# 911 WTC 7 Silent Thermate Demolition, Debunkers Grab Your Ankles!



## KokomoJojo (Aug 9, 2014)

*Exposed!*

Let the sobbing begin and tears start to roll!





 








What is claimed is:          1. An apparatus for cutting a target material having a surface to be cut comprising:

cutting flame generating means disposed within said inner cavity;

       activating means operatively associated  with said cutting flame generating means to generate a cutting flame to  cut said target material; and

       wherein said apparatus is structured to be  positioned a standoff distance from said surface of said target  material when *said apparatus is placed on said surface of said target  material*.

         2. The apparatus of claim *1*, wherein said cutting flame generating means has a thermite charge.

*3. The apparatus of claim 2**,  wherein said thermite charge includes a powder comprising, by weight,  about 15% to 20% aluminum, about 78% to 85% CuO, about 1% to 3% SiC, and  about 0.2% to 4.0% nitrocellulose.*

*4. The apparatus of claim 3,  wherein said thermite charge includes parts, by weight, about 16% to  18% aluminum, about 80% to 83% CuO, about 1% to 2% SiC, and about 0.5%  to 2% nitrocellulose.*

         5. The apparatus of claim *1*,  further including a directional foil positioned in said *elongated nozzle  for focusing said cutting flame against said target material*.





         6. The apparatus of claim *1*, wherein said inner cavity defines a generally cylindrical volume.

         12. The apparatus of claim *1*,  wherein said inner cavity defines a predetermined volume to accommodate a  sufficient amount of said cutting flame generating means to ensure  effective cutting action on a particular thickness of target material.

         17. The method of claim *16*, wherein  said positioning said *cutting flame generating means includes placing a  thermite charge in a charge tube* and positioning said charge tube in  said inner cavity of said housing.

         25. An apparatus for cutting a target material having a surface to be cut comprising:
       a second housing having a nozzle channel  positionable opposite to said nozzle channel of said first housing to  permit cutting of said material in two directions, said second housing  being connected to said first housing; and 
       wherein said connection between said housings comprises a fixed connection and a pivotal connection between said housings.

         29. The apparatus of claim *20*, further including means disposed in said housing for electrically activating said cutting flame generating means.









so sit back folks and watch the plethora of debunking fabrications begin!





yes like that ^^^^^ LOL


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 9, 2014)

now this is hilarious!

not even the debunker trolls want to stick their neck out on this one.

gotta love it when truthers present an unimpeachable case.


----------



## Skylar (Aug 9, 2014)

So this is the ....third?... 'thermetic cutter' you've claimed was in common use? So far your record has been pretty abysmal. The 1984 'thermetic charge' you showed us turned out to be a low energy igniter. 

*Strike one.
*
The second, came 8 years after 911. Cause precedes effect. It doesn't follow it by 8 years.
*
Strike two.
*
And can you show us a single one of these devices ever used, ever made, ever tested? After all you said the technology had been in common use since the 1930s. Can you show us proof that this device even exists? 

Show us a picture, a video of its use, and examples of it ever being used in controlled demolition. Or Its...

*Strike Three.*

But why not kick a dead horse, shall we? 

1) *You can't factually establish that any 'thermetic cutter' even exists.* You've show us yet another drawing. Not an actual device.

2) *You can't factually establish that if existing, it works as claimed.* Patents require no proof of concept, no demonstration that the ideas described are viable or work in any way. 

3) *You can't factually establish that if existing and working as claimed, any where in the WTC 7.* And your theory requires thousands. 

4) Per your theory, there were thousands of such devices set across the entire building. There is zero chance that these devices would have gone unnoticed by the Port Authority bomb squad, the tenants of the building, those maintaining the building or those inspecting it. 

Killing your conspiracy.

5) You said that the 'thermetic cutter' works in milliseconds. Your entire conspiracy depends on it. Nothing in that description indicates anything close to that speed. _Killing your conspiracy a second time._

6) You said that the 'thermetic cutter' would disintegrate during use. Nothing in your description indicates it will disintegrate. Meaning that for your conspiracy to work, there would be thousands upon thousands of these devices on every girder supposedly 'cut'. 

There were none. *Absolutely destroying your conspiracy a third time.*

7) *Next, the building was on fire, with fire on virtually every floor.* No apparatus of demolition would survive this. There would be no way to synchronize the charges, as any blasting wire or relay cables would have been destroyed. Relays would have melted, timers would have melted, receivers would have melted.

Worse, the charge describes nitrocellulose as part of its composition. Nitrocellulose (also known as gun cotton) is ridiculously flammable. Meaning that the charges would have burned from the inside out long before they would have ignited for demolition. The nitrocellulose also acts as a binding agent for shaped thermite charges. So the charge would have fallen apart as the binding agent burned.

The conventional fuse described by the patent was fuse 26 available from Pyrofuse Corporation. That fuse works electrically, requiring connection to output terminals. All of which would have melted in the huge building fires. Rendering the entire device inert. And making it impossible to set off the devices in any sequence, let alone the perfect 'demolition sequence' that you imagine.

Making your conspiracy impossible, even hypothetically.  *And killing it a fourth time.*

8) Worse still, the device uses conventional explosives to propel the thermite. And there were no sound of explosives preceding the collapse of WTC 7.  *Killing your conspiracy a fifth time.*

9) *And of course, no girders were cut until weeks *after* the collapse during the cleanup effort. *You've never been able to show us a single girder cut in a manner described by your theory. And there would have been thousands up on thousands of them per your theory, making them impossible to miss.

In reality, there were zero. *Destroying your conspiracy a sixth time.*

Your new conspiracy doesn't work any better than your old conspiracy. Its an awful explanation that is factually void, contradicted by overwhelming evidence, and insanely complicated. You can't even prove that the devices exist or have ever been used. 

Try again.


----------



## Skylar (Aug 9, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> now this is hilarious!
> 
> not even the debunker trolls want to stick their neck out on this one.
> 
> gotta love it when truthers present an unimpeachable case.



Relax, chuckles. Your conspiracy was already proven impossible 6 times over. 

Read above.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Aug 9, 2014)

How long did it take for most people to even KNOW that building 7 collapsed on 9/11?

If it doesn't involve cheering the troops, choosing which hot FoxNews babe they wanna' screw or talking about Sports, Americans don't care.


----------



## Rozman (Aug 9, 2014)

Hocus Pocus...


----------



## Rozman (Aug 9, 2014)

So the twin towers and 7 WTC were all loaded up with explosives months in advance. Just waiting
for the day when hopefully terrorists would decide to hit these three buildings. Then someone could go on the Inter Web and login and press F11 on his keyboard and blow it all to hell?


----------



## Rozman (Aug 9, 2014)

I don't know if it's funny as hell that people actually believe this shit.
Or be weirded out that there are people out there who believe this shit.


----------



## whitehall (Aug 9, 2014)

Everything is political. If you want to make up a 9-11 conspiracy you need to consider the political climate and Indict the Clinton administration.


----------



## Skylar (Aug 9, 2014)

Rozman said:


> I don't know if it's funny as hell that people actually believe this shit.
> Or be weirded out that there are people out there who believe this shit.



Some people just don't get Occam's Razor. And mistake their own opinions and speculation as 'facts'. And thus, Truthers.

Another factor to remember is that the websites shilling this nonsense.....are making *millions* off these poor, hapless conspiracy theorists. The gullibility and willful ignorance of a Truther is written into their business plan. So the conspiracy industry has a pretty compelling financial incentive to keep feeding its customers more conspiracy propaganda and pablum. 

As its not like the folks that are gobbling this nonsense actually fact check or ask questions.


----------



## R.C. Christian (Aug 9, 2014)

9-11 was a conspiracy, and you disagree, then you don't know the meaning of the term and should just shut the fuck up.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 9, 2014)

R.C. Christian said:


> 9-11 was a conspiracy, and you disagree, then you don't know the meaning of the term and should just shut the fuck up.



DEBUNKERS ARE PROVEN RETARDS, what have they gotten right so far? NADA!

But we need them for entertainment














I can imagine the horror being slapped with a dose of reality after 12 years of making fools out of themselves.






I am sure they are grateful and oozing with love for truthers for being so generous and pointing out the error of their ways.


----------



## Skylar (Aug 9, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> > 9-11 was a conspiracy, and you disagree, then you don't know the meaning of the term and should just shut the fuck up.
> ...



Show us a picture of your device. Not a drawing. A verifiable picture. You still can't verify that it factually exists. You can't tell us its size, its weight, nor can you cite a single instance of their use in history. All you can do is show us a drawing. Lets see if a 'drawing equals reality' holds true.







Why look, Koko! Using your 'logic', I just proved Unicorns exist. After all, there's a drawing of one. 

Sigh...if only reality worked that way. You can't factually verify that your 'thermetic cutter' even exists. You can't establish that it works. And you can't factually establish that any of your imaginary 'thermetic cutters' were in the WTC.  And of course, there are the litany of holes in your theory. 6 of which utterly destroy your conspiracy, each that you completely ignore. With your imagined use of 'thermetic cutters' disproven 6 times over. 

And you're STILL citing Tom Sullivan?  The patent he referenced as  'thermite cutting charge'.....wasn't. Here's what Sullivan said:



> _n the case of Thermite cutter charges, that may also be the case [referring to being used in the World Trade Center]. Thermite self-consuming cutter charge casings have been around since first patented back in 1984.
> _


_

And here's the patent he was referencing:




			Application Number: 06/494487
Publication Date: 08/14/1984

This invention relates to a new low-energy integral thermite igniter/heat source, e.g., for use in igniting larger charges, e.g., propellant charges. 

Integral low-energy thermite igniter - The United States of America as represented by the United States

Click to expand...


When you fact check Sullivan's claims...his 'cutter charge' turns out to be a low energy igniting system; a glorified lighter that could cut a piece of paper. Let alone steel girders in 'milliseconds' as you whimsically imagined.

And yet despite your claims being so thoroughly debunked that even AE911Truth had to issue a retraction....




			We incorrectly identified the thermite device illustrated in this article as a cutter charge... Our intention was to note that the technology for self consuming consolidated thermite cases existed as far back as 1984 

Correction and Clarification: Article: Explosive Evidence at WTC Cited by Former CDI Employee

Click to expand...


.....only a day later you're shucking the same discredited nonsense again, hoping no one would fact check it. 

Um, we checked. Your glorifed lighter doesn't cut shit. Try again._


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 9, 2014)

Rozman said:


> So the twin towers and 7 WTC were all loaded up with explosives months in advance. Just waiting
> for the day when hopefully terrorists would decide to hit these three buildings. Then someone could go on the Inter Web and login and press F11 on his keyboard and blow it all to hell?




wtc 7 was verified evacuated seems to me around noon, so there was no body in the building to see anything, and only takes a couple hours to tape up radio controlled charges at less than 30 seconds per pop.

The neet thing about thermate charges is they can cut any thickness silently, where as the explosives get garfuckingantuan if you are cutting 5" thick columns.

Much better way to demo a building in the city than rdx.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 9, 2014)

Skylar said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > R.C. Christian said:
> ...



*Hey dimwit the patent proves its existence

Besides all it is, is a piece of pipe with a slot cut in it, how fucking hard is that?

*


----------



## Skylar (Aug 9, 2014)

> wtc 7 was verified evacuated seems to me around noon, so there was no body in the building to see anything, and only takes a couple hours to tape up radio controlled charges at less than 30 seconds per pop.
> 
> The neet thing about thermate charges is they can cut any thickness silently, where as the explosives get garfuckingantuan if you are cutting 5" thick columns.
> 
> Much better way to demo a building in the city than rdx.



Dude, it was evacuated because *the building was on fire. *Virtually every floor was in flamers. And you're not talking about a few charges set at its base. Your 'sequence of demolition' silliness claims charges* all the way to the roof. *

*That's thousands and thousands of charges. *All installed while the building was ON FIRE? Um....somehow. You can't say. All the charges and apparatus of demolition burning themselves? And somehow going off in perfect sequence, magically disappearing from every cut girder after they cut it...._while not actually cutting any girder_ (WTF?!), and leaving no residue of any kind?

*And all without the FDNY or NYPD noticing any of it? *

Um, no. That's laughably, ludicrously, insanely implausible. And just an awful, awful explanation.


----------



## Skylar (Aug 9, 2014)

> Hey dimwit the patent proves its existence



No, *a patent proves a patent exists. *You need no proof of concept to file a patent. All you need is a DRAWING and a description. You don't need to prove it works. You don't need to prove it does what it says it does.  ANd that's all you have: a drawing and a description.

*You can't prove that the 'thermetic cutter' actually exists, was ever made, does anything it says it will do, or was ever used on any building in any capacity....ever. *You assume it all, backed by absolutely nothing.

Just like you assume that the WTC 7 was filled with them. And I already disproved that nonsense 6 times over, demonstrating that it was physically impossible for the your theory to work:



> 1) Per your theory, there were thousands of such devices set across the entire building. There is zero chance that these devices would have gone unnoticed by the Port Authority bomb squad, the tenants of the building, those maintaining the building or those inspecting it.
> 
> Killing your conspiracy.
> 
> ...



But like a good little conspiracy theorist, you ignore the gaping, theory killing holes that simply destroy your conspiracy and pretend they don't exist. What you can't do is make *us* pretend.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 9, 2014)

Skylar said:


> > wtc 7 was verified evacuated seems to me around noon, so there was no body in the building to see anything, and only takes a couple hours to tape up radio controlled charges at less than 30 seconds per pop.
> >
> > The neet thing about thermate charges is they can cut any thickness silently, where as the explosives get garfuckingantuan if you are cutting 5" thick columns.
> >
> ...




debunkers made those quotes up.

anybody with 1 brain cell can see there was no fire.





*If you think the building was fully engulfed in fire before those thermate cutters which are TORCHES were set off, point it out for us because no one can see any buildings FULLY ENGULFED in fire but you, then, of course, after the thermetic cutters were ignited there was fire top to bottom as the columns were being cut.

Really simple 1 brain cell stuff here.*


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 10, 2014)

Skylar said:


> it was evacuated because *the building was on fire.
> 
> Virtually every floor was in flamers. *
> 
> ...



Ok, this will be waiting for you to *show us by putting your finger on the "engulfing fires",
JUST ONE LITTLE ONE will suffice, *since it only takes one brain cell to see *there is no visible fire* and fire makes light and *light is visible* so you are fucking delusional and seeing things that do not exist.

Thousands, are you that naive or completely out of your mind? its a demolition not a vaporization.  

*Typical building fire is not hot enough to light thermate and thermate charges are COMPLETELY SEALED.*

*Acknowledgement for the record and notice are two entirely different things,* however for the sake of an argument if they truely did not notice any foul play then they were preplanted.

all your supposed defenses arent worth.


You have said NOTHING that raises "REASONABLE" doubt it was anything but a demoition.


----------



## SteadyMercury (Aug 10, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> since it only takes one brain cell to see there is no visible fire and fire makes light and light is visible so you are fucking delusional and seeing things that do not exist.


Agreed, there was no fire at all at WTC 7


----------



## Faun (Aug 10, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > > wtc 7 was verified evacuated seems to me around noon, so there was no body in the building to see anything, and only takes a couple hours to tape up radio controlled charges at less than 30 seconds per pop.
> ...


