass with a massive stonewall, white wash and cover-up.


----------



## Rationalist1016

TakeAStepBack said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> The people in the executive branch, the evidence that has come to light regarding the plan to invade Iraq before 2001, looking at who profited considerably from the entire event, the New American Century neoconservative base surrounding the white house and a host of other eye brow raisers, is what really makes this one look like a false flag.
> 
> Especially the whole psuedo-science thing, to me, is what makes this look like a crime cover-up, verse a "we failed to do our job so we're gonna cover our ass with a massive stonewall, white wash and cover-up.



I agree, it doesn't look good.  It definitely appears to be an awfully convenient event for an administration that was already chomping at the bit to go to war.  But I am holding off judgement until some real evidence comes out.  And if there is evidence of that, I believe it WILL come out.  If it's there someone will find it..............now it may just be a waiting game.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

We'll have to disagree starting here. The hard evidence, as there is plenty of circumstantial available to begin building a solid case, will never come to light. It would be FAR too damning for too many.
if it ever comes to light, it will be 40-50 years down the road when Bush adn Cheney have retired, started shitting in their pants and can no longer be held to any accountablilty.

Like other declassifieds...the Tonkin Gulf incident comes to mind immediately.

I was hoping our current prez would take the reigns and actually put the fire under the last administrations actions for accountablilty. Instead, he proves himself just another puppet of the establishment and does a 180 the minute he took office........


----------



## daws101

Does an empty building collapsing during a major disaster,make a sound?


----------



## Mr. Jones

TakeAStepBack said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> The people in the executive branch, the evidence that has come to light regarding the plan to invade Iraq before 2001, looking at who profited considerably from the entire event, the New American Century neoconservative base surrounding the white house and a host of other eye brow raisers, is what really makes this one look like a false flag.
> 
> Especially the whole psuedo-science thing, to me, is what makes this look like a crime cover-up, verse a "we failed to do our job so we're gonna cover our ass with a massive stonewall, white wash and cover-up.



You beat me to what was going to say, mainly the PNAC dual citizen traitors that seem to have written the script for US policy years ago, and got themselves in position to implement their plans.
That is why I say the implications of new light on the 9-11 attacks would involve other nations, such as Israel.
I do not believe a cover up was initiated because "mistakes" were made, of course that is the fall back position one would obviously take, but history has shown that the people in the Bush administration have always had the agenda to wage war against the Muslim nations for Israels safety, and for the natural resources those country's possess.
It was no mistake or accident to have the US thrust into a "war on terror" instigated by a "new Pearl Harbor event."
As it is no mere coincidence those people were in positions of authority within the government to facilitate a LIHOP or MIHOP 9-11 attack.

I will state once more for Rationalist1016, that I do not consider the government as a whole responsible for 9-11, but certain rouge elements within it, who infiltrated sensitive positions and possibly recruited others to assist, by various means such as bribes; money (of which there was plenty missing to afford payoffs) career advancement (how many were PROMOTED vs DEMOTED for being held accountable for their "mistakes?") 

I also say that by accusing certain members of this possibility, it is  not to say that Al Qaeda is NOT responsible in some way, as FBI  investigations that were in some way hindered, such as John O'Niel's and other whistle blowers have shown.

This thing potentially runs deep, and the web they weaved can trap many, and all it may take to achieve, is a closer re-examination of the WTC collapses...to start with.

I feel the awareness program that this thread was initially started over, is a good start. The hope is that the more people are aware of the freakish nature of collapse of the WTC7 building, and why it has been hidden from them, the more people can push law makers, and potential candidates for office to include a new investigation as part of their platform.


----------



## daws101

reexamination, "new independent investigation".
I've heard this gobbledygook for nearly a decade....
as to wtc7, there is no empirical evidence to reexamine...most of the remaining evidence for the towers and pentagon is in Hangar 17 at JFK airport.
you do understand what the word "independent" means?: (1) : not subject to control by others : self-governing (2) : not affiliated with a larger controlling unit  (1) : not requiring or relying on something else : not contingent <an independent conclusion> (2) : not looking to others for one's opinions or for guidance in conduct (3) : not bound by or committed to a political party or group. 

in this case that would mean both parties would have to be investigated (the gov & the twoofers)


----------



## Rationalist1016

Mr. Jones said:


> I will state once more for Rationalist1016, that I do not consider the government as a whole responsible for 9-11, but certain rouge elements within it, who infiltrated sensitive positions and possibly recruited others to assist, by various means such as bribes; money (of which there was plenty missing to afford payoffs) career advancement (how many were PROMOTED vs DEMOTED for being held accountable for their "mistakes?")



I appreciate the clarification.
As for the rest of your comment.................again, I can't disagree.  I think all of that is a possibility.  I just don't think we have seen any hard evidence of it.  If that evidence was to come out, I will be ON YOUR SIDE.
I especially agree with the last part of your comment.  The "promoted vs. demoted".  That is one of the actions that leaves me thinking "something stinks here!"


----------



## Obamerican

I don't get this "mystery" about WTC7. If the downing of both WTC1 AND WTC2 were enough to get us into a war with the Muslim nations "for the benefit of Israel" then why risk the entire plan and bring down WTC7?


----------



## Mr. Jones

daws101 said:


> you do understand what the word "independent" means?: (1) : not subject to control by others : self-governing (2) : not affiliated with a larger controlling unit  (1) : not requiring or relying on something else : not contingent <an independent conclusion> (2) : not looking to others for one's opinions or for guidance in conduct (3) : not bound by or committed to a political party or group.
> 
> in this case that would mean both parties would have to be investigated (the gov & the twoofers)


Well according to your insightful posting of the definition of independent, it certainly does not describe the original "investigation" does it?
The new investigation should mostly exclude from authority, the bastages who steered it to their political advantages.

What political goals or agendas do you think a legitimate truth movement has up their sleeve in your opinion? 
Do you still think they are trying to instill dissent or treason?
Do you still think they are "trying to take over the government?" ALA agent Parrot911??  

FWIW, I subscribe to a version that would, in the end, return the government to its rightful owners, the people of the nation, and away from the treasonous scum that has infiltrated it.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Obamerican said:


> I don't get this "mystery" about WTC7. If the downing of both WTC1 AND WTC2 were enough to get us into a war with the Muslim nations "for the benefit of Israel" then why risk the entire plan and bring down WTC7?


Good question, and many theories, primarily insurance fraud, WTC 7 perhaps being the headquarters with a beacon signal for the remote guidance systems of the planes, and there is the one about WTC 7 perhaps being the flight 93 target that went wrong somehow? According to sources, there was seemingly irreplaceable documents.

_At the time of its destruction, Building 7 housed documents relating to numerous SEC investigations. The files for approximately three to four thousand cases were destroyed, according to the Los Angeles Times. Among the destroyed documents were ones that may have demonstrated the relationship between Citigroup and the WorldCom bankruptcy. _
9-11 Research: 7 World Trade Center

SEC: No Records Whatsoever Regarding Destroyed WTC 7 Investigation Files
http://911blogger.com/node/19242

The OEM was destroyed without putting up much of a struggle, despite the renovations.
The 23rd floor of Building 7 had received 15 million dollars' worth of renovations to create an emergency command center for then-Mayor Rudolf Giuliani. The features of the command center include:

    * Bullet- and bomb-resistant windows
    * An independent, secure air and water supply
    * The ability to withstand winds of 200 mph
Of course the structure that held it up fell like noodles, so not sure what could have been expected of the OEM.

And of course the shock and awe aspect of the attack, the responses from the public were pure "terror".
I personally think the planes allowed to smash into the WTC was enough to instigate what they wanted to, the rest was pure cover up, and theatrics.
It should be no great surprise that many people still don't know about 7, as the controlled media has done a good job of lying by omission, and we know who has control of the media right?


----------



## daws101

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you do understand what the word "independent" means?: (1) : not subject to control by others : self-governing (2) : not affiliated with a larger controlling unit  (1) : not requiring or relying on something else : not contingent <an independent conclusion> (2) : not looking to others for one's opinions or for guidance in conduct (3) : not bound by or committed to a political party or group.
> 
> in this case that would mean both parties would have to be investigated (the gov & the twoofers)
> 
> 
> 
> Well according to your insightful posting of the definition of independent, it certainly does not describe the original "investigation" does it?
> The new investigation should mostly exclude from authority, the bastages who steered it to their political advantages.
> 
> What political goals or agendas do you think a legitimate truth movement has up their sleeve in your opinion?
> Do you still think they are trying to instill dissent or treason?
> Do you still think they are "trying to take over the government?" ALA agent Parrot911??
> 
> FWIW, I subscribe to a version that would, in the end, return the government to its rightful owners, the people of the nation, and away from the treasonous scum that has infiltrated it.
Click to expand...

 Nice dodge! you must be a devotee of the if you can't dazzle um with brilliance baffle um with bullshit school.
btw, the twoof movement is not legit, no amount of rhetoric will make it so!


----------



## Mr. Jones

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you do understand what the word "independent" means?: (1) : not subject to control by others : self-governing (2) : not affiliated with a larger controlling unit  (1) : not requiring or relying on something else : not contingent <an independent conclusion> (2) : not looking to others for one's opinions or for guidance in conduct (3) : not bound by or committed to a political party or group.
> 
> in this case that would mean both parties would have to be investigated (the gov & the twoofers)
> 
> 
> 
> Well according to your insightful posting of the definition of independent, it certainly does not describe the original "investigation" does it?
> The new investigation should mostly exclude from authority, the bastages who steered it to their political advantages.
> 
> What political goals or agendas do you think a legitimate truth movement has up their sleeve in your opinion?
> Do you still think they are trying to instill dissent or treason?
> Do you still think they are "trying to take over the government?" ALA agent Parrot911??
> 
> FWIW, I subscribe to a version that would, in the end, return the government to its rightful owners, the people of the nation, and away from the treasonous scum that has infiltrated it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice dodge! you must be a devotee of the if you can't dazzle um with brilliance baffle um with bullshit school.
> btw, the twoof movement is not legit, no amount of rhetoric will make it so!
Click to expand...


What?..you don't see how your definition of "independent"  applies to both sides??
Apparently the OCT that _IS_ BS has baffled you really well 
The legitimate Truth Movement is actually more then just exposing the lies of the 9-11 OCT, it is also to bring awareness of what is happening to the nation, and the various forms of negative change that have slowly creeped upon us.
Check into it, you might be surprised to learn something.


----------



## daws101

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well according to your insightful posting of the definition of independent, it certainly does not describe the original "investigation" does it?
> The new investigation should mostly exclude from authority, the bastages who steered it to their political advantages.
> 
> What political goals or agendas do you think a legitimate truth movement has up their sleeve in your opinion?
> Do you still think they are trying to instill dissent or treason?
> Do you still think they are "trying to take over the government?" ALA agent Parrot911??
> 
> FWIW, I subscribe to a version that would, in the end, return the government to its rightful owners, the people of the nation, and away from the treasonous scum that has infiltrated it.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice dodge! you must be a devotee of the if you can't dazzle um with brilliance baffle um with bullshit school.
> btw, the twoof movement is not legit, no amount of rhetoric will make it so!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?..you don't see how your definition of "independent"  applies to both sides??
> Apparently the OCT that _IS_ BS has baffled you really well
> The legitimate Truth Movement is actually more then just exposing the lies of the 9-11 OCT, it is also to bring awareness of what is happening to the nation, and the various forms of negative change that have slowly creeped upon us.
> Check into it, you might be surprised to learn something.
Click to expand...

 lmao! another case of selective reading here's the quote:" both parties would have to be investigated (the gov & the twoofers)"


----------



## Mr. Jones

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice dodge! you must be a devotee of the if you can't dazzle um with brilliance baffle um with bullshit school.
> btw, the twoof movement is not legit, no amount of rhetoric will make it so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?..you don't see how your definition of "independent"  applies to both sides??
> Apparently the OCT that _IS_ BS has baffled you really well
> The legitimate Truth Movement is actually more then just exposing the lies of the 9-11 OCT, it is also to bring awareness of what is happening to the nation, and the various forms of negative change that have slowly creeped upon us.
> Check into it, you might be surprised to learn something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lmao! another case of selective reading here's the quote:" both parties would have to be investigated (the gov & the twoofers)"
Click to expand...


And?


----------



## daws101

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?..you don't see how your definition of "independent"  applies to both sides??
> Apparently the OCT that _IS_ BS has baffled you really well
> The legitimate Truth Movement is actually more then just exposing the lies of the 9-11 OCT, it is also to bring awareness of what is happening to the nation, and the various forms of negative change that have slowly creeped upon us.
> Check into it, you might be surprised to learn something.
> 
> 
> 
> lmao! another case of selective reading here's the quote:" both parties would have to be investigated (the gov & the twoofers)"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And?
Click to expand...

 That should be obvious.
BTW All twoof sites and publications have about as much legitimacy as that famous seventh day Adventist rag ..THE WATCHTOWER!
TO BE Legitimate a movement, act ,  or thing  must be based on fact, not belief !


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> lmao! another case of selective reading here's the quote:" both parties would have to be investigated (the gov & the twoofers)"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That should be obvious.
> BTW All twoof sites and publications have about as much legitimacy as that famous seventh day Adventist rag ..THE WATCHTOWER!
> TO BE Legitimate a movement, act ,  or thing  must be based on fact, not belief !
Click to expand...


the watchtower is Jehovahs wittiness, not seven day Adventist they are the ones that go to church on Saturday...you need to stop reading those debwunker sites


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArnYryJqCwU]YouTube - &#x202a;The NIST WTC 7 Report is False&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## CitizenPained

Terral said:


> Hi Mr. Jones:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spread the word and research what the real issues are with the NIST investigation and the problems the families of the victims of 9-11 and many others have with the explanation that was told to the country.
> 
> 
> 
> The entire US Federal, State and Local Govts are corrupt to the core and nobody cares. We have an illegal alien in the White House for God sakes who like Bush and Clinton and Bush let illegal aliens run around everywhere doing whatever they please. The fake 911Movement is running in place and nobody is ever brought to 911Justice and that is never going to change in this pathetic and corrupt nation of liars, murderers and thieves. America is simply not America anymore and the sheeple need to get accustomed to living in a third-world country where police state brutality is commonplace and the average subject can barely afford to pay for food.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6K3Up3bEGQ]Christopher Sees Chaos Coming Too[/ame]
> 
> The time to get 9/11 right has already gone and the entire system is ready to collapse under the weight of DEBT and lawlessness.
Click to expand...


This sentiment...is why America is going down a shithole.


----------



## eots

Well, your love of freedom fries is ...is... _commendable_...but does nothing to explain the collapse of wtc 7


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> And?
> 
> 
> 
> That should be obvious.
> BTW All twoof sites and publications have about as much legitimacy as that famous seventh day Adventist rag ..THE WATCHTOWER!
> TO BE Legitimate a movement, act ,  or thing  must be based on fact, not belief !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the watchtower is Jehovahs wittiness, not seven day Adventist they are the ones that go to church on Saturday...you need to stop reading those debwunker sites
Click to expand...

MY MISTAKE...In fact it makes no difference, they are both offshoots of the MORMON cult!
you mean sites like 911blooger. 911twoof.org not to mention: pile it high and deep .com.


----------



## Mr. Jones

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> And?
> 
> 
> 
> That should be obvious.
> BTW All twoof sites and publications have about as much legitimacy as that famous seventh day Adventist rag ..THE WATCHTOWER!
> TO BE Legitimate a movement, act ,  or thing  must be based on fact, not belief !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the watchtower is Jehovahs wittiness, not seven day Adventist they are the ones that go to church on Saturday...you need to stop reading those debwunker sites
Click to expand...


 No shit! Plus I would add that the legitimate movement , act or thing he refers to, IS based on well documented FACT..That the NIST and OCT IS BULLSHIT, and many discrepancies, distortions,
and in some cases out right lies, have been long ago discovered and pointed out.
Geez, you'd think people who comment on this topic would at least know the basics about it already..


----------



## Mr. Jones

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That should be obvious.
> BTW All twoof sites and publications have about as much legitimacy as that famous seventh day Adventist rag ..THE WATCHTOWER!
> TO BE Legitimate a movement, act ,  or thing  must be based on fact, not belief !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the watchtower is Jehovahs wittiness, not seven day Adventist they are the ones that go to church on Saturday...you need to stop reading those debwunker sites
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MY MISTAKE...In fact it makes no difference, they are both offshoots of the MORMON cult!
> you mean sites like 911blooger. 911twoof.org not to mention: pile it high and deep .com.
Click to expand...


No one is immune from mistakes I guess, but tell us..what do you mean "pile it high and deep"? Perhaps if you could be more definitive about certain particulars you don't agree with we could advance the discussion away from religious rag comparisons.


----------



## daws101

Mr. Jones said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That should be obvious.
> BTW All twoof sites and publications have about as much legitimacy as that famous seventh day Adventist rag ..THE WATCHTOWER!
> TO BE Legitimate a movement, act ,  or thing  must be based on fact, not belief !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the watchtower is Jehovahs wittiness, not seven day Adventist they are the ones that go to church on Saturday...you need to stop reading those debwunker sites
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No shit! Plus I would add that the legitimate movement , act or thing he refers to, IS based on well documented FACT..That the NIST and OCT IS BULLSHIT, and many discrepancies, distortions,
> and in some cases out right lies, have been long ago discovered and pointed out.
> Geez, you'd think people who comment on this topic would at least know the basics about it already..
Click to expand...

There you go again attempting to replace fact with fantasy...please show any corroborating evidence THAT IS NOT TWOOFER BASED as that is bias and not based in reality !


----------



## daws101

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> the watchtower is Jehovahs wittiness, not seven day Adventist they are the ones that go to church on Saturday...you need to stop reading those debwunker sites
> 
> 
> 
> MY MISTAKE...In fact it makes no difference, they are both offshoots of the MORMON cult!
> you mean sites like 911blooger. 911twoof.org not to mention: pile it high and deep .com.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is immune from mistakes I guess, but tell us..what do you mean "pile it high and deep"? Perhaps if you could be more definitive about certain particulars you don't agree with we could advance the discussion away from religious rag comparisons.
Click to expand...

 Maybe I should have typed PILOT IT  HIGH AND DEEP FOR TWOOF .COM
WHO'S US WHITE MAN!? Do you have two heads?


----------



## daws101

I'LL DO THE EASY ONES:
1. No proof of thermite, super thermite or any other accelerant or explosive was FOUND at any of the 911sites.
if your answer is: it was taken away before or during the rescue operations.
you must show proof that that action occurred.
2.The Pentagon fake plane parts! 
if you think they were planted then you must prove it with evidence not fairy tales .
Also you must prove how and when these faux parts were placed.
if you believe they were, were they planed in advance or just after the crash?
if they were planted in advance ,how did the "planters" hide the parts or was everyone in the pentagon in on it?
how do you account for American Airlines Flight 77 crew and passengers being dead and their body parts found inside and out side the pentagon?
 3. the myth of wtc7....


----------



## TakeAStepBack

daws101 said:


> I'LL DO THE EASY ONES:
> 1. No proof of thermite, super thermite or any other accelerant or explosive was FOUND at any of the 911sites.
> if your answer is: it was taken away before or during the rescue operations.
> you must show proof that that action occurred.
> 2.The Pentagon fake plane parts!
> if you think they were planted then you must prove it with evidence not fairy tales .
> Also you must prove how and when these faux parts were placed.
> if you believe they were, were they planed in advance or just after the crash?
> if they were planted in advance ,how did the "planters" hide the parts or was everyone in the pentagon in on it?
> how do you account for American Airlines Flight 77 crew and passengers being dead and their body parts found inside and out side the pentagon?
> *3. the myth of wtc7*....



1. While scientists have found traces of thermite residue in the powder and there is no more hard evidence than that. it should be investigated further. More importantly, wtc 1 + 2 under went an enormous amount of pulverization. At the speed of the "collapse", coupled with the amount of pulverization, it is evident that an exterior force of some type was at play. If the "official" account were accurate, why did we not have the upper floor "block" of the building sitting on top of the rubble pile?

2. Proving that someone covered something up when you are forced to prove it to the people that covered it up in the first place, leaves you at a significant disadvantage. We know this already or this whole caper would have been blown wide open already. 

3.What part of wtc7 is a myth? The part where free fall occured even though it is a building, of which, the envelope of the building has steel beams?
Hence, free fall occured, yet there is resistance from the building envelope. How can one get this outcome without additional help?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Lastly, nice to see you playing nice Patriot911.


----------



## daws101

TakeAStepBack said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'LL DO THE EASY ONES:
> 1. No proof of thermite, super thermite or any other accelerant or explosive was FOUND at any of the 911sites.
> if your answer is: it was taken away before or during the rescue operations.
> you must show proof that that action occurred.
> 2.The Pentagon fake plane parts!
> if you think they were planted then you must prove it with evidence not fairy tales .
> Also you must prove how and when these faux parts were placed.
> if you believe they were, were they planed in advance or just after the crash?
> if they were planted in advance ,how did the "planters" hide the parts or was everyone in the pentagon in on it?
> how do you account for American Airlines Flight 77 crew and passengers being dead and their body parts found inside and out side the pentagon?
> *3. the myth of wtc7*....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. While scientists have found traces of thermite residue in the powder and there is no more hard evidence than that. it should be investigated further. More importantly, wtc 1 + 2 under went an enormous amount of pulverization. At the speed of the "collapse", coupled with the amount of pulverization, it is evident that an exterior force of some type was at play. If the "official" account were accurate, why did we not have the upper floor "block" of the building sitting on top of the rubble pile?
> 
> 2. Proving that someone covered something up when you are forced to prove it to the people that covered it up in the first place, leaves you at a significant disadvantage. We know this already or this whole caper would have been blown wide open already.
> 
> 3.What part of wtc7 is a myth? The part where free fall occurred even though it is a building, of which, the envelope of the building has steel beams?
> Hence, free fall occurred, yet there is resistance from the building envelope. How can one get this outcome without additional help?
Click to expand...

 wtc7 :free fall:http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
why is it all of you ct r's make massive assumptions?: "Proving that someone covered something up when you are forced to prove it to the people that covered it up in the first place, leaves you at a significant disadvantage. We know this already or this whole caper would have been blown wide open already. "
you've yet to, if ever prove that allegation..
as to the so called thermite, in the only test that was allegedly made ,the  sample was supposedly destroyed and cannot be taken as evidence.
why?because the "experiment cannot be repeated.
might want to check out the scientific method


----------



## daws101

TakeAStepBack said:


> Lastly, nice to see you playing nice Patriot911.


 who's Patriot911?


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'LL DO THE EASY ONES:
> 1. No proof of thermite, super thermite or any other accelerant or explosive was FOUND at any of the 911sites.
> if your answer is: it was taken away before or during the rescue operations.
> you must show proof that that action occurred.
> 2.The Pentagon fake plane parts!
> if you think they were planted then you must prove it with evidence not fairy tales .
> Also you must prove how and when these faux parts were placed.
> if you believe they were, were they planed in advance or just after the crash?
> if they were planted in advance ,how did the "planters" hide the parts or was everyone in the pentagon in on it?
> how do you account for American Airlines Flight 77 crew and passengers being dead and their body parts found inside and out side the pentagon?
> *3. the myth of wtc7*....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. While scientists have found traces of thermite residue in the powder and there is no more hard evidence than that. it should be investigated further. More importantly, wtc 1 + 2 under went an enormous amount of pulverization. At the speed of the "collapse", coupled with the amount of pulverization, it is evident that an exterior force of some type was at play. If the "official" account were accurate, why did we not have the upper floor "block" of the building sitting on top of the rubble pile?
> 
> 2. Proving that someone covered something up when you are forced to prove it to the people that covered it up in the first place, leaves you at a significant disadvantage. We know this already or this whole caper would have been blown wide open already.
> 
> 3.What part of wtc7 is a myth? The part where free fall occurred even though it is a building, of which, the envelope of the building has steel beams?
> Hence, free fall occurred, yet there is resistance from the building envelope. How can one get this outcome without additional help?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wtc7 :free fall:http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
> why is it all of you ct r's make massive assumptions?: "Proving that someone covered something up when you are forced to prove it to the people that covered it up in the first place, leaves you at a significant disadvantage. We know this already or this whole caper would have been blown wide open already. "
> you've yet to, if ever prove that allegation..
> as to the so called thermite, in the only test that was allegedly made ,the  sample was supposedly destroyed and cannot be taken as evidence.
> why?because the "experiment cannot be repeated.
> might want to check out the scientific method
Click to expand...