Right ... because all of the smoke pouring out of the side of the building (which is even visible on the left side of building 7 in the photo you posted) ....


... all that smoke isn't from fires ... it's from all the weed being smoked by the folks you claim are as crazy as you to climb 47 stories with incendiaries through a building on fire.


----------



## Penelope (Aug 10, 2014)

I suppose all the engineers and architects for 911 are idiots. The NIST didn't even check for explosives .  They always check for arson, but not here, oh no the planes did it.


----------



## PredFan (Aug 10, 2014)

Some truthers actually make some sort of sense, unfortunately, the OP isn't one of them.


----------



## PredFan (Aug 10, 2014)

The problem with the truthers is that they are like someone telling us that our theory that the earth is flat is wrong and you must accept my theory that the earth is on the back of a giant turtle.

They do not provide that solid verifiable and scientifically proven facts that they demand from the official version. While I admit that there are holes in the official version, compared to the wild and wacky theories the truthers believe, the official version is gospel by comparison.


----------



## Faun (Aug 10, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


I know you're insane, so I don't really expect you to comprehend this ... but .., patents do not prove existence ... they prove concept. Anyone can patent any idea for a product and protect their concept with a few drawings of their idea. No prototype is necessary.

So while claiming a patent is proof of existence, is a lie, you are fortunate enough to be so insane that it's plausible you're crazy, not lying.


----------



## PredFan (Aug 10, 2014)

We are supposed to believe:

1. Three office buildings in downtown NYC, that have what thousands of offices and twice that many workers, were rigged to explode without one single office worker, maintenance man, or security guy seeing it.

2. That after rigging them, the demolition experts were able to know ahead if time exactly where the planes were going to hit, so that they could only detonate the buildings from that point down.

3. That the shadowy cabal didn't think that the two towers would cause enough outrage in this country and that they had to also take out building 7.

4. That no one on the huge team of demolition people that it would require to rig all three  buildings to fall would have enough guilt over all of the people who died that not one of them would come forward.

Truthers are fond of poking holes in the official version, all the while they can't take a serious look at their own crackpot theories.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 10, 2014)

PredFan said:


> We are supposed to believe:
> 
> 1. Three office buildings in downtown NYC, that have what thousands of offices and twice that many workers, were rigged to explode without one single office worker, maintenance man, or security guy seeing it.
> 
> ...




we are expected to believe that 3 office building one not even hit by a composite plane were built out of paper and fire brought them down.  Oh and not just down but straight fucking down!  

Nice fantasy, hell everyone would be in the demolition biz with that kind of profit margin!

Yeh thats really suspicious but good thinking its easier to investigate since you only need to find one perp to solve the rest at the same time. 

Hmmm good point again, there must have been a really good reason to take out the 3rd building, what was in there anyway?

OMFG how tarded to think that someone capable of such a heinous act would feel guilty and turn themselves in.  unreal you people are smoking some really good shit.

Nope its the da-bunkers that are smoking crack.

How about all those thermite cutters leveling that building!  aint that something? 

How did debunkers miss something so obvious? head up ass syndrome maybe?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 10, 2014)

Faun said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...




Yeh only deblunders are foolish enough to claim someone would get products patents and pay the absorbatant prices just to show off if there is no viable product or money to be made from it by selling the rights etc so as expected more of the same crazy debunker loonacy.

Hell thermite has been used for welding and cutting since the 1800's and here you and your dablunder pals are with your Neanderthal dysfunctional micro brain cell trying ot convince people they dont exist when all it takes a damn piece of pipe with a slot cut in it. 

any child could make it in their backyard LMAO


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 10, 2014)

PredFan said:


> *The problem with the truthers is that they are like someone telling us that our theory that the earth is flat is wrong* and you must accept my theory that the earth is on the back of a giant turtle.
> 
> They do not provide that solid verifiable and scientifically proven facts that they demand from the official version. While I admit that there are holes in the official version, compared to the wild and wacky theories the truthers believe, the official version is gospel by comparison.



it is wrong and flat earth was peer reviewed by experts no less! 

where is the funding truthers received to conduct said investigation, or was it the perps who got the money?


----------



## Faun (Aug 10, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


Your dementia aside, my post remains unblemished -- a patent is proof of concept, not proof of existence. Best part? Your inability to comprehend that reality is not actually required.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Aug 10, 2014)

someone farted in here.^


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 10, 2014)

Faun said:


> Your inability to comprehend that reality is not actually required.



in the wild wild world of tarded debunkers that is very true!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 10, 2014)

Wow, just wow........


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 10, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> Wow, just wow........




yeh debunkers are really taking it on the chin.  lol

there was actually a few (like 8) windows that had a little fire

no one is tarded enough to think that will bring a hirise down except of course debunkers.  they believe any shit fed to them


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 10, 2014)

8 windows? really? I didn't know you were blind and dumb......


----------



## PredFan (Aug 10, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > We are supposed to believe:
> ...



But you cannot answer or debunk any of those questions. You demand answers from the official version, but you cannot provide anything provable for your wacky theory. Typical.


----------



## PredFan (Aug 10, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > *The problem with the truthers is that they are like someone telling us that our theory that the earth is flat is wrong* and you must accept my theory that the earth is on the back of a giant turtle.
> ...



WOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSHHHHH!

That's the sound of the point going over your pointy head.


----------



## SteadyMercury (Aug 10, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> JUST ONE LITTLE ONE will suffice, since it only takes one brain cell to see *there is no visible fire* and fire makes light and *light is visible* so you are fucking delusional and seeing things that do not exist.





KokomoJojo said:


> there was actually a few (like 8) windows that had a little fire


How easily we change our tune when facts slap you in the face. "Suffice" much?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 10, 2014)

PredFan said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



dream on LOL


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 10, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> 8 windows? really? I didn't know you were blind and dumb......



obviously you dont know much and what you think you know is wrong, so good luck with that.

point out all that fire from a *late day* pic


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 10, 2014)

SteadyMercury said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > JUST ONE LITTLE ONE will suffice, since it only takes one brain cell to see *there is no visible fire* and fire makes light and *light is visible* so you are fucking delusional and seeing things that do not exist.
> ...




so a tiny *fire, that was by 8 windows not even close to the column that nist claimed failed* and you are that fucking tarded to think it would bring the building down.

Do tell!  This is one story I really cant wait to hear!


----------



## PredFan (Aug 10, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SteadyMercury said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



You really are an idiot aren't you?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 10, 2014)

PredFan said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



I just did, obviously you are too ignorant to know the difference since you cant rebut *ANY* of them!


----------



## Darlene (Aug 10, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> *Exposed!*
> 
> Let the sobbing begin and tears start to roll!
> 
> ...



None of the images you used are showing up on my computer, so please explain. Thank you.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 10, 2014)

PredFan said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > SteadyMercury said:
> ...




No, not at all.  I _*disagree*_ with debunkers.  You should step over to the intelligent side too someday, not now maybe someday, something to give you hope in your miserable life.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 10, 2014)

Darlene said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > *Exposed!*
> ...



you have to be logged in and if that dont work get a new computer or hire someone or go to the library and use one of theirs.


----------



## Darlene (Aug 10, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> Darlene said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



FYI, you have to be logged in to post anything. Are you saying that 9/11 was an inside job?


----------



## Faun (Aug 10, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, just wow........
> ...



Since I posted a video which showed one side of that building was billowing smoke from top to bottom, you prove yourself to be completely insane better than I could have shown. Thanks!


----------



## Faun (Aug 10, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SteadyMercury said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


You are batshit crazy. No one asserts the building came down because of fire alone. The building suffered critical structural damage when the north tower rained tons of steel and concrete on it. 

I like how you ignore that part so you can make it sound ridiculous that fire alone brought down a skyscraper, but since you have nothing but insanity on your side, your options severely limited.


----------



## PredFan (Aug 11, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



There isn't anything to rebut dumbass. You didn't provide anything but childish "nah nah nah nah" bullshit.  Your stupidity explains why you believe the shit you do.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 11, 2014)

Threads like this and 9/11's are to deflect from the actual conspiracy


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 11, 2014)

Faun said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > SteadyMercury said:
> ...



Hey dipwit, try again.  NIST said it LOL


NIST Home > Public and Business Affairs Office > News Releases > *NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse*

*NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse*

*For Immediate Release:* August 21, 2008


*Contact:* Michael E. Newman 

*Report and Recommendations for Improving Building Safety Released for Comment*

  GAITHERSBURG, Md.&#8212;The fall of the 47-story World Trade Center  building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City late in the afternoon of Sept. 11,  2001, was primarily due to fires, the Commerce Department's National  Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced today following  an extensive, three-year scientific and technical building and fire  safety investigation. This was the first known instance of *fire* causing  the total collapse of a tall building, the agency stated as it released  for public comment its WTC investigation report and 13 recommendations  for improving building and fire safety.


again that damage was no where near column 79 so thats your conspiracy theory LOL


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 11, 2014)

Yes NIST calls the unfought fires the primary reason for the collapse of WTC7....

And they are 99% Right........I don't think they give enough credit to the damages done by the falling tower....


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Aug 11, 2014)

i see your handlers sent you to fart again gomer,they sure are getting worried all this truth is getting out.hee hee.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 11, 2014)

still laughing at kokkos totally false assumption that no one was around wtc7 ...after the evacuation  

  4:10 PM    Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapses. 



9/11 and collapse

See also: Collapse of the World Trade Center





 7 World Trade Center on fire after the collapse of the Twin Towers on 9/11
As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center, damaging the south face of the building[37] and starting fires that continued to burn throughout the afternoon.[7] The collapse also caused damage to the southwest corner between Floors 7 and 17 and on the south face between Floor 44 and the roof; other possible structural damage included a large vertical gash near the center of the south face between Floors 24 and 41.[7] The building was equipped with a sprinkler system, but had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure: the sprinkler system required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps, rather than being a fully automatic system; the floor-level controls had a single connection to the sprinkler water riser; and the sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water. Also, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers.[38][39]

After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts.[40] Over the course of the day, fires burned out of control on several floors of 7 World Trade Center; the flames visible on the east side of the building.[41][42] During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 610, 1314, 1922, and 2930.[37] In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon.[8] At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[43] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.[44] Around 3:30 pm, FDNY Chief Daniel A. Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.[45] At 533 pm EDT (according to FEMA), the building started to collapse, with the crumble of the east mechanical penthouse, and at 510 pm EDT, according to FEMA, and 552 pm EDT according to NIST, it collapsed completely.[6][7][46] There were no casualties associated with the collapse.
7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Aug 11, 2014)

Darlene said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Darlene said:
> ...



are you saying you believe the fairy tales of the governments and the CIA controlled medias version that 19 muslims somehow overpowered trained pilots with mere box cutters and they piloted these air liners making all these impossible maneuvers in the air that expert pilots have said they could not do?

are you saying you believe our corrupt government instituions what they say even though they have a long history of lying to the american people as well?


that you take their word on this over the words of qualified experts?


Let me guess,you believe in magic bullets and the other fairy tale of the governments that oswald was the lone assassin right?

of course it was an inside job.read this link on this thread and watch the video as well in the OP.Nobody has ever been able to debunk those facts in them or ever has any answers for them.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...cia-did-9-11-overwhelming-facts-prove-it.html


----------



## daws101 (Aug 11, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> i see your handlers sent you to fart again gomer,they sure are getting worried all this truth is getting out.hee hee.


the truth about you has been out for years....


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Aug 11, 2014)

someone farted in here.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 11, 2014)

Can we get just one truther with more than a single digit IQ?

Oh, I'm sorry, i forgot.... truthers with IQ...Like chasing unicorns in an apple tree....


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 11, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> Can we get just one truther with more than a single digit IQ?
> 
> Oh, I'm sorry, i forgot.... truthers with IQ...Like chasing unicorns in an apple tree....




well we can just subtract about 130 points from any truther iq and expect minus triple digit iq from debunkers works out the same either way.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 11, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> Darlene said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



that sounds about right! LOL


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 11, 2014)

Skylar said:


> > Hey dimwit the patent proves its existence
> 
> 
> *You can't prove that the 'thermetic cutter' actually exists, was ever made, does anything it says it will do, or was ever used on any building in any capacity....ever. *You assume it all, backed by absolutely nothing.



seems I can, fucker works great too!  

1" rebar poof and its toast!





I keep telling you one celled amoeba brained neandrathals to do your homework instead of constantly going full tard out here.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 12, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > > Hey dimwit the patent proves its existence
> ...


no need to do home work ..no evidence of thermite or thermite linear cutters were found. 
you have no credible evidence proving they were installed.
 grabbing a still from YouTube is not doing how work, [ame=http://youtu.be/Wn-MCCZ3O1M]Linear Thermite Cutting Charges - YouTube[/ame]  
the clip is about A "new" cutting technology ..not one that was available in 2001.
epic fail as always!


----------



## daws101 (Aug 12, 2014)

http://www.experts123.com/q/is-it-possible-to-use-thermate-thermite-for-demolition-purposes.html

Is it possible to use thermate/thermite for demolition purposes?

It's unlikely that thermite and its derivatives would be used to demolish a building on their own. My speculation is that thermite could be placed inside a drilled hole in a steel beam, either from above or from the side of the target beam. Thermite's products are a mix of molten iron and aluminium oxide, and high temperatures over 1000 C, as is stated in the patent[10].

However the logical inference is that thermite could be used on some core columns, with the remainder broken at some point with RDX linear cutter charges. The thermate could be used to weaken the structure, with relatively few linear cutter charges needed to initiate the building collapse.

The only real advantage of using thermate over RDX for cutting beams, is that thermate burns rather than explodes (and therefore does not create a loud explosion).


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 12, 2014)

So this is the mysterious cutter that can cut a rebar? How about an 8 inch beam? And I see lots of evidence left behind in the video.....Lots and lots of evidence that was not found in and around the WTC buildings....


----------



## daws101 (Aug 12, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> So this is the mysterious cutter that can cut a rebar? How about an 8 inch beam? And I see lots of evidence left behind in the video.....Lots and lots of evidence that was not found in and around the WTC buildings....


shhh!


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Aug 12, 2014)

four farts in a row from the agent trolls.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Aug 12, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> Darlene said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



darlene is one of the few posters on here who is a brainwashed sheep in denial who actually believes the governments version of events.someone not a paid shill like gomer ollie,faun,and dawshit-aka sayit,that knows better that it was an inside job paid to come here to troll.

thats obvious because those agents,make up lies when confronted with those videos never addressing them,evading the facts in them changing the subject while farting here all day long.lol.

darlene however is afraid and doesnt want to look at the videos i posted so she has no comment.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 12, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


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


hey hand job we've all seen your videos a billion times, guess what?  

they're still bullshit.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 12, 2014)

daws101 said:


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



Oh Please, you know he's had us on ignore for years so he didn't have to try to answer our questions to him....
But truth is no I haven't watched his 2 hour video. Anytime he wants to break it down into 5 minute segments I'll be glad to tell him again where he is wrong. I did watch all of Loose change, and the revised loose change. Then "Fuck loose change".... It was the best made video of the bunch, it had real facts in it....


----------



## daws101 (Aug 12, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...


not to worry Ollie I'll give you the synopsis of all of his videos.. no evidence and lot's of paranoid rambling...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 12, 2014)




----------



## LA RAM FAN (Aug 14, 2014)

four more farts from the paid shills.

yep like i said,darlene doesnt constantly troll the boards here everyday posting outright lies like gomer pyle ollie and dawgshit-aka sayit do.like they she evades facts and wont address them only difference is she doesnt make up lies everyday when cornered,she just posts some childish one liner as her rebuttal knowing she is licked and doesnt come back. so its obvious she isnt a paid shill like gomer ollie and dawgshit-say it are.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 14, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> four more farts from the paid shills.
> 
> yep like i said,darlene doesnt constantly troll the boards here everyday posting outright lies like gomer pyle ollie and dawgshit-aka sayit do.like they she evades facts and wont address them only difference is she doesnt make up lies everyday when cornered,she just posts some childish one liner as her rebuttal knowing she is licked and doesnt come back. so its obvious she isnt a paid shill like gomer ollie and dawgshit-say it are.


any thing you say o handjob of nutcaseville


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Aug 14, 2014)

your handlers sure are worried all these facts are getting out sayit,the fact they sent you here so quick to fart so soon agin after my last post.

that folks again is the difference betwen paid shills like gomer ollie and dawgshit-aka sayit.that their handlers get so worried they send them to come back and fart IMMEDIATELy after your posts.

not a very good way of trying to deny it coming back so soon.!!!!!!!!!!!

but dawgshits handlers are so stupid,they never consider these things.

again truthers,thats the difference between paid shills like dawgshit and darlene.darlene is just been brainwashed and afraid to look at the facts and doesnt know any better so confronted with facts,she leaves.dawgshit knows he is licked but wont admit it so he comes back to shit all over the place posting debwunker links and debwunker videos since thats what he is very weel  paid to do,come back for constant ass beatings everyday


----------



## daws101 (Aug 14, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> your handlers sure are worried all these facts are getting out sayit,the fact they sent you here so quick to fart so soon agin after my last post.
> 
> that folks again is the difference betwen paid shills like gomer ollie and dawgshit-aka sayit.that their handlers get so worried they send them to come back and fart IMMEDIATELy after your posts.
> 
> ...


the above was completely false the first time you posted it, it still is...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Aug 14, 2014)

wow your handlers sure  are desperate dawgshit,still ANOTHER fart from you they sent you to post.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 14, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> wow your handlers sure  are desperate dawgshit,still ANOTHER fart from you they sent you to post.


FALSE! your delusion  that I have handlers is what's desperate..
your constant repetition of that lie just proves it.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 14, 2014)

Notice how 911shitforbrains complains that we never watch his videos, yet pretends we are all on ignore so he doesn't have to try to answer when we destroy his theories..

Please ignore the upcoming fart joke from 911shitforbrains......


----------



## Roudy (Aug 14, 2014)

Rozman said:


> I don't know if it's funny as hell that people actually believe this shit.
> Or be weirded out that there are people out there who believe this shit.


"never argue with a moron, he'll lower you to his level, and beat you with experience"


----------



## Rozman (Aug 14, 2014)

No proof of anything...
Yet they post and post shit as fact...


----------



## Roudy (Aug 14, 2014)

Rozman said:


> No proof of anything...
> Yet they post and post shit as fact...


It's the same stuff their brains are made of.  I bet you majority of them have some type of mental illness or another.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 14, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> So this is the mysterious cutter that can cut a rebar? How about an 8 inch beam? And I see lots of evidence left behind in the video.....Lots and lots of evidence that was not found in and around the WTC buildings....



they can cut through far more than a cutting torch can  and much faster, cutting torches run around 40,,,,,60 tops pound of pressure, thermate cutters run several hundred pounds of pressure and the jet stream is supersonic, hence for anyone with an understanding of the physics involved it goes without saying you could cut through a foot of steel like butter and do it in less than a second with proper doping.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 14, 2014)

Rozman said:


> No proof of anything...
> Yet they post and post shit as fact...




There is an old saying kiss, its reversed for debunkers though, its not keep it simple stupid its keep it stupid simple for their single digit iq.

this is proof, well in the real world anyway

1" rebar poof and its toast!





I keep telling you one celled amoeba brained neandrathals to do your  homework instead of constantly going full tard out here.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 14, 2014)

Roudy said:


> It's the same stuff their brains are made of.  I bet you majority of them have some type of mental illness or another.



you aint neo and you aint stopping bullets if you buy into the gubmints official story LOL


----------



## daws101 (Aug 14, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > So this is the mysterious cutter that can cut a rebar? How about an 8 inch beam? And I see lots of evidence left behind in the video.....Lots and lots of evidence that was not found in and around the WTC buildings....
> ...


proper doping ?
gee shithead  can you give a fair estimate on how long that would take in a building fully engulfed in fire  for 7 hours...


----------



## Roudy (Aug 14, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > It's the same stuff their brains are made of.  I bet you majority of them have some type of mental illness or another.
> ...


Taken one too many LSD trips back in the days, haven't we?


----------



## SAYIT (Aug 14, 2014)

Roudy said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



A bonafide Twilight Zoner.


----------



## candycorn (Aug 15, 2014)

Mad Scientist said:


> How long did it take for most people to even KNOW that building 7 collapsed on 9/11?
> 
> If it doesn't involve cheering the troops, choosing which hot FoxNews babe they wanna' screw or talking about Sports, Americans don't care.



I found out the evening of 9/11/01.  It was covered on ABC News.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 15, 2014)

Roudy said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



So you think lying cover your being born retarded


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 15, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



another titanic diverting out of their ignorant tardation.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 15, 2014)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...






you dont even understand the industry vernacular how revealing

worse you are so fucking stoopid you think you can lie your way out of something with your single digit amoeba iq that anyone with a double digit iq can see is complete bullshit LOL






feel free to point out so much as a fucking bic lighter


----------



## daws101 (Aug 15, 2014)

Roudy said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...


you have to have a mind to trip....koko lacks that.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 15, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


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


really shit head ?



 In-situ palladium doping or coating of stainless steel surfaces 



An alloy component having an oxide film formed on its surface. The oxide film has atoms of a metal incorporated therein by a process comprising immersing the alloy surface in high-temperature water in which compound containing the metal is dissolved. The metal has the property of increasing the corrosion resistance of the alloy when incorporated in the oxide film. The compound has the property that it decomposes in the high-temperature water to release atoms of the metal which incorporate in the oxide film. 


a lighter did not start the fire...


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 15, 2014)

daws101 said:


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




subzero literacy and comprehension, Ive seen miss the earth b4 but miss the whole universe, I didnt know anyone was that fucking stupid.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Aug 16, 2014)

as always,its only the paid shills that keep posting here.the brainwashed bush dupes afraid of the truth that dont know any better like Darlene havent come back because they know they cant refute anything.lol.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 16, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> as always,its only the paid shills that keep posting here.the brainwashed bush dupes afraid of the truth that dont know any better like Darlene havent come back because they know they cant refute anything.lol.



STFU Coward.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 16, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > as always,its only the paid shills that keep posting here.the brainwashed bush dupes afraid of the truth that dont know any better like Darlene havent come back because they know they cant refute anything.lol.
> ...




sounds like he has balls and you are the coward lol


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 16, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...



You do dream a lot don't you.

I'm here ready to answer any and all your stupid dreams of what you want to be true about the attacks on 911. 911shitforbrains is too much of a coward to step out and argue his points with me. He pretends i am on ignore so he can pretend i haven't been making him look stupid for the last 3 or 4 years.

You are welcome to join him.... 

Oh yes after 22 years in uniform I'm afraid of some nutcase on the internet....


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Aug 16, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...



ohhh I obviously touched on a nerve of Gomers.

Looks like the truth hurts that I am getting the word out on him.:lol

as always,Gomer ollie proves that he makes Gomer Pyle look really smart the fact that I irriate him so much yet he STILL reads my posts after all this time.

whats really extremely sad though is that gomer pyle is fictional where gomer ollie here is real.

as always,gomer proves he doesnt know anything about  logic or common sense whatsoever in the fact that since i irriate him so much,he can easily get rid of that irritation by using the ignore button.

Logic and common sense though is something Gomer Ollie doesnt have a clue about  of course so that fact will never register with him.

whats REALLY comedy gold though is HE is saying "I" am a coward. oh the Irony.

"IM" not the one cowardly running away with my tail between my legs when challenged to watch all those vidoes i have posted on my thread and yet,somehow "I" am the coward in gomer pyles drugged up mind.

comedy gold from gomer as always.

Im glad I dont know nutcase Gomer Ollie in real life,he indeed is a nutcase the fact he still talks to himself all the time. that seems to be a common trait with these OCTA'S. they are so desperate for attention they talk to themselves all the time.thats scary. i used to know a guy like that,that guy scared me.   

if not for you,i would have no idea that he STILL talks to himself these days after all these years.

i guess i cant get mad at you anymore like i have in the past for feeding these trolls now.lol

btw gomer,i love the clever arrangement you have made with fellow disinformation agent longknife,you NEVER come on any of his threads here he creates in the conspiracy section to argue with him and he never comes on these 9/11 threads or other government corruption threads  that you come on to argue with you because he is a far more clever troll than you are.

He PRETENDS he is trying to get the truth out about government corruption when he makes threads talking about the NWO and things like that,but in reality,just like you,he is actually working for them posting like he is against it so they can see how many people here post on his threads to let his hanlders know how many there are here aware of it.very clever of him indeed.and very clever of his handlers.If he wasnt as stupid as you though,he wouldnt go and brag he has you on his friends list though.a dead give away.

again, very clever that you never come on any of his threads he creates in this section to argue with him.very clever arrangement you two have with each other indeed.Not clever enough though and he screwed that up for you both by being careless.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 16, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



*they have a debunker manager* that incidentally wound up getting his ass handed to him by a real architect gage LOL

Listen to that illiterate tard!


----------



## daws101 (Aug 16, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


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


YOUR completely off topic answer can only mean I  got you by the balls ....tell me shit head, what does "in situ" mean !


----------



## daws101 (Aug 16, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


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


funny. here's a truther ,In fact the king of twoofers dickey gage  getting his ass handed to him....


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 16, 2014)

daws101 said:


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



it directly addresses the trash you posted, hence if it was off topic you were off topic.  not my problem you cant deal with the answer.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Aug 16, 2014)

I see agent dawgshit came on to fart twice after you posted it just like his handlers instructed him to and gomer ollie farted after your last comment before that as well.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 16, 2014)

so desperate you have to lie through your teeth eh... feel free to support your managers issues and argue them here.

everyone will enjoy watching you get your ass handed to you on a platter.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Aug 16, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


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



agents dawgsht and gomer fool themselves into belieing they have debunked videos with their classic one liner comebacks like-bullshit.believing that word alone debunks your facts or believing because THEY posted that word,its automatically true.comedy gold.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 16, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> I see agent dawgshit came on to fart twice after you posted it just like his handlers instructed him to and gomer ollie farted after your last comment before that as well.



I have a can of raid!


----------



## daws101 (Aug 16, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


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


false! and you still haven't answered either question  I posted no trash ...I asked you how long the doping process would take if wtc7was on fire ?
the you said I didn't  know the industry vernacular.. you were prove to be full of shit.   
the only logical conclusion a non delusional person can make is you are lying.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 16, 2014)

daws101 said:


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



yeh I know what you said, you are so fucking stupid you dont even know what I was talking about and I have no intention of educating you.  I prefer to laugh at you and watch you continue to prove me correct. LOL


----------



## daws101 (Aug 16, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > *they have a debunker manager* that incidentally wound up getting his ass handed to him by a real architect gage LOL
> ...




so desperate you have to lie through your teeth eh... feel free to support your managers issues and argue them here.

everyone will enjoy watching you get your ass handed to you on a platter.



[/QUOTE]altering posts is a banning offence


----------



## daws101 (Aug 16, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


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


false it's you who hasn't got a clue as to the method you 're trying to pass off. the tech and that method of steel cutting did not exist in 2001....that all by it's self  proves conclusively you're talking out your ass.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 16, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


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




so the edit button is just there for looks?  OMG

I have never seen this level of desperation[/QUOTE] wow you are ignorant the edit button is to edit your shit not someone else's

Editing quotes. You may selectively quote, provided that it does not change the context or meaning of the quote. When you comment on the quote, do it outside of the quote box. Do not post inside of the quote box


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 16, 2014)

daws101 said:


> altering posts is a banning offence



so is disrupting the standard page quote function by adding extra terminators *which causes that to happen* to who ever quotes your tired ass.  I hope you reported it.

Like I said that level of desperation is unheard of even for debunkers


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 16, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


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



So at 140 you guy tells us the building fell at freefall, again ignoring the east penthouse. 

Fail

Now 911shitforbrains wants me to watch his videos, how does he know i haven't? Supposedly he has had me on ignore for several years so why is he even addressing me?

Addressing me in a means of which he doesn't have to answer back. Because after all he's not reading anything i write. he is a coward.

And yes, when some truther starts out with the flat out lie about bldg 7 then i stop watching. When you guys come up with an alternate theory that includes the 8 to 10 seconds before the roofline moves than I might listen.

Oh, 911 is still a coward.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 16, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > *they have a debunker manager* that incidentally wound up getting his ass handed to him by a real architect gage LOL
> ...




are you saying the eph did not?


----------



## Shanty (Aug 17, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> *Exposed!*
> 
> Let the sobbing begin and tears start to roll!
> 
> ...


thermite cuts vertically. What do you claim made the cut horizontally?


----------



## Shanty (Aug 17, 2014)

Skylar said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know if it's funny as hell that people actually believe this shit.
> ...


It's the same with JFK conspiracy theorists. There has been a whole cottage industry of publishers and websites ready to take the money of the easily duped.


----------



## Shanty (Aug 17, 2014)

R.C. Christian said:


> 9-11 was a conspiracy, and you disagree, then you don't know the meaning of the term and should just shut the fuck up.


It's less people not knowing what a conspiracy is, as the conspiracy was hijackers flew planes into buildings. The conspiracy ended with Muhammed Atta and the other blow jobs who helped him pull it off.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 17, 2014)

Shanty said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Rozman said:
> ...



yes this conspiracy theory created a whole cottage industry of munitions and deficit interest and bailouts that extract trillions from the public purse and millions of bodies.  not that your brain is capable of thinking that far


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 17, 2014)

Shanty said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > *Exposed!*
> ...





you have to be smart enough to know how to read the patent and understand the design to know what an ignoramous you are.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Aug 17, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> so desperate you have to lie through your teeth eh... feel free to support your managers issues and argue them here.
> 
> everyone will enjoy watching you get your ass handed to you on a platter.



thats why they can only sling shit in defeat like the monkey trolls they are.

yeah they advertise that they are paid shills unlike darlene cause darlene knows she cant counter anything and is just in denial and scraed,where they know it was an inside job in the fact they come here and lie everyday knowing they are defeated posting DEB WUNKER links and videos that have nothing to do with the videos you post.

they wouldnt keep coming back everyday for their ass beatings they get her for free.no way.


if they werent paid shills and just in denial like darlene,they would be like her and not come back everyday and resort to lies all the time like they do.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Aug 17, 2014)

Shanty said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Rozman said:
> ...



the newest paid shill to penetrate this site.oh the irony.you need to look in the mirror when breathing your hypocrisy lies with your nonsense failing to fact check or ask questions  that 19 muslins and bin laden were behind the attacks.

oh and thanks for showing off what a stupid fuck you are as well that there was no conspiracy in the JFK assassination when even the HSCA in the 70's concluded that while oswald was involved,there was a second shooter as well with the lead investigater on it  writing a book  about it talking of the conspiracy.