YOU REALLY NEED TO STOP GOING TO THOSE DEBWUNKER SITES LIKE 911/MYTHS

So could you please explain your understanding of the collapse of wtc 7
from the NIST report


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. While scientists have found traces of thermite residue in the powder and there is no more hard evidence than that. it should be investigated further. More importantly, wtc 1 + 2 under went an enormous amount of pulverization. At the speed of the "collapse", coupled with the amount of pulverization, it is evident that an exterior force of some type was at play. If the "official" account were accurate, why did we not have the upper floor "block" of the building sitting on top of the rubble pile?
> 
> 2. Proving that someone covered something up when you are forced to prove it to the people that covered it up in the first place, leaves you at a significant disadvantage. We know this already or this whole caper would have been blown wide open already.
> 
> 3.What part of wtc7 is a myth? The part where free fall occurred even though it is a building, of which, the envelope of the building has steel beams?
> Hence, free fall occurred, yet there is resistance from the building envelope. How can one get this outcome without additional help?
> 
> 
> 
> wtc7 :free fall:http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
> why is it all of you ct r's make massive assumptions?: "Proving that someone covered something up when you are forced to prove it to the people that covered it up in the first place, leaves you at a significant disadvantage. We know this already or this whole caper would have been blown wide open already. "
> you've yet to, if ever prove that allegation..
> as to the so called thermite, in the only test that was allegedly made ,the  sample was supposedly destroyed and cannot be taken as evidence.
> why?because the "experiment cannot be repeated.
> might want to check out the scientific method
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU REALLY NEED TO STOP GOING TO THOSE DEBWUNKER SITES LIKE 911/MYTHS
> 
> So could you please explain your understanding of the collapse of wtc 7
> from the NIST report
Click to expand...

 no need to, it's very simple :wtc7 is severly damaged by rubble,the foundation is damaged fire starts, burns for 8 hours as there is no water to fight the fire,the beam or beams holding up the cathedral ceiling of the 1st  floor weaken do to 8 hours of heating The EMPTY BUILDING COLLAPSES...NO DEATH OR INJURIES as the structure was evacuated hours earlier....think that about covers it .unless you can prove thermite or some other accelerant caused it?

btw that report is not from nist ,if you had read it ,you would have known that!


----------



## TakeAStepBack




----------



## TakeAStepBack

"Yeah, a building fell on it."


----------



## daws101

TakeAStepBack said:


> "Yeah, a building fell on it."


 sometimes there is fact in sarcasm!


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wtc7 :free fall:http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
> why is it all of you ct r's make massive assumptions?: "Proving that someone covered something up when you are forced to prove it to the people that covered it up in the first place, leaves you at a significant disadvantage. We know this already or this whole caper would have been blown wide open already. "
> you've yet to, if ever prove that allegation..
> as to the so called thermite, in the only test that was allegedly made ,the  sample was supposedly destroyed and cannot be taken as evidence.
> why?because the "experiment cannot be repeated.
> might want to check out the scientific method
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU REALLY NEED TO STOP GOING TO THOSE DEBWUNKER SITES LIKE 911/MYTHS
> 
> S
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> o could you please explain your understanding of the collapse of wtc 7
> from the NIST report
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no need to, it's very simple :wtc7 is severly damaged by rubble,the foundation is damaged
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yet another debwunker that does not even know the findings of NIST nad just keeps spewing the popular mechanics narrative...NIST determined that damage was not a significant factor in the collapse of wtc 7
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fire starts, burns for 8 hours
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> fires started on only a few floors and many hours later started on several other floors and the actual time on beam or area would burn for is far less than 8hrs once the office contents are burned in a area the fire diminishes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as there is no water to fight the fire
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sprinklers remained working on some floors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ,the beam or beams holding up the cathedral ceiling of the 1st  floor weaken do to 8 hours of heating
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it was one beam column 79 and it could not possible be heated directly for 8 hrs or caused the entire inner structure to collapse in seconds..and you can not prove this is even possible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The EMPTY BUILDING COLLAPSES...NO DEATH OR INJURIES as the structure was evacuated hours earlier....think that about covers it .unless you can prove thermite or some other accelerant caused it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> btw that report is not from nist ,if you had read it ,you would have known that!
Click to expand...


I have most certainly read the nist report and without question nist states damage from falling debris was not a significant factor in the collapse and the failure of column79 under any circumstances would of initiated the collapse sequence... you have no Idea what you are talking about


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU REALLY NEED TO STOP GOING TO THOSE DEBWUNKER SITES LIKE 911/MYTHS
> 
> S no need to, it's very simple :wtc7 is severly damaged by rubble,the foundation is damaged
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yet another debwunker that does not even know the findings of NIST nad just keeps spewing the popular mechanics narrative...NIST determined that damage was not a significant factor in the collapse of wtc 7
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fires started on only a few floors and many hours later started on several other floors and the actual time on beam or area would burn for is far less than 8hrs once the office contents are burned in a area the fire diminishes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sprinklers remained working on some floors
> 
> 
> 
> it was one beam column 79 and it could not possible be heated directly for 8 hrs or caused the entire inner structure to collapse in seconds..and you can not prove this is even possible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The EMPTY BUILDING COLLAPSES...NO DEATH OR INJURIES as the structure was evacuated hours earlier....think that about covers it .unless you can prove thermite or some other accelerant caused it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> btw that report is not from nist ,if you had read it ,you would have known that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have most certainly read the nist report and without question nist states damage from falling debris was not a significant factor in the collapse and the failure of column79 under any circumstances would of initiated the collapse sequence... you have no Idea what you are talking about
Click to expand...

nitiating Event & Vertical Progression
Initiating Event
&#56256;&#56457; First exterior sign of failure was at the east penthouse roofline,
aligned with interior columns 79, 80, and 81. Postulated
initiating events include the failure of these columns.
Vertical Progression
&#56256;&#56457; Columns 79, 80, and 81 supported large tributary areas for
floor spans of approximately 50 ft. Failure of column 79, 80, or
81 would likely result in failure at the floor-column connections
and would progress vertically up to the east penthouse. ok.... i don't

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse Final.pdf


nice dodge !


----------



## daws101

The city water main had been cut by the collapse of the two WTC Towers, so the sprinklers in Building 7 did not function for much of the bottom half of the building. Nevertheless, other tall office buildings have burned for as long or longer in similar fires without collapsing&#8212;when sprinklers either did not exist or were not functional.


http://wtc.nist.gov/media/opening_remarks_082108.html


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yet another debwunker that does not even know the findings of NIST nad just keeps spewing the popular mechanics narrative...NIST determined that damage was not a significant factor in the collapse of wtc 7
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fires started on only a few floors and many hours later started on several other floors and the actual time on beam or area would burn for is far less than 8hrs once the office contents are burned in a area the fire diminishes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sprinklers remained working on some floors
> 
> 
> 
> it was one beam column 79 and it could not possible be heated directly for 8 hrs or caused the entire inner structure to collapse in seconds..and you can not prove this is even possible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> btw that report is not from nist ,if you had read it ,you would have known that!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have most certainly read the nist report and without question nist states damage from falling debris was not a significant factor in the collapse and the failure of column79 under any circumstances would of initiated the collapse sequence... you have no Idea what you are talking about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nitiating Event & Vertical Progression
> Initiating Event
> &#65533;&#65533; First exterior sign of failure was at the east penthouse roofline,
> aligned with interior columns 79, 80, and 81. Postulated
> initiating events include the failure of these columns.
> Vertical Progression
> &#65533;&#65533; Columns 79, 80, and 81 supported large tributary areas for
> floor spans of approximately 50 ft. Failure of column 79, 80, or
> 81 would likely result in failure at the floor-column connections
> and would progress vertically up to the east penthouse. ok.... i don't
> 
> http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse Final.pdf
> 
> 
> nice dodge !
Click to expand...


you should really qoute the final report ..dont you think ?

the loss of WTC 7&#8217;s Column 79&#8212;the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse&#8212;would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column&#8217;s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have most certainly read the nist report and without question nist states damage from falling debris was not a significant factor in the collapse and the failure of column79 under any circumstances would of initiated the collapse sequence... you have no Idea what you are talking about
> 
> 
> 
> nitiating Event & Vertical Progression
> Initiating Event
> &#65533;&#65533; First exterior sign of failure was at the east penthouse roofline,
> aligned with interior columns 79, 80, and 81. Postulated
> initiating events include the failure of these columns.
> Vertical Progression
> &#65533;&#65533; Columns 79, 80, and 81 supported large tributary areas for
> floor spans of approximately 50 ft. Failure of column 79, 80, or
> 81 would likely result in failure at the floor-column connections
> and would progress vertically up to the east penthouse. ok.... i don't
> 
> http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse Final.pdf
> 
> 
> nice dodge !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you should really qoute the final report ..dont you think ?
> 
> the loss of WTC 7s Column 79the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapsewould still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the columns failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.
> 
> NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008
Click to expand...

MAYBE i SHOULD HAVE EITHER WAY ,YOU STILL HAVE NO EVIDENCE  PROVING THE USE OF THERMITE OR ANY OTHER ACCELERANT.
WITHOUT THAT, IT'S JUST MASTURBATION.


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> nitiating Event & Vertical Progression
> Initiating Event
> &#65533;&#65533; First exterior sign of failure was at the east penthouse roofline,
> aligned with interior columns 79, 80, and 81. Postulated
> initiating events include the failure of these columns.
> Vertical Progression
> &#65533;&#65533; Columns 79, 80, and 81 supported large tributary areas for
> floor spans of approximately 50 ft. Failure of column 79, 80, or
> 81 would likely result in failure at the floor-column connections
> and would progress vertically up to the east penthouse. ok.... i don't
> 
> http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse Final.pdf
> 
> 
> nice dodge !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you should really qoute the final report ..dont you think ?
> 
> the loss of WTC 7s Column 79the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapsewould still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the columns failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.
> 
> NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MAYBE i SHOULD HAVE EITHER WAY ,YOU STILL HAVE NO EVIDENCE  PROVING THE USE OF THERMITE OR ANY OTHER ACCELERANT.
> WITHOUT THAT, IT'S JUST MASTURBATION.
Click to expand...


So you stand corrected...


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> you should really qoute the final report ..dont you think ?
> 
> The loss of wtc 7s column 79the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapsewould still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby wtc 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the columns failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.
> 
> nist tech beat - november 20, 2008
> 
> 
> 
> maybe i should have either way ,you still have no evidence  proving the use of thermite or any other accelerant.
> Without that, it's just masturbation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you stand corrected...
Click to expand...

 no...but you do dodge well


----------



## Obamerican

daws101 said:


> The city water main had been cut by the collapse of the two WTC Towers, so the sprinklers in Building 7 did not function for much of the bottom half of the building. Nevertheless, other tall office buildings have burned for as long or longer in similar fires without collapsingwhen sprinklers either did not exist or were not functional.
> 
> 
> NIST and the World Trade Center : News and Events


Name another building where that is true about the fires PLUS had the entire front of the building sheared off by two 110 story buildings.


----------



## eots

Obamerican said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The city water main had been cut by the collapse of the two WTC Towers, so the sprinklers in Building 7 did not function for much of the bottom half of the building. Nevertheless, other tall office buildings have burned for as long or longer in similar fires without collapsing&#8212;when sprinklers either did not exist or were not functional.
> 
> 
> NIST and the World Trade Center : News and Events
> 
> 
> 
> Name another building where that is true about the fires PLUS had the entire front of the building sheared off by two 110 story buildings.
Click to expand...


what part of damage from falling debris played no significant role in the collapse is it you cant get through your head ?


----------



## Triton

C'mon, not another "the fires brought it down" claim.


How can you account for the manner of WTC 7's collapse?


No way could the amount of damage done to WTC 7,  even coupled with the fires caused by the debris, facilitate the manner of collapse that WTC 7 experienced.




But feel free to continue believing the official fable.


----------



## Obamerican

eots said:


> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The city water main had been cut by the collapse of the two WTC Towers, so the sprinklers in Building 7 did not function for much of the bottom half of the building. Nevertheless, other tall office buildings have burned for as long or longer in similar fires without collapsingwhen sprinklers either did not exist or were not functional.
> 
> 
> NIST and the World Trade Center : News and Events
> 
> 
> 
> Name another building where that is true about the fires PLUS had the entire front of the building sheared off by two 110 story buildings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what part of damage from falling debris played no significant role in the collapse is it you cant get through your head ?
Click to expand...

So, you do agree with the NIST report?


----------



## Obamerican

Triton said:


> C'mon, not another "the fires brought it down" claim.
> 
> 
> How can you account for the manner of WTC 7's collapse?
> 
> 
> No way could the amount of damage done to WTC 7,  even coupled with the fires caused by the debris, facilitate the manner of collapse that WTC 7 experienced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But feel free to continue believing the official fable.


And you got your engineering degree from..............................................?

I thought so. Begone loser.


----------



## eots

Obamerican said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name another building where that is true about the fires PLUS had the entire front of the building sheared off by two 110 story buildings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what part of damage from falling debris played no significant role in the collapse is it you cant get through your head ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you do agree with the NIST report?
Click to expand...


No, I unlike you know the theories of nist...you seem to have another theory in contradiction with both NIST and CD theories ,could you elaborate on this theory and how you reached your conclusions ?


----------



## Triton

Obamerican said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon, not another "the fires brought it down" claim.
> 
> 
> How can you account for the manner of WTC 7's collapse?
> 
> 
> No way could the amount of damage done to WTC 7,  even coupled with the fires caused by the debris, facilitate the manner of collapse that WTC 7 experienced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But feel free to continue believing the official fable.
> 
> 
> 
> And you got your engineering degree from..............................................?
> 
> I thought so. Begone loser.
Click to expand...



And who the hell are you?


----------



## Triton

Nice loser, produce nothing of substance. 


Keep trying to tell everyone the fires did it or whatever other bullshit you espouse


----------



## Obamerican

Triton said:


> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon, not another "the fires brought it down" claim.
> 
> 
> How can you account for the manner of WTC 7's collapse?
> 
> 
> No way could the amount of damage done to WTC 7,  even coupled with the fires caused by the debris, facilitate the manner of collapse that WTC 7 experienced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But feel free to continue believing the official fable.
> 
> 
> 
> And you got your engineering degree from..............................................?
> 
> I thought so. Begone loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And who the hell are you?
Click to expand...

Why should I answer to you? After reading your posts I can clearly see I have more knowledge of engineering than you. Don't be a sock puppet of Eots. You're better than that. I hope.


----------



## eots

Obamerican said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you got your engineering degree from..............................................?
> 
> I thought so. Begone loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And who the hell are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should I answer to you? After reading your posts I can clearly see I have more knowledge of engineering than you. Don't be a sock puppet of Eots. You're better than that. I hope.
Click to expand...


still waiting to hear your theory and how you arrived at it


----------



## TakeAStepBack

You're going to be waiting a long time. These folks believe the NIST report on the subject of wtc7. The report that changed numerous times and took 7 years to compile.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Obamerican said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The city water main had been cut by the collapse of the two WTC Towers, so the sprinklers in Building 7 did not function for much of the bottom half of the building. Nevertheless, other tall office buildings have burned for as long or longer in similar fires without collapsing&#8212;when sprinklers either did not exist or were not functional.
> 
> 
> NIST and the World Trade Center : News and Events
> 
> 
> 
> Name another building where that is true about the fires PLUS had the entire front of the building sheared off by two 110 story buildings.
Click to expand...


Why do you constantly lie and exaggerate this BS?  Why do you not get it through your head that even NIST says that the building would also have collapsed without any impact damage. 
Videos show that WTC7&#8242;s walls remained straight during most of its collapse. How can that be, when a massive internal collapse was said to be occurring prior to its global collapse??
Apart from a single graphic of the penthouse sinking in the roof, there are no models of the top of the building during the collapse in the scenario with impact damage.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, speculated that office fires caused the collapse of the building. It, however, acknowledged in its report in May 2002: "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. The best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence." 

Proponents of both hypotheses agree that the damage to WTC 7 sustained from the impact of debris from the collapse of the north tower (WTC 1) was not an initiating or determinative factor in the collapse. 

You should be questioning the BS report if you had any real engineering experience that you claim to have, hell..those of us who don't, can reasonably figure out what the problems and the discrepancies are about, according to the complaints of the independent researchers.

How did the building manage to achieve free fall acceleration again??
What removed the resistance for 8 stories?
What prompted the expert engineers at NIST to change their story about this yet again?
Why did the "facade" 47 story structure NOT show any signs of a massive _internal collapse_, only the "penthouse"?

For someone who boasts of structural engineering prowess, you seem totally clueless, or willfully ignorant about the problems within the NIST report(s), and fail to consider the complaints researchers and other accomplished engineers have with it, you even resort to wild exaggerations and fabrications about the collapse that even go against the NIST theory that you claim to agree with.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...of-world-trade-center-7-case-far-from-closed/


----------



## Rationalist1016

Mr. Jones said:


> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The city water main had been cut by the collapse of the two WTC Towers, so the sprinklers in Building 7 did not function for much of the bottom half of the building. Nevertheless, other tall office buildings have burned for as long or longer in similar fires without collapsingwhen sprinklers either did not exist or were not functional.
> 
> 
> NIST and the World Trade Center : News and Events
> 
> 
> 
> Name another building where that is true about the fires PLUS had the entire front of the building sheared off by two 110 story buildings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you constantly lie and exaggerate this BS?  Why do you not get it through your head that even NIST says that the building would also have collapsed without any impact damage.
> Videos show that WTC7&#8242;s walls remained straight during most of its collapse. How can that be, when a massive internal collapse was said to be occurring prior to its global collapse??
> Apart from a single graphic of the penthouse sinking in the roof, there are no models of the top of the building during the collapse in the scenario with impact damage.
> 
> The Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, speculated that office fires caused the collapse of the building. It, however, acknowledged in its report in May 2002: "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. The best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence."
> 
> Proponents of both hypotheses agree that the damage to WTC 7 sustained from the impact of debris from the collapse of the north tower (WTC 1) was not an initiating or determinative factor in the collapse.
> 
> You should be questioning the BS report if you had any real engineering experience that you claim to have, hell..those of us who don't, can reasonably figure out what the problems and the discrepancies are about, according to the complaints of the independent researchers.
> 
> How did the building manage to achieve free fall acceleration again??
> What removed the resistance for 8 stories?
> What prompted the expert engineers at NIST to change their story about this yet again?
> Why did the "facade" 47 story structure NOT show any signs of a massive _internal collapse_, only the "penthouse"?
> 
> For someone who boasts of structural engineering prowess, you seem totally clueless, or willfully ignorant about the problems within the NIST report(s), and fail to consider the complaints researchers and other accomplished engineers have with it, you even resort to wild exaggerations and fabrications about the collapse that even go against the NIST theory that you claim to agree with.
> 
> The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Case Far From Closed | Foreign Policy Journal
Click to expand...


I'm not going to question your stance on the NIST report, because I think it has plenty of flaws myself.
My question would be, what is your take on all the statements made by firefighters, police, etc..., that the building was "fully involved", "had the southwest corner taken out", "had a huge bulge on one side, starting at 13th floor", "was creaking & groaning"?

When you read all those quotes, by people that were there and saw this with there own eyes, it really goes against any claims that the building was not that damaged and had very few fires. It sounds like there were many people that knew early on, that building was in trouble.


----------



## eots

Rationalist1016 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name another building where that is true about the fires PLUS had the entire front of the building sheared off by two 110 story buildings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you constantly lie and exaggerate this BS?  Why do you not get it through your head that even NIST says that the building would also have collapsed without any impact damage.
> Videos show that WTC7&#8242;s walls remained straight during most of its collapse. How can that be, when a massive internal collapse was said to be occurring prior to its global collapse??
> Apart from a single graphic of the penthouse sinking in the roof, there are no models of the top of the building during the collapse in the scenario with impact damage.
> 
> The Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, speculated that office fires caused the collapse of the building. It, however, acknowledged in its report in May 2002: "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. The best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence."
> 
> Proponents of both hypotheses agree that the damage to WTC 7 sustained from the impact of debris from the collapse of the north tower (WTC 1) was not an initiating or determinative factor in the collapse.
> 
> You should be questioning the BS report if you had any real engineering experience that you claim to have, hell..those of us who don't, can reasonably figure out what the problems and the discrepancies are about, according to the complaints of the independent researchers.
> 
> How did the building manage to achieve free fall acceleration again??
> What removed the resistance for 8 stories?
> What prompted the expert engineers at NIST to change their story about this yet again?
> Why did the "facade" 47 story structure NOT show any signs of a massive _internal collapse_, only the "penthouse"?
> 
> For someone who boasts of structural engineering prowess, you seem totally clueless, or willfully ignorant about the problems within the NIST report(s), and fail to consider the complaints researchers and other accomplished engineers have with it, you even resort to wild exaggerations and fabrications about the collapse that even go against the NIST theory that you claim to agree with.
> 
> The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Case Far From Closed | Foreign Policy Journal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not going to question your stance on the NIST report, because I think it has plenty of flaws myself.
> My question would be, what is your take on all the statements made by firefighters, police, etc..., that the building was "fully involved", "had the southwest corner taken out", "had a huge bulge on one side, starting at 13th floor", "was creaking & groaning"?
> 
> When you read all those quotes, by people that were there and saw this with there own eyes, it really goes against any claims that the building was not that damaged and had very few fires. It sounds like there were many people that knew early on, that building was in trouble.
Click to expand...


there is one video of one unidentified firemen making the statements you claim
but there are many more that say the very opposite..some that were much closer to the building


----------



## Rationalist1016

eots said:


> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you constantly lie and exaggerate this BS?  Why do you not get it through your head that even NIST says that the building would also have collapsed without any impact damage.
> Videos show that WTC7&#8242;s walls remained straight during most of its collapse. How can that be, when a massive internal collapse was said to be occurring prior to its global collapse??
> Apart from a single graphic of the penthouse sinking in the roof, there are no models of the top of the building during the collapse in the scenario with impact damage.
> 
> The Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, speculated that office fires caused the collapse of the building. It, however, acknowledged in its report in May 2002: "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. The best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence."
> 
> Proponents of both hypotheses agree that the damage to WTC 7 sustained from the impact of debris from the collapse of the north tower (WTC 1) was not an initiating or determinative factor in the collapse.
> 
> You should be questioning the BS report if you had any real engineering experience that you claim to have, hell..those of us who don't, can reasonably figure out what the problems and the discrepancies are about, according to the complaints of the independent researchers.
> 
> How did the building manage to achieve free fall acceleration again??
> What removed the resistance for 8 stories?
> What prompted the expert engineers at NIST to change their story about this yet again?
> Why did the "facade" 47 story structure NOT show any signs of a massive _internal collapse_, only the "penthouse"?
> 
> For someone who boasts of structural engineering prowess, you seem totally clueless, or willfully ignorant about the problems within the NIST report(s), and fail to consider the complaints researchers and other accomplished engineers have with it, you even resort to wild exaggerations and fabrications about the collapse that even go against the NIST theory that you claim to agree with.
> 
> The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Case Far From Closed | Foreign Policy Journal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to question your stance on the NIST report, because I think it has plenty of flaws myself.
> My question would be, what is your take on all the statements made by firefighters, police, etc..., that the building was "fully involved", "had the southwest corner taken out", "had a huge bulge on one side, starting at 13th floor", "was creaking & groaning"?
> 
> When you read all those quotes, by people that were there and saw this with there own eyes, it really goes against any claims that the building was not that damaged and had very few fires. It sounds like there were many people that knew early on, that building was in trouble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there is one video of one unidentified firemen making the statements you claim
> but there are many more that say the very opposite..some that were much closer to the building
Click to expand...


Well, I wasn't referring to videos.  Not everything is videotaped.  I was referring to published quotes.
Here are a couple examples:

1.  We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors.  FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110081.PDF

2.  ...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down.  FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110447.PDF

3.  I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, were moving the command post over this way, that buildings coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasnt bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up  and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run. FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti  http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visconti.html

4.  All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn, which we couldn't do anything about because it was so much chaos looking for missing members. Firefighter Marcel Klaes http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110018.PDF

5.  When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories. 
FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)

6.  The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. Captain Robert Sohmer   http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110472.PDF

7.  Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring. FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110207.PDF

8.  At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down.  Firefighter Vincent Massa
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110222.PDF

9.  Chief Cruthers told me that they had formed another command post up on Chambers Street. At this point there were a couple of floors burning on Seven World Trade Center. Chief McNally wanted to try and put that fire out, and he was trying to coordinate with the command post up on Chambers Street. This is after searching for a while. He had me running back and forth trying to get companies to go into Seven World Trade Center. His radio didn't seem to be working right either because he had me relaying information back and forth and Chief Cruthers had me --

Q. So everything was face-to-face? Nothing was by radio?

A. Yeah, and it was really in disarray. It really was in complete disarray. We never really got an operation going at Seven World Trade Center. FDNY Captain Michael Donovan
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110205.PDF

10.  Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade  www.thememoryhole.org / server maintenance  page 48.

11.  At Vesey St. and West St., I could see that 7 WTC was ablaze and damaged, along with other buildings. 
M. DeFilippis, PAPD P.O. www.thememoryhole.org / server maintenance  page 49

[Note: the fires in 7 were probably not mainly due to damage from the south tower, but from the north.]
12.  So yeah then we just stayed on Vesey until building Seven came down. There was nothing we could do. The flames were coming out of every window of that building from the explosion of the south tower. So then building Seven came down. When that started coming down you heard that pancaking sound again everyone jumped up and starts.

Q: Why was building Seven on fire? Was that flaming debris from tower two, from tower two that fell onto that building and lit it on fire?

A: Correct. Because it really got going, that building Seven, saw it late in the day and like the first Seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building. There were pieces of tower two [sic: he probably means tower one] in building Seven and the corners of the building missing and whatnot.  But just looking up at it from ground level however many stories -- it was 40 some odd -- you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, thats an entire block. Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110413.PDF

13.  "We were down about a block from the base of the World Trade Center towers about an hour ago. And there was a great deal of concern at that time, the firemen said building number 7 was going to collapse, building number five was in danger of collapsing. And there's so little they can do to try to fight the fires in these buildings, because the fires are so massive. And so much of the buildings continues to fall into the street. When you're down there, Dan, you hear smaller secondary explosions going off every 15 or 20 minutes, and so it's an extremely dangerous place to be."
CBS-TV News Reporter  Vince DeMentri  http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.secondary.explosions.wmv

14.  Well, they said that's (7) fully involved at this time. This was a fully involved building. I said, all right, they're not coming for us for a while. Now you're trapped in this rubble, and you're trying to get a grasp of an idea of what's going on there. I heard on the handy talky that we are now fighting a 40-story building fully involved. 

Now you're trapped in the rubble and the guys who are there are fighting the worst high-rise fire in the history of New York or history of the world, probably, I don't know, 40, story building fully involved, I guess that was probably the worst. 

I was, needless to say, scared to death that something else was going to fall on us, that this building was going to come down and we were all going to die, after surviving the worst of it. [Note: I deleted the link this account, and searching the net for the text doesnt turn up anything. This sounds like an account from north tower stairwell B survivor. Anyone who knows for sure, let me know.]

15.  And 7 World Trade was burning up at the time. We could see it. ... the fire at 7 World Trade was working its way from the front of the building northbound to the back of the building. There was no way there could be water put on it, because there was no water in the area. Firefighter Eugene Kelty Jr.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110261.PDF

16.  The time was approximately 11a.m. Both of the WTC towers were collapsed and the streets were covered with debris. Building #7 was still standing but burning. ...We spoke to with a FDNY Chief who has his men holed up in the US Post Office building. He informed us that the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent. There were no fires inside the loading dock (of 7) at this time but we could hear explosions deep inside. PAPD P.O. William Connors  www.thememoryhole.org / server maintenance page 69

17.  "There's number Seven World Trade. That's the OEM bunker." We had a snicker about that. We looked over, and it's engulfed in flames and starting to collapse.
We're kind of caught in traffic and people and things, and everything's going on. We hear over the fire portable, "Everybody evacuate the site. It's going to collapse." Mark Steffens starts yelling, "Get out of here! Get out of here! Get out of here! We've got to go! We've got to go! It's going to collapse." I turned around, and I piped up real loud and said, "Stay in the frigging car. Roll the windows up. It's pancake collapsing. We'll be fine. The debris will quit and the cloud will come through. Just stay in the car." We pulled the car over, turned around and just watched it pancake. We had a dust cloud but nothing like it was before. Paramedic Louis Cook  http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110103.PDF

Building 7 fire makes rescuer of NT stairwell victims route impassable (just before collapse):
I remember it was bad and I'm going to get to a point where we came back that way on the way up. We couldn't even go that way, that's how bad the fire was, but by the time I was coming back it was rolling, more than a couple of floors, just fully involved, rolling. 
...So now it's us 4 and we are walking towards it and I remember it would have at one point been an easier path to go towards our right, but being building 7 -- that must have been building 7 I'm guessing with that fire, we decided to stay away from that because things were just crackling, falling and whatnot. 
So as Im going back, that fire that was on my right is now on my left. Im backtracking and that fire is really going and on the hike towards there, we put down our masks, which at this point started to realize maybe it would have been good thing if we had this mask on the way back, but then again between the fire and about halfway when I was on the way back, I got a radio call from the guys that we left and it was Johnny Colon the chauffeur of 43, who was effecting a different rescue. He was carrying somebody out. 
He had called me and said Hey Jerry dont try and get back out the way you went in which was big heads up move because he said that building was rolling on top of the building that we were passing. That building was on fire and likely to collapse more too.
Between Picciotto asking me are you sure we can get out this way because it really didnt look good with that fire and my guy telling me that you better not because of the area we crawled in was unattainable now too. ...we started going back the other way.
Q: Would that be towards West Street?
A: That would have been back towards what I know is the Winter Garden....[west]
Firefighter Gerard Suden http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110022.PDF

18.  I remember Chief Hayden saying to me, "We have a six-story building over there, a seven-story building, fully involved." At that time he said, "7 has got fire on several floors." He said, "We've got a ten-story over there, another ten-story over there, a six-story over there, a 13-story over there." He just looked at me and said, "Fuck 'em all. Let 'em burn." He said, "Just tell the guys to keep looking for guys. Just keep looking for the brothers. We've got people trapped. We've got to get them out." Lieutenant William Ryan http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110117.PDF

19.  I walked around the building to get back to the command post and that's when they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down. ...They had three floors of fire on three separate floors, probably 10, 11 and 15 it looked like, just burning merrily. It was pretty amazing, you know, it's the afternoon in lower Manhattan, a major high-rise is burning, and they said 'we know.'  FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110055.PDF

20.  We were champing at the bit," says WCBS-TV reporter Vince DeMentri of his decision to sneak behind police barricades and report from 7 World Trade Center a half-hour before it collapsed. "I knew the story was in there." But after he and his cameraman slipped past officers, they lost all sense of direction. "From outside this zone, you could figure out where everything was," he says. "But inside, it was all destruction and blown-out buildings, and we had no clue. I walked into one building, but I had no idea where I was. The windows were all blown out. Computers, desks, furniture, and people's possessions were strewn all over." He found a picture of a little girl lying in the rubble. Then he realized that No. 7, aflame, was about fifteen to twenty feet ahead of him. "I looked up Barclay Street," he says. "There was nobody out. No bodies, no injured. Nobody. There were mounds of burning debris. It was like opening a broiler." The Longest Week


----------



## daws101

Mr. Jones said:


> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The city water main had been cut by the collapse of the two WTC Towers, so the sprinklers in Building 7 did not function for much of the bottom half of the building. Nevertheless, other tall office buildings have burned for as long or longer in similar fires without collapsingwhen sprinklers either did not exist or were not functional.
> 
> 
> NIST and the World Trade Center : News and Events
> 
> 
> 
> Name another building where that is true about the fires PLUS had the entire front of the building sheared off by two 110 story buildings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you constantly lie and exaggerate this BS?  Why do you not get it through your head that even NIST says that the building would also have collapsed without any impact damage.
> Videos show that WTC7&#8242;s walls remained straight during most of its collapse. How can that be, when a massive internal collapse was said to be occurring prior to its global collapse??
> Apart from a single graphic of the penthouse sinking in the roof, there are no models of the top of the building during the collapse in the scenario with impact damage.
> 
> The Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, speculated that office fires caused the collapse of the building. It, however, acknowledged in its report in May 2002: "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. The best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence."
> 
> Proponents of both hypotheses agree that the damage to WTC 7 sustained from the impact of debris from the collapse of the north tower (WTC 1) was not an initiating or determinative factor in the collapse.
> 
> You should be questioning the BS report if you had any real engineering experience that you claim to have, hell..those of us who don't, can reasonably figure out what the problems and the discrepancies are about, according to the complaints of the independent researchers.
> 
> How did the building manage to achieve free fall acceleration again??
> What removed the resistance for 8 stories?
> What prompted the expert engineers at NIST to change their story about this yet again?
> Why did the "facade" 47 story structure NOT show any signs of a massive _internal collapse_, only the "penthouse"?
> 
> For someone who boasts of structural engineering prowess, you seem totally clueless, or willfully ignorant about the problems within the NIST report(s), and fail to consider the complaints researchers and other accomplished engineers have with it, you even resort to wild exaggerations and fabrications about the collapse that even go against the NIST theory that you claim to agree with.
> 
> The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Case Far From Closed | Foreign Policy Journal
Click to expand...

 talk about bs that link is is just more no credibility Babel  now if it had been for MITor any good tech school you might have something.


----------



## daws101

I take it that very few if any of you twoofers have any construction or engineering experience?


----------



## eots

Rationalist1016 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to question your stance on the NIST report, because I think it has plenty of flaws myself.
> My question would be, what is your take on all the statements made by firefighters, police, etc..., that the building was "fully involved", "had the southwest corner taken out", "had a huge bulge on one side, starting at 13th floor", "was creaking & groaning"?
> 
> When you read all those quotes, by people that were there and saw this with there own eyes, it really goes against any claims that the building was not that damaged and had very few fires. It sounds like there were many people that knew early on, that building was in trouble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is one video of one unidentified firemen making the statements you claim
> but there are many more that say the very opposite..some that were much closer to the building
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I wasn't referring to videos.  Not everything is videotaped.  I was referring to published quotes.
> Here are a couple examples:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors.  FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110081.PDF
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> video evidence clearly shows fires were not on all floors and there is no claim of bulges or leaning
> 
> 
> 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down.  FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110447.PDF
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> still no bulge or lean
> 
> 
> 3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, were moving the command post over this way, that buildings coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasnt bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up  and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run. FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti  http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visconti.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> again not accurate, we know the fires were not on all floors and NIST makes no claim that they were and still no lean no bulge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn, which we couldn't do anything about because it was so much chaos looking for missing members. Firefighter Marcel Klaes http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110018.PDF
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> says nothing of relevance
> 
> 5.  When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
> FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)
> 
> 
> not according to NIST or video evidence
> 
> 
> 6.  The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. Captain Robert Sohmer   http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110472.PDF
> 
> no lean no bulge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7.  Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring. FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly.
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110207.PDF
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not safe does not mean it is going to fall completely in secs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8.  At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down.  Firefighter Vincent Massa
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110222.PDF
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> come down does not mean a complete collapse in secs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9.  Chief Cruthers told me that they had formed another command post up on Chambers Street. *At this point there were a couple of floors burning on Seven World Trade Center*. Chief McNally wanted to try and put that fire out, and he was trying to coordinate with the command post up on Chambers Street. This is after searching for a while. He had me running back and forth trying to get companies to go into Seven World Trade Center. His radio didn't seem to be working right either because he had me relaying information back and forth and Chief Cruthers had me --
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q. So everything was face-to-face? Nothing was by radio?
> 
> A. Yeah, and it was really in disarray. It really was in complete disarray. We never really got an operation going at Seven World Trade Center. FDNY Captain Michael Donovan
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110205.PDF
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so ?
> 
> 10.  Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time *we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. *PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade  www.thememoryhole.org / server maintenance  page 48.
> 
> what fire chief ? where did he get this information ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 11.  At Vesey St. and West St., I could see that 7 WTC was ablaze and damaged, along with other buildings.
> M. DeFilippis, PAPD P.O. www.thememoryhole.org / server maintenance  page 49
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so ?
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note: the fires in 7 were probably not mainly due to damage from the south tower, but from the north.]
> 12.  So yeah then we just stayed on Vesey until building Seven came down. There was nothing we could do. The flames were coming out of every window of that building from the explosion of the south tower. So then building Seven came down. When that started coming down you heard that pancaking sound again everyone jumped up and starts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> pancaking sound ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q: Why was building Seven on fire? Was that flaming debris from tower two, from tower two that fell onto that building and lit it on fire?
> 
> A: Correct. Because it really got going, that building Seven, saw it late in the day and like the first Seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building. There were pieces of tower two [sic: he probably means tower one] in building Seven and the corners of the building missing and whatnot.  But just looking up at it from ground level however many stories -- it was 40 some odd -- you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, thats an entire block. Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110413.PDF
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so ?
> 
> 
> 
> 13.  "We were down about a block from the base of the World Trade Center towers about an hour ago. And there was a great deal of concern at that time, the firemen said building number 7 was going to collapse, building number five was in danger of collapsing. And there's so little they can do to try to fight the fires in these buildings, because the fires are so massive. And so much of the buildings continues to fall into the street. When you're down there, Dan, y*ou hear smaller secondary explosions going off every 15 or 20 minutes, and so it's an extremely dangerous place to be."*CBS-TV News Reporter  Vince DeMentri  http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.secondary.explosions.wmv
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 14.  Well, they said that's (7) fully involved at this time. This was a fully involved building. I said, all right, they're not coming for us for a while. Now you're trapped in this rubble, and you're trying to get a grasp of an idea of what's going on there. I heard on the handy talky that we are now fighting a 40-story building fully involved.
> 
> Now you're trapped in the rubble and the guys who are there are fighting the worst high-rise fire in the history of New York or history of the world, probably, I don't know, 40, story building fully involved, I guess that was probably the worst.
> 
> I was, needless to say, scared to death that something else was going to fall on us, that this building was going to come down and we were all going to die, after surviving the worst of it. [Note: I deleted the link this account, and searching the net for the text doesnt turn up anything. This sounds like an account from north tower stairwell B survivor. Anyone who knows for sure, let me know.]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> 15.  And 7 World Trade was burning up at the time. We could see it. ... the fire at 7 World Trade was working its way from the front of the building northbound to the back of the building. There was no way there could be water put on it, because there was no water in the area. Firefighter Eugene Kelty Jr.
> 
> 
> 
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110261.PDF
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 16.  The time was approximately 11a.m. Both of the WTC towers were collapsed and the streets were covered with debris. Building #7 was still standing but burning. ...We spoke to with a FDNY Chief who has his men holed up in the US Post Office building. He informed us that the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent. There were no fires inside the loading dock (of 7) at this time but *we could hear explosions deep inside*. PAPD P.O. William Connors  www.thememoryhole.org / server maintenance page 69
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 17.  "There's number Seven World Trade. That's the OEM bunker." We had a snicker about that. We looked over, and it's engulfed in flames and starting to collapse.
> We're kind of caught in traffic and people and things, and everything's going on. We hear over the fire portable, "Everybody evacuate the site. It's going to collapse." Mark Steffens starts yelling, "Get out of here! Get out of here! Get out of here! We've got to go! We've got to go! It's going to collapse." I turned around, and I piped up real loud and said, "Stay in the frigging car. Roll the windows up. It's pancake collapsing. We'll be fine. The debris will quit and the cloud will come through. Just stay in the car." We pulled the car over, turned around and just watched it pancake. We had a dust cloud but nothing like it was before. Paramedic Louis Cook  http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110103.PDF
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> 
> 
> Building 7 fire makes rescuer of NT stairwell victims route impassable (just before collapse):
> I remember it was bad and I'm going to get to a point where we came back that way on the way up. We couldn't even go that way, that's how bad the fire was, but by the time I was coming back it was rolling, more than a couple of floors, just fully involved, rolling.
> ...So now it's us 4 and we are walking towards it and I remember it would have at one point been an easier path to go towards our right, but being building 7 -- that must have been building 7 I'm guessing with that fire, we decided to stay away from that because things were just crackling, falling and whatnot.
> So as Im going back, that fire that was on my right is now on my left. Im backtracking and that fire is really going and on the hike towards there, we put down our masks, which at this point started to realize maybe it would have been good thing if we had this mask on the way back, but then again between the fire and about halfway when I was on the way back, I got a radio call from the guys that we left and it was Johnny Colon the chauffeur of 43, who was effecting a different rescue. He was carrying somebody out.
> He had called me and said Hey Jerry dont try and get back out the way you went in which was big heads up move because he said that building was rolling on top of the building that we were passing. That building was on fire and likely to collapse more too.
> Between Picciotto asking me are you sure we can get out this way because it really didnt look good with that fire and my guy telling me that you better not because of the area we crawled in was unattainable now too. ...we started going back the other way.
> Q: Would that be towards West Street?
> A: That would have been back towards what I know is the Winter Garden....[west]
> Firefighter Gerard Suden http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110022.PDF
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 18.  I remember Chief Hayden saying to me, "We have a six-story building over there, a seven-story building, fully involved." At that time he said, "7 has got *fire on several floors." *He said, "We've got a ten-story over there, another ten-story over there, a six-story over there, a 13-story over there." He just looked at me and said, "Fuck 'em all. Let 'em burn." He said, "Just tell the guys to keep looking for guys. Just keep looking for the brothers. We've got people trapped. We've got to get them out." Lieutenant William Ryan http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110117.PDF
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 19.  I walked around the building to get back to the command post and that's when they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down. ...They had three floors of fire on three separate floors, p*probably 10, 11 and 15 it looked like, just burning merrily.* It was pretty amazing, you know, it's the afternoon in lower Manhattan, a major high-rise is burning, and they said 'we know.'  FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110055.PDF
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 20.  We were champing at the bit," says WCBS-TV reporter Vince DeMentri of his decision to sneak behind police barricades and report from 7 World Trade Center a half-hour before it collapsed. "I knew the story was in there." But after he and his cameraman slipped past officers, they lost all sense of direction. "From outside this zone, you could figure out where everything was," he says. "But inside, it was all destruction and blown-out buildings, and we had no clue. I walked into one building, but I had no idea where I was. The windows were all blown out. Computers, desks, furniture, and people's possessions were strewn all over." He found a picture of a little girl lying in the rubble. Then he realized that No. 7, aflame, was about fifteen to twenty feet ahead of him. "I looked up Barclay Street," he says. "There was nobody out. No bodies, no injured. Nobody. There were mounds of burning debris. It was like opening a broiler." The Longest Week
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



so where are all these reports of budging and leaning ???


----------



## daws101

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf
page 68


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf
> page 68



you have something you wish to say ?


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNWkTyT6r3A]&#x202a;WTC 7 EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dNR6coGRTI]&#x202a;fires WTC7, CBS-Net Dub7 14.avi&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Szgj5yUSdc&NR=1]&#x202a;Vince Dementri at WTC7, CBS-Net Dub7 08.avi&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4vI1DVjQ0M]&#x202a;Firefighters for 9/11 Truth - Erik Lawyer Speaks&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Rationalist1016

eots said:


> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is one video of one unidentified firemen making the statements you claim
> but there are many more that say the very opposite..some that were much closer to the building
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I wasn't referring to videos.  Not everything is videotaped.  I was referring to published quotes.
> Here are a couple examples:
> 
> 
> 
> video evidence clearly shows fires were not on all floors and there is no claim of bulges or leaning
> 
> 
> 2.
> 
> still no bulge or lean
> 
> 
> 3.
> 
> again not accurate, we know the fires were not on all floors and NIST makes no claim that they were and still no lean no bulge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> says nothing of relevance
> 
> 5.  When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
> FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)
> 
> 
> not according to NIST or video evidence
> 
> 
> 6.  The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. Captain Robert Sohmer   http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110472.PDF
> 
> no lean no bulge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not safe does not mean it is going to fall completely in secs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> come down does not mean a complete collapse in secs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so ?
> 
> 10.  Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time *we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. *PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade  www.thememoryhole.org / server maintenance  page 48.
> 
> what fire chief ? where did he get this information ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so ?
> 
> [
> 
> pancaking sound ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> 
> ????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 20.  We were champing at the bit," says WCBS-TV reporter Vince DeMentri of his decision to sneak behind police barricades and report from 7 World Trade Center a half-hour before it collapsed. "I knew the story was in there." But after he and his cameraman slipped past officers, they lost all sense of direction. "From outside this zone, you could figure out where everything was," he says. "But inside, it was all destruction and blown-out buildings, and we had no clue. I walked into one building, but I had no idea where I was. The windows were all blown out. Computers, desks, furniture, and people's possessions were strewn all over." He found a picture of a little girl lying in the rubble. Then he realized that No. 7, aflame, was about fifteen to twenty feet ahead of him. "I looked up Barclay Street," he says. "There was nobody out. No bodies, no injured. Nobody. There were mounds of burning debris. It was like opening a broiler." The Longest Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so where are all these reports of budging and leaning ???
Click to expand...


First of all, lets get our facts straight.  I didn't say ANYTHING about "leaning".  So, don't ask me to defend something that I didn't say.

Here is the quote about the bulge:

*7 World Trade Center was roaring. I remember being pulled off the pile like just before. It wasn't just before. It was probably an hour before 7 came down. Firefighter Kevin Howe
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPIC/9110469.PDF
Hayden: By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse.  You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 oclock in the afternoon, but by about 2 oclock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."*

Now, I wasn't looking for commentary on EACH quote.
My original question was actually posed to Mr. Jones.  Because we have had some rational conversations in the past, and I was looking for another one.
What I am asking is, with all the claims by people on the scene, that say they knew early on that WTC7 was in serious trouble, what effect does this have on your thoughts of how the building collapsed.

I only posted a few of the quotes.  There are many, many more.  If you are interested in reading them, they are located here: eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires - wtc7lies

I'm not asking if you agree with everything in that document, just what the quotes of all these people do to your opinion of what happened? I reference this doc because most of the quotes have a link to where they came from.


----------



## eots

Rationalist1016 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I wasn't referring to videos.  Not everything is videotaped.  I was referring to published quotes.
> Here are a couple examples:
> 
> 
> 
> video evidence clearly shows fires were not on all floors and there is no claim of bulges or leaning
> 
> 
> 2.
> 
> still no bulge or lean
> 
> 
> 3.
> 
> again not accurate, we know the fires were not on all floors and NIST makes no claim that they were and still no lean no bulge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> says nothing of relevance
> 
> 5.  When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
> &#8211;FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)
> 
> 
> not according to NIST or video evidence
> 
> 
> 6.  The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. &#8211;Captain Robert Sohmer   http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110472.PDF
> 
> no lean no bulge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not safe does not mean it is going to fall completely in secs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> come down does not mean a complete collapse in secs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so ?
> 
> 10.  Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time *we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. *&#8211;PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade  www.thememoryhole.org / server maintenance  page 48.
> 
> what fire chief ? where did he get this information ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so ?
> 
> [
> 
> pancaking sound ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> 
> ????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so where are all these reports of budging and leaning ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, lets get our facts straight.  I didn't say ANYTHING about "leaning".  So, don't ask me to defend something that I didn't say.
> 
> Here is the quote about the bulge:
> 
> *7 World Trade Center was roaring. I remember being pulled off the pile like just before. It wasn't just before. It was probably an hour before 7 came down. &#8211;Firefighter Kevin Howe
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPIC/9110469.PDF
> Hayden: By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse.  You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o&#8217;clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o&#8217;clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."*
> 
> Now, I wasn't looking for commentary on EACH quote.
> My original question was actually posed to Mr. Jones.  Because we have had some rational conversations in the past, and I was looking for another one.
> What I am asking is, with all the claims by people on the scene, that say they knew early on that WTC7 was in serious trouble, what effect does this have on your thoughts of how the building collapsed.
> 
> I only posted a few of the quotes.  There are many, many more.  If you are interested in reading them, they are located here: eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires - wtc7lies
> 
> I'm not asking if you agree with everything in that document, just what the quotes of all these people do to your opinion of what happened? I reference this doc because most of the quotes have a link to where they came from.
Click to expand...


there is a lot of testimony from first responders that conflicts with these statements, as well many  of these statements are in conflict with NISTs column 79  Theory..so it does not really support the NIST theory or the symmetrical nature  and speed of the collapse...because someone states in was dangeroues or there was danger of collapse does not mean they expected a 47 story building to collapse completely at near free-fall speed ,that would be a ridiculous assumption to make....btw your one quote of this bulge is the same one in the video


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZNQq7XBLwc]&#x202a;9/11: EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY EXCLUSIVE Mark Basile Chemical Engineer.m4v&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEQ1X7cN0So&feature=related]&#x202a;Robert McCoy (Architect) - "9/11 Explosive Evidence - Experts speak out" (AE911TRUTH) - Part 1/2&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots

"Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? . . . NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel." -- NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has had considerable difficulty determining a politically correct sequence of events for the unprecedented destruction of three World Trade Center (WTC) buildings on 9/11 (Douglas 2006, Ryan 2006, Gourley 2007). But despite a number of variations in NIST&#8217;s story, it never considered explosives or pyrotechnic materials in any of its hypotheses. This omission is at odds with several other striking facts; first, the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics, and second, the extensive experience NIST investigators have with explosive and thermite materials.
The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf
> page 68
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you have something you wish to say ?
Click to expand...

no need the report is self explanatory


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> &#x202a;WTC 7 EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube


 it's odd how only the eyewitness that seem to count are the ones that you deem acceptable.
stranger still all of the twoofer witnesses  have no credible hard evidence to back them up.
As any one who has ever been in court knows that eye and ear wittiness testimony is useless with out physical to bolster it.