Mr. Blakey delves into elements of organized crime and their connections to the assassination. He makes a compelling case for the multiple strong ties of Cosa Nostra members and Jack Ruby. There were also connections to Oswald, although probably not as direct.

This book strongly argues for the second shooter being placed on the Grassy Knoll. What I'm not convinced of is the direction of the fatal shot. The Zapruder film and physics point to a shot from the front. Oswald as an effective shooter hasn't been proven
[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Hour-G-Robert-Blakey/dp/0425135705[/ame]


oh and there were the witnesses who had all their testimonys altered by the warren commission,a crime itself by them they should have gone to jail for as well as all the dallas doctors saying the wound to the back of the head was an EXIT wound and the throut wound was an entrance wound.

not to mention all the multiple bullets photographed that day like one in the limo chrome,one on the opposite grassy knoll a policemen not involved,said he saw a plainclothesman FBI man pick up and put in his pocket which you do indeed see in the photos.


you agents are the stupiest lying fucks that ever lived.your hanlders sure pay you the big bucks to show off what lying trolls you are everyday and for these major ass beating you get.

see truthers unlike you lying agent trolls,seek the truth,YOU STUPID FUCKS are the liars who gobble nonsense and dont do fact checks as i just proved what a fucking liar you are.
miserable fail!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Aug 17, 2014)

Shanty said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Rozman said:
> ...



kinda like how Bush,cheney and zionist jew larry silverstein made TONS of money off the 9/11 attacks.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 18, 2014)

koko's still spewing shit and no fact...


----------



## KokomoJojo (Aug 19, 2014)

daws101 said:


> koko's still spewing shit and no fact...


as if you'd know the difference


----------



## daws101 (Aug 19, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> as if you'd know the difference


the difference is your shit is not fact.


----------



## n0spam4me (Aug 20, 2014)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > as if you'd know the difference
> ...



This could go on forever! 
>> look at the evidence
> thats NOT evidence!
>>  look at this, its a demo of thermite cutting steel.
> that isn't evidence! 

oh well ...... 

is AMERICA doomed?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 21, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


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


in fact it's an experimental device that can cut 1" rebar then  expend it's fuel!
it was not demonstrated that it could cut steel beams ...


----------



## n0spam4me (Aug 22, 2014)

daws101 said:


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



Have you seen Johnathan Cole's demo of thermite cutting a steel beam?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 22, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


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


you mean this one?
false comparison not to mention the prep time and not being caught doing it!


----------



## daws101 (Aug 22, 2014)

daws101 said:


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


----------



## n0spam4me (Aug 22, 2014)

daws101 said:


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



Prep-time + not getting caught installing the devices could be addressed using modular pre-assembled devices that could be installed under the excuse of trades people working on the building, internet wiring up-grades .... or? whatever, the office minions have better things to do than investigate exactly what the workers are doing.


----------



## Skylar (Aug 22, 2014)

> debunkers made those quotes up.



LOL! That's it? Just straight up denying that the FDNY ever said anything anything about a fire? Alas, I'm not quoting me. I'm quoting the NY Times and their oral history of interviews with the fire fighters themselves.



> The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. *It had very heavy fire on many floors* and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn’t lose any more people.
> 
> 
> We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was giver., at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely I continued to operate at the scene….
> ...



But don't tell us....the NY Times is in on it too? As I said, with the Truthers, anyone who doesn't ape the conspiracy, becomes part of it. And it keeps getting worse:



> The only thing is that later on I teamed up with
> Chief Jay Fischler of 46 Battalion at the time. Now heís in the
> 8th Battalion. *We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center
> as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire
> ...



*Nearly every floor.* And this inferno is what you imagine that these ninja bombardiers just sauntered into with thousands upon thousands of bombs, setting them all the way to the roof...without anyone noticing. Leaving no traces, no cut girders, no residue of explosives....and of course, working perfectly while ON FIRE.

C'mon, really?

The FDNY utterly destroys your story. And exactly as I predicted you would, you ignore the FDNY. You have no justification. You have no excuse. You just straight up closed your eyes, stopped up your ears and refused to even look at the evidence. *You don't give a fiddler's fuck what actually happened. As you'll ignore anyone or anything to keep clinging to your little turd of a conspiracy. *

Even when those 'someones' are the FDNY who were expert eye witnesses to the event. But you know better than all of them because you saw an animated gif 10 years after the fact?

Laughing....um, no.


----------



## Skylar (Aug 22, 2014)

> The problem with the truthers is that they are like someone telling us that our theory that the earth is flat is wrong and you must accept my theory that the earth is on the back of a giant turtle.
> 
> They do not provide that solid verifiable and scientifically proven facts that they demand from the official version. While I admit that there are holes in the official version, compared to the wild and wacky theories the truthers believe, the official version is gospel by comparison.



And that's the crux of the issue. I've fact checked the official story. I've fact checked most of the truther narratives. And the official story matches the evidence more closely, is simpler and is a better explanation of events.

The truther stories (including the hologram theory (Koko's favorite...who insists that all the planes were CG), the orbital weapons platform theory, the bomb theory, the thermite theory, the thermate theory, the nano-thermite theory) are wildly, insanely complicated, ludicrously elaborate, ridiculously unlikely and have holes you could drive semi-trucks through.

Simply put, the truther narratives are just awful, awful explanations.  And are cut to ribbons by Occam's Razor.


----------



## Skylar (Aug 22, 2014)

> I know you're insane, so I don't really expect you to comprehend this ... but .., patents do not prove existence ... they prove concept. Anyone can patent any idea for a product and protect their concept with a few drawings of their idea. No prototype is necessary.
> 
> So while claiming a patent is proof of existence, is a lie, you are fortunate enough to be so insane that it's plausible you're crazy, not lying.




A patent doesn't even prove concept. A patent merely *describes* concept. You don't need to prove it works, you don't need a working prototype. All you need is a drawing, a description, or both.

Which is exactly my point.


----------



## Skylar (Aug 23, 2014)

> Yeh only deblunders are foolish enough to claim someone would get products patents and pay the absorbatant prices just to show off if there is no viable product or money to be made from it by selling the rights etc so as expected more of the same crazy debunker loonacy.



Huh. So by your logic, this was not only made and tested, but sold on the market. After all, anyone who would patent something *must* have a viable product to make money. 
iote
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





So, chief.......um, when was this ever sold? Or built? Or tested? After all, you're 'if there's a drawing it has to be real' theory mandates it was made, was viable and was sold. So show us.

And patent submissions are far from 'expobinant'. I'm rather interested to see how you define 'exorbitant' prices.

Back in reality, most patents are never made, sold or have viable market. The costs aren't extreme: $130 filing fee, with drawings costing about $100 a page. Even an patent as elaborate as the one you tossed up, with multiple variants and pages of text would be less than $1000. If they consulted a patent attorney, $2000.

Remember, Koko....and this point is fundamental: you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. You're literally making this shit up as you go along. And its embarrassingly obvious that you are.



> Hell thermite has been used for welding and cutting since the 1800's and here you and your dablunder pals are with your Neanderthal dysfunctional micro brain cell trying ot convince people they dont exist when all it takes a damn piece of pipe with a slot cut in it.



Thermite has been used for WELDING since the 1800s, specifically welding together lengths of rail road track. But cutting?* Its never once been used as a cutter in demolition.* *Ever. *The 'thermite cutter' supposedly used in demolition you offered us was _complete bullshit,_ instead turning out to be nothing more than low energy igniter. A glorified lighter. With the Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth forced to issue a retraction. 

So can you offer us even ONE instance, in the history of planet earth, where thermite has been used as a cutter to bring down skyscrapers? *Of course not.* You're giving us a_ story_, void of actual evidence, that might as well begin with 'once upon a time.'

You can't prove that your cutter even exists. Or existing, does what it claims to do. Or was in WTC 7 when it collapsed. You simply imagine it all, and then absurdly demand we accept your imagination as fact.

Laughing....why would any rational person *ever* do that?


----------



## Skylar (Aug 23, 2014)

> seems I can, fucker works great too!
> 
> 1" rebar poof and its toast!



Laughing.....you haven't thought your claims through, have you? No worries, I'll do the thinking on your behalf.

First, you have another unsourced, unverified animated gif from photobucket that you *say* is a 'linear thermite cutter'. But as you've demonstrated for us so many times, you 'saying' something means exactly nothing. As you're clueless. I mean, its been a month and we're *still* waiting for you to show us that 'forensic analysis' that supposedly backs your narrative.

Your theories generally work best if no one asks any questions....or for you to back anything you say.

As an animated gif with the words 'linear thermite cutter' means nothing, you have yet to prove even the existence of your thermite cutting charge. Show us verifiable evidence of it....or at the very least, your source. As I'm pretty sure photobucket didn't create a thermite cutting charge.

Second, your 'cutter' is about 3 times wider than what it cut. And about 9 times longer. So scaled up to the 14" girders in the WTC 7, you're looking at *each* cutting charge being about 10.5 feet long and 3.5 feet wide. Roughly as long as a compact car, about half as wide and weighing about as much.

*On each girder. On each floor. All the way to the roof. *

That's thousands and thousands of such ludicrously enormous 'cutters' sticking out sideways by 10 feet on every girder of every floor to the top of the 47th floor. Each weighing thousand of pounds. An each containing explosives that the Port Authority bomb squad would have found in a millisecond, as if the car sized cylinders by the thousands wouldn't have made them impossible to miss.

Or worse....

Somehow installed while the building was ON FIRE. Thousands and thousands of times *in about an hour and half. *Devices that would have filled dozens of tractor trailers and required machinery to unload and install....somehow smuggled into the building without anyone noticing, despite the FDNY having evacuated the area around the collapse and forbidden anyone from approaching. And the cameras. And the hundreds of eye witnesses. None of which reported anything you describe.

And somehow installed while *they were on fire.* And somehow working in perfect unison despite all of the wires or transmitters that would have been used to synchronize such precision being *melted in the heavy fires on virtually all floors.*

Um, no. That's ludicrously stupid in addition to be fantastically complicated and laughably implausible. And the best part? The kick of this dead horse that just makes your theory look silly?

Um, chief.....*there were no cut girders.* And your theory requires thousands of cuts.

So, to summarize.

1) You can't factually establish your linear cutters even exist.

2) Or existing, do what they say they would do.

3) Or  doing what they say they would do, were in the WTC 7.

4) You can't explain how they could have possibly been installed being as large and heavy as they would have to be

5) You can't explain how they could have possibly been installed in as short a time as you claim they were installed for your theory to work.

6) You can't explain how they could been installed and how nobody noticed despite the building being surrounded by FDNY , hundreds of witnesses and dozens of cameras.

7) How they  could be installed while the building was burning. As the installers would have been quite flammable.

8) How they could have operated while on fire

9) Or could have triggered simultaneously while on fire.

10) Why, if each of the thousands and thousands of 'cutter charges' cut the girders.....*there were no cut girders. *

And this steaming rhetorical pile is your *best* explanation? The very best you managed to put together? As I've said.....the truther story is just stupidly bad. And cut to ribbons by Occam's razor.


----------



## Politico (Aug 23, 2014)

How is this still going on lol.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Aug 23, 2014)

Firstly, it's thermite. Secondly, a thermite reaction is anything but silent. 

Thirdly, before stopping your medication consult with your psychiatrist.


----------



## SAYIT (Aug 23, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


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



So you cling to your theory despite the fact that in the nearly 13 years since 9/11 no hard evidence of your demo theory has surfaced. None of cut beams. None of explosions. None of site preparation. None of magical pre-assembled modular thermite devices. Nothing.
Even if you ignore all the eye witnesses and testimony from NY fire fighters, how were those magical modular devices planted (and by whom) and when and how did they survive the fires raging in those buildings?
You may want to apply the same measure of cynicism to the conspiracy theories as you do to the official reports. Or not.


----------



## Skylar (Aug 23, 2014)

And where, pray tell, were the canisters after the collapse? These things would have been attached to virtually every girder, with thousand upon thousand of cut girders.

Yet....there were no canisters. There were no cut girders. Not one. 

Kicking the bloated, fetid body of this dead horse yet again.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 25, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


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


bahahahahahaha! you wish!


----------



## haissem123 (Aug 25, 2014)

i don't know how anybody could watch this virtually undamaged building go down in demo time ie free fall and deny it was imploded. not to mention the fact that all these building fell straight down as to not harm any other building much around them. it was an act of God or some evil killing so called innocents trading the lives of others to the lowest bidder. the corrupt tables where over thrown and shall be again world wide but the righteous.


----------



## haissem123 (Aug 25, 2014)

by the righteous.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 25, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> i don't know how anybody could watch this virtually undamaged building go down in demo time ie free fall and deny it was imploded. not to mention the fact that all these building fell straight down as to not harm any other building much around them. it was an act of God or some evil killing so called innocents trading the lives of others to the lowest bidder. the corrupt tables where over thrown and shall be again world wide but the righteous.


the above is an excellent example of denial ....


----------



## daws101 (Aug 25, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> by the righteous.


----------



## haissem123 (Aug 25, 2014)

daws, are you saying the towers werent brought down by forces other then planes fuel?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 25, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> daws, are you saying the towers werent brought down by forces other then planes fuel?


no, but you just wish I was...


----------



## haissem123 (Aug 25, 2014)

ok then. it was funny how the, those in charge, rushed to clean up the molten steel and hide all evidence of the thermite burnt steel.  not too mention the fact that no building ever struck by a jet or plane has ever collapsed by fire or one upper floors collapsing. at least not in this perfect fashion with two towers  going straight down then another building barely damage goes  straight down. how could anybody believe this if not by God then by men playing God with their new cool demo tools.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 25, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> ok then. it was funny how the, those in charge, rushed to clean up the molten steel and hide all evidence of the thermite burnt steel.  not too mention the fact that no building ever struck by a jet or plane has ever collapsed by fire or one upper floors collapsing. at least not in this perfect fashion with two towers  going straight down then another building barely damage goes  straight down. how could anybody believe this if not by God then by men playing God with their new cool demo tools.


bahahahaha! everything you just posted is twoofer propaganda . for starters  there was no molten steel...


----------



## haissem123 (Aug 25, 2014)

i am going by firemen's eye witness accounts, and you are going by what? gotta run but have fun. not sure what you wanna prove but what ever it is, if it's the towers came down because of planes hitting them, you are mistaken.


----------



## haissem123 (Aug 25, 2014)

i wasn't talking about the upper floors I was talking about molten steel in basement as seen by fire fighters. either way, it was a demo job hi tech but demo none the less


----------



## daws101 (Aug 25, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> i am going by firemen's eye witness accounts, and you are going by what? gotta run but have fun. not sure what you wanna prove but what ever it is, if it's the towers came down because of planes hitting them, you are mistaken.


bullshit you're going by  twoofer fiction...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 25, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> i wasn't talking about the upper floors I was talking about molten steel in basement as seen by fire fighters. either way, it was a demo job hi tech but demo none the less


false ....there is no evidence substantiating that claim...