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> &#x202a;9/11: EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY EXCLUSIVE Mark Basile Chemical Engineer.m4v&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube


 a and e for truth  the laughing stock of the engineering community.
no futher comment needed!


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> "Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? . . . NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel." -- NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006
> 
> The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has had considerable difficulty determining a politically correct sequence of events for the unprecedented destruction of three World Trade Center (WTC) buildings on 9/11 (Douglas 2006, Ryan 2006, Gourley 2007). But despite a number of variations in NISTs story, it never considered explosives or pyrotechnic materials in any of its hypotheses. This omission is at odds with several other striking facts; first, the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics, and second, the extensive experience NIST investigators have with explosive and thermite materials.
> The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites


----------



## daws101

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf

pages 37 - 39


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf
> 
> pages 37 - 39



page 1
you are retarded..


----------



## Obamerican

Page 2

Eots: see page 1


----------



## Obamerican

eots said:


> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who the hell are you?
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I answer to you? After reading your posts I can clearly see I have more knowledge of engineering than you. Don't be a sock puppet of Eots. You're better than that. I hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> still waiting to hear your theory and how you arrived at it
Click to expand...

Answer my original question. YOU are the one that is always saying that a tall building with steel beams WILL NOT collapse due to fire. My question is this:

Name another building where there was intense heat from fire PLUS the structural integrity of the building was compromised by the entire front of the building being sheared off by a 450,000 ton building hitting it?

Answer that question and we'll move on to the next part of "my theory" on what happened.

My money is you won't answer a simple, straight forward question.


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8]&#x202a;Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Mr. Jones

Obamerican said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I answer to you? After reading your posts I can clearly see I have more knowledge of engineering than you. Don't be a sock puppet of Eots. You're better than that. I hope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> still waiting to hear your theory and how you arrived at it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answer my original question. YOU are the one that is always saying that a tall building with steel beams WILL NOT collapse due to fire. My question is this:
> 
> Name another building where there was intense heat from fire PLUS the structural integrity of the building was compromised by the entire front of the building being sheared off by a 450,000 ton building hitting it?
> 
> Answer that question and we'll move on to the next part of "my theory" on what happened.
> 
> My money is you won't answer a simple, straight forward question.
Click to expand...

I think some of the smaller WTC complex buildings had bore the brunt of the towers more then 7 did, yet did not globally collapse. Regardless, If I'm wrong could you please provide any evidence of what you claim?
Specifically, Quote-" *the entire front* of the building being sheared off by a 450,000 ton building hitting it?"

As for the testimony that Rationalist1016 provides us, whether on video, or in the press, about the 7 building's, imminent collapse, creaking, bulging, etc..it does not add up to what was on any of the videos that NIST used for their fantastically flawed computer model, and hypothesis on the collapse.
Not only that, but it is more in line to what _should_ have been a more reasonable outcome, mainly that the parts of the building experiencing these problems, and symptoms, partially collapsing, or giving way in a staggered manner.
Not the sudden and unexpected global collapse, producing free fall acceleration for 100 ft.

If stress was a factor on parts of the building, specifically the parts that were damaged by any WTC tower debris, producing the noises, is it not reasonable to think those parts would succumb first, and the building collapse in a more awkward manner? Surely we wouldn't expect to see the building collapse as clean as a controlled demolition.

One question I had before NISTs final report, but still applies today is, how was it possible to have certain knowledge of the building's demise before it collapsed, but be completely in the dark about how it happened after the building collapsed? How do you know an unprecedented event is going to occur prior to its happening, but not have any clue as to why it happened afterward? 

 As Shyam Sunder stated in 2006, 'But truthfully, I dont really know. Weve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.

And NIST still never explained the total collapse in their "final" report. They admit free-fall acceleration, but don't alter their conclusion. Amazing and criminal lack of scientific method! We owe the 343 firefighters who died that day a much better explanation than NIST's pathetic failure. 
NIST does not support scientific proof by virtue of its secret computer modeling. To be scientifically correct, they would have to supply others with this model to be proven by repeatability. 

NIST= Not Interested In Seeking Truth 

And again, I am waiting to see the evidence of the _*entire front *_of WTC 7 being sheared off by the "450,000 ton tower".


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaO2fON1H98]&#x202a;Why didn&#39;t WTC 5 collapse, or WTC 6 for that matter&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## TakeAStepBack

"And again, I am waiting to see the evidence of the entire front of WTC 7 being sheared off by the "450,000 ton tower".

Not only that, but the amount of material that pulverized into fine particle dust loses its weight value. Which is to say, 450,000 didn't shear off anything. It's an illogical and from the poster, a dishonest suggestion.


----------



## Obamerican

eots said:


> &#x202a;Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube


This is the answer I expected from you. Idiot.


----------



## Obamerican

Mr. Jones said:


> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> still waiting to hear your theory and how you arrived at it
> 
> 
> 
> Answer my original question. YOU are the one that is always saying that a tall building with steel beams WILL NOT collapse due to fire. My question is this:
> 
> Name another building where there was intense heat from fire PLUS the structural integrity of the building was compromised by the entire front of the building being sheared off by a 450,000 ton building hitting it?
> 
> Answer that question and we'll move on to the next part of "my theory" on what happened.
> 
> My money is you won't answer a simple, straight forward question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think some of the smaller WTC complex buildings had bore the brunt of the towers more then 7 did, yet did not globally collapse. Regardless, If I'm wrong could you please provide any evidence of what you claim?
> Specifically, Quote-" *the entire front* of the building being sheared off by a 450,000 ton building hitting it?"
> 
> As for the testimony that Rationalist1016 provides us, whether on video, or in the press, about the 7 building's, imminent collapse, creaking, bulging, etc..it does not add up to what was on any of the videos that NIST used for their fantastically flawed computer model, and hypothesis on the collapse.
> Not only that, but it is more in line to what _should_ have been a more reasonable outcome, mainly that the parts of the building experiencing these problems, and symptoms, partially collapsing, or giving way in a staggered manner.
> Not the sudden and unexpected global collapse, producing free fall acceleration for 100 ft.
> 
> If stress was a factor on parts of the building, specifically the parts that were damaged by any WTC tower debris, producing the noises, is it not reasonable to think those parts would succumb first, and the building collapse in a more awkward manner? Surely we wouldn't expect to see the building collapse as clean as a controlled demolition.
> 
> One question I had before NISTs final report, but still applies today is, how was it possible to have certain knowledge of the building's demise before it collapsed, but be completely in the dark about how it happened after the building collapsed? How do you know an unprecedented event is going to occur prior to its happening, but not have any clue as to why it happened afterward?
> 
> As Shyam Sunder stated in 2006, 'But truthfully, I dont really know. Weve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.
> 
> And NIST still never explained the total collapse in their "final" report. They admit free-fall acceleration, but don't alter their conclusion. Amazing and criminal lack of scientific method! We owe the 343 firefighters who died that day a much better explanation than NIST's pathetic failure.
> NIST does not support scientific proof by virtue of its secret computer modeling. To be scientifically correct, they would have to supply others with this model to be proven by repeatability.
> 
> NIST= Not Interested In Seeking Truth
> 
> And again, I am waiting to see the evidence of the _*entire front *_of WTC 7 being sheared off by the "450,000 ton tower".
Click to expand...

"Entire front" may have been poor wording on my part. Here is the point I was trying to make.

Between the front of the building being hit by the main towers, the fires and the odd construction of trusses between floors 5 and 7 you are telling me that it was IMPOSSIBLE for WTC7 to collapse?


----------



## JackDan

Anyone that posts a youtube video as evidence in ANY case, not just 9/11, is an idiot.  Period.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Obamerican said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer my original question. YOU are the one that is always saying that a tall building with steel beams WILL NOT collapse due to fire. My question is this:
> 
> Name another building where there was intense heat from fire PLUS the structural integrity of the building was compromised by the entire front of the building being sheared off by a 450,000 ton building hitting it?
> 
> Answer that question and we'll move on to the next part of "my theory" on what happened.
> 
> My money is you won't answer a simple, straight forward question.
> 
> 
> 
> I think some of the smaller WTC complex buildings had bore the brunt of the towers more then 7 did, yet did not globally collapse. Regardless, If I'm wrong could you please provide any evidence of what you claim?
> Specifically, Quote-" *the entire front* of the building being sheared off by a 450,000 ton building hitting it?"
> 
> As for the testimony that Rationalist1016 provides us, whether on video, or in the press, about the 7 building's, imminent collapse, creaking, bulging, etc..it does not add up to what was on any of the videos that NIST used for their fantastically flawed computer model, and hypothesis on the collapse.
> Not only that, but it is more in line to what _should_ have been a more reasonable outcome, mainly that the parts of the building experiencing these problems, and symptoms, partially collapsing, or giving way in a staggered manner.
> Not the sudden and unexpected global collapse, producing free fall acceleration for 100 ft.
> 
> If stress was a factor on parts of the building, specifically the parts that were damaged by any WTC tower debris, producing the noises, is it not reasonable to think those parts would succumb first, and the building collapse in a more awkward manner? Surely we wouldn't expect to see the building collapse as clean as a controlled demolition.
> 
> One question I had before NISTs final report, but still applies today is, how was it possible to have certain knowledge of the building's demise before it collapsed, but be completely in the dark about how it happened after the building collapsed? How do you know an unprecedented event is going to occur prior to its happening, but not have any clue as to why it happened afterward?
> 
> As Shyam Sunder stated in 2006, 'But truthfully, I dont really know. Weve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.
> 
> And NIST still never explained the total collapse in their "final" report. They admit free-fall acceleration, but don't alter their conclusion. Amazing and criminal lack of scientific method! We owe the 343 firefighters who died that day a much better explanation than NIST's pathetic failure.
> NIST does not support scientific proof by virtue of its secret computer modeling. To be scientifically correct, they would have to supply others with this model to be proven by repeatability.
> 
> NIST= Not Interested In Seeking Truth
> 
> And again, I am waiting to see the evidence of the _*entire front *_of WTC 7 being sheared off by the "450,000 ton tower".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Entire front" may have been poor wording on my part. Here is the point I was trying to make.
> 
> Between the front of the building being hit by the main towers, the fires and the odd construction of trusses between floors 5 and 7 you are telling me that it was IMPOSSIBLE for WTC7 to collapse?
Click to expand...


Despite the dramatically different conclusions drawn, there does exist widespread agreement on both sides on a number of important questions. *Proponents of both hypotheses agree that the damage to WTC 7 sustained from the impact of debris from the collapse of the north tower (WTC 1) was not an initiating or determinative factor in the collapse.** Both sides also agree that the system of transfer trusses and girders in the building that allowed it to be constructed above the Consolidated Edison New York electric power substation played no role in the collapse, that hypothetical fuel oil fires from tanks stored in the building for emergency generators was not a causal factor,* and that the office fires did not result in any significant loss of strength of the buildings load-bearing steel columns.

While NIST initially denied that the building achieved gravitational acceleration during its collapse in its draft report for public comment, it was forced to acknowledge that this was indeed the case in its final report after high school physics teacher David Chandler submitted his own analysis showing that the building collapsed at free-fall for approximately 2.5 seconds, and that there was a sudden onset of free-fall. According to NIST, the period of free-fall was 2.25 seconds.

To illustrate, what this means is that for 8 stories, or more than 100 feet, the building fell at the same rate as would a bowling ball dropped from the same height and falling through the air.

Proponents of the controlled demolition hypothesis argue that elementary laws of physics rule out the fire-induced collapse hypothesis. They point out, for example, that the law of conservation of energy dictates that free-fall means all of the buildings potential energy was converted to kinetic energy, which means there was no energy remaining to do the work of buckling the columns, as is required by NISTs hypothesis. The corollary is that there must have been some external source of energy acting on the columns for this free-fall to have occurred.

*NIST argues in its final report that the rate of collapse was consistent with its computer models. However, language that the collapse was consistent with physical principles that existed in the draft report, in which NIST denied free-fall, was removed from the final report, in which free-fall is acknowledged.* 

And while *NIST claims that no steel was recovered from WTC 7*, *it could not have been unaware *of a sample that was recovered and studied by a team from the Worcester Polytechnic Institute. The steel had been severely corroded, showing signs of intergranular melting and sulfidation, with a swiss cheese-like appearance. The New York Times referred to this piece of steel as Perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation, and the teams findings and recommendations for further study were published as Appendix C of the report of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). *Although NIST was tasked with carrying out the recommendations of the FEMA report, it ignored Appendix C altogether and implicitly denied the very existence of this steel.* 

The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Case Far From Closed | Foreign Policy Journal

So all the sensationalism that you try to inject into the collapse of WTC 7, does not change the above facts about the flawed, and dubious NIST report.
And again, does not in any way explain such a clean CD appearance of the collapse.
These are the reasons expert engineer's, who don't kiss the governments ass, like A&E,  and the victims families want to spread awareness of these obvious gaffs, and have a new independent investigation.


----------



## Mr. Jones

JackDan said:


> Anyone that posts a youtube video as evidence in ANY case, not just 9/11, is an idiot.  Period.


Why do you think that JackDan? Some people here have a hard time understanding the written word it seems, videos help with that, and also a fresh look at the collapse allows us to reexamine the way it actually happened.


----------



## Mr. Jones

TakeAStepBack said:


> "And again, I am waiting to see the evidence of the entire front of WTC 7 being sheared off by the "450,000 ton tower".
> 
> Not only that, but the amount of material that pulverized into fine particle dust loses its weight value. Which is to say, 450,000 didn't shear off anything. It's an illogical and from the poster, a dishonest suggestion.


Agreed. The conservation of energy and momentum, is not even being considered. People aren't thinking this through yet it seems. C'mon folks it's not that hard, but you must face the fact, or in your cases the _possibility _we been had, first.

http://www.ebtx.com/wtc/wtcfall.htm


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rawrAdoccDk]&#x202a;WTC 7 NIST COLLAPSE VIDEO.&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Mr. Jones

talk about bs that link is is just more no credibility Babel  *now if it had been for MITor any good tech school *you might have something.[/QUOTE]

*MIT Engineer Jeff King's logical look at the official story of the WTC collapse*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8W-t57xnZg&NR=1]&#x202a;MIT Engineer Disputes 911 Theory of the WTC Collapse-Part 1&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]

Part 2-

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW81Cd7nNH8&feature=related]&#x202a;MIT Engineer Disputes 911 Theory of the WTC Collapse-Part 2&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]

Ok so now you are presented with an engineer from a tech school that you yourself said was credible....anymore questions??


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0fkDmi78Og&NR=1]&#x202a;Lynn Margulis, PhD - Scientist&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Triton

Anyway, who's going to be at ground zero for the 10th anniversary of the false flag attack to attempt to engage in discussion with people and have many of them start screaming at you with arguments like "Its not possible!!" or "Nobody would do such a thing" or any other irrational emotion filled based claim that makes no sense while we get to be pushed into the little NYPD approved area and are treated rudely by them?


----------



## slackjawed

Mr. Jones said:


> JackDan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that posts a youtube video as evidence in ANY case, not just 9/11, is an idiot.  Period.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that JackDan? *Some people here have a hard time understanding the written word *it seems, videos help with that, and also a fresh look at the collapse allows us to reexamine the way it actually happened.
Click to expand...


Most of the twoofers on here have to see it on a youtube before they believe it. 

On a side note, that's why there is a whole section on youtube for sunrises and sunsets, otherwise the twoofers would insist it had never happened, or that it had been staged, or that one day had a concrete core ect.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Triton said:


> Anyway, who's going to be at ground zero for the 10th anniversary of the false flag attack to attempt to engage in discussion with people and have many of them start screaming at you with arguments like "Its not possible!!" or "Nobody would do such a thing" or any other irrational emotion filled based claim that makes no sense while we get to be pushed into the little NYPD approved area and are treated rudely by them?


I wont be in NYC this year, but I will be attending a service that is scheduled in my local area, and I'll be ready with information handouts, DVDs, and engage anyone with any questions, and do what I have been doing for the last few years in promoting awareness on the topic, and other things, like the government's unconstitutional actions, and our local and state lawmakers trampling on our rights/ laws, and acquiescing to Federal pressure and bills they don't even read etc...
People who come to these congregations not prepared, get a big wake up call from us, and usually walk away with a different perspective on what the hell is really going down.
I am currently getting information together, and a speaker concerning Fluoride and Barium in our environment and drinking water. 

I am always prepared for the likes of pukes like Patriot911 and his ilk, but hardly ever run into hardcore government assholes, and ass kissers like that in person...Most people who attend things like that are wanting to learn what the rest of us are so pissed off at, and have questions about the Patriot and Truth Movements because they actually care about what's going on and want to learn about the issues.
I am encouraged at how many folks are waking up and want to network with others about the real issues, instead of sucking ass to the Fascism and NWO that has brought our country down.

OathKeepers members are very reliable at coming out to the events, that have to do about government intrusion, American citizen's rights as well as the citizens Patriot movements that are growing in numbers.
Most rational people have felt or noticed what is happening, and are genuinely concerned..they know that they have been lied to about 9-11 and other things that are affecting them and their families and want to know what they can do about it as well as looking for like minded peeps to associate with.


----------



## Triton

slackjawed said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JackDan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that posts a youtube video as evidence in ANY case, not just 9/11, is an idiot.  Period.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that JackDan? *Some people here have a hard time understanding the written word *it seems, videos help with that, and also a fresh look at the collapse allows us to reexamine the way it actually happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of the twoofers on here have to see it on a youtube before they believe it.
> 
> On a side note, that's why there is a whole section on youtube for sunrises and sunsets, otherwise the twoofers would insist it had never happened, or that it had been staged, or that one day had a concrete core ect.
Click to expand...


Are you suggesting that people who don't believe in the official theory regarding 9/11 also don't believe in the rising and setting of the sun?


----------



## candycorn

Triton said:


> Anyway, who's going to be at ground zero for the 10th anniversary of the false flag attack to attempt to engage in discussion with people and have many of them start screaming at you with arguments like "Its not possible!!" or "Nobody would do such a thing" or any other irrational emotion filled based claim that makes no sense while we get to be pushed into the little NYPD approved area and are treated rudely by them?



Wow, you should do something about it....

I'd start by brushing up on punctuation marks.


----------



## slackjawed

Triton said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that JackDan? *Some people here have a hard time understanding the written word *it seems, videos help with that, and also a fresh look at the collapse allows us to reexamine the way it actually happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the twoofers on here have to see it on a youtube before they believe it.
> 
> On a side note, that's why there is a whole section on youtube for sunrises and sunsets, otherwise the twoofers would insist it had never happened, or that it had been staged, or that one day had a concrete core ect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that people who don't believe in the official theory regarding 9/11 also don't believe in the rising and setting of the sun?
Click to expand...


if the tin foil cap fits......


----------



## Rationalist1016

Mr. Jones said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, who's going to be at ground zero for the 10th anniversary of the false flag attack to attempt to engage in discussion with people and have many of them start screaming at you with arguments like "Its not possible!!" or "Nobody would do such a thing" or any other irrational emotion filled based claim that makes no sense while we get to be pushed into the little NYPD approved area and are treated rudely by them?
> 
> 
> 
> I wont be in NYC this year, but I will be attending a service that is scheduled in my local area, and I'll be ready with information handouts, DVDs, and engage anyone with any questions, and do what I have been doing for the last few years in promoting awareness on the topic, and other things, like the government's unconstitutional actions, and our local and state lawmakers trampling on our rights/ laws, and acquiescing to Federal pressure and bills they don't even read etc...
> People who come to these congregations not prepared, get a big wake up call from us, and usually walk away with a different perspective on what the hell is really going down.
> I am currently getting information together, and a speaker concerning Fluoride and Barium in our environment and drinking water.
> 
> I am always prepared for the likes of pukes like Patriot911 and his ilk, but hardly ever run into hardcore government assholes, and ass kissers like that in person...Most people who attend things like that are wanting to learn what the rest of us are so pissed off at, and have questions about the Patriot and Truth Movements because they actually care about what's going on and want to learn about the issues.
> I am encouraged at how many folks are waking up and want to network with others about the real issues, instead of sucking ass to the Fascism and NWO that has brought our country down.
> 
> OathKeepers members are very reliable at coming out to the events, that have to do about government intrusion, American citizen's rights as well as the citizens Patriot movements that are growing in numbers.
> Most rational people have felt or noticed what is happening, and are genuinely concerned..they know that they have been lied to about 9-11 and other things that are affecting them and their families and want to know what they can do about it as well as looking for like minded peeps to associate with.
Click to expand...


What is some of the information in your handouts and DVD's?
I'm just curious.


----------



## Mr. Jones

Rationalist1016 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, who's going to be at ground zero for the 10th anniversary of the false flag attack to attempt to engage in discussion with people and have many of them start screaming at you with arguments like "Its not possible!!" or "Nobody would do such a thing" or any other irrational emotion filled based claim that makes no sense while we get to be pushed into the little NYPD approved area and are treated rudely by them?
> 
> 
> 
> I wont be in NYC this year, but I will be attending a service that is scheduled in my local area, and I'll be ready with information handouts, DVDs, and engage anyone with any questions, and do what I have been doing for the last few years in promoting awareness on the topic, and other things, like the government's unconstitutional actions, and our local and state lawmakers trampling on our rights/ laws, and acquiescing to Federal pressure and bills they don't even read etc...
> People who come to these congregations not prepared, get a big wake up call from us, and usually walk away with a different perspective on what the hell is really going down.
> I am currently getting information together, and a speaker concerning Fluoride and Barium in our environment and drinking water.
> 
> I am always prepared for the likes of pukes like Patriot911 and his ilk, but hardly ever run into hardcore government assholes, and ass kissers like that in person...Most people who attend things like that are wanting to learn what the rest of us are so pissed off at, and have questions about the Patriot and Truth Movements because they actually care about what's going on and want to learn about the issues.
> I am encouraged at how many folks are waking up and want to network with others about the real issues, instead of sucking ass to the Fascism and NWO that has brought our country down.
> 
> OathKeepers members are very reliable at coming out to the events, that have to do about government intrusion, American citizen's rights as well as the citizens Patriot movements that are growing in numbers.
> Most rational people have felt or noticed what is happening, and are genuinely concerned..they know that they have been lied to about 9-11 and other things that are affecting them and their families and want to know what they can do about it as well as looking for like minded peeps to associate with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is some of the information in your handouts and DVD's?
> I'm just curious.
Click to expand...


Informational DVDs deal with what I mentioned..the increasing government intrusion, media deceptions and omissions about our current social and economic situation, history of the Fed Reserve and so on, and the Building What information DVD.
Most of the information handouts are not as yet completed, but are along the same topics, including bills that have been passed (many without our law makers even reading) aconcerning the police state atmosphere and apparatus that is seemingly in place, and Oath Keepers material.

This is designed to promote awareness in a condensed form to highlight the major topics of concern which is mainly, government intrusiveness and excesses on our rights and the Constitution, media deceptions and lies (including a brief rundown on who owns and controls what is "the news"), and the economic situation and Fed Reserve creation, with a small donation to only cover the costs of blank DVDS, for a copy of The Money Masters for 2 bucks.

Real change for our nation and society will never occur if we don't reach out to point out the issues. We should all do our part, and at the very least guide others to the information while it is still available. 
Awareness, unity, and strength in numbers, while pointing out that the divisiveness of the left vs right is what is keeping us from affecting real change.


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf
> 
> pages 37 - 39
> 
> 
> 
> 
> page 1
> you are retarded..
Click to expand...

 page one is the title page?
do you disagree with the graphics..
or do you think it should read: WTC7 final report on the not provable theory of  a
super secret rouge wing of the U.S government using an untraceable fairytale explosive /accelerant, without being noticed set to go off after a severely damaged building that burned for 8 hours was evacuated with no deaths or reported injuries?
or do you not like the type face?


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> &#x202a;Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube


 so from your pov the firefighters on scene made no difference?


----------



## daws101

Mr. Jones said:


> JackDan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that posts a youtube video as evidence in ANY case, not just 9/11, is an idiot.  Period.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that JackDan? Some people here have a hard time understanding the written word it seems, videos help with that, and also a fresh look at the collapse allows us to reexamine the way it actually happened.
Click to expand...

 a fresh look by who? 
you can't be suggesting the twoof movement......as you/ they are bias and would skew any findings in a truly INDEPENDENT investigation.


----------



## daws101

slackjawed said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JackDan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that posts a youtube video as evidence in ANY case, not just 9/11, is an idiot.  Period.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that JackDan? *Some people here have a hard time understanding the written word *it seems, videos help with that, and also a fresh look at the collapse allows us to reexamine the way it actually happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of the twoofers on here have to see it on a youtube before they believe it.
> 
> On a side note, that's why there is a whole section on youtube for sunrises and sunsets, otherwise the twoofers would insist it had never happened, or that it had been staged, or that one day had a concrete core ect.
Click to expand...



http://youtu.be/Afb7eUHr64U
http://youtu.be/_kSq663m0G8

http://youtu.be/uyMIqVfH8zY


----------



## eots

youtube  is no different than a book or a newspaper or any other form of information dissemination..if the information is accurate it makes little difference what form of media is used...your comments are stupid and irrelevant


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> &#x202a;Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> so from your pov the firefighters on scene made no difference?
Click to expand...


made no difference to what ?


----------



## Triton

candycorn said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, who's going to be at ground zero for the 10th anniversary of the false flag attack to attempt to engage in discussion with people and have many of them start screaming at you with arguments like "Its not possible!!" or "Nobody would do such a thing" or any other irrational emotion filled based claim that makes no sense while we get to be pushed into the little NYPD approved area and are treated rudely by them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you should do something about it....
> 
> I'd start by brushing up on punctuation marks.
Click to expand...



Look, Candycorn uttered something


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> &#x202a;Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> so from your pov the firefighters on scene made no difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> made no difference to what ?
Click to expand...

 wow you are thick THE FIRE AT THE HOTEL .
YOU KNOW ...THE ONE YOU USED AS EVIDENCE THAT NO STEEL BUILDINGS COLLAPSE BY FIRE.
I love the stuff you guys leave out to make your fairytale seem more probable. 

the china hotel fire had water and firefighters to fight the fire.
the china hotel had not been damaged.
wtc7 had no water ,had just been severely damaged by wtc1      
wtc7 the fire fighters were called away.
btw  wtc7 and the china hotel both had no death or injuries.


----------



## Mr. Jones

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JackDan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that posts a youtube video as evidence in ANY case, not just 9/11, is an idiot.  Period.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that JackDan? Some people here have a hard time understanding the written word it seems, videos help with that, and also a fresh look at the collapse allows us to reexamine the way it actually happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a fresh look by who?
> you can't be suggesting the twoof movement......as you/ they are bias and would skew any findings in a truly INDEPENDENT investigation.
Click to expand...

 I was referring to the watching of the videos, as sometimes people seem to forget how massive the buildings were, and how clean the collapse of WTC 7 was for example. Watching a video of the collapses on a U Tube video, provides a fresh look while discussing/debating the topic, and puts it in better prospective.

BTW, how would the "truth movement" skew any findings? And for what purpose? Hell, they wouldn't have to anyway, the lying fucks who skewed everything up the first time, and gave us the OCT have seen to that. Once everything is allowed on the table for all to see, it will be easier then you think to show the BS NIST and the others have tried to pass along as "truth" or credible.

"Twoof" movement?? You wreak of sock puppetry.


----------



## Rationalist1016

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so from your pov the firefighters on scene made no difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> made no difference to what ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow you are thick THE FIRE AT THE HOTEL .
> YOU KNOW ...THE ONE YOU USED AS EVIDENCE THAT NO STEEL BUILDINGS COLLAPSE BY FIRE.
> I love the stuff you guys leave out to make your fairytale seem more probable.
> 
> the china hotel fire had water and firefighters to fight the fire.
> the china hotel had not been damaged.
> wtc7 had no water ,had just been severely damaged by wtc1
> wtc7 the fire fighters were called away.
> btw  wtc7 and the china hotel both had no death or injuries.
Click to expand...


It's also interesting to note that the steel on the upper floors of the Windsor Tower, in the video, did, in fact, collapse.  What is still standing is the concrete core.  And the floor where the collapse was arrested was a steel reinforced concrete mechanical floor.  
It seems illogical to use this building fire as evidence of steel frame buildings NOT being able to collapse.  It's not just possible, it, in fact, happened.
Madrid Windsor Tower


----------



## daws101

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that JackDan? Some people here have a hard time understanding the written word it seems, videos help with that, and also a fresh look at the collapse allows us to reexamine the way it actually happened.
> 
> 
> 
> a fresh look by who?
> you can't be suggesting the twoof movement......as you/ they are bias and would skew any findings in a truly INDEPENDENT investigation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was referring to the watching of the videos, as sometimes people seem to forget how massive the buildings were, and how clean the collapse of WTC 7 was for example. Watching a video of the collapses on a U Tube video, provides a fresh look while discussing/debating the topic, and puts it in better prospective.
> 
> BTW, how would the "truth movement" skew any findings? And for what purpose? Hell, they wouldn't have to anyway, the lying fucks who skewed everything up the first time, and gave us the OCT have seen to that. Once everything is allowed on the table for all to see, it will be easier then you think to show the BS NIST and the others have tried to pass along as "truth" or credible.
> 
> "Twoof" movement?? You wreak of sock puppetry.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Rationalist1016 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> made no difference to what ?
> 
> 
> 
> wow you are thick THE FIRE AT THE HOTEL .
> YOU KNOW ...THE ONE YOU USED AS EVIDENCE THAT NO STEEL BUILDINGS COLLAPSE BY FIRE.
> I love the stuff you guys leave out to make your fairytale seem more probable.
> 
> the china hotel fire had water and firefighters to fight the fire.
> the china hotel had not been damaged.
> wtc7 had no water ,had just been severely damaged by wtc1
> wtc7 the fire fighters were called away.
> btw  wtc7 and the china hotel both had no death or injuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also interesting to note that the steel on the upper floors of the Windsor Tower, in the video, did, in fact, collapse.  What is still standing is the concrete core.  And the floor where the collapse was arrested was a steel reinforced concrete mechanical floor.
> It seems illogical to use this building fire as evidence of steel frame buildings NOT being able to collapse.  It's not just possible, it, in fact, happened.
> Madrid Windsor Tower
Click to expand...

bump


----------



## eots

Rationalist1016 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> made no difference to what ?
> 
> 
> 
> wow you are thick THE FIRE AT THE HOTEL .
> YOU KNOW ...THE ONE YOU USED AS EVIDENCE THAT NO STEEL BUILDINGS COLLAPSE BY FIRE.
> I love the stuff you guys leave out to make your fairytale seem more probable.
> 
> the china hotel fire had water and firefighters to fight the fire.
> the china hotel had not been damaged.
> wtc7 had no water ,had just been severely damaged by wtc1
> wtc7 the fire fighters were called away.
> btw  wtc7 and the china hotel both had no death or injuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also interesting to note that the steel on the upper floors of the Windsor Tower, in the video, did, in fact, collapse.  What is still standing is the concrete core.  And the floor where the collapse was arrested was a steel reinforced concrete mechanical floor.
> It seems illogical to use this building fire as evidence of steel frame buildings NOT being able to collapse.  It's not just possible, it, in fact, happened.
> Madrid Windsor Tower
Click to expand...


a small portion still under construction had some failure...the building remains standing..it did not even come close to a complete collapse is secs of and defying the laws of physics


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so from your pov the firefighters on scene made no difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> made no difference to what ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow you are thick THE FIRE AT THE HOTEL .
> YOU KNOW ...THE ONE YOU USED AS EVIDENCE THAT NO STEEL BUILDINGS COLLAPSE BY FIRE.
> I love the stuff you guys leave out to make your fairytale seem more probable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the buildings were essentially left to burn themselves out and burned far longer and far more intensely than the wtc 7  and remained standing as have all other skyscraper fires....NIST ..._SAYS WTC 7 WAS THE THE FIRST KNOW INSTANCE OF A STEEL FRAMED HI-RISE COLLAPSING DUE TO FIRE
> _
> 
> 
> the china hotel fire had water and firefighters to fight the fire.
> 
> FIREFIGHTING EFFORTS MADE LITTLE DIFFERENCE...WATER WAS NOT OUT ON ALL FLOORS OF WTC 7
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the china hotel had not been damaged
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> ACCORDING TO NIST DAMAGE PLAYED NO SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN THE COLLAPSE OF WTC 7
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wtc7 had no water ,had just been severely damaged by wtc1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> SPRINKLERS REMAINED OPERATIONAL ON SOME FLOORS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wtc7 the fire fighters were called away.
> 
> 
> btw  wtc7 and the china hotel both had no death or injuries
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> IRRELEVANT
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8]&#x202a;Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow you are thick THE FIRE AT THE HOTEL .
> YOU KNOW ...THE ONE YOU USED AS EVIDENCE THAT NO STEEL BUILDINGS COLLAPSE BY FIRE.
> I love the stuff you guys leave out to make your fairytale seem more probable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the buildings were essentially left to burn themselves out and burned far longer and far more intensely than the wtc 7  and remained standing as have all other skyscraper fires....NIST ..._SAYS WTC 7 WAS THE THE FIRST KNOW INSTANCE OF A STEEL FRAMED HI-RISE COLLAPSING DUE TO FIRE
> _
> 
> 
> the china hotel fire had water and firefighters to fight the fire.
> 
> FIREFIGHTING EFFORTS MADE LITTLE DIFFERENCE...WATER WAS NOT OUT ON ALL FLOORS OF WTC 7
> 
> .
> 
> ACCORDING TO NIST DAMAGE PLAYED NO SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN THE COLLAPSE OF WTC 7
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SPRINKLERS REMAINED OPERATIONAL ON SOME FLOORS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wtc7 the fire fighters were called away.
> 
> 
> btw  wtc7 and the china hotel both had no death or injuries
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> IRRELEVANT
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8]&#x202a;Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> actually it's very relevant without casualties wtc7 is about as important as a 100 year old barn falling down on an abandoned farm
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow you are thick THE FIRE AT THE HOTEL .
> YOU KNOW ...THE ONE YOU USED AS EVIDENCE THAT NO STEEL BUILDINGS COLLAPSE BY FIRE.
> I love the stuff you guys leave out to make your fairytale seem more probable.
> 
> the china hotel fire had water and firefighters to fight the fire.
> the china hotel had not been damaged.
> wtc7 had no water ,had just been severely damaged by wtc1
> wtc7 the fire fighters were called away.
> btw  wtc7 and the china hotel both had no death or injuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's also interesting to note that the steel on the upper floors of the Windsor Tower, in the video, did, in fact, collapse.  What is still standing is the concrete core.  And the floor where the collapse was arrested was a steel reinforced concrete mechanical floor.
> It seems illogical to use this building fire as evidence of steel frame buildings NOT being able to collapse.  It's not just possible, it, in fact, happened.
> Madrid Windsor Tower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a small portion still under construction had some failure...the building remains standing..it did not even come close to a complete collapse is secs of and defying the laws of physics
Click to expand...

what laws would those be?


----------



## daws101

please point out the page in the nist final report that say wtc1 had no impact on wtc7


----------



## eots

NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the twin towers, nor did the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs). 

Column 79&#8212;the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse&#8212;would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column&#8217;s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.
NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSnjyZNYlW8&playnext=1&list=PLCEBB55CF948640AB]&#x202a;NIST WTC 7 Report - Press Briefing 8/21/08 pt 1&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the buildings were essentially left to burn themselves out and burned far longer and far more intensely than the wtc 7  and remained standing as have all other skyscraper fires....NIST ..._SAYS WTC 7 WAS THE THE FIRST KNOW INSTANCE OF A STEEL FRAMED HI-RISE COLLAPSING DUE TO FIRE
> _
> 
> 
> the china hotel fire had water and firefighters to fight the fire.
> 
> FIREFIGHTING EFFORTS MADE LITTLE DIFFERENCE...WATER WAS NOT OUT ON ALL FLOORS OF WTC 7
> 
> .
> 
> ACCORDING TO NIST DAMAGE PLAYED NO SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN THE COLLAPSE OF WTC 7
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SPRINKLERS REMAINED OPERATIONAL ON SOME FLOORS
> 
> .
> 
> IRRELEVANT
> 
> &#x202a;Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually it's very relevant without casualties wtc7 is about as important as a 100 year old barn falling down on an abandoned farm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> to a idiot..I guess it is..
Click to expand...


----------



## Obamerican

daws101 said:


> please point out the page in the nist final report that say wtc1 had no impact on wtc7


Remember that Eots (the idiot) will take portions of the NIST report that he agrees with and use that as his argument. But if YOU use the NIST report as a rebuttal he will find a YouTube video that says you're full of shit.


----------



## eots

Obamerican said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> please point out the page in the nist final report that say wtc1 had no impact on wtc7
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that Eots (the idiot) will take portions of the NIST report that he agrees with and use that as his argument. But if YOU use the NIST report as a rebuttal he will find a YouTube video that says you're full of shit.
Click to expand...


Simple Simon seems to have a hard time with the concept that if one is to debate the validity of the NIST theory its important to know what that theory actually is


----------



## Obamerican

eots said:


> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> please point out the page in the nist final report that say wtc1 had no impact on wtc7
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that Eots (the idiot) will take portions of the NIST report that he agrees with and use that as his argument. But if YOU use the NIST report as a rebuttal he will find a YouTube video that says you're full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple Simon seems to have a hard time with the concept that if one is to debate the validity of the NIST theory its important to know what that theory actually is
Click to expand...

Doesn't answer the question, bitch. Keep doing slight of hand, asshole. Everyone here knows how dishonest you really are.

Got that visit from Alex Jones yet? He went and visited Harry Dean Stanton and Jesse Ventura. I would think he would heap praise on you too.

Fucking moron.


----------



## Triton

eots and Mr. Jones continue to shred through this BS that is being spewed attempting to compare buildings with damage and partial collapses that are NOTHING like WTC 7 experienced on 9/11.

You're really comparing the Madrid building to WTC 7?









Simply ridiculous.


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the twin towers, nor did the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs).
> 
> Column 79the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapsewould still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the columns failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.
> NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008
> 
> &#x202a;NIST WTC 7 Report - Press Briefing 8/21/08 pt 1&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube


  another dodge! answer the question


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the twin towers, nor did the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs).
> 
> Column 79the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapsewould still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the columns failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.
> NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008
> 
> &#x202a;NIST WTC 7 Report - Press Briefing 8/21/08 pt 1&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> another dodge! answer the question
Click to expand...


dodge ?...are you incapable of reading ?


----------



## daws101

Obamerican said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> please point out the page in the nist final report that say wtc1 had no impact on wtc7
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that Eots (the idiot) will take portions of the NIST report that he agrees with and use that as his argument. But if YOU use the NIST report as a rebuttal he will find a YouTube video that says you're full of shit.
Click to expand...

 thanks !
I gage the veracity of of Eots and 911 blow job's statements by what they leave out and and the amount of name calling ,it screams of desperation !


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually it's very relevant without casualties wtc7 is about as important as a 100 year old barn falling down on an abandoned farm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to a idiot..I guess it is..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only an idiot would say that,
> without that context (deaths and injuries) wtc7 is a non event.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the twin towers, nor did the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs).
> 
> Column 79&#8212;the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse&#8212;would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column&#8217;s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.
> NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008
> 
> &#x202a;NIST WTC 7 Report - Press Briefing 8/21/08 pt 1&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> another dodge! answer the question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dodge ?...are you incapable of reading ?
Click to expand...

 so your theory is nano thermite.
enlighting me on how, who and when it was planted.


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> to a idiot..I guess it is..
> 
> 
> 
> only an idiot would say that,
> without that context (deaths and injuries) wtc7 is a non event.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the first known instance  a hi-rise steel framed building collapsing primarily due to fire is not a non -event
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> only an idiot would say that,
> without that context (deaths and injuries) wtc7 is a non event.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the first known instance  a hi-rise steel framed building collapsing primarily due to fire is not a non -event
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> &#x202a;9/11 Debunked: The "First Time in History" Claim&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Contrary to popular belief September 11, 2001 was not the first time a steel framed building collapsed due to fire. Though the examples below are not high rise buildings, they make the point that fire alone can collapse a steel structure.

The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing. The theater was fire protected using drywall and spray on material. A high rise in Philly didn't collapse after a long fire but firefighters evacuated the building when a pancake structural collapse was considered likely. Other steel-framed buildings partially collapsed due fires one after only 20 minutes. 

The steel framed McCormick Center was at the time the World's largest exhibition center. It like the WTC used long steel trusses to create a large open space without columns. Those trusses were unprotected but of course much of the WTC lost it's fire protection due to the impacts.

"As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire."

Archives - Walls and Ceilings
24ae78779d768010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0____  

[Note this article has several comments from engineers who back the 
WTC collapse theory.]

"The unprotected steel roof trusses failed early on in the fire"

Page Not Found - Chicago Public Library 


The McCormick Place fire "is significant because it illustrates the fact that steel-frame buildings can collapse as a result of exposure to fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not only steel." wrote Robert Berhinig, associate manager of UL's Fire Protection Division and a registered professional engineer. He also discusses UL's steel fire certification much more knowledgably than Kevin Ryan. He is an example of one more highly qualified engineer who supports the collapse theory. 

http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/magazine/02_d/berhinig.htm 

From the FEMA report of the theater fire, my comments in [ ]
www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf 

On the morning of January 28, 1997, in the Lancaster County, Pennsylvania township of Strasburg, a fire caused the collapse of the state-of-the-art, seven year old Sight and Sound Theater and resulted in structural damage to most of the connecting buildings. 
The theater was a total loss, valued at over $15 million.

pg 6/74

The theater was built of steel rigid frame construction to allow for the large open space of the auditorium, unobstructed by columns... The interior finish in the auditorium was drywall.

The stage storage area, prop assembly building, and prop maintenance building were protected with a sprayed-on fire resistant coating on all structural steel. The plans called for the coating to meet a two-hour fire resistance assembly rating. The sprayed-on coating, which was susceptible to damage from the movement of theater equipment, was protected by attaching plywood coverings on the columns to a height of eight feet.

The walls of the storage area beneath the stage were layered drywall to provide a two-hour fire protection rating for the mezzanine offices [the WTC used drywall as fire protection in the central core] , and sprayed-on fire-resistant coatings on the structural 
steel columns and ceiling bar joists supporting the stage floor.
pg 15/74

The two theater employees told the State Police Fire Investigator that when they first discovered the fire they noticed that the sprayed-on fire proofing had been knocked off the underside of the stage floor bar joists and support steel. The fire proofing was hanging on the wire mesh used to hold the coating to the overhead. The investigation revealed that the construction company's removal of the stage floor covering down to the corrugated decking involved striking the floor hard enough to knock off the sprayed-on protection, exposing the structural steel and bar-joists in the storage area. [The theater's spray-on fireproofing was newer and more modern than at the WTC, The theater was only seven years old. If striking the floor during renovations was enough to dislodge it imagine the impact of a 767]

pg 16/74

Temperatures of 1000° F can cause buckling and temperatures of 1500° F can cause steel to lose strength and collapse. When the heat and hot gases reached the stage ceiling they extended horizontally into the auditorium, causing the roof to fail all the way to the lobby fire wall. The fire also extended horizontally from the stage to the elevated hallway, causing the structural steel to fail and buckle in the prop assembly and prop maintenance buildings

pg 17/74

Once the heat of the fire caused the structural steel to fail in the storage area (aided by the damage to the sprayed-on fire protection during renovation), interior firefighting became too hazardous to continue. The truck crews ventilating the roof noted metal 
discoloration and buckling steel.

pg. 21/74

The two hour fire resistance-rated assembly in the storage area beneath the stage was damaged during the stage floor renovation, leaving the structural members unprotected from the ensuing fire.

pg. 26/74 

Buildings constructed of steel should, in effect, be considered unprotected and capable of collapse from fire in as few as ten minutes. Fire resistant coatings sprayed onto structural steel are susceptible to damage from construction work.

The impact of fire and heat on structural steel members warrant extreme caution by firefighters.

pg. 36/74
Unless the steel members are cooled with high-volume hose streams, the fire's heat can rapidly cause steel to lose its strength and contribute to building collapse.
pg. 37/74

Other Fires

In February 1991, a fire broke out in One Meridian Plaza - a 38 story office building in Philadelphia. The building was built during the same period as the WTC and had spray-on fire protection on its steel frame. Despite not suffering impact damage, authorities were worried it might collapse.

"All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a 
possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged 
floors."

USFA Page Not Found 

About 2 years later, the NYFD was concerned that a steel framed building that partially collapsed during after a gas explosion might collapse entirely due to the resulting fire.

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/TR-068.pdf 


Part of a floor of an unprotected steel frame building collapsed in Brackenridge, Pennsylvania on, December 20, 1991, Killing 4 volunteer firemen 
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/TR-061.pdf 


Part of the roof of a steel framed school in Virginia collapsed about 20 minutes after fire broke out 


USFA Page Not Found


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another dodge! answer the question
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dodge ?...are you incapable of reading ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so your theory is nano thermite.
> enlighting me on how, who and when it was planted.
Click to expand...


nice dodge..first we conclude NIST failed in determine the cause of the collapse, then we look at the most reasonable explanation for the collapse which is some form of explosives and do the appropriate testing on any renaming materials..once the form of explosives is positively determined...the how  and who would follow


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the first known instance  a hi-rise steel framed building collapsing primarily due to fire is not a non -event
> 
> 
> 
> &#x202a;9/11 Debunked: The "First Time in History" Claim&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this is NIST statement...you are debunking the NIST theory.. dummy..this entire video is in direct contradiction to the findings of NIST and the madrid did not collapse...so why do you pretend it did ?
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> dodge ?...are you incapable of reading ?
> 
> 
> 
> so your theory is nano thermite.
> enlighting me on how, who and when it was planted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nice dodge..first we conclude NIST failed in determine the cause of the collapse, then we look at the most reasonable explanation for the collapse which is some form of explosives and do the appropriate testing on any renaming materials..once the form of explosives is positively determined...the how  and who would follow
Click to expand...

 from that statement you've just proven you know nothing about the scientific method.
it's obvious you dissagree with the nist findings.that being so ,once again I ask :how who when and why.


----------



## daws101

Towers Collapse - Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and controlled demolition 

Silverstein said he "pulled" building 7. Pull is demolition terminology for blowing up the building

"Pull" is not demolition terminology for blowing up buildings. 
Building 6 was literally pulled with cables which is why they said "We're about to pull building 6" in a PBS special. 
Silverstein say "they" made the decision and not Silverstein 
They made the decision to pull the rescue operation out. 
The fire commander's statements agree with Silverstein's statement 
Many firefighters said they were pulled away from building 7 because they feared the building would collapse 
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7 

Building 7 only had a few small fires.

Building 7's south side was covered by smoke for most of the event. 
Firefighters said the building's south side showed fires on multiple floors 
Firemen said the building was "fully involved" 
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7 

Building 7 had no or little structural damage

The firefighters put a transit on the building and concluded the building was going to collapse 
There was a very large gash in the building which ran from the top floor to at least the tenth floor 
Firemen said there was a 10 story hole in the middle of the building 
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so your theory is nano thermite.
> enlighting me on how, who and when it was planted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nice dodge..first we conclude NIST failed in determine the cause of the collapse, then we look at the most reasonable explanation for the collapse which is some form of explosives and do the appropriate testing on any renaming materials..once the form of explosives is positively determined...the how  and who would follow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> from that statement you've just proven you know nothing about the scientific method.
> it's obvious you dissagree with the nist findings.that being so ,once again I ask :how who when and why.
Click to expand...


but you clearly reject NISTs findings ????


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so your theory is nano thermite.
> enlighting me on how, who and when it was planted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nice dodge..first we conclude NIST failed in determine the cause of the collapse, then we look at the most reasonable explanation for the collapse which is some form of explosives and do the appropriate testing on any renaming materials..once the form of explosives is positively determined...the how  and who would follow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> from that statement you've just proven you know nothing about the scientific method.
> it's obvious you dissagree with the nist findings.that being so ,once again I ask :how who when and why.
Click to expand...


really...please do elaborate

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0fkDmi78Og&NR=1]&#x202a;Lynn Margulis, PhD - Scientist&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> nice dodge..first we conclude NIST failed in determine the cause of the collapse, then we look at the most reasonable explanation for the collapse which is some form of explosives and do the appropriate testing on any renaming materials..once the form of explosives is positively determined...the how  and who would follow
> 
> 
> 
> from that statement you've just proven you know nothing about the scientific method.
> it's obvious you dissagree with the nist findings.that being so ,once again I ask :how who when and why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> really...please do elaborate
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0fkDmi78Og&NR=1]&#x202a;Lynn Margulis, PhD - Scientist&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...

 LOL...if you had any personal or working knowledge of the scientific method you woul not need a utube clip to explain it.
 BYW what you are doing is called "appealing to authority"....weak!

A & e for troof  you gotta be fucking kidding!