----------



## Skylar (Aug 25, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> i am going by firemen's eye witness accounts, and you are going by what? gotta run but have fun. not sure what you wanna prove but what ever it is, if it's the towers came down because of planes hitting them, you are mistaken.



If you're going by fireman's eye witness accounts, then your assessment that the building was 'undamaged' goes right out the window. As the FDNY reports WTC 7 was heavily damaged by falling debris from WTC 1 and had heavy fires.

So are eyewitness fire fighter accounts accurate and reliable? If yes, then your WTC 7 account is inaccurate.


----------



## n0spam4me (Aug 25, 2014)

Politico said:


> How is this still going on lol.




Its still going on because its still relevant and its still not settled
in that the BIG LIE is still being promoted in the mainstream media.


----------



## Skylar (Aug 25, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > How is this still going on lol.
> ...



So now you're going to blame the media for the fact that the truther conspiracy just doesn't make sense, nor work factually?


----------



## haissem123 (Aug 26, 2014)

again. point to one building in history out of the many that have had fire earth quake damage etc.. and show me one that fell straight down into it's own basement? If you can find one that fell at all. you won't be able to as it's impossible unless a miracle. how many miracles did you see that day? all buildings fell straight down. makes no sense it could happen so perfect by coincidence.  i can't believe how gullible all  you people are.


----------



## Skylar (Aug 26, 2014)

> again. point to one building in history out of the many that have had fire earth quake damage etc.. and show me one that fell straight down into it's own basement?



What direction was the building supposed to fall? Show us one skyscraper in history that fell diagonally, or sideways, or up....or any direction other than down.

You can't. Your argument is so broken that you're literally trying to fold *gravity* into the conspiracy.



haissem123 said:


> again. point to one building in history out of the many that have had fire earth quake damage etc.. and show me one that fell straight down into it's own basement? If you can find one that fell at all. you won't be able to as it's impossible unless a miracle.



Its impossible for a building to collapse from fire and structural damage? Why then do engineers design against exactly that if its so impossible? Why did the FDNY accurately conclude that the WTC 7 was going to collapse due to fire and structural damage *hours* before it came down?

Why? Because its entirely possible. You simply don't know what you're talking about.



> all buildings fell straight down. makes no sense it could happen so perfect by coincidence.  i can't believe how gullible all  you people are.



Again, what direction were they supposed to fall? Every time I ask this question to your ilk......they flee. As there was no force but gravity that had sufficient influence on the direction the debris field went once the structure failed. Why then would a building falling *down* with gravity be an indication of a conspiracy?

You can't say. None of you can. Yet you allude and insinuate it must be......um, 'because'. That's not good enough. And of course, the holes in the bomb/thermite/orbital weapons platform theories are so egregious, so ludicrously complicated and fantastically elaborate to be torn to shreds by any semblance of consistency or plausibility.

So you ignore that too. No rational person would ignore either.


----------



## haissem123 (Aug 26, 2014)

go and google building collapse by fire, and yes make it similiar structures to any of these modern buildings. plus building seven was evacutated just prior to its implosion as is evident on numerous videos showing the order to evacuate because it's gonna be pulled as is the term used for implosions. dah. go find me a building


----------



## haissem123 (Aug 26, 2014)

i don't know what direction does a damaged building normally fall? toward the area it's damaged most?


----------



## SAYIT (Aug 26, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> go and google building collapse by fire, and yes make it similiar structures to any of these modern buildings. plus building seven was evacutated just prior to its implosion as is evident on numerous videos showing the order to evacuate because it's gonna be pulled as is the term used for implosions. dah. go find me a building



"Pull it" is not an implosion demo term and has been amply and resoundingly proven there is no evidence of a controlled demo. No explosions, no residuals, no cut girders, no known conspirators, no site prep and nothing which could have survived hours of raging fires only to be part of a controlled demo.
As Skylar already noted, no rational person would argue that a damaged building could collapse in any direction but down an in my experience those who make such irrational claims - despite the availability of real facts and logic - are either trying to sell T-shirts and coffee mugs to not-too-brights, a consumer of these T-shirts and mugs or have a nefarious agenda. So which are you ... a seller, a buyer or a snake-in-the-grass?


----------



## haissem123 (Aug 26, 2014)

7 seconds for building seven. that's a total free fall straight down. are your really that stupid to believe it just totally gave out so completely rapidly and perfectly on it's own? and yes pull it is a demo term used by pros and it was evacuated as they knew it was gonna come down in a few minutes. stop with your lies and pipe dreams


----------



## Skylar (Aug 26, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> go and google building collapse by fire, and yes make it similiar structures to any of these modern buildings.



I ask again, what direction was the building supposed to fall? If you have no answer, just admit it. But offering vague innuendo that it should have fallen some other direction but down.....but then failing to name what direction that was is arguing by insinuation. Meaning that even you know you can't back up your narrative with evidence.

And again, show us any skyscraper that has collapsed that ever fell any direction but strainght down. You can't. The force of gravity only pulls in one direction with any significance. And that's the direction such skyscrapers are going to fall.



> plus building seven was evacutated just prior to its implosion as is evident on numerous videos showing the order to evacuate because it's gonna be pulled as is the term used for implosions. dah. go find me a building



'Pull' in demolition parlance means to attach cables to a building and literally pull it over with bulldozers. Its usually limited to buildings that are say, 3 to 9 stories tall. The WTC was 47. And its ridiculously clear from the FDNY quotes that the expected the building to collapse due to fire and structural damage.



> The major concern at that time at that particular location was number Seven, building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell,it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing.
> 
> So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex. Eventually around 5:00 or a little after, building number seven came down
> 
> ...



Fire and structural damange. Not a single mention of bombs or charges . All of which you already know. And Chief Fellini is hardly alone;



> The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn’t lose any more people.
> 
> We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was giver., at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely I continued to operate at the scene….
> 
> ...



Fire and structural damage again. You claim to give weight to the FDNY and their assessment. Unless they disagree with you. And then you ignore them entirely. WHich is just silly.




> Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area –
> Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on.
> 
> And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed. They shut down the power, and when it did collapse, the things that they were concerned with would have been. That's about it
> ...



In fact, there's not a single mention of explosive demolition as the cause of the collapse of WTC 7 from the FDNY. Not once. Not ever. And downright astonishing....the folks you're accusing of demolishing the building and then covering it up.....are the FDNY themselves! They lost 343 of their own. Why in holy hell would they then participate in the very conspiracy that cost so many of their men. 

Not only is your conspiracy contradicted by utterly overwhelming evidence, it just doesn't make the slightest sense.

Worse, the building was on fire. Heavy fires. 'On almost every floor'. There's no system of explosives that that can handle being on fire. Charges would explode or be reduced to bubbling puddles of goo. Detonators would have detonated. Wires would have melted. Transmitters, receivers or timers would have been reduced to melted plastic and twisted wires. But in the midst of a massive building fire, they wired it to explode....in minutes?

Um, no.

Worse still, there were no girders cut in a manner consistent withe explosive demolition. The collapse initiated in virtual silence, and there are no such thing as 'silent explosives'. With actual controlled demolition being ludicriously loud. There was no residue of explosives found in any dust sample, nor any apparatus of explosives ever found. Not an inch of blasting wire, not a single charge, not a single cut, not a single timer or transceiver. Nothing.

*How do you deal with these numerous, overlapping, conspiracy killing holes in your claims? You pretend none of them exist. *But why would we or any rational person play pretend just because you do? Either your argument works...or it doesn't. And as you're demonstrating with each rout from the crippling inconsistencies between your claims and the evidence......your argument doesn't work.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 26, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > How is this still going on lol.
> ...


 relevant to whom?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 26, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> again. point to one building in history out of the many that have had fire earth quake damage etc.. and show me one that fell straight down into it's own basement? If you can find one that fell at all. you won't be able to as it's impossible unless a miracle. how many miracles did you see that day? all buildings fell straight down. makes no sense it could happen so perfect by coincidence.  i can't believe how gullible all  you people are.


 bullshit
Conspiracy sites like to bring up the 'Symmetric Collapse' of building 7 and claim that the building should have fallen over to the south. They show grainy, dark photos of debris piles which were taken well after 9/11 and a debris pile with a grayish, smoky image of building 7 in the background. They deceptively show the north side which was relatively free of damage. As if the Tower should have reached over to the other side of the building and damaged that side too.

Here is what the debris pile looked like just after 9/11​



Eerily, the north face is on the debris pile as if a shroud were laid gently over the dead building. It fell over after the majority of the building fell. This indicates that the south side of the building fell before the north. It's almost as if the buildings last words were "[This] did it!..".

And now comes the most important and telling fact in this photo. Note the west side (Right side in this photo) of the north face is pointing toward the east side (Left side of this photo) where the penthouse was. What caused this? It would not be unreasonable to expect the building to fall toward the path of least resistance. The path of least resistance in this case would be the hole in the back of the building and the hole left by the penthouse. Since the penthouse was on the east and the 20 story hole in the middle, that would make the east and middle the path of least resistance. The conspiracy sites agree with this theory but say it never happened. They say the fact that it didn't happen helps prove controlled demolition. But you see it happen here... What will they say now?

"But the building doesn't look like it fell over, it fell "in its own foot print" you might say. That's because it is impossible for a 47 story steel building to fall over like that. It's not a small steel reinforced concrete building like the ones shown as *Examples* of buildings which fell over. Building 7 is more like the towers, made up of many pieces put together. It's not so much a solid block as those steel reinforced concrete buildings.

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.







Debunking 9 11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7 Building 7


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 27, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> 7 seconds for building seven. that's a total free fall straight down. are your really that stupid to believe it just totally gave out so completely rapidly and perfectly on it's own? and yes pull it is a demo term used by pros and it was evacuated as they knew it was gonna come down in a few minutes. stop with your lies and pipe dreams



Bullshit. Typical truther lie. You have totally ignored what was happening before and during the collapse of the east penthouse. Your 7 seconds is closer to 20 seconds.


----------



## Skylar (Aug 27, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> > 7 seconds for building seven. that's a total free fall straight down. are your really that stupid to believe it just totally gave out so completely rapidly and perfectly on it's own? and yes pull it is a demo term used by pros and it was evacuated as they knew it was gonna come down in a few minutes. stop with your lies and pipe dreams
> ...




Exactly. The penthouse didn't fall off of the WTC 7. It fell INTO it. Demonstrating undeniably and incontrovertibly that the internal structure of the WTC 7 was already collapsing before the facade fell. 

This is the part of truthers that is so awkward. They're given a script to recite. Someone goes off script and decimates what they're reciting. And......they just keep reciting the script. At no point do they actually think or question what they've been told to mindlessly repeat. They simply ignore the legions of conspiracy killing holes in their beliefs.

No person genuinely interested in what happened ever would.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 27, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> > go and google building collapse by fire, and yes make it similiar structures to any of these modern buildings. plus building seven was evacutated just prior to its implosion as is evident on numerous videos showing the order to evacuate because it's gonna be pulled as is the term used for implosions. dah. go find me a building
> ...



I would guess that the poster means it is odd that the buildings collapsed straight down, without any particular lean to any given side.  The whole 'falling into their own footprint' thing.  I found it odd when it happened, that neither of the tower tops had enough extra resistance on one side to cause them to fall to the side.


----------



## Skylar (Aug 27, 2014)

Montrovant said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > haissem123 said:
> ...



I wasn't. There's no structure in the buildings capable of stopping a collapse once its initiated. And as the debris field is accelerated under gravity, the energy of impact from the debris field increases exponentially. Worse, it gains mass with each floor it destroys.

Greater velocity and greater mass translates into wildly greater energy with each impact. Meaning if the first floor couldn't catch the debris field when it was lightest and slowest....then there's nothing that could catch it until you reach the ground as each impact after is heavier and faster.. 

Each floor, however, has roughly the same static resistance as the first floor the debris field impacted.


----------



## haissem123 (Aug 27, 2014)

please. enough. you believe any stupid luck or engineering story you want. any and all honest and smart engineers of all kinds agree. the towers were not taken down by planes fires or their own fires. we all agree the owner took out extra policies and collected much more then they were worth and save billions not having to remove asbestos on the iron structure that was being worked on and most conclude was being set to fall not to remove asbestos. I wonder how many working in that industry, if asked, would sacrifice a few thousand for their fair share of a few billion dollars say a few million each? that's exactly what goes on in the market every day and we pyschopaths take that bet and sell those lives daily. so in reality, the were done unto themselves and they did unto others. just my honest opinion. Sorry, i was duped into these ill gotten gains for a while myself. now, knowing the evil of my former ways, would rather starve then reap rewards off the enslavement and suffering of others. shalom


----------



## haissem123 (Aug 27, 2014)

still waiting for any other buildings that collapsed from plane fire or fire etc... where are they out of all the towering infernos over the past? buildings of similar construct.


----------



## haissem123 (Aug 27, 2014)

were are the attendance records and why are they or should they be hidden from the people's sight? they should be public record and as one who lost a cousin, whose boss conveniently and uncharacteristically stayed home among others, I don't know why the other families aren't demanding to know who called out that day. cover up is a lack of honest information.


----------



## Skylar (Aug 27, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> please. enough. you believe any stupid luck or engineering story you want. any and all honest and smart engineers of all kinds agree. the towers were not taken down by planes fires or their own fires.



Says you. The NIST says otherwise. The FDNY clearly picks a side on the collapse of WTC 7, citing fire and structural damage as the cause of the collapse, correctly anticipating its collapse by hours.

Why would I ignore them and instead believe you?



> we all agree the owner took out extra policies and collected much more then they were worth and save billions not having to remove asbestos on the iron structure that was being worked on and most conclude was being set to fall not to remove asbestos.



Silverstein certainly had the towers insured for terrorist attacks. Gee, _I wonder why he would ever think to do that. I mean, its not like the WTC had *ever* been the target of terrorist attacks before. _

Oh, wait. *There was that whole 1993 bombing attack that cost an estimated $500 million dollars to clean up and repair*. 500 million. Let that number role around in your head a little. And then ask yourself, what idiot WOULDN'T insure against terrorist attacks?

As for the asbestos......um, who is 'we' in 'we agree'. Because you only seem to be citing yourself. And I certainly don't agree with you. The Port Authority put the asbestos costs at closer to 200 million. And they'd already paid it. That's 1/10th your made up number.

And of course, you're not taking into account all the rent that silverstein lost. The WTC 1 and 2 had 95% occupancy and was brining in 200 million in income a year, with income projected to rise significantly as rent prices continued to rise. Plus the 120 million a year in base rent he had to pay the Port Authority. One World Trade Center doesn't open until the end of this year.

That's 13 years of lost income and rent that had to be paid. That's *at least* 2.6 billion in lost revenue....with the number almost certainly closer to 3 billion as office rental space in Manhattan has increased 24% since 2001. With the same rental space generating almost 250 million a year.

Plus another 1.56 billion rent that silver stein still had to pay to the Port Authority. Bringing his total losses from the WTC plaza alone to 4.5 billion dollars.