----------



## daws101

PublicEye.org - The Website of Political Research Associates


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> from that statement you've just proven you know nothing about the scientific method.
> it's obvious you dissagree with the nist findings.that being so ,once again I ask :how who when and why.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really...please do elaborate
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0fkDmi78Og&NR=1]&#x202a;Lynn Margulis, PhD - Scientist&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL...if you had any personal or working knowledge of the scientific method you woul not need a utube clip to explain it.
> BYW what you are doing is called "appealing to authority"....weak!
> 
> A & e for troof  you gotta be fucking kidding!
Click to expand...


another dodge...please elaborate...this "youtube clip"...is one the most highly honored scientist in the country explaining basic scientific procedure..but if feel you can explain it better than her and with more credibility.... please do...and you clearly do not know the real definition of appeal to authority either...dumbass


----------



## Mr. Jones

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another dodge! answer the question
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dodge ?...are you incapable of reading ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so your theory is nano thermite.
> enlighting me on how, who and when it was planted.
Click to expand...

So without you being "enlightened" on these things, the collapse of WTC 7 as theorized by NIST, is fully legitimate?? 

There is a mountain of evidence that any rational person would admit helps to show that many parts of the official story are outright blatant lies. So with this point in mind I have to question why anyone would consider, say for example... 20 areas of concern, and then use only one, or a few areas of concern, to discount the remaining 19 items of disclosure.

Just because the who, when, and how, isn't able to be properly explained, does not mean that the other facts of the unlikely collapse of WTC 7 are meaningless, or that the NIST report is at all correct, or that the NIST report is indisputable. And because the who, how , and why is not clear at this time does not take away from the facts that on 9-11, this building collapsed neatly, almost into its own footprint through the path of greatest resistance at virtually "free fall" acceleration.

Bringing up distractions like you have, is just a way of not dealing with these glaring discrepancies and facts about the WTC 7 collapse, that NIST also avoids.

The points is that NIST would have us believe that once steel loses some of its strength, it loses all of its strength, and that once the steel weakens to the point where it can no longer hold up the building, it turns to spaghetti, or linguini,or your favorite pasta! 

That's wrong, steel buildings are not held up by steel cables that snap when they are overloaded.
A better analogy would be springs, like the springs in your car. Springs compress and give way when overloaded, but do not lose all their strength because we put too much weight on them. 

The springs in my Explorer can't support an elephant, but they would not disappear if an elephant climbed in it! The only way a building can fall to the ground in free fall acceleration is if all of its potential gravitational energy is converted to kinetic energy. 
If some of the gravitational potential energy is used to do other work such as crushing steel or concrete, then the object can not drop at free fall acceleration. 

NISTs model shows only buckling occuring on the west side of the building, *however the free fall occurs over the entire width of the building. *We can know this because we already established the roof line of the building remains essentially straight for the first 4-5 secs. of the collapse. 

Aside from the slight kink, *the roof line remains essentially straight *and falls in uniform motion until the last couple of secs. of the collapse when the NW corner bows inward. 

If you watch the video, the roof certainly remains straight all the way through the period of free fall. 
NIST hasn't solved shit, nearly 10 years and we have even more mystery about the official explanation.

The rate of fall of the building is an embarrassment to the official theory, free fall is a small detail in the whole complex analysis, but it is NOT a minor issue, buildings can not fall at free fall acceleration through themselves,* because even a weakened building requires energy to break up the pieces and crush concrete, and push things around. When a falling building pushes things, free fall is not FREE , the things push back, and the reaction forces will measurably slow the descent of the building. This is why one would reasonably expect crumbling structures to come down in a tumbling, halting, irregular manner. *In short the evidence is clear, we are witnessing NOT the collapse of a building, but its demolition, and we have received NOT a report from and independent, scientific investigation, but a cover up by a government agency. 

But you want all the particulars, and the who, how, and whys, when you should be just as, if not more inquisitive in regards to NIST, and the BS they are feeding you, and all the things they disregard, leave out, or out and out lie to your ass about.

You are of the position that, if no one can explain how a CD, or the collapses were "helped" along, and the components to deliver and make it happen, to you occurred, you are more then willing to to ignore all the glaring discrepancies of a report by a government agency enlisted and trusted to explain how unprecedented, first time in history, caused by fires, and achieving free fall acceleration collapses, fucking happened!!   

 NIST DOES NOT support scientific proof by virtue of its secret computer modeling. To be scientifically correct, they would have to supply others with this model to be proven by repeatability.
But YOU DEMAND a full and concise explanation of how a CD could have been used to destroy the buildings, but do not hold the entrusted party that was supposed to explain these things to the same standard??

You are FOS.


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the first known instance  a hi-rise steel framed building collapsing primarily due to fire is not a non -event
> 
> 
> 
> &#x202a;9/11 Debunked: The "First Time in History" Claim&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I am still waiting to hear your description of scientific method and your understanding of what appeal to authority means
Click to expand...


----------



## Mr. Jones

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> &#x202a;9/11 Debunked: The "First Time in History" Claim&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I am still waiting to hear your description of scientific method and your understanding of what appeal to authority means
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes and strangely similar to waiting for Patriot911 to provide his definition of "evidence". Smells like sock....
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> &#x202a;9/11 Debunked: The "First Time in History" Claim&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I am still waiting to hear your description of scientific method and your understanding of what appeal to authority means
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the scientific method for dummies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as far as I can tell you folks have done none of these, we can dicuss the one at a time if you like?
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

The appeal to authority may take several forms. As a statistical syllogism, it will have the following basic structure:[1]

Most of what authority a has to say on subject matter S is correct. 
a says p about S. 
Therefore, p is correct. 
The strength of this argument depends upon two factors:[1][2]

The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject. 
A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion. 
We may also simply incorporate these conditions into the structure of the argument itself, in which case the form may look like this:[2]

X holds that A is true 
X is a legitimate expert on the subject. 
The consensus of experts agrees with X. 
Therefore, there's a presumption that A is true. 
[edit] Fallacious appeals to authorityFallacious arguments from authority are often the result of failing to meet either of the two conditions from the previous section.[1][2] Specifically, when the inference fails to meet the first condition, this is sometimes called an "appeal to inappropriate authority".[3] This occurs when an inference relies on individuals or groups without relevant expertise or knowledge.[3]

Because the argument is inductive (i.e. because the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises), it is also fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true.[2] In this event, the argument is a non sequitur

anything else?


----------



## daws101

Mr. Jones said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I am still waiting to hear your description of scientific method and your understanding of what appeal to authority means
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and strangely similar to waiting for Patriot911 to provide his definition of "evidence". Smells like sock....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> evidence is either hard (forensic) or soft ( eye witness/ear witness aka hear say.
> your hard evidence is nonexistent.
> your soft evidence is questionable at best  and does not stand up to close analytical scrutiny!
Click to expand...


----------



## LA RAM FAN

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> really...please do elaborate
> 
> &#x202a;Lynn Margulis, PhD - Scientist&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...if you had any personal or working knowledge of the scientific method you woul not need a utube clip to explain it.
> BYW what you are doing is called "appealing to authority"....weak!
> 
> A & e for troof  you gotta be fucking kidding!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> another dodge...please elaborate...this "youtube clip"...is one the most highly honored scientist in the country explaining basic scientific procedure..but if feel you can explain it better than her and with more credibility.... please do...and you clearly do not know the real definition of appeal to authority either...dumbass
Click to expand...


this retarded troll does the exact same thing in the kennedy assassination thread as well like many of the trolls on that thread.dodges evidence when you show him proof and evidence oswald did not do it.doesnt even bother to address the points you bring up.
he is scared to death of the truth about the kennedy assassination,so you get anywhere with this troll on 9/11 either.


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I am still waiting to hear your description of scientific method and your understanding of what appeal to authority means
> 
> 
> 
> the scientific method for dummies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as far as I can tell you folks have done none of these, we can dicuss the one at a time if you like?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are a joke...
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> The appeal to authority may take several forms. As a statistical syllogism, it will have the following basic structure:[1]
> 
> Most of what authority a has to say on subject matter S is correct.
> a says p about S.
> Therefore, p is correct.
> The strength of this argument depends upon two factors:[1][2]
> 
> The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
> A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion.
> We may also simply incorporate these conditions into the structure of the argument itself, in which case the form may look like this:[2]
> 
> X holds that A is true
> X is a legitimate expert on the subject.
> The consensus of experts agrees with X.
> Therefore, there's a presumption that A is true.
> [edit] Fallacious appeals to authorityFallacious arguments from authority are often the result of failing to meet either of the two conditions from the previous section.[1][2] Specifically, when the inference fails to meet the first condition, this is sometimes called an "appeal to inappropriate authority".[3] This occurs when an inference relies on individuals or groups without relevant expertise or knowledge.[3]
> 
> Because the argument is inductive (i.e. because the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises), it is also fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true.[2] In this event, the argument is a non sequitur
> 
> anything else?



your cut and paste does not apply....she is an expert in scientific procedure
and is explaining that procedure....


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I am still waiting to hear your description of scientific method and your understanding of what appeal to authority means
> 
> 
> 
> the scientific method for dummies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as far as I can tell you folks have done none of these, we can dicuss the one at a time if you like?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this coming from some loon that did not even know the findings of  NIST.. until I told him...lol
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and strangely similar to waiting for Patriot911 to provide his definition of "evidence". Smells like sock....
> 
> 
> 
> evidence is either hard (forensic) or soft ( eye witness/ear witness aka hear say.
> your hard evidence is nonexistent.
> your soft evidence is questionable at best  and does not stand up to close analytical scrutiny!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what hard evidence do you have that supports the NIST theory ???
Click to expand...


----------



## Mr. Jones

daws101 said:


> evidence is either hard (forensic) or soft ( eye witness/ear witness aka hear say.
> your hard evidence is nonexistent.
> your soft evidence is questionable at best  and does not stand up to close analytical scrutiny!





eots said:


> what hard evidence do you have that supports the NIST theory ???



Or that can't be debunked as BS speculation or lies for that matter. Why are they so secretive about their computer simulation program?
Many things about the NIST theory and report have been disputed, and shown to be bad science in various forms.
The machine needed to achieve certain goals, 9-11 was a way to attain those goals, and scaring the shit out of us to install a police state to stifle opposition is only one of them.
Learn about the world and the systems within it designed to control you.


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The appeal to authority may take several forms. As a statistical syllogism, it will have the following basic structure:[1]
> 
> Most of what authority a has to say on subject matter S is correct.
> a says p about S.
> Therefore, p is correct.
> The strength of this argument depends upon two factors:[1][2]
> 
> The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
> A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion.
> We may also simply incorporate these conditions into the structure of the argument itself, in which case the form may look like this:[2]
> 
> X holds that A is true
> X is a legitimate expert on the subject.
> The consensus of experts agrees with X.
> Therefore, there's a presumption that A is true.
> [edit] Fallacious appeals to authorityFallacious arguments from authority are often the result of failing to meet either of the two conditions from the previous section.[1][2] Specifically, when the inference fails to meet the first condition, this is sometimes called an "appeal to inappropriate authority".[3] This occurs when an inference relies on individuals or groups without relevant expertise or knowledge.[3]
> 
> Because the argument is inductive (i.e. because the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises), it is also fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true.[2] In this event, the argument is a non sequitur
> 
> anything else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your cut and paste does not apply....she is an expert in scientific procedure
> and is explaining that procedure....
Click to expand...

 ah ...the old twoofer two step,  this response is to post#1669 where you ask :"So I am still waiting to hear your description of scientific method and your understanding of what appeal to authority means"
ask and answered!  I understand the post and the meaning of appeal to authority ,you however,seemed baffled and you've yet if ever shown any working knowledge of the scientific method instead you show a clip of someone who does, that is not first hand experience (working knowledge)or in other words "I know a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy who once met a scientist. 

__________________


----------



## daws101

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> evidence is either hard (forensic) or soft ( eye witness/ear witness aka hear say.
> your hard evidence is nonexistent.
> your soft evidence is questionable at best  and does not stand up to close analytical scrutiny!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> what hard evidence do you have that supports the NIST theory ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or that can't be debunked as BS speculation or lies for that matter. Why are they so secretive about their computer simulation program?
> Many things about the NIST theory and report have been disputed, and shown to be bad science in various forms.
> The machine needed to achieve certain goals, 9-11 was a way to attain those goals, and scaring the shit out of us to install a police state to stifle opposition is only one of them.
> Learn about the world and the systems within it designed to control you.
Click to expand...

 wrong! BS SPECULATION is not evidence THAT'S WHY IT'S CALLED SPECULATION  and as the plaintiffs you must PROVE THE ALLEGATIONS THAT WHAT YOU BELIEVE ARE ACTUALLY FACT.   

THIS statement: "The machine needed to achieve certain goals, 9-11 was a way to attain those goals, and scaring the shit out of us to install a police state to stifle opposition is only one of them.
Learn about the world and the systems within it designed to control you"..  IS  positive proof of SPECIOUS SPECULATION...YOU HAVE NO CREDIBLE EVEDENCE LINKING  THAT SPECULATION TO FACT.


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> the scientific method for dummies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as far as I can tell you folks have done none of these, we can dicuss the one at a time if you like?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this coming from some loon that did not even know the findings of  NIST.. until I told him...lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU just keep believing that!
> You only presented "PARTS" OF THE REPORT THAT MIGHT BOLSTER YOUR ARGUMENT.
> I've read the report many times.
> the questions I asked and what statements I ask you to post were to see if you'd live down to my expections of the twoofer set.
> you've done a fabulous job!
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> this coming from some loon that did not even know the findings of  NIST.. until I told him...lol
> 
> 
> 
> YOU just keep believing that!
> You only presented "PARTS" OF THE REPORT THAT MIGHT BOLSTER YOUR ARGUMENT.
> I've read the report many times.
> the questions I asked and what statements I ask you to post were to see if you'd live down to my expections of the twoofer set.
> you've done a fabulous job!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bullshit, you did not know the findings of the final report and now you pretend you did...you are a clown
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

so what was your hard evidence on wtc 7 again ?...I must of missed that part


----------



## LA RAM FAN

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU just keep believing that!
> You only presented "PARTS" OF THE REPORT THAT MIGHT BOLSTER YOUR ARGUMENT.
> I've read the report many times.
> the questions I asked and what statements I ask you to post were to see if you'd live down to my expections of the twoofer set.
> you've done a fabulous job!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit, you did not know the findings of the final report and now you pretend you did...you are a clown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> actually he is retarded in the fact that he is a JFK lone nut theorist. You should look at his posts in the JFK section.cracks me up to no end.can only resort to one liners when he knows he is defeated.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...sination-whos-who-on-the-grassy-knoll-58.html
Click to expand...


----------



## Mr. Jones

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> evidence is either hard (forensic) or soft ( eye witness/ear witness aka hear say.
> your hard evidence is nonexistent.
> your soft evidence is questionable at best  and does not stand up to close analytical scrutiny!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> what hard evidence do you have that supports the NIST theory ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or that can't be debunked as BS speculation or lies for that matter. Why are they so secretive about their computer simulation program?
> Many things about the NIST theory and report have been disputed, and shown to be bad science in various forms.
> The machine needed to achieve certain goals, 9-11 was a way to attain those goals, and scaring the shit out of us to install a police state to stifle opposition is only one of them.
> Learn about the world and the systems within it designed to control you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong! BS SPECULATION is not evidence THAT'S WHY IT'S CALLED SPECULATION  and as the plaintiffs you must PROVE THE ALLEGATIONS THAT WHAT YOU BELIEVE ARE ACTUALLY FACT.
> 
> THIS statement: "The machine needed to achieve certain goals, 9-11 was a way to attain those goals, and scaring the shit out of us to install a police state to stifle opposition is only one of them.
> Learn about the world and the systems within it designed to control you"..  IS  positive proof of SPECIOUS SPECULATION...YOU HAVE NO CREDIBLE EVEDENCE LINKING  THAT SPECULATION TO FACT.
Click to expand...


NISTs theory IS based on BS speculation, if you don't think so and feel the need to defend them, then perhaps you can start by providing CREDIBLE EVIDENCE that can not be disputed by the introduction of a more plausible theory.
BTW, the machine had an agenda, and plans to invade Afghanistan, before 9-11, but their reason were not as sound as say...a new Pearl Harbor type of an event.


----------



## Article 15

bump for eots


----------



## daws101

9/11 inside job said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit, you did not know the findings of the final report and now you pretend you did...you are a clown
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually he is retarded in the fact that he is a JFK lone nut theorist. You should look at his posts in the JFK section.cracks me up to no end.can only resort to one liners when he knows he is defeated.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...sination-whos-who-on-the-grassy-knoll-58.html
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> so what was your hard evidence on wtc 7 again ?...I must of missed that part


NIST: Fire caused the collapse of WTC 7


Oct 1, 2008 

Uncontrolled building firessimilar to fires experienced in other tall buildingscaused an extraordinary event, the collapse of World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7), S. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), reported at a news conference in August. This conclusion was reached, Sunder said, by reconstructing the building, beam by beam, column by column, connection by connection into a computer model. The investigation results are included in a draft of the report and recommendations available online at http://wtc.nist.gov; NIST was accepting comments on the document up to September 15, 2008. The study took three years to complete.


Among the findings contained in the report are the following:

The collapse was not caused by explosives or fuel oil fires.
Fires, which undermined floor beams and a critical structural column, led to the eventual collapse. The fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 were particularly severe.
Thermal expansion of long-span floor systems in the east side of the building was a critical factor. The buildings exterior columns were more closely spaced than the interior ones. Thermal expansion of the floor beams damaged connections between the steel beams and concrete slab of the composite floor system. Some beams buckled; others pushed the girders, causing some to buckle. A few girders lost their connections to columns, triggering floor failures.
WTC 7 is the first modern high-rise to collapse primarily as a result of a fire. Debris from the falling WTC Tower 1 damaged structural columns and ignited fire on at least 10 floors. The main fuels for the fire were office paper and furnishings.
The water supply for the sprinkler system had been cut off on six of the lower floors, which caused these floors to burn with intensity. The upper floors had a backup water supply.
The collapse started on the 13th floor when a girder disconnected from a critical column (79), which supported a long open floor span. Once the floor gave way, the floors below it, down to the fifth floor, also compressed. The buckling of Column 79 (and then Columns 80 and 81) occurred when lateral support for nine stories was lost. As the building started to fall, a kink occurred at the top of the building as the east penthouse failed.


Sunder noted that thermal expansion effects currently are not explicitly considered in design practice for fire resistance ratings. No professional is assigned the explicit responsibility for ensuring the adequate fire safety performance of a buildings structural system. He added that the important lesson for engineers and architects to consider for other skyscrapers is how the heat from fires can weaken structural elements, potentially causing a so-called progressive collapse. Owners of tall buildings with a similar floor design, he said, should immediately consider whether to install reinforcements. He added, Perhaps codes should be changed to address the weakness.


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> so what was your hard evidence on wtc 7 again ?...I must of missed that part
> 
> 
> 
> NIST: Fire caused the collapse of WTC 7
> 
> 
> Oct 1, 2008
> 
> &#8220;Uncontrolled building fires&#8212;similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings&#8212;caused an extraordinary event, the collapse of World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7),&#8221; S. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), reported at a news conference in August. This conclusion was reached, Sunder said, &#8220;by reconstructing the building, beam by beam, column by column, connection by connection into a computer model.&#8221; The investigation results are included in a draft of the report and recommendations available online at http://wtc.nist.gov; NIST was accepting comments on the document up to September 15, 2008. The study took three years to complete.
> 
> 
> Among the findings contained in the report are the following:
> 
> The collapse was not caused by explosives or fuel oil fires.
> Fires, which undermined floor beams and a critical structural column, led to the eventual collapse. The fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 were particularly severe.
> Thermal expansion of long-span floor systems in the east side of the building was a critical factor. The building&#8217;s exterior columns were more closely spaced than the interior ones. Thermal expansion of the floor beams damaged connections between the steel beams and concrete slab of the composite floor system. Some beams buckled; others pushed the girders, causing some to buckle. A few girders lost their connections to columns, triggering floor failures.
> WTC 7 is the first modern high-rise to collapse primarily as a result of a fire. Debris from the falling WTC Tower 1 damaged structural columns and ignited fire on at least 10 floors. The main fuels for the fire were office paper and furnishings.
> The water supply for the sprinkler system had been cut off on six of the lower floors, which caused these floors to burn with intensity. The upper floors had a backup water supply.
> The collapse started on the 13th floor when a girder disconnected from a critical column (79), which supported a long open floor span. Once the floor gave way, the floors below it, down to the fifth floor, also compressed. The buckling of Column 79 (and then Columns 80 and 81) occurred when lateral support for nine stories was lost. As the building started to fall, a kink occurred at the top of the building as the east penthouse failed.
> 
> 
> Sunder noted that thermal expansion effects currently &#8220;are not explicitly considered in design practice for fire resistance ratings. No professional is assigned the explicit responsibility for ensuring the adequate fire safety performance of a building&#8217;s structural system.&#8221; He added that the important lesson for engineers and architects to consider for other skyscrapers is how the heat from fires can weaken structural elements, potentially causing a &#8220;so-called progressive collapse.&#8221; Owners of tall buildings with a similar floor design, he said, &#8220;should immediately consider whether to install reinforcements.&#8221; He added, &#8220;Perhaps codes should be changed to address the weakness.&#8221;
Click to expand...


there is not one shred of hard evidence in your cut & paste you ninny


----------



## Mr. Jones

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> so what was your hard evidence on wtc 7 again ?...I must of missed that part
> 
> 
> 
> NIST: Fire caused the collapse of WTC 7
> 
> 
> Oct 1, 2008
> 
> Uncontrolled building firessimilar to fires experienced in other tall buildingscaused an extraordinary event, the collapse of World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7), S. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), reported at a news conference in August. This conclusion was reached, Sunder said, by reconstructing the building, beam by beam, column by column, connection by connection into a computer model. The investigation results are included in a draft of the report and recommendations available online at http://wtc.nist.gov; NIST was accepting comments on the document up to September 15, 2008. The study took three years to complete.
> 
> 
> Among the findings contained in the report are the following:
> 
> The collapse was not caused by explosives or fuel oil fires.
> Fires, which undermined floor beams and a critical structural column, led to the eventual collapse. The fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 were particularly severe.
> Thermal expansion of long-span floor systems in the east side of the building was a critical factor. The buildings exterior columns were more closely spaced than the interior ones. Thermal expansion of the floor beams damaged connections between the steel beams and concrete slab of the composite floor system. Some beams buckled; others pushed the girders, causing some to buckle. A few girders lost their connections to columns, triggering floor failures.
> WTC 7 is the first modern high-rise to collapse primarily as a result of a fire. Debris from the falling WTC Tower 1 damaged structural columns and ignited fire on at least 10 floors. The main fuels for the fire were office paper and furnishings.
> The water supply for the sprinkler system had been cut off on six of the lower floors, which caused these floors to burn with intensity. The upper floors had a backup water supply.
> The collapse started on the 13th floor when a girder disconnected from a critical column (79), which supported a long open floor span. Once the floor gave way, the floors below it, down to the fifth floor, also compressed. The buckling of Column 79 (and then Columns 80 and 81) occurred when lateral support for nine stories was lost. As the building started to fall, a kink occurred at the top of the building as the east penthouse failed.
> 
> 
> Sunder noted that thermal expansion effects currently are not explicitly considered in design practice for fire resistance ratings. No professional is assigned the explicit responsibility for ensuring the adequate fire safety performance of a buildings structural system. He added that the important lesson for engineers and architects to consider for other skyscrapers is how the heat from fires can weaken structural elements, potentially causing a so-called progressive collapse. Owners of tall buildings with a similar floor design, he said, should immediately consider whether to install reinforcements. He added, Perhaps codes should be changed to address the weakness.
Click to expand...