*And of course, WTC 7 isn't part of that. *He lost all the revenue from that building plus had to pay to have his 47 story skysrcaper rebuilt. And you never mentioned any of it. Either you didn't know....or you didn't care. But why would a rational person dismiss what you did?



> I wonder how many working in that industry, if asked, would sacrifice a few thousand for their fair share of a few billion dollars say a few million each? that's exactly what goes on in the market every day and we pyschopaths take that bet and sell those lives daily.



Wow. You're accusing the man of being a mass murder based on exactly jack shit. Don't you think that's the kind of accusation you'd want to be kinda sure about before you start slinging it about?


----------



## Skylar (Aug 27, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> still waiting for any other buildings that collapsed from plane fire or fire etc... where are they out of all the towering infernos over the past? buildings of similar construct.



Still waiting for any other skyscraper that fell any direction but down. If you're going to insinuate that the building should have collapsed in a different direction, you're going to need to back that shit up with some examples.

But instead you run from your own insinuations. Which speaks volumes.

And the WTC 7 was the first steel frame building to collapse due primarily to fire.


----------



## Skylar (Aug 27, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> were are the attendance records and why are they or should they be hidden from the people's sight? they should be public record and as one who lost a cousin, whose boss conveniently and uncharacteristically stayed home among others, I don't know why the other families aren't demanding to know who called out that day. cover up is a lack of honest information.



Attendance records for what? 

Jesus....are you insinuating *another* conspiracy you can't possibly back up with facts? If you have evidence that certain people 'conveniently and uncharacteristically stayed home among others', then show us. But these vague innuendos aren't an argument.

They're an excuse for one.


----------



## haissem123 (Aug 27, 2014)

they keep records of everybody that enters the towers as to have accurate evacuations I presume. But on that fateful day, we the people seeking truth through all info, aren't allowed to see those that stayed home that day. why not? if it's the truth, why hide it? cause it will point to a certain group of chosen few that had more then a clue that something was gonna happen that day? yep, you betya. It will be all the big bosses in the know


----------



## Skylar (Aug 27, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> they keep records of everybody that enters the towers as to have accurate evacuations I presume.



You're presuming a lot. I genuinely don't know. And neither do you.



> But on that fateful day, we the people seeking truth through all info, aren't allowed to see those that stayed home that day. why not? if it's the truth, why hide it?



Several problems with that narrartive. First, you're claiming you're not being given access to records t*hat you have yet to factually establish even exist. *You *presume* they do. And that presumption may or may not be accurate.

Second, if they did exist, they wouldn't be public records...they'd be private. And the refusal to turn over private records to any ol' schmo that demands them isn't an indication of a conspiracy. Ask me for my SSN or my bank balance, and I'll demonstrate the concept for you.



> cause it will point to a certain group of chosen few that had more then a clue that something was gonna happen that day? yep, you betya. It will be all the big bosses in the know



Again, you don't know that. You *presume* it. Based on absolutely jack shit. This pattern of you imagining 'smoking guns' that you can't factually establish even exists is getting rather obvious. If you have evidence to back your latest conspiracy insinuation, present it. 

Otherwise, you're literally imagining another conspiracy based on nothing.


----------



## haissem123 (Aug 27, 2014)

I know my cousins boss knew to stay home that day. i know they keep records of people entering buildings of this size and importance. You think they don't? Shall we go to google or did that conspiracy police get there first? lol. would you know or care if they did? lol. you presume all is coincidence and is as it seems or has been told to you.


----------



## haissem123 (Aug 27, 2014)

why do you suppose the check badges and have security, as they call it? besides the average guy who could climb to the top of any of these buildings undetected, some security we have, you think they just let anybody into these buildings with no cause or identification? counting?


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 27, 2014)

Skylar said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Nothing needed to stop the collapse.  The point is that both buildings fell straight down upon themselves, there was no topple.  Once it has begun that way, sure, it's understandable.  That both began that way, that neither began with a noticeable lean, is what seems strange.  

Not strange enough for me to shout, "Conspiracy!".  Just an oddity.


----------



## haissem123 (Aug 27, 2014)

im still waiting for one collapsed building from fire? we have what seven in one shot but no more in history?please


----------



## Skylar (Aug 28, 2014)

Montrovant said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



For it to 'topple', something would have had to stop it. Toppling requires that the downward momentum stop and be translated to lateral momentum. But there's nothing in the WTC to do the translating. Any floor impacted immediately collapsed and fell like a traincar dropped out of the sky. Where then could a topple occur?

It couldn't. And it didn't. Only at the initial collapse could there have been any semblance of a 'topple' where the structural failure occurred asymmetrically. And even that would only last until the first impact.

And we do actually see evidence of this. There was a noticeable pivot in the initial collapse of WTC 2. A pretty dramatic one. 



> The entire section of he building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block( all four faces; not only he bowed and uickled east face) to the east (about 7 degrees to 8 degrees) and south (about 3 degrees to 4 degrees) as colum instability progressed rapidly from the eastwall along the adjacent north and south walls.
> 
> 308 of Chapter 9 of NISTSTAR 1-6



There are videos and photographs of this if you'd like to see.


----------



## Skylar (Aug 28, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> im still waiting for one collapsed building from fire? we have what seven in one shot but no more in history?please



I'm still waiting for a skyscraper to fall any direction but down, as you insinuate the WTC 7 should have. The only building that collapsed primarily due to fire was WTC 7. All the other structures destroyed on 911 succumbed to a combination of fire and structural damage.....like, oh....a plane flying into them. Or a 110 story sky scraper falling on top of them.

Which, astonishingly, you fail to mention.

And can I take it from your complete and utter abandonment of all your previous bullshit about Silverstein that you realize how silly it was?


----------



## Skylar (Aug 28, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> I know my cousins boss knew to stay home that day. i know they keep records of people entering buildings of this size and importance. You think they don't? Shall we go to google or did that conspiracy police get there first? lol. would you know or care if they did? lol. you presume all is coincidence and is as it seems or has been told to you.



Sigh....bullshit. You don't know any such thing. You're offering us 13 year old rumor and innuendo as evidence of your rumor and innuendo. Its a perfect circle of useless nonsense.

And again, you don't know the record you're demanding even exists. And if existing, why in God's name would they just hand over private records to any schmo who demands them? Just because you label yourself 'truth seekers' doesn't mean you're 1) seeking truth 2) get special access to private records.

And finally, and perhaps most relevantly......you don't have the evidence to carry the latest conspiracy you're insinuating. You *claim* that certain people were 'told' not to go to the WTC on September 11th. But you can't back that up with anything. 

Which is the perfect metaphor for most of the truther arguments I've heard.


----------



## haissem123 (Aug 28, 2014)

ok. give me another building the fell from plane crashing into them then? lol.


----------



## SAYIT (Aug 28, 2014)

Montrovant said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Implosion World has a somewhat different take:
(http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm)
DID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS ACTUALLY “IMPLODE”?
No. They collapsed in an uncontrolled fashion, causing extensive damage to surrounding structures, roadways and utilities. Although when viewed from a distance the towers appeared to have telescoped almost straight down, a closer look at video replays reveal sizeable portions of each building breaking free during the collapse, with the largest sections--some as tall as 30 or 40 stories--actually “laying out” in several directions. The outward failure of these sections is believed to have caused much of the significant damage to adjacent structures, and smaller debris caused structural and cosmetic damage to hundreds of additional buildings around the perimeter of the site.


----------



## Skylar (Aug 28, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> ok. give me another building the fell from plane crashing into them then? lol.



How many skyscrapers have had passenger jets collide with them? To the best of my knowledge that would be WTC 1 and WTC 2. 

So the odds of a skyscraper collapsing when it hit by a passenger jet are apparently 2 in 2. Or 100%.


----------



## Skylar (Aug 28, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Exactly.

There's also the fact that the buildings came down exactly opposite of controlled demolition. Actual controlled demolition occurs bottom to top. The base of the structure is demolished and rest of the building above falls together. The *first* floor destroyed is at the bottom of the building.

But that's not how the WTC went down. It went down top to bottom. With the collapse initiating at the point of impact with the planes. And then proceeding, 1 floor at a time, all the way to the ground. The *last *floor destroyed is at the bottom of the building.


----------



## haissem123 (Aug 28, 2014)

people implode buildings regularly, why don't we suggest they end the controversy.? Have one of these demo companies fly a plane into one with ratio proportion equal to towers. Then we can watch it burn and see if they fall anyway.?


----------



## haissem123 (Aug 28, 2014)

we can raise billions from pay for view and ring side seats etc...  if money is to be made, then what's the harm? all win when moneys made


----------



## SAYIT (Aug 28, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> ok. give me another building the fell from plane crashing into them then? lol.



No one has to do your bidding, Princess. You have posted absolutely nothing in support of any of your foil-hat CT claims. That finally said, I will once again allow Steven Dutch to explain away your silliness:

"So if something happens for the first time, it can't happen because it never happened before?
No 110-story buildings were ever hit by fuel-laden airliners hard enough to strip the insulation off the structural steel before, either. Steel-frame buildings are incredibly strong. They have survived major earthquakes and fires, and the Twin Towers merely rocked when hit by airliners at full throttle. But the towers were not designed to survive an impact by fully-laden airliners at full throttle, then a fire in contact with unprotected steel. An impact from a jet approaching JFK at 200 miles an hour, with nearly empty tanks, and one slamming into the building at 450 miles an hour with full tanks, are two quite different things."
Nutty 9-11 Physics


----------



## Skylar (Aug 28, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> people implode buildings regularly, why don't we suggest they end the controversy.? Have one of these demo companies fly a plane into one with ratio proportion equal to towers. Then we can watch it burn and see if they fall anyway.?



Probably because its ridiculously unsafe and hideously expensive. Remember, the WTC 1 and 2 took the rest of the WTC plaza with them. Usually when a building is being demolished, the company doing it *doesn't* want to destroy all adjacent buildings as well. 



> we can raise billions from pay for view and ring side seats etc... if money is to be made, then what's the harm? all win when moneys made



The aforementioned ridiculous degree of danger and hideous expense.


----------



## haissem123 (Aug 28, 2014)

there are tons of empty buildings in iceland now that we collapsed their economy through war of wall street. they can be hit risk free for a fee of course.


----------



## SAYIT (Aug 28, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> people implode buildings regularly, why don't we suggest they end the controversy.? Have one of these demo companies fly a plane into one with ratio proportion equal to towers. Then we can watch it burn and see if they fall anyway.?



Again I defer to Steven Dutch:
Probably the most revealing commentary on the controlled demolition theory is _Bringing Down The House_ by Michael Satchell in US News and World Report (June 30, 2003). This article describes the work of Controlled Demolition Inc., far and away the world leaders in controlled demolition, and Mark and Doug Loizeaux, who run it.
Like most Americans, the Loizeauxs were transfixed by the televised scenes of destruction shortly after the first jet struck. But as experts in buildings' vulnerabilities, they knew right away what few Americans realized. "I told Doug immediately that the tower was coming down, and when the second tower was hit, that it would follow," remembers Mark.
Horrified, the Loizeaux brothers watched first responders streaming into the doomed towers and tried frantically, and unsuccessfully, to phone in warnings. In the following days, CDI was called to ground zero to consult on safety and develop plans for demolition and debris removal. What if the twin towers, though badly damaged, had somehow remained standing? Without doubt, the Loizeaux family would have been called upon to bring them down. "Quite simply," says Mark in a rare moment of introspective uncertainty, "I don't know how we would have done it."
So according to the world experts on building demolition:

It was immediately obvious that the towers were going to fall
They have no idea how they would have brought down the towers in a controlled demolition.
Nutty 9-11 Physics


----------



## daws101 (Aug 28, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> still waiting for any other buildings that collapsed from plane fire or fire etc... where are they out of all the towering infernos over the past? buildings of similar construct.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 28, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> they keep records of everybody that enters the towers as to have accurate evacuations I presume. But on that fateful day, we the people seeking truth through all info, aren't allowed to see those that stayed home that day. why not? if it's the truth, why hide it? cause it will point to a certain group of chosen few that had more then a clue that something was gonna happen that day? yep, you betya. It will be all the big bosses in the know


sorry but that's false.. each company is responsible for it's own attendance records the check in desk is primarily for victors and  contractors and deliveries..
your assumptions are based on paranoia


----------



## daws101 (Aug 28, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> I know my cousins boss knew to stay home that day. i know they keep records of people entering buildings of this size and importance. You think they don't? Shall we go to google or did that conspiracy police get there first? lol. would you know or care if they did? lol. you presume all is coincidence and is as it seems or has been told to you.


bullshit, you know what you cousin told you. my guess is his boss stayed for other more ubiquitous reasons. the he knew myth grew from that and you wanting to believe the conspiracy bullshit swallowed it whole.


----------



## Skylar (Aug 28, 2014)

> Like most Americans, the Loizeauxs were transfixed by the televised scenes of destruction shortly after the first jet struck. But as experts in buildings' vulnerabilities, they knew right away what few Americans realized. "I told Doug immediately that the tower was coming down, and when the second tower was hit, that it would follow," remembers Mark.





daws101 said:


> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> > still waiting for any other buildings that collapsed from plane fire or fire etc... where are they out of all the towering infernos over the past? buildings of similar construct.



In all fairness, WTC 7 is the first s_kyscraper_ to collapse due primarily to fire.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 28, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> there are tons of empty buildings in iceland now that we collapsed their economy through war of wall street. they can be hit risk free for a fee of course.


explain how this is relevant?


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 28, 2014)

Skylar said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I think you are missing my point.

I'm saying it seems odd that the beginning of both collapses was pretty much straight down.  I would have expected at least one of the towers to begin collapsing on one or two sides of the building, causing the top portion to lean and fall toward that side, kind of like when a tree is cut down.  I find it odd that in both cases, the damage was such that the collapse seemed to occur on all 4 sides of the building simultaneously.

I understand that there are a number of reasons for this, from building design to the long period of uncontrolled fires prior to the collapse.  I'm not using it as a denouncement of the official investigation or a call to support some other theory.  It is simply an odd way for something to fall without having been intentionally demolished.  Maybe it would be common if more buildings collapsed.


----------



## Skylar (Aug 28, 2014)

> I'm saying it seems odd that the beginning of both collapses was pretty much straight down.I would have expected at least one of the towers to begin collapsing on one or two sides of the building, causing the top portion to lean and fall toward that side, kind of like when a tree is cut down.



There's huge problems with that assumption. Its premised on the side or corner that acts as a fulcum *being able to support the *entire* weight of the floors above it as the upper section leans and falls to the side. *Leaning and falling to the side requires a stable base capable of supporting the mass that is leaning and falling.* And there's no side, corner or portion of the building capable of acting as a fulcrum in this fashion.* Any portion of the building subject to that kind of force would have collapsed spectacularly and immediately.

And did.

We did see the upper portion of WTC 2 pivot slightly as it collapsed *into* the rest of the structure. With the pivot point being _on the back a_nd subject to tension rather than compression forces. And lasted until the first impacts were made with the floor below where the pivot point too failed. The problem being, when the falling corner impacted the floor below......that floor can't support the weight of the building above. That stable base that is necessary for a something to lean and fall, that fulcrum...it didn't exist. Instead the falling corner went *through* the floor below. And the floor below that. And the floor below that. All the way to the ground.