 That is-


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> so what was your hard evidence on wtc 7 again ?...I must of missed that part
> 
> 
> 
> NIST: Fire caused the collapse of WTC 7
> 
> 
> Oct 1, 2008
> 
> Uncontrolled building firessimilar to fires experienced in other tall buildingscaused an extraordinary event, the collapse of World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7), S. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), reported at a news conference in August. This conclusion was reached, Sunder said, by reconstructing the building, beam by beam, column by column, connection by connection into a computer model. The investigation results are included in a draft of the report and recommendations available online at http://wtc.nist.gov; NIST was accepting comments on the document up to September 15, 2008. The study took three years to complete.
> 
> 
> Among the findings contained in the report are the following:
> 
> The collapse was not caused by explosives or fuel oil fires.
> Fires, which undermined floor beams and a critical structural column, led to the eventual collapse. The fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 were particularly severe.
> Thermal expansion of long-span floor systems in the east side of the building was a critical factor. The buildings exterior columns were more closely spaced than the interior ones. Thermal expansion of the floor beams damaged connections between the steel beams and concrete slab of the composite floor system. Some beams buckled; others pushed the girders, causing some to buckle. A few girders lost their connections to columns, triggering floor failures.
> WTC 7 is the first modern high-rise to collapse primarily as a result of a fire. Debris from the falling WTC Tower 1 damaged structural columns and ignited fire on at least 10 floors. The main fuels for the fire were office paper and furnishings.
> The water supply for the sprinkler system had been cut off on six of the lower floors, which caused these floors to burn with intensity. The upper floors had a backup water supply.
> The collapse started on the 13th floor when a girder disconnected from a critical column (79), which supported a long open floor span. Once the floor gave way, the floors below it, down to the fifth floor, also compressed. The buckling of Column 79 (and then Columns 80 and 81) occurred when lateral support for nine stories was lost. As the building started to fall, a kink occurred at the top of the building as the east penthouse failed.
> 
> 
> Sunder noted that thermal expansion effects currently are not explicitly considered in design practice for fire resistance ratings. No professional is assigned the explicit responsibility for ensuring the adequate fire safety performance of a buildings structural system. He added that the important lesson for engineers and architects to consider for other skyscrapers is how the heat from fires can weaken structural elements, potentially causing a so-called progressive collapse. Owners of tall buildings with a similar floor design, he said, should immediately consider whether to install reinforcements. He added, Perhaps codes should be changed to address the weakness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there is not one shred of hard evidence in your cut & paste you ninny
Click to expand...

that's because there is no hard evidence at all this is as close as it gets. regarding wtc7 and it's a shit load more then the any twoofer explaination! you wanker!


----------



## daws101

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> so what was your hard evidence on wtc 7 again ?...I must of missed that part
> 
> 
> 
> NIST: Fire caused the collapse of WTC 7
> 
> 
> Oct 1, 2008
> 
> &#8220;Uncontrolled building fires&#8212;similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings&#8212;caused an extraordinary event, the collapse of World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7),&#8221; S. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), reported at a news conference in August. This conclusion was reached, Sunder said, &#8220;by reconstructing the building, beam by beam, column by column, connection by connection into a computer model.&#8221; The investigation results are included in a draft of the report and recommendations available online at http://wtc.nist.gov; NIST was accepting comments on the document up to September 15, 2008. The study took three years to complete.
> 
> 
> Among the findings contained in the report are the following:
> 
> The collapse was not caused by explosives or fuel oil fires.
> Fires, which undermined floor beams and a critical structural column, led to the eventual collapse. The fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 were particularly severe.
> Thermal expansion of long-span floor systems in the east side of the building was a critical factor. The building&#8217;s exterior columns were more closely spaced than the interior ones. Thermal expansion of the floor beams damaged connections between the steel beams and concrete slab of the composite floor system. Some beams buckled; others pushed the girders, causing some to buckle. A few girders lost their connections to columns, triggering floor failures.
> WTC 7 is the first modern high-rise to collapse primarily as a result of a fire. Debris from the falling WTC Tower 1 damaged structural columns and ignited fire on at least 10 floors. The main fuels for the fire were office paper and furnishings.
> The water supply for the sprinkler system had been cut off on six of the lower floors, which caused these floors to burn with intensity. The upper floors had a backup water supply.
> The collapse started on the 13th floor when a girder disconnected from a critical column (79), which supported a long open floor span. Once the floor gave way, the floors below it, down to the fifth floor, also compressed. The buckling of Column 79 (and then Columns 80 and 81) occurred when lateral support for nine stories was lost. As the building started to fall, a kink occurred at the top of the building as the east penthouse failed.
> 
> 
> Sunder noted that thermal expansion effects currently &#8220;are not explicitly considered in design practice for fire resistance ratings. No professional is assigned the explicit responsibility for ensuring the adequate fire safety performance of a building&#8217;s structural system.&#8221; He added that the important lesson for engineers and architects to consider for other skyscrapers is how the heat from fires can weaken structural elements, potentially causing a &#8220;so-called progressive collapse.&#8221; Owners of tall buildings with a similar floor design, he said, &#8220;should immediately consider whether to install reinforcements.&#8221; He added, &#8220;Perhaps codes should be changed to address the weakness.&#8221;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is-
Click to expand...

again another unprovable specious allegation. you have no credible evidence other wise!


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> NIST: Fire caused the collapse of WTC 7
> 
> 
> Oct 1, 2008
> 
> &#8220;Uncontrolled building fires&#8212;similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings&#8212;caused an extraordinary event, the collapse of World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7),&#8221; S. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), reported at a news conference in August. This conclusion was reached, Sunder said, &#8220;by reconstructing the building, beam by beam, column by column, connection by connection into a computer model.&#8221; The investigation results are included in a draft of the report and recommendations available online at http://wtc.nist.gov; NIST was accepting comments on the document up to September 15, 2008. The study took three years to complete.
> 
> 
> Among the findings contained in the report are the following:
> 
> The collapse was not caused by explosives or fuel oil fires.
> Fires, which undermined floor beams and a critical structural column, led to the eventual collapse. The fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 were particularly severe.
> Thermal expansion of long-span floor systems in the east side of the building was a critical factor. The building&#8217;s exterior columns were more closely spaced than the interior ones. Thermal expansion of the floor beams damaged connections between the steel beams and concrete slab of the composite floor system. Some beams buckled; others pushed the girders, causing some to buckle. A few girders lost their connections to columns, triggering floor failures.
> WTC 7 is the first modern high-rise to collapse primarily as a result of a fire. Debris from the falling WTC Tower 1 damaged structural columns and ignited fire on at least 10 floors. The main fuels for the fire were office paper and furnishings.
> The water supply for the sprinkler system had been cut off on six of the lower floors, which caused these floors to burn with intensity. The upper floors had a backup water supply.
> The collapse started on the 13th floor when a girder disconnected from a critical column (79), which supported a long open floor span. Once the floor gave way, the floors below it, down to the fifth floor, also compressed. The buckling of Column 79 (and then Columns 80 and 81) occurred when lateral support for nine stories was lost. As the building started to fall, a kink occurred at the top of the building as the east penthouse failed.
> 
> 
> Sunder noted that thermal expansion effects currently &#8220;are not explicitly considered in design practice for fire resistance ratings. No professional is assigned the explicit responsibility for ensuring the adequate fire safety performance of a building&#8217;s structural system.&#8221; He added that the important lesson for engineers and architects to consider for other skyscrapers is how the heat from fires can weaken structural elements, potentially causing a &#8220;so-called progressive collapse.&#8221; Owners of tall buildings with a similar floor design, he said, &#8220;should immediately consider whether to install reinforcements.&#8221; He added, &#8220;Perhaps codes should be changed to address the weakness.&#8221;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is not one shred of hard evidence in your cut & paste you ninny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's because there is no hard evidence at all this is as close as it gets. regarding wtc7 and it's a shit load more then the any twoofer explaination! you wanker!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

The collapse was not caused by explosives or fuel oil fires.
Fires, which undermined floor beams and a critical structural column, led to the eventual collapse. The fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 were particularly severe.
Thermal expansion of long-span floor systems in the east side of the building was a critical factor. The buildings exterior columns were more closely spaced than the interior ones. Thermal expansion of the floor beams damaged connections between the steel beams and concrete slab of the composite floor system. Some beams buckled; others pushed the girders, causing some to buckle. A few girders lost their connections to columns, triggering floor failures.
WTC 7 is the first modern high-rise to collapse primarily as a result of a fire. Debris from the falling WTC Tower 1 damaged structural columns and ignited fire on at least 10 floors. The main fuels for the fire were office paper and furnishings.
The water supply for the sprinkler system had been cut off on six of the lower floors, which caused these floors to burn with intensity. The upper floors had a backup water supply.
The collapse started on the 13th floor when a girder disconnected from a critical column (79), which supported a long open floor span. Once the floor gave way, the floors below it, down to the fifth floor, also compressed. The buckling of Column 79 (and then Columns 80 and 81) occurred when lateral support for nine stories was lost. As the building started to fall, a kink occurred at the top of the building as the east penthouse failed.


bump


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see...
> 
> 
> 
> awesome retort
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> awesome retort
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not much else to say...there is no hard evidence to support NIST theory..you are correct
> 
> So,having problems with the incredibly easy quote function are you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> not much else to say...there is no hard evidence to support NIST theory..you are correct
> 
> So,having problems with the incredibly easy quote function are you ?
> 
> 
> 
> or your's either but  NIST has something you don't have, credibility.
> as to the other ,no.
> how typical of you twoofers to argue minutia. lmao .
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> or your's either but  NIST has something you don't have, credibility.
> as to the other ,no.
> how typical of you twoofers to argue minutia. lmao .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but I thought you had a contradictory theory to that of NIST ?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> but I thought you had a contradictory theory to that of NIST ?
> 
> 
> 
> IMO the only thing they got wrong was the "1st time in history" quote.
> my guess is that  the others ( steel buildings destroyed by fire)  did not fit their criteria.
> the thermal expansion theory is the only one that fits all the evidence.
> since they tested for explosives and other accelerants and found that it was highly improbable to set these without being detected and no one else come forward with a competing theory that has any scientific merit or credibility of any kind ,it only make sense to any reasonable  person to agree with the people who do safety and standards for a living.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> IMO the only thing they got wrong was the "1st time in history" quote.
> my guess is that  the others ( steel buildings destroyed by fire)  did not fit their criteria.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the thermal expansion theory is the only one that fits all the evidence.
> since they tested for explosives and other accelerants and found that it was highly improbable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no test where ever done for explosives or accelerants you are talking out your ass...again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to set these without being detected and no one else come forward with a competing theory that has any scientific merit or credibility of any kind ,it only make sense to any reasonable  person to agree with the people who do safety and standards for a living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> science is not guessing something would probably be too hard to do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

Soi I take it you have changed your position and coincide that outside of initiating fires damage played no significant role in the collapse of wtc 7


----------



## Triton

Sporadic fires and debris damage did not cause the symmetrical NEAR (since the debunkers always bitch about the initation) free fall collapse of WTC 7.


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> no test where ever done for explosives or accelerants you are talking out your ass...again
> 
> 
> science is not guessing something would probably be too hard to do
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you read but this is what I wrote:they tested for explosives and other accelerants and found that it was highly improbable to set these without being detected and no one else come forward with a competing theory that has any scientific merit or credibility of any kind ,it only make sense to any reasonable person to agree with the people who do safety and standards for a living.
> 
> 
> my want to rethink who's ass is talking here:
> 
> Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
> Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
> 
> In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.
> 
> For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.
> 
> Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
> NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.
> 
> Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails.
> 
> To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column . presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.
> 
> It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day.
> 
> Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.
> 
> Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.
> 
> An emergency responder caught in the building between the 6th and 8th floors says he heard two loud booms. Isn't that evidence that there was an explosion?
> The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building. If the two loud booms were due to explosions that were responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, the emergency responder-located somewhere between the 6th and 8th floors in WTC 7-would not have been able to survive the near immediate collapse and provide this witness account.
> Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> no test where ever done for explosives or accelerants you are talking out your ass...again
> 
> 
> 
> science is not guessing something would probably be too hard to do
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> Soi I take it you have changed your position and coincide that outside of initiating fires damage played no significant role in the collapse of wtc 7
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> just the facts:The collapse was not caused by explosives or fuel oil fires.
> Fires, which undermined floor beams and a critical structural column, led to the eventual collapse. The fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 were particularly severe.
> Thermal expansion of long-span floor systems in the east side of the building was a critical factor. The buildings exterior columns were more closely spaced than the interior ones. Thermal expansion of the floor beams damaged connections between the steel beams and concrete slab of the composite floor system. Some beams buckled; others pushed the girders, causing some to buckle. A few girders lost their connections to columns, triggering floor failures.
> WTC 7 is the first modern high-rise to collapse primarily as a result of a fire. Debris from the falling WTC Tower 1 damaged structural columns and ignited fire on at least 10 floors. The main fuels for the fire were office paper and furnishings.
> The water supply for the sprinkler system had been cut off on six of the lower floors, which caused these floors to burn with intensity. The upper floors had a backup water supply.
> The collapse started on the 13th floor when a girder disconnected from a critical column (79), which supported a long open floor span. Once the floor gave way, the floors below it, down to the fifth floor, also compressed. The buckling of Column 79 (and then Columns 80 and 81) occurred when lateral support for nine stories was lost. As the building started to fall, a kink occurred at the top of the building as the east penthouse failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Triton said:


> Sporadic fires and debris damage did not cause the symmetrical NEAR (since the debunkers always bitch about the initation) free fall collapse of WTC 7.


This evidence supports the NIST contention that the building collapse progressed from the penthouse out as columns were weakened by the fires. The slow sinking of the penthouses, indicating the internal collapse of the building behind the visible north wall, took 8.2 seconds according to a NIST preliminary report. Seismograph trace of the collapse of WTC 7 indicates that parts of the building were hitting the ground for 18 seconds. This means the collapse took at least 18 seconds, of which only the last approximately 15 seconds are visible in videos: 8 seconds for the penthouses and 7 seconds for the north wall to come down. not even close to freefall! lol! 



&#x202a;9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sporadic fires and debris damage did not cause the symmetrical NEAR (since the debunkers always bitch about the initation) free fall collapse of WTC 7.
> 
> 
> 
> This evidence supports the NIST contention that the building collapse progressed from the penthouse out as columns were weakened by the fires. The slow sinking of the penthouses, indicating the internal collapse of the building behind the visible north wall, took 8.2 seconds according to a NIST preliminary report. Seismograph trace of the collapse of WTC 7 indicates that parts of the building were hitting the ground for 18 seconds. This means the collapse took at least 18 seconds, of which only the last approximately 15 seconds are visible in videos: 8 seconds for the penthouses and 7 seconds for the north wall to come down. not even close to freefall! lol!
> 
> 
> 
> &#x202a;9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube
Click to expand...


no forensic testing for explosives was ever done ...dumb ass


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you read but this is what I wrote:they tested for explosives and other accelerants and found that it was highly improbable to set these without being detected and no one else come forward with a competing theory that has any scientific merit or credibility of any kind ,it only make sense to any reasonable person to agree with the people who do safety and standards for a living.
> 
> 
> my want to rethink who's ass is talking here:
> 
> Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
> Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
> 
> In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.
> 
> For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.
> 
> Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
> NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.
> 
> Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails.
> 
> To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column . presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.
> 
> It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day.
> 
> Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.
> 
> Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.
> 
> An emergency responder caught in the building between the 6th and 8th floors says he heard two loud booms. Isn't that evidence that there was an explosion?
> The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building. If the two loud booms were due to explosions that were responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, the emergency responder-located somewhere between the 6th and 8th floors in WTC 7-would not have been able to survive the near immediate collapse and provide this witness account.
> Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is a story ...an unproven theory...not supported with evidence...nothing more
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sporadic fires and debris damage did not cause the symmetrical NEAR (since the debunkers always bitch about the initation) free fall collapse of WTC 7.
> 
> 
> 
> This evidence supports the NIST contention that the building collapse progressed from the penthouse out as columns were weakened by the fires. The slow sinking of the penthouses, indicating the internal collapse of the building behind the visible north wall, took 8.2 seconds according to a NIST preliminary report. Seismograph trace of the collapse of WTC 7 indicates that parts of the building were hitting the ground for 18 seconds. This means the collapse took at least 18 seconds, of which only the last approximately 15 seconds are visible in videos: 8 seconds for the penthouses and 7 seconds for the north wall to come down. not even close to freefall! lol!
> 
> 
> 
> &#x202a;9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no forensic testing for explosives was ever done ...dumb ass
Click to expand...

 http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf   page 68


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is a story ...an unproven theory...not supported with evidence...nothing more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> please provide Non twoof movement evidence to corroborate that it's an unproven.
> 
> the story (fairytale) you propose  has never been tested by anyone.
> granted there are lots of untested unproven theories and opinions.
> just like religion.
> belief is not fact.
> belief is not evidence of fact
> 
> belief only proves belief.....nothing more!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> this evidence supports the nist contention that the building collapse progressed from the penthouse out as columns were weakened by the fires. The slow sinking of the penthouses, indicating the internal collapse of the building behind the visible north wall, took 8.2 seconds according to a nist preliminary report. Seismograph trace of the collapse of wtc 7 indicates that parts of the building were hitting the ground for 18 seconds. This means the collapse took at least 18 seconds, of which only the last approximately 15 seconds are visible in videos: 8 seconds for the penthouses and 7 seconds for the north wall to come down. Not even close to freefall! Lol!
> 
> 
> 
> &#x202a;9/11 debunked: World trade center - no free-fall speed&#x202c;&rlm; - youtube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no forensic testing for explosives was ever done ...dumb ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://wtc.nist.gov/ncstar1/pdf/ncstar 1a.pdf   page 68
Click to expand...


nowhere dose it say they did forensic testing for explosives you nit wit


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> please provide Non twoof movement evidence to corroborate that it's an unproven.
> 
> the story (fairytale) you propose  has never been tested by anyone.
> granted there are lots of untested unproven theories and opinions.
> just like religion.
> belief is not fact.
> belief is not evidence of fact
> 
> belief only proves belief.....nothing more!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES.. THAT IS AL YOU HAVE...A UNPROVEN THEORY
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES.. THAT IS AL YOU HAVE...A UNPROVEN THEORY
> 
> 
> 
> another "insightful" retort!
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> no forensic testing for explosives was ever done ...dumb ass
> 
> 
> 
> http://wtc.nist.gov/ncstar1/pdf/ncstar 1a.pdf   page 68
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nowhere dose it say they did forensic testing for explosives you nit wit
Click to expand...

 with no testable evidence it's the next best thing.....you know what about the scientific method again?


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://wtc.nist.gov/ncstar1/pdf/ncstar 1a.pdf   page 68
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nowhere dose it say they did forensic testing for explosives you nit wit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> with no testable evidence it's the next best thing.....you know what about the scientific method again?
Click to expand...


a better question is why did you cite a pdf file with no reference to forensic testing to support your bullshit claim testing for explosives was done ?


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> another "insightful" retort!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I SEE YOU ARE HAVING PROBLEMS WITH THE INCREDIBLE EASY QUOTE FUNCTION AGAIN....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## TakeAStepBack

These turds are great at this.....


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> nowhere dose it say they did forensic testing for explosives you nit wit
> 
> 
> 
> with no testable evidence it's the next best thing.....you know what about the scientific method again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a better question is why did you cite a pdf file with no reference to forensic testing to support your bullshit claim testing for explosives was done ?
Click to expand...

you know what about the scientific method again? [/quote]


----------



## daws101

TakeAStepBack said:


> These turds are great at this.....


what turds are you speaking of "these" could mean anything!


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg3tHNUh-6A&feature=feedu]&#x202a;911 Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out Trailer; AE911Truth.org 9/11 DVD.&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> &#x202a;911 Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out Trailer; AE911Truth.org 9/11 DVD.&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube


----------



## daws101

Changing List
The key to the AE911Truth presentation is a list of all characteristics of controlled demolition. Any presenter for the group gives this list first and then compares features of the WTC collapses to the list. As the talk progresses, the presenter checks each off and thus appears to demonstrate that the WTC collapses had to be controlled demolitions.

However, the group possesses no credible authority for presenting such a list. The founder, Richard Gage, is an architect by training, not a demolition expert. Since its evident that the group has simply drawn the list up based on things they think they observe in the collapses, the list is actually an example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

For example, AE911Truth changes the list based on whether they believe they can demonstrate the characteristic. This was done recently when Gage admitted that he could not prove the existence of squibs in the collapse of 7 World Trade. Instead of recognizing the weakness of his argument, he simply changed the list for 7 World Trade to eliminate the squibs feature.

Indeed, the current version of the presentation slideshow first gives a list of CD characteristics, then changes it slightly for 7 World Trade, and then changes it even more substantially for the Towers. AE911Truth cannot win even when it stacks the deck for itself!


AE911Truth.INFO » Changing List


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> changing list
> the key to the ae911truth presentation is a list of all characteristics of controlled demolition. Any presenter for the group gives this list first and then compares features of the wtc collapses to the list. As the talk progresses, the presenter checks each off and thus appears to demonstrate that the wtc collapses had to be controlled demolitions.
> 
> However, the group possesses no credible authority for presenting such a list. The founder, richard gage, is an architect by training, not a demolition expert. Since its evident that the group has simply drawn the list up based on things they think they observe in the collapses, the list is actually an example of the texas sharpshooter fallacy.
> 
> For example, ae911truth changes the list based on whether they believe they can demonstrate the characteristic. This was done recently when gage admitted that he could not prove the existence of squibs in the collapse of 7 world trade. Instead of recognizing the weakness of his argument, he simply changed the list for 7 world trade to eliminate the squibs feature.
> 
> Indeed, the current version of the presentation slideshow first gives a list of cd characteristics, then changes it slightly for 7 world trade, and then changes it even more substantially for the towers. Ae911truth cannot win even when it stacks the deck for itself!
> 
> 
> ae911truth.info » changing list



more of your pointless drivel...


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> changing list
> the key to the ae911truth presentation is a list of all characteristics of controlled demolition. Any presenter for the group gives this list first and then compares features of the wtc collapses to the list. As the talk progresses, the presenter checks each off and thus appears to demonstrate that the wtc collapses had to be controlled demolitions.
> 
> However, the group possesses no credible authority for presenting such a list. The founder, richard gage, is an architect by training, not a demolition expert. Since its evident that the group has simply drawn the list up based on things they think they observe in the collapses, the list is actually an example of the texas sharpshooter fallacy.
> 
> For example, ae911truth changes the list based on whether they believe they can demonstrate the characteristic. This was done recently when gage admitted that he could not prove the existence of squibs in the collapse of 7 world trade. Instead of recognizing the weakness of his argument, he simply changed the list for 7 world trade to eliminate the squibs feature.
> 
> Indeed, the current version of the presentation slideshow first gives a list of cd characteristics, then changes it slightly for 7 world trade, and then changes it even more substantially for the towers. Ae911truth cannot win even when it stacks the deck for itself!
> 
> 
> ae911truth.info » changing list
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more of your pointless drivel...
Click to expand...

 ok! and yours has a point, other than it has no basis in fact?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Triton said:


> Anyway, who's going to be at ground zero for the 10th anniversary of the false flag attack to attempt to engage in discussion with people and have many of them start screaming at you with arguments like "Its not possible!!" or "Nobody would do such a thing" or any other irrational emotion filled based claim that makes no sense while we get to be pushed into the little NYPD approved area and are treated rudely by them?



I was planning on it,i really wanted to but money is tight right now and I wont be able to.


----------



## daws101

9/11 inside job said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, who's going to be at ground zero for the 10th anniversary of the false flag attack to attempt to engage in discussion with people and have many of them start screaming at you with arguments like "Its not possible!!" or "Nobody would do such a thing" or any other irrational emotion filled based claim that makes no sense while we get to be pushed into the little NYPD approved area and are treated rudely by them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was planning on it,i really wanted to but money is tight right now and I wont be able to.
Click to expand...

if you had any real conviction you'd find a way ,after all  the fate of the world is in your hands!


----------



## LA RAM FAN

someone farted in here. Happened today at 2:21 pm.


----------



## daws101

9/11 inside job said:


> someone farted in here. Happened today at 2:21 pm.


with your head so far up your ass it  must be you!


----------



## LA RAM FAN

gonna have to leave here now since it stinks so bad after someone shitting all over the floor twice today now.


----------



## daws101

9/11 inside job said:


> gonna have to leave here now since it stinks so bad after someone shitting all over the floor twice today now.


zzzzzzzzzzz....zzzzzz....zzzzz


----------



## georgephillip

Mr. Jones said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHo5hNCvLb4&feature=player_embedded
> 
> Spread the word and research what the real issues are with the NIST investigation and the problems the families of the victims of 9-11 and many others have with the explanation that was told to the country.


On the political front...

Getting an impartial and scientific investigation into the events of 911 would be much easier if hundreds of Republican AND Democratic incumbents are FLUSHED from DC in November 2012.

For many voters, this requires choosing from established third-party candidates already appearing on their ballots.

FLUSH the DC toilet in 2012, and then put Bush, Cheney, and Rummy on the stand under oath.

That would be Hope and Change we could all Believe in.


----------



## daws101

georgephillip said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> &#x202a;Help put this TV Ad on the Air -- Go to RememberBuilding7.org&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube
> 
> Spread the word and research what the real issues are with the NIST investigation and the problems the families of the victims of 9-11 and many others have with the explanation that was told to the country.
> 
> 
> 
> On the political front...
> 
> Getting an impartial and scientific investigation into the events of 911 would be much easier if hundreds of Republican AND Democratic incumbents are FLUSHED from DC in November 2012.
> 
> For many voters, this requires choosing from established third-party candidates already appearing on their ballots.
> 
> FLUSH the DC toilet in 2012, and then put Bush, Cheney, and Rummy on the stand under oath.
> 
> That would be Hope and Change we could all Believe in.
Click to expand...


----------



## georgephillip

"Following the launch of the TV ad campaign on Monday June 6, Remember Building 7 released the results from a new poll we commissioned, conducted by the Siena Research Institute, on what New Yorkers believe about 9/11..."

"1 in 3 New Yorkers were unaware of Building 7&#8217;s collapse, only 25 percent have ever seen video footage of the collapse, and 86 percent were unable to name the building;

&#8226; Of those aware of Building 7&#8217;s collapse, 24 percent believe it was a controlled demolition, 23 percent are unsure, and 49 percent believe it was caused by fires.."

"When respondents are informed that the government issued a report in 2008 concluding fires brought down Building 7, and they are informed that there are critics including 1,500 architects and engineers who dispute the government&#8217;s report, saying that only explosives can account for Building 7&#8217;s collapse, 36 percent of all respondents say they are inclined to believe the critics, 40 percent are inclined to believe the government&#8217;s account, and 23 percent are unsure;

&#8226; Given the above information, 48 percent are in favor of the Manhattan District Attorney or New York City Council opening a new investigation into Building 7&#8217;s collapse, 44 percent are opposed and 8 percent don&#8217;t know or refused to answer."

Poll: 48% of New Yorkers Support Building 7 Investigation 

*Is it time for a full investigation into the collapse of WTC 7?*


----------



## daws101

georgephillip said:


> "Following the launch of the TV ad campaign on Monday June 6, Remember Building 7 released the results from a new poll we commissioned, conducted by the Siena Research Institute, on what New Yorkers believe about 9/11..."
> 
> "1 in 3 New Yorkers were unaware of Building 7s collapse, only 25 percent have ever seen video footage of the collapse, and 86 percent were unable to name the building;
> 
>  Of those aware of Building 7s collapse, 24 percent believe it was a controlled demolition, 23 percent are unsure, and 49 percent believe it was caused by fires.."
> 
> "When respondents are informed that the government issued a report in 2008 concluding fires brought down Building 7, and they are informed that there are critics including 1,500 architects and engineers who dispute the governments report, saying that only explosives can account for Building 7s collapse, 36 percent of all respondents say they are inclined to believe the critics, 40 percent are inclined to believe the governments account, and 23 percent are unsure;
> 
>  Given the above information, 48 percent are in favor of the Manhattan District Attorney or New York City Council opening a new investigation into Building 7s collapse, 44 percent are opposed and 8 percent dont know or refused to answer."
> 
> Poll: 48% of New Yorkers Support Building 7 Investigation
> 
> *Is it time for a full investigation into the collapse of WTC 7?*


 an assholes and egotists  poll skewed pov and worthless.


----------



## georgephillip

In what way(s) is(are) the poll skewed?

Do you have any "thoughts" on free fall?

"Responding to the criticism, *NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall.* 

"According to NIST, 'This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].'[v] 

"However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7&#8217;s free fall descent could have occurred."

Remember Building 7 | Stand with the 9-11 families demanding a NEW Building 7 investigation - Free Fall Collapse


----------



## daws101

georgephillip said:


> In what way(s) is(are) the poll skewed?
> 
> Do you have any "thoughts" on free fall?
> 
> "Responding to the criticism, *NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall.*
> 
> "According to NIST, 'This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].'[v]
> 
> "However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7s free fall descent could have occurred."
> 
> Remember Building 7 | Stand with the 9-11 families demanding a NEW Building 7 investigation - Free Fall Collapse


 freefall...Obviously you are not interested in the answer.

Any object that falls from a stand still under gravity only is considered free falling and therefore would be falling at free fall speed.

An object gains speed because of accelleration do to gravity and the shape of the object determines the terminal velocity.



If a structure like a highrise building has its main struts compromized on the sides of the building as the wtc building was made. and if the remaining beams are WEAKEned AND that is weakened you dont need them to melt to have them bend and colapse under a stress of tonnes of weight.

Add to that the physics of a mass of say 10 to 20 floors suddenly collapsing on the supports of the floor on the 21 floor from the top. 

that would once the one floor collapses would create more stress on each successive lower level thus creating a pancake effect.

And yes it has happened many times where buildings PANCAKE when the supports were substandard for the structure. This is in the news many times. So its NOT hard for someone with some sense of common sense to believe that something as unusual as a PLANE crashing into the building would cause a catrostrophic reaction like PANCAKING the building falling down on itself.

Hope you enjoyed the answer.


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> In what way(s) is(are) the poll skewed?
> 
> Do you have any "thoughts" on free fall?
> 
> "Responding to the criticism, *NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall.*
> 
> "According to NIST, 'This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].'[v]
> 
> "However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7s free fall descent could have occurred."
> 
> Remember Building 7 | Stand with the 9-11 families demanding a NEW Building 7 investigation - Free Fall Collapse
> 
> 
> 
> freefall...Obviously you are not interested in the answer.
> 
> Any object that falls from a stand still under gravity only is considered free falling and therefore would be falling at free fall speed.
> 
> An object gains speed because of accelleration do to gravity and the shape of the object determines the terminal velocity.
> 
> 
> 
> If a structure like a highrise building has its main struts compromized on the sides of the building as the wtc building was made. and if the remaining beams are WEAKEned AND that is weakened you dont need them to melt to have them bend and colapse under a stress of tonnes of weight.
> 
> Add to that the physics of a mass of say 10 to 20 floors suddenly collapsing on the supports of the floor on the 21 floor from the top.
> 
> that would once the one floor collapses would create more stress on each successive lower level thus creating a pancake effect.
> 
> And yes it has happened many times where buildings PANCAKE when the supports were substandard for the structure. This is in the news many times. So its NOT hard for someone with some sense of common sense to believe that something as unusual as a PLANE crashing into the building would cause a catrostrophic reaction like PANCAKING the building falling down on itself.
> 
> Hope you enjoyed the answer.
Click to expand...



many times really can you provide an example ?....and so where are the pancaked floors after the collapse of wtc  ?


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> In what way(s) is(are) the poll skewed?
> 
> Do you have any "thoughts" on free fall?
> 
> "Responding to the criticism, *NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall.*
> 
> "According to NIST, 'This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].'[v]
> 
> "However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7s free fall descent could have occurred."
> 
> Remember Building 7 | Stand with the 9-11 families demanding a NEW Building 7 investigation - Free Fall Collapse
> 
> 
> 
> freefall...Obviously you are not interested in the answer.
> 
> Any object that falls from a stand still under gravity only is considered free falling and therefore would be falling at free fall speed.
> 
> An object gains speed because of accelleration do to gravity and the shape of the object determines the terminal velocity.
> 
> 
> 
> If a structure like a highrise building has its main struts compromized on the sides of the building as the wtc building was made. and if the remaining beams are WEAKEned AND that is weakened you dont need them to melt to have them bend and colapse under a stress of tonnes of weight.
> 
> Add to that the physics of a mass of say 10 to 20 floors suddenly collapsing on the supports of the floor on the 21 floor from the top.
> 
> that would once the one floor collapses would create more stress on each successive lower level thus creating a pancake effect.
> 
> And yes it has happened many times where buildings PANCAKE when the supports were substandard for the structure. This is in the news many times. So its NOT hard for someone with some sense of common sense to believe that something as unusual as a PLANE crashing into the building would cause a catrostrophic reaction like PANCAKING the building falling down on itself.
> 
> Hope you enjoyed the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> many times really can you provide an example ?....and so where are the pancaked floors after the collapse of wtc  ?
Click to expand...

 have you forgotten! there are no more floors of wtc7 to study!


----------



## daws101

In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at WTC Disaster Study), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at WTC Disaster Study) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at WTC Disaster Study).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall). 
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall) 
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity 

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent timecompared to the 3.9 second free fall timewas due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.


----------



## daws101

twin towers pancakes .

Large pieces of debris, likened to meteorites by preservationists, are actually several floors of the towers compressed together as the buildings collapsed. Furniture, twisted metal, pipes, cords and even papers with legible type are visible. The pieces are kept in a humidity-controlled tent in Hangar 17 of Kennedy International Airport.
(Photo by Lane Johnson)


----------



## georgephillip

"A major piece of evidence in the WTC 7 collapse is the fact that WTC 7 underwent free-fall acceleration for a period of at least 2.25 seconds.[3] A free-falling building means there is no supporting structure whatsoever below to slow the building&#8217;s fall. The NIST theory does not explain this astounding fact. 

"However, if their theory is to believed, the *2.25 seconds of free fall* must have resulted from near-simultaneous buckling and breaking of the *58 perimeter columns and most of the 25 core columns over eight stories.* 

"The only evidence NIST provides to support their theory is in the form of a computer model. 

"While it could possibly be argued that the model does show some buckling occurring over eight stories, it most certainly does not show a period of free-fall. So NIST&#8217;s theory has absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever for the fact of free-fall. In other words the NIST theory cannot explain key empirical data."

A Scientific Theory of the WTC 7 Collapse


----------



## daws101

georgephillip said:


> "A major piece of evidence in the WTC 7 collapse is the fact that WTC 7 underwent free-fall acceleration for a period of at least 2.25 seconds.[3] A free-falling building means there is no supporting structure whatsoever below to slow the buildings fall. The NIST theory does not explain this astounding fact.
> 
> "However, if their theory is to believed, the *2.25 seconds of free fall* must have resulted from near-simultaneous buckling and breaking of the *58 perimeter columns and most of the 25 core columns over eight stories.*
> 
> "The only evidence NIST provides to support their theory is in the form of a computer model.
> 
> "While it could possibly be argued that the model does show some buckling occurring over eight stories, it most certainly does not show a period of free-fall. So NISTs theory has absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever for the fact of free-fall. In other words the NIST theory cannot explain key empirical data."
> 
> A Scientific Theory of the WTC 7 Collapse


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> freefall...Obviously you are not interested in the answer.
> 
> Any object that falls from a stand still under gravity only is considered free falling and therefore would be falling at free fall speed.
> 
> An object gains speed because of accelleration do to gravity and the shape of the object determines the terminal velocity.
> 
> 
> 
> If a structure like a highrise building has its main struts compromized on the sides of the building as the wtc building was made. and if the remaining beams are WEAKEned AND that is weakened you dont need them to melt to have them bend and colapse under a stress of tonnes of weight.
> 
> Add to that the physics of a mass of say 10 to 20 floors suddenly collapsing on the supports of the floor on the 21 floor from the top.
> 
> that would once the one floor collapses would create more stress on each successive lower level thus creating a pancake effect.
> 
> And yes it has happened many times where buildings PANCAKE when the supports were substandard for the structure. This is in the news many times. So its NOT hard for someone with some sense of common sense to believe that something as unusual as a PLANE crashing into the building would cause a catrostrophic reaction like PANCAKING the building falling down on itself.
> 
> Hope you enjoyed the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> many times really can you provide an example ?....and so where are the pancaked floors after the collapse of wtc  ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> have you forgotten! there are no more floors of wtc7 to study!
Click to expand...


the wtc 7 was never claimed to be a pancake collapse you nit-wit


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> many times really can you provide an example ?....and so where are the pancaked floors after the collapse of wtc  ?
> 
> 
> 
> have you forgotten! there are no more floors of wtc7 to study!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the wtc 7 was never claimed to be a pancake collapse you nit-wit
Click to expand...

 you must have a short term memory defect ,in post  #1737 you asked if I had any examples of pancaking .
In post#1740 I answered that question....if you want to know if wtc7 had pancaked ,you should have been more specific..


on the other hand you did a fine job of capitalizing the word pancaking in#1737...


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> have you forgotten! there are no more floors of wtc7 to study!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the wtc 7 was never claimed to be a pancake collapse you nit-wit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you must have a short term memory defect ,in post  #1737 you asked if I had any examples of pancaking .
> In post#1740 I answered that question....if you want to know if wtc7 had pancaked ,you should have been more specific..
> 
> 
> on the other hand you did a fine job of capitalizing the word pancaking in#1737...
Click to expand...


you are clueless and you answered nothing... don't pretend


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> the wtc 7 was never claimed to be a pancake collapse you nit-wit
> 
> 
> 
> you must have a short term memory defect ,in post  #1737 you asked if I had any examples of pancaking .
> In post#1740 I answered that question....if you want to know if wtc7 had pancaked ,you should have been more specific..
> 
> 
> on the other hand you did a fine job of capitalizing the word pancaking in#1737...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are clueless and you answered nothing... don't pretend
Click to expand...

 NEED I say more!


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you must have a short term memory defect ,in post  #1737 you asked if I had any examples of pancaking .
> In post#1740 I answered that question....if you want to know if wtc7 had pancaked ,you should have been more specific..
> 
> 
> on the other hand you did a fine job of capitalizing the word pancaking in#1737...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are clueless and you answered nothing... don't pretend
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NEED I say more!
Click to expand...


yes ,you need to answer the question ..instead of just lying and claiming you already have...its really a weak tactic


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are clueless and you answered nothing... don't pretend
> 
> 
> 
> NEED I say more!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes ,you need to answer the question ..instead of just lying and claiming you already have...its really a weak tactic
Click to expand...

asked and answerd.

you must have a short term memory defect ,in post #1737 you asked if I had any examples of pancaking .
In post#1740 I answered that question....if you want to know if wtc7 had pancaked ,you should have been more specific..


on the other hand you did a fine job of capitalizing the word pancaking in#1737...


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> NEED I say more!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes ,you need to answer the question ..instead of just lying and claiming you already have...its really a weak tactic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> asked and answerd.
> 
> you must have a short term memory defect ,in post #1737 you asked if I had any examples of pancaking .
> In post#1740 I answered that question....if you want to know if wtc7 had pancaked ,you should have been more specific..
> 
> 
> on the other hand you did a fine job of capitalizing the word pancaking in#1737...
Click to expand...

so in other words you are just going to keep claiming you answered because in reality you have no answer...got ya


----------



## Rat in the Hat

Considering all the people that died on that horrific day 10 years ago, why are the truthers concentrating all their efforts on the building that was empty when it collapsed?

I thought they were doing it for the victims.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> the wtc 7 was never claimed to be a pancake collapse you nit-wit
> 
> 
> 
> you must have a short term memory defect ,in post  #1737 you asked if I had any examples of pancaking .
> In post#1740 I answered that question....if you want to know if wtc7 had pancaked ,you should have been more specific..
> 
> 
> on the other hand you did a fine job of capitalizing the word pancaking in#1737...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are clueless and you answered nothing... don't pretend
Click to expand...


He NEVER does in his debates.He just calls you names and then runs off.No surprise since he is candycunt-aka Obamerica's pal.


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes ,you need to answer the question ..instead of just lying and claiming you already have...its really a weak tactic
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answerd.
> 
> you must have a short term memory defect ,in post #1737 you asked if I had any examples of pancaking .
> In post#1740 I answered that question....if you want to know if wtc7 had pancaked ,you should have been more specific..
> 
> 
> on the other hand you did a fine job of capitalizing the word pancaking in#1737...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so in other words you are just going to keep claiming you answered because in reality you have no answer...got ya
Click to expand...

 no got you! can't or won't admit you were not specific enough!


many times really can you provide an example ?....and so where are the pancaked floors after the collapse of wtc ?
have you forgotten! there are no more floors of wtc7 to study!


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes ,you need to answer the question ..instead of just lying and claiming you already have...its really a weak tactic
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answerd.
> 
> you must have a short term memory defect ,in post #1737 you asked if I had any examples of pancaking .
> In post#1740 I answered that question....if you want to know if wtc7 had pancaked ,you should have been more specific..
> 
> 
> on the other hand you did a fine job of capitalizing the word pancaking in#1737...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so in other words you are just going to keep claiming you answered because in reality you have no answer...got ya
Click to expand...

btw there are no other words..


----------



## daws101

Rat in the Hat said:


> Considering all the people that died on that horrific day 10 years ago, why are the truthers concentrating all their efforts on the building that was empty when it collapsed?
> 
> I thought they were doing it for the victims.


 sane people think that..but remember who you dealing with....just to add no injuries no death and the companies in wtc7 were not critically damaged...and went right on working.
to the twoofers wtc7 is an  Aladdin's  cave it's mythical and empty so you can stack the bullshit high & deep!


----------



## Obamerican

9/11 inside job said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you must have a short term memory defect ,in post  #1737 you asked if I had any examples of pancaking .
> In post#1740 I answered that question....if you want to know if wtc7 had pancaked ,you should have been more specific..
> 
> 
> on the other hand you did a fine job of capitalizing the word pancaking in#1737...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are clueless and you answered nothing... don't pretend
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He NEVER does in his debates.He just calls you names and then runs off.No surprise since he is candycunt-aka Obamerica's pal.
Click to expand...

So, now we're "pals" instead of "socks". Got it!!

Keep lying you little ****.


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering all the people that died on that horrific day 10 years ago, why are the truthers concentrating all their efforts on the building that was empty when it collapsed?
> 
> I thought they were doing it for the victims.
> 
> 
> 
> sane people think that..but remember who you dealing with....just to add no injuries no death and the companies in wtc7 were not critically damaged...and went right on working.
> to the twoofers wtc7 is an  Aladdin's  cave it's mythical and empty so you can stack the bullshit high & deep!
Click to expand...


there are many more victims of this lie than those that died in the towers


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Jayzuz, bruhs. I don't know how many fucking times it has to be said in the same thread, but I'll say it once more and then maybe some of you that can't grasp the concept, will do your homework.

In the laws of physics that we all know and adhere too (well, once upon a time...), you can absolutely NOT achieve free fall acceleration, even for 2.25 seconds (or eight floors), if there is resistance present. What you are trying to say is that the fires burned out ALL of the material for 8 floors in wtc 7 in order to achieve free fall acceleration. It is a farce and it makes you look fucking ridiculous to keep saying that this all adds up.


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering all the people that died on that horrific day 10 years ago, why are the truthers concentrating all their efforts on the building that was empty when it collapsed?
> 
> I thought they were doing it for the victims.
> 
> 
> 
> sane people think that..but remember who you dealing with....just to add no injuries no death and the companies in wtc7 were not critically damaged...and went right on working.
> to the twoofers wtc7 is an  Aladdin's  cave it's mythical and empty so you can stack the bullshit high & deep!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there are many more victims of this lie than those that died in the towers
Click to expand...







 and lame ass statement!


----------



## daws101

TakeAStepBack said:


> Jayzuz, bruhs. I don't know how many fucking times it has to be said in the same thread, but I'll say it once more and then maybe some of you that can't grasp the concept, will do your homework.
> 
> In the laws of physics that we all know and adhere too (well, once upon a time...), you can absolutely NOT achieve free fall acceleration, even for 2.25 seconds (or eight floors), if there is resistance present. What you are trying to say is that the fires burned out ALL of the material for 8 floors in wtc 7 in order to achieve free fall acceleration. It is a farce and it makes you look fucking ridiculous to keep saying that this all adds up.



In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at WTC Disaster Study), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at WTC Disaster Study) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at WTC Disaster Study).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall). 
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall) 
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity 

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent timecompared to the 3.9 second free fall timewas due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

do yours!


----------



## TakeAStepBack

NIST needs to release their model for independent verification. Because they built their analysis off from a computer model simulator. Until they release there model and the data points they used, we can not verify that they didn't fit the model data to meet the outcome they desired. 

David Chandler does a fine job contesting this. Regardless, as I stated before, you can not have free fall acceleration if resistance is present. It is a farce.

 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA]WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I) - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k&feature=related]WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II) - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related]WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Lastly, we've gone over this in this thread fucking numerous times. Why won't NIST release their model?


----------



## daws101

TakeAStepBack said:


> NIST needs to release their model for independent verification. Because they built their analysis off from a computer model simulator. Until they release there model and the data points they used, we can not verify that they didn't fit the model data to meet the outcome they desired.
> 
> David Chandler does a fine job contesting this. Regardless, as I stated before, you can not have free fall acceleration if resistance is present. It is a farce.
> 
> WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I) - YouTube
> 
> WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II) - YouTube
> 
> WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III) - YouTube


 the problem with your concept of "independent verification" is it's biased..


----------



## daws101

TakeAStepBack said:


> Lastly, we've gone over this in this thread fucking numerous times. Why won't NIST release their model?


 why? to ease the over active minds of a few crack pots? either way it get's you no closer to thermite usage or the men in black ...


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Why? WHY? Perhaps because in science we run peer review and test to determine the authenticity of the data being presented.
Release of the data means that it can be independently verified by anyone. There is no bias in that at all. it is what we do. 

Secondly, as an engineer by trade, I don't appreciate your condescending commentary about men in black or explosive charge. I don't by the explosives bit for numerous reasons. That has absolutely nothing to do with peer reviewing data of a model that tries to explain away free fall acceleration in what SHOULD be a natural global collapse. Apparently you still aren't getting it.


----------



## Rat in the Hat

The empty building fell down.







The occupied buildings fell down.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Rat in the Hat said:


> The empty building fell down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The occupied buildings fell down.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fSnSFLquVU]Greatest Come Back Ever - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Rat in the Hat

No, this is the greatest comeback to the *Truthers*(copyright & patent pending)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYzIbOYaSy8]Important Message from 9/11 Truth! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## TakeAStepBack

No, you're simply a fucking moron who can't grasp the implications of not peer reviewing scientific data. There is you rmessage.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fSnSFLquVU]Greatest Come Back Ever - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Rat in the Hat

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rhY9c_iemA]WTC 7 Collapse Chandler Debunked Pt 1 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60A86cg16KQ&feature=related]WTC7 Collapse Chandler Debunked pt 2 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## TakeAStepBack

I'll watch that when i have more time. 
Regardless, NIST acknowledges free fall acceleration for up to 8 floors of wtc 7. And yet I'll have to say it again, you can't have free fall acceleration if resistance is present

If NIST was so sure of their model and the data they used, why not release it for peer review?.


----------



## Rat in the Hat

TakeAStepBack said:


> I'll watch that when i have more time.
> Regardless, NIST acknowledges free fall acceleration for up to 8 floors of wtc 7. And yet I'll have to say it again, you can't have free fall acceleration if resistance is present
> 
> If NIST was so sure of their model and the data they used, why not release it for peer review?.



Not quite correct. NIST acknowledged FF acceleration for only one portion of the north facade.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

again, you can't have free fall acceleration if resistance is present


----------



## daws101

TakeAStepBack said:


> Why? WHY? Perhaps because in science we run peer review and test to determine the authenticity of the data being presented.
> Release of the data means that it can be independently verified by anyone. There is no bias in that at all. it is what we do.
> 
> Secondly, as an engineer by trade, I don't appreciate your condescending commentary about men in black or explosive charge. I don't by the explosives bit for numerous reasons. That has absolutely nothing to do with peer reviewing data of a model that tries to explain away free fall acceleration in what SHOULD be a natural global collapse. Apparently you still aren't getting it.


 ok I'll bite, what kind of engineer are you ?

2.your comment "there is no bias in that" is bullshit.." your" or should I say anyone who supports the, for lack of a better phrase "the twoofer theory of events on 911" is already bias, in the same way religious people are bias...
as to your not appreciating my so called  condescending commentary all I can say is put on your big boy pants and grow a pair..


----------



## daws101

Rat in the Hat said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll watch that when i have more time.
> Regardless, NIST acknowledges free fall acceleration for up to 8 floors of wtc 7. And yet I'll have to say it again, you can't have free fall acceleration if resistance is present
> 
> If NIST was so sure of their model and the data they used, why not release it for peer review?.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite correct. NIST acknowledged FF acceleration for only one portion of the north facade.
Click to expand...

 you have to read the nist report to know that...if you google or bing wtc7 freefall 99% of the listings are twoofer sites the scream nist admits freefall and nothing else, no wonder these guys get laughed at !


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Rat in the Hat said:


> WTC 7 Collapse Chandler Debunked Pt 1 - YouTube
> 
> WTC7 Collapse Chandler Debunked pt 2 - YouTube



The producer doesn't show his work very well. But that is OK. Because the producer acknowledges that free fall acceleration occurred. You can not achieve free fall acceleration if their is resistance. NIST and anyone else can claim "negligible" resistance all they want. Buckling of columns requires energy. Energy that can not be expelled twice. Meaning it can not convert into kinetic energy to allow for FFA. . 

How many times do I have to say this?


----------



## the other mike

Mr. Jones said:


> Spread the word and research what the real issues are with the NIST investigation and the problems the families of the victims of 9-11 and many others have with the explanation that was told to the country.


Thanks mr. Jones


----------



## Soupnazi630

TakeAStepBack said:


> The producer doesn't show his work very well. But that is OK. Because the producer acknowledges that free fall acceleration occurred. You can not achieve free fall acceleration if their is resistance. NIST and anyone else can claim "negligible" resistance all they want. Buckling of columns requires energy. Energy that can not be expelled twice. Meaning it can not convert into kinetic energy to allow for FFA. .
> 
> How many times do I have to say this?


They never claimed of acknowledghed free fall acceleration.


----------