As the floors are not designed to carry the gravity load of the building. But instead the live loads of people, ficus plants, office furniture, copy machines and the like. The vertical support structures that normally transmit a gravity load AROUND the floors down to bedrock are now impacting the non-structural floors directly. And they simply can't act as the fulcrum necessary for the 'leaning and falling to the side' you're describing. There's no structure in the building that could.

So you get exactly what you saw: a slight pivoting in the instants after an asymmetrical structural failure occured but before it was torn free by the first impacts with the floor below. And then a floor by floor impact down with gravity, all the way to the ground.

A tree, which is a solid object, would provide that stable base to lean and fall off of.


> I find it odd that in both cases, the damage was such that the collapse seemed to occur on all 4 sides of the building simultaneously.



It didn't. In the case of the WTC 2, the collapse occured first on one side, then on another with enough separation in time that there was a distinct pivot in the upper floors as they fell. In the case of the WTC 1, it was also an asymmetrical collapse. But it occured much more quickly, requiring a frame by frame to see the progression. And no noticeable pivot.

This is likely due to the fact that on WTC 2, the impact of the plane was grossly asymetrical, concentrated on a corner of the building. While in the WTC 1, it was much more centered. Resulting in damage that was spread more evenly.



> I understand that there are a number of reasons for this, from building design to the long period of uncontrolled fires prior to the collapse. I'm not using it as a denouncement of the official investigation or a call to support some other theory. It is simply an odd way for something to fall without having been intentionally demolished. Maybe it would be common if more buildings collapsed.



I'm not saying you are, nor am I accusing you of being a conspiracy theorist. I'm simply addressing the issues you've raised and indicating where your perception is more accurate and where less. And telling you why a steel structure wouldn't act like a tree.


----------



## n0spam4me (Aug 30, 2014)

who here wants to debate
"*911 WTC 7 Silent Thermate Demolition,*"  ?
or?
if you want to discuss something else, please start another thread.
as for the debate, has anyone seen the Johnathan Cole videos on youtube? VERY informative, anyone who intends to weigh in on this issue should watch them.


----------



## haissem123 (Aug 30, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> who here wants to debate
> "*911 WTC 7 Silent Thermate Demolition,*"  ?
> or?
> if you want to discuss something else, please start another thread.
> as for the debate, has anyone seen the Johnathan Cole videos on youtube? VERY informative, anyone who intends to weigh in on this issue should watch them.


i guess you could have made it easier by linking to the video you speak of.


----------



## haissem123 (Aug 30, 2014)

I just watched the video and new most if not all of this info and in  knowing came to conclusion that any smart and honest person could only come to. Those in control of our government, then and now, blew these building up and killed 3k "innocent" people to save the trillions piping our planets resources across some desert held under the control or attack of the taliban.  Anybody that says different is either lieinig, denying, or too scared or stupid to see these obvious truths. shalom and this subject is dead to me.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 30, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> I just watched the video and new most if not all of this info and in  knowing came to conclusion that any smart and honest person could only come to. Those in control of our government, then and now, blew these building up and killed 3k "innocent" people to save the trillions piping our planets resources across some desert held under the control or attack of the taliban.  Anybody that says different is either lieinig, denying, or too scared or stupid to see these obvious truths. shalom and this subject is dead to me.


three pitching a fit posts in a row ...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 30, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> who here wants to debate
> "*911 WTC 7 Silent Thermate Demolition,*"  ?
> or?
> if you want to discuss something else, please start another thread.
> as for the debate, has anyone seen the Johnathan Cole videos on youtube? VERY informative, anyone who intends to weigh in on this issue should watch them.


as stated before I seen those videos and there are so many holes in them they might as well be  a sieve


----------



## daws101 (Aug 30, 2014)




----------



## Faun (Aug 30, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> 7 seconds for building seven. that's a total free fall straight down. are your really that stupid to believe it just totally gave out so completely rapidly and perfectly on it's own? and yes pull it is a demo term used by pros and it was evacuated as they knew it was gonna come down in a few minutes. stop with your lies and pipe dreams



7 seconds??? Why do you lie if the truth was actually on your side ... here, look for yourself ... the first [visible] sign the building was collapsing is at around the 3 second mark of this video ... the building is collapsing until about the 17 second mark ... * That's about 14 seconds*, not 7.


[Video]


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Aug 30, 2014)

^someone farted in here.

the paid troll is getting desperate.


----------



## SAYIT (Aug 30, 2014)

Faun said:


> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> > 7 seconds for building seven. that's a total free fall straight down. are your really that stupid to believe it just totally gave out so completely rapidly and perfectly on it's own? and yes pull it is a demo term used by pros and it was evacuated as they knew it was gonna come down in a few minutes. stop with your lies and pipe dreams
> ...



And at the end of the day that is the point. "Truthers" _must_ lie because the truth just doesn't support their conclusions .. thus the foil hats.
The big question is what motivates them? Why the incessant BS?


----------



## Faun (Aug 30, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> ^someone farted in here.
> 
> the paid troll is getting desperate.


How ironic, eh? A troll is someone who offers nothing to the debate but only posts to distract from the debate.


----------



## n0spam4me (Aug 31, 2014)

something very relevant  to the debate,  Note that WTC7 has a period of 2.25 sec of descent in free fall acceleration.  This is very significant in that the building keeps its shape and drops straight down during that period of time.  NOW do you get it?


----------



## Faun (Aug 31, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> something very relevant  to the debate,  Note that WTC7 has a period of 2.25 sec of descent in free fall acceleration.  This is very significant in that the building keeps its shape and drops straight down during that period of time.  NOW do you get it?


And how _should_ a 47 story skyscraper, burning uncontrollably for 7 hours after having a 110 story skyscraper fall on it, collapse? Keep in mind, you have nothing to compare it to since it's never happened before.


----------



## n0spam4me (Aug 31, 2014)

Faun said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > something very relevant  to the debate,  Note that WTC7 has a period of 2.25 sec of descent in free fall acceleration.  This is very significant in that the building keeps its shape and drops straight down during that period of time.  NOW do you get it?
> ...



should it "collapse" straight down at free fall acceleration?
and in response to chaotic damage & fires that involved less than a third of the total floors of the building.  Look at the pix of the tower, at no time is there fire to be seen in the whole structure, only some floors and at that, less than a third of the whole building.


----------



## Faun (Aug 31, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


How many floors needed to burn uncontrollably to weaken the structure? And you didn't answer my question ... if it was going to fall, how _ should _ it have fallen?


----------



## n0spam4me (Aug 31, 2014)

"How many floors needed to burn uncontrollably to weaken the structure? And you didn't answer my question ... if it was going to fall, how _ should _ it have fallen?"

The "how should it have fallen" is a speculation trap, the problem here is that the what that it allegedly fell, because of fire, is totally improbable.
The fact that WTC7 fell for 2.25 sec at free fall acceleration is quite significant in that for anything to fall at free fall acceleration it must not have any resistance under it. so how did it happen in response to chaotic fire(s) that ALL of the resistance was removed and all at the same time out from under the North & West walls of the tower?


----------



## Faun (Aug 31, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> "How many floors needed to burn uncontrollably to weaken the structure? And you didn't answer my question ... if it was going to fall, how _ should _ it have fallen?"
> 
> The "how should it have fallen" is a speculation trap, the problem here is that the what that it allegedly fell, because of fire, is totally improbable.
> The fact that WTC7 fell for 2.25 sec at free fall acceleration is quite significant in that for anything to fall at free fall acceleration it must not have any resistance under it. so how did it happen in response to chaotic fire(s) that ALL of the resistance was removed and all at the same time out from under the North & West walls of the tower?


Your entire post is based on false premises. First, that it's improbable for a 47 story building with fires burning uncontrollably for 7 hours to collapse as though it's impossible.  But even more to point to a 2.25 second period of free fall with no resistance * as though the interior of the building hadn't already collapsed, removing said resistance. *


----------



## Freewill (Aug 31, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> something very relevant  to the debate,  Note that WTC7 has a period of 2.25 sec of descent in free fall acceleration.  This is very significant in that the building keeps its shape and drops straight down during that period of time.  NOW do you get it?



It would be very significant if true.  More like 13.5 sec for total collapse.

Again here is a link: wtc7videoincludingeastmechanicalpenthous - wtc7lies


----------



## n0spam4me (Aug 31, 2014)

Faun said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > "How many floors needed to burn uncontrollably to weaken the structure? And you didn't answer my question ... if it was going to fall, how _ should _ it have fallen?"
> ...



so your interpretation of the events includes the possibility & probability that structural elements of WTC7 could fail in such a manner as to remove ALL support from under the West & North walls all at the same time.  (?)  Right?


----------



## n0spam4me (Aug 31, 2014)

"It would be very significant if true. More like 13.5 sec for total collapse."

It is true, a measured 2.25 sec of free fall acceleration
and this clearly indicates that the falling bit had absolutely nothing under it. just exactly how is that arranged, that is the complete & total removal of all structure out from under the West & North walls of WTC7?


----------



## Faun (Sep 1, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


And yet, that is how the building fell.


----------



## Faun (Sep 1, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> "It would be very significant if true. More like 13.5 sec for total collapse."
> 
> It is true, a measured 2.25 sec of free fall acceleration
> and this clearly indicates that the falling bit had absolutely nothing under it. just exactly how is that arranged, that is the complete & total removal of all structure out from under the West & North walls of WTC7?


It took more like 14 seconds for the building to collapse and the 2 second period you're focusing on came after much of the building already collapsed.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 2, 2014)

Faun said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > "It would be very significant if true. More like 13.5 sec for total collapse."
> ...



an attempt to negate the significance of 2.25 sec of free fall acceleration.
The free fall acceleration is significant and its as much as putting up a  billboard saying THIS IS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!


----------



## Faun (Sep 2, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


Again, much of the building already collapsed before that 2.25 second period. By that point, there was nothing left to hold the building up.


----------



## Freewill (Sep 3, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



Could you at least list your credentials that qualifies you to make such an assessment.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 4, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



Per the NIST, the collapse initiated on the 13th floor. The center collapsed first, which you refuse to acknowledge. And the facade fell next, at least 19 seconds after the center of the building had collapsed.

Beams are designed to support each other. When one fails, the load energy is transferred to neighboring supports. Its only when the last support fails or there are no more beams to transfer load energy that the structure falls. And this happens *remarkably* quickly. If the 13th floor collapsed, all floors above it would fall simultaneously. Which is exactly what we saw. 

And of course, we've already ruled out bombs as the cause. As there were no bombs, the initiation of the collapse of WTC 7 was virtually silent and there are no 'silent bombs', the building was on fire and would have melted any bombs and their apparatus, there were no girders cut in a manner consistent with bombs, the Port Authority Bomb Squad had already gone through the entire WTC plaza a week before and found no bombs.

Your story doesn't work. Get used to the idea. Trying to insinuate a conspiracy you know you can't factually support is an excuse for an argument.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 4, 2014)

Freewill said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


a dick gage fan club card will not cut it.


----------



## Rozman (Sep 4, 2014)

Not at all true....
They used the extra loud ones...
You can get them in Chinatown....


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 4, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



This has been explained so many times that a 6 year old can understand it, You cannot count 2.5 seconds of the facade falling as the entire building. At least 16 seconds before that visible roofline started to move the interior of the building had collapsed and left nothing standing behind that facade. Anyone who watches the entire building collapse instead of picking it up after the east penthouse disappears can see it....


----------



## daws101 (Sep 4, 2014)

Skylar said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...





SFC Ollie said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


not that!


----------



## Gary Anderson (Sep 4, 2014)

Skylar said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > now this is hilarious!
> ...


Sorry, 9/11 was a conspiracy. Cheney had both motive and knowledge and I can prove it. And, WTC7 was identical to implosions. And, squibs were observed in all three buildings.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 4, 2014)

Freewill said:


> Could you at least list your credentials that qualifies you to make such an assessment.



Certainly, I'm a sentient being, 1 ea. earthling type.
that is all that is required to be able to see that 9/11/2001 = False Flag operation.


----------



## Gary Anderson (Sep 4, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Quit deluding yourself. There was no time to pancake WTC7. There was no evidence of a successful pancaking of an entire skyscraper anyway. And three buildings went down by fire on the same day when that doesn't happen? I have some marshland in Florida I can sell lyou cheaply.


----------



## Freewill (Sep 4, 2014)

Gary Anderson said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



What do you mean it doesn't happen?  It happened 3 times on 9/11.  What hasn't happened is two building being struck by two airliners.


----------



## Freewill (Sep 4, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > Could you at least list your credentials that qualifies you to make such an assessment.
> ...



Certainly, everyone who does not agree with you are "sentient" beings, many Earthling types.

Logic and common sense are really all that is required to see that the 9/11 truthers are about anything but the truth.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 4, 2014)

Freewill said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...



So for those who care about the truth, please enlighten me as to exactly how it was documented, that is what remained of each airliner that is the alleged "FLT11", :"FLT175", "FLT77". & "FLT93" ?

where  are the airplanes?  You don't just make tons of aircraft disappear as if you had Harry Potters wand, aircraft wreckage doesn't just evaporate....


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 4, 2014)

Rozman said:


> Not at all true....
> They used the extra loud ones...
> You can get them in Chinatown....



Satisfy my curiosity ...... what is this in reference to?


----------



## Gary Anderson (Sep 4, 2014)

Skylar said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


A blind man can see with his cane that the NIST is lying.


----------



## Gary Anderson (Sep 4, 2014)

Freewill said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...


You aren't smart enough to understand. I accept that. Some people just can't get it. They can't see squibs, they can't see thermite, the can't see pulverized dust that accompanies virtually all demolitions. They just can't see, or they are paid by scoundrels.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 4, 2014)

Skylar said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Trying to inject reason, logic or facts in a conversation with one (NoSpAm) who insists in all seriousness that "no planes were hijacked on 9/11"  is a complete waste of time but I often wonder what makes the CTs cling so desperately to their CTs in the face of overwhelming evidence that they make little or no sense.


----------



## Gary Anderson (Sep 4, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


The planes looked fake. Some say they were missiles, or military planes. Some say they did not exist. I don't know. I am troubled by the one plane creating an explosion prior to hitting the tower. That can't be right but it happened.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 4, 2014)

Gary Anderson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



So here's the thing: 14 years after 9/11 and there has been no proof of a controlled demo (plenty before you have pretended) or of any conspiracy (other than that of the 19 Muslim nutjobs).
Those who paid BILLIONS in insurance claims sure could use your help as they would love to recoup those payouts. Lemme know how you make out.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 4, 2014)

Gary Anderson said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



OK Newbie, I'm gonna welcome you and offer some unsolicited advice: Grandiose pronouncements like "there was no time to pancake WTC7" or "the planes look fake" or "A blind man can see with his cane that the NIST is lying" or "Sorry, 9/11 was a conspiracy" or "Cheney had both motive and knowledge and I can prove it" without providing any proof is not just lame, it's typical of what's been shoveled by the "Truther Movement" since 9/12/2001.
Furthermore, claiming that those who disagree with your silliness are "deluded" or "aren't smart enough to understand" does not constitute proof. 
So here's your big shot ... put up or shut up.


----------



## Freewill (Sep 4, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



The following discussion and picture should be enough.

Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"







The truthers have to get their stories straight.  The following is PM response to debris being found where truthers say it should not be found.  What does that mean to those who say there was not debris?

Wallace Miller, Somerset County coroner, tells PM no body parts were found in Indian Lake. Human remains were confined to a 70-acre area directly surrounding the crash site. Paper and tiny scraps of sheetmetal, however, did land in the lake. "Very light debris will fly into the air, because of the concussion," says former National Transportation Safety Board investigator Matthew McCormick. Indian Lake is less than 1.5 miles southeast of the impact crater—not 6 miles—easily within range of debris blasted skyward by the heat of the explosion from the crash. And the wind that day was northwesterly, at 9 to 12 mph, which means it was blowing _from_ the northwest—toward Indian Lake.

Experts on the scene tell PM that a fan from one of the engines was recovered in a catchment basin, downhill from the crash site. Jeff Reinbold, the National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over 300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was traveling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards." Numerous crash analysts contacted by PM concur.


----------



## Freewill (Sep 4, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Gary Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Pretty funny that the longer we get away from the event the stronger the 9/11 truthers think is their case.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 4, 2014)

Gary Anderson said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



So that's your proof? "The planes look fake" and "some say" this and "some say" that and you are "troubled by" this and that? That's proof?
If that's all you have you can hang up your keyboard now 'cause that silliness will get you nowhere.


----------



## Freewill (Sep 4, 2014)

Gary Anderson said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



You see thermite?


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 4, 2014)

Freewill said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Gary Anderson said:
> ...



Some here sound less rabid - maybe reality has struck - while they argue amongst themselves which foil-hatted CT is "credible" and which are bogus or "disinformational" - and some have done a complete transformation:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...0YLAAQ&usg=AFQjCNGMrmHx7rywdcTz7_iyAdFVqXKpkw


HuffPost Hires Ex-NFL Player and 9 11 Truther -- NYMag


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 4, 2014)

Freewill said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...



You provide a quote from Popular Mechanics & 1 measly pix and you expect me to be convinced?  Why are there even questions about this stuff?  How about serious photo-documentary evidence from all 4 crash sites?  nobody can produce any?  maybe the flights were bogus?  or is there some other explanation, like people on the public payroll were criminally incompetent.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 5, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



"Maybe the flights were bogus?" Are you having doubts about your "no planes were hijacked on 9/11" claim? If you applied even half the cynicism to your absurd CTs that you do to the official explanations you would soon laugh at your own silliness as so many here do.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 5, 2014)

Lets be very clear about this, either the people who ordinarily account for aircraft bits at airliner crash sites, all became totally incompetent that day, or there were NO airliners at all. the photographic record of the alleged crash sites does not provide sufficient evidence to be certain that there ever was an airliner crashed at that location.  so what we have is the disappearance of 4 airliners, I'm not about to speculate on the subject of exactly what the perpetrators did with the aircraft if these flights existed at all.  The crash physics comes into question as to exactly how is it that the "FLT11" & "FLT175" aircraft could make cartoon cut-out plane shaped holes in the sides of the towers and both aircraft completely disappear inside the building, similar to the Pentagon where the alleged "FLT77" was said to have disappeared inside the building and then the "FLT93" aircraft that disappeared into the ground & or disintegrated into a zillion bits and scattered all over the county.... what? 
lets do a magic trick, make 4 airliners disappear...... zap!


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 5, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Lets be very clear about this, either the people who ordinarily account for aircraft bits at airliner crash sites, all became totally incompetent that day, or there were NO airliners at all. the photographic record of the alleged crash sites does not provide sufficient evidence to be certain that there ever was an airliner crashed at that location.  so what we have is the disappearance of 4 airliners, I'm not about to speculate on the subject of exactly what the perpetrators did with the aircraft if these flights existed at all.  The crash physics comes into question as to exactly how is it that the "FLT11" & "FLT175" aircraft could make cartoon cut-out plane shaped holes in the sides of the towers and both aircraft completely disappear inside the building, similar to the Pentagon where the alleged "FLT77" was said to have disappeared inside the building and then the "FLT93" aircraft that disappeared into the ground & or disintegrated into a zillion bits and scattered all over the county.... what?
> lets do a magic trick, make 4 airliners disappear...... zap!



Obviously there is none so blind as you who refuse to see. That you base your CT on your absolute refusal to accept facts is a form of circular rationalization (read: insanity). When you quit chasing your tail you will stand back and laugh at your silliness:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...0YLAAQ&usg=AFQjCNGMrmHx7rywdcTz7_iyAdFVqXKpkw


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 5, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Lets be very clear about this, either the people who ordinarily account for aircraft bits at airliner crash sites, all became totally incompetent that day, or there were NO airliners at all. the photographic record of the alleged crash sites does not provide sufficient evidence to be certain that there ever was an airliner crashed at that location.  so what we have is the disappearance of 4 airliners, I'm not about to speculate on the subject of exactly what the perpetrators did with the aircraft if these flights existed at all.  The crash physics comes into question as to exactly how is it that the "FLT11" & "FLT175" aircraft could make cartoon cut-out plane shaped holes in the sides of the towers and both aircraft completely disappear inside the building, similar to the Pentagon where the alleged "FLT77" was said to have disappeared inside the building and then the "FLT93" aircraft that disappeared into the ground & or disintegrated into a zillion bits and scattered all over the county.... what?
> ...



Your link is disappointing its only an "ex-truther"
so be it if any given individual wants to make a public conversion...
however, the fact remains that the official story doesn't have the evidence on its side, the alleged crash sites are not documented, where are the pictures of the aircraft? oh yea, in the case of "FLT11" & "FLT175" they got totally ground up in the building collapse so that not even the flight data recorders ( or for that matter a recognizable piece of a flight data recorder ... ) could be found. & "FLT77" burned up in that huge jet fuel fire.... & of course "FLT93" was destroyed in that horrendous crash..... oh well ... 4 aircraft totally gone .... such a shame.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 5, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


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



Forget for a moment the basis of your particular CT and focus instead on the rationale of the ex-"Truther." He correctly points out that the CTs you eagerly gulp down whole are mere manifestations of greedy individuals who prey on willing not-2-brights who actually believe that "no planes were hijacked on 9/11." This is all about T-shirts and DVDs and Internet fame and glory for the Alex Jones types at the expense of the gullible. Wake the fuck up.


----------



## Faun (Sep 5, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Lets be very clear about this, either the people who ordinarily account for aircraft bits at airliner crash sites, all became totally incompetent that day, or there were NO airliners at all. the photographic record of the alleged crash sites does not provide sufficient evidence to be certain that there ever was an airliner crashed at that location.  so what we have is the disappearance of 4 airliners, I'm not about to speculate on the subject of exactly what the perpetrators did with the aircraft if these flights existed at all.  The crash physics comes into question as to exactly how is it that the "FLT11" & "FLT175" aircraft could make cartoon cut-out plane shaped holes in the sides of the towers and both aircraft completely disappear inside the building, similar to the Pentagon where the alleged "FLT77" was said to have disappeared inside the building and then the "FLT93" aircraft that disappeared into the ground & or disintegrated into a zillion bits and scattered all over the county.... what?
> lets do a magic trick, make 4 airliners disappear...... zap!


If there were no planes, why did these people say they saw a plane fly into the Twin Towers ... ?


----------



## Freewill (Sep 5, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



I was with the guy until he went off his rocker and just substituted on conspiracy theory for another.


----------



## Freewill (Sep 5, 2014)

Faun said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Lets be very clear about this, either the people who ordinarily account for aircraft bits at airliner crash sites, all became totally incompetent that day, or there were NO airliners at all. the photographic record of the alleged crash sites does not provide sufficient evidence to be certain that there ever was an airliner crashed at that location.  so what we have is the disappearance of 4 airliners, I'm not about to speculate on the subject of exactly what the perpetrators did with the aircraft if these flights existed at all.  The crash physics comes into question as to exactly how is it that the "FLT11" & "FLT175" aircraft could make cartoon cut-out plane shaped holes in the sides of the towers and both aircraft completely disappear inside the building, similar to the Pentagon where the alleged "FLT77" was said to have disappeared inside the building and then the "FLT93" aircraft that disappeared into the ground & or disintegrated into a zillion bits and scattered all over the county.... what?
> ...



The level of deception and the amount of people in on the conspiracy rivals that of conspiracy of when JFK was killed by Cuban mafia cia FBI secret service operatives.

In this case the FBI/CIA/Bush did a fantastic job of photo shopping all the news video.  Quite impressive.  The CIA mind control of the hundreds of witnesses is also impressive.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 5, 2014)

again I ask, where is the physical evidence that there ever was any commercial airliner crashed at any of the 4 locations on 9/11/2001 ?


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 5, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> again I ask, where is the physical evidence that there ever was any commercial airliner crashed at any of the 4 locations on 9/11/2001 ?



Covering your eyes and ears does not allow you to move beyond the silliness of your particular CT. 9/11Research.com, a website dedicated to 9/11 CTs, describes what happened to the planes. Note that they make no effort to deny their existence:
"The jetliners that impacted the North and South Towers became almost entirely embedded within them. No large parts visibly bounced off, and only a few parts emerged from the other side..."
"...The pattern of damage to the towers' exterior walls indicates that in both cases, the fuselage, engines, and wing roots punched through, and the wing tips were shredded by the grating of meter-spaced columns. Subsequent damage to the jets was determined by their different impact trajectories.
What do you suppose happened to the remains of the planes which slammed into the WTC at a few hundred MPHs?


----------



## Freewill (Sep 5, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> again I ask, where is the physical evidence that there ever was any commercial airliner crashed at any of the 4 locations on 9/11/2001 ?



Sigh, you have been shown a picture of degris at the Pentagon.  You were shown 9/11 truthers arguing about where debris landed from flight 93.  Both of those should answer your question.

As for flight 11 this is all the physical evidence you need.  They all were here on 9/10 and gone 9/11.

Captain John Ogonowski, First Officer Thomas McGuinness, and flight attendants Barbara Arestegui, Jeffrey Collman, Sara Low, Karen Martin, Kathleen Nicosia, Betty Ong, Jean Roger, Dianne Snyder, and Amy Sweeney.[3]
All 92 people on board were killed,[4] including David Angell (the creator and executive producer of the television sitcom _Frasier_), his wife Lynn Angell, and actress Berry Berenson, the widow of Anthony Perkins.[5] [8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_11

That is all the time that should be wasted on this subject.


----------



## Freewill (Sep 5, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > again I ask, where is the physical evidence that there ever was any commercial airliner crashed at any of the 4 locations on 9/11/2001 ?
> ...



F=mA  Imagine in this situation the acceration (decceration) is really, really fast.  Thus the force place on the building was enormous.  It is amazing it didn't topple over.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 5, 2014)

Freewill said:


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



In order to carry hundreds of people and their luggage, not to mention tons of fuel, modern airliners are purposely made of very light materials which are not intended to withstand impacts or fuel fires.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 5, 2014)

As for flight 11 this is all the physical evidence you need. They all were here on 9/10 and gone 9/11.
.....................................................
That is all the time that should be wasted on this subject.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank U ever so much, do you actually believe that simply having an alleged record of "FLT11" being real and then not found after 9/11/2001,
is solid evidence that the aircraft was hijacked and crashed into WTC1?
where is the physical evidence of any of the alleged airliners?  FLT11 & FLT175 had flight data recorders on-board, but these recorders were  never found, so the action of the pulverization of the WTC tower(s) had been so complete as to completely destroy both flight data recorders?
This whole official story is dependent on a number of miracles....
The physical evidence of the airliners is pivotal to knowing about this crime.  Its very much like prosecuting a murder, and having no murder weapon to present in evidence.  where is it?


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 5, 2014)

"In order to carry hundreds of people and their luggage, not to mention tons of fuel, modern airliners are purposely made of very light materials which are not intended to withstand impacts or fuel fires."

.......................................................................................................................

"F=mA Imagine in this situation the acceration (decceration) is really, really fast. Thus the force place on the building was enormous. It is amazing it didn't topple over."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please do have a good look at the alleged video evidence of "FLT175",
do look very carefully.   please do give it some thought.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 5, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> "In order to carry hundreds of people and their luggage, not to mention tons of fuel, modern airliners are purposely made of very light materials which are not intended to withstand impacts or fuel fires."
> 
> .......................................................................................................................
> 
> ...



Once again you cover your eyes and eyes lest the truth seep in. I repeat:
9/11Research.com, a website dedicated to 9/11 CTs, describes what happened to the planes. Note that they make no effort to deny their existence. They have access to the same evidence that you do. Why do they not deny the existence of 4 hijacked planes on 9/11? Could it be they recognize the silliness of doing so and you don't?


----------



## Gary Anderson (Sep 5, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Gary Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


Of course there is proof that all three buildings were controlled demos. You can stay blind if you want to. And as far as the insurance payments, they were made by Travelers, which was taken over a and protected by Citibank. 

You should read this if you are serious about the truth, which I doubt you are: Larry Silverstein WTC 7 and the 9 11 Demolition


----------



## Gary Anderson (Sep 5, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > "In order to carry hundreds of people and their luggage, not to mention tons of fuel, modern airliners are purposely made of very light materials which are not intended to withstand impacts or fuel fires."
> ...


The planes, if they existed, were likely military planes. And nothing was found at the Pennsylvania site and as Rumsfeld said, the Pentagon was hit by a missile. No wings, nothing were found.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 5, 2014)

"Once again you cover your eyes and eyes lest the truth seep in. I repeat:
9/11Research.com, a website dedicated to 9/11 CTs, describes what happened to the planes. Note that they make no effort to deny their existence. They have access to the same evidence that you do. Why do they not deny the existence of 4 hijacked planes on 9/11? Could it be they recognize the silliness of doing so and you don't?"

Please do enlighten me, present the evidence that I have allegedly ignored.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 5, 2014)

Gary Anderson said:


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



Wow. That's layers of hogwash. Lets start with the 'if they existed' claim. First, why would you deny the existence of the planes? There were literally thousands of eye witnesses, video for a dozen angles and overwhelming physical evidence. 

Second, 'military planes'? The debris found matches passenger jets, down to the type of engines, the types of wheel wells and the Delta colors painted on pieces of the fuselage. Additionally, lots and lots of passenger bodies were found. For flight 77 for example, all the bodies were identified and all were found inside the Pentagon at the site of the crash. The black boxes of commercial flights were found for flight 93 and flight 77. 

All contradicting the 'military plane' narrative rather starkly.

As for a 'missile' hitting the Pentagon, that's simply not what the evidence shows. Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon in the dead of night or in the middle of the wilderness. It flew low over I-395 in broad daylight in the middle of a traffic jam. And the eye witness accounts of a plane are overwhelming. 

And finally, your claim that nothing was ever found of flight 93 is utter nonsense. The overwhelming majority of the plane was recovered, along with the black boxes and bodies of passengers. 

Where are you getting your information?


----------



## Skylar (Sep 5, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> "Once again you cover your eyes and eyes lest the truth seep in. I repeat:
> 9/11Research.com, a website dedicated to 9/11 CTs, describes what happened to the planes. Note that they make no effort to deny their existence. They have access to the same evidence that you do. Why do they not deny the existence of 4 hijacked planes on 9/11? Could it be they recognize the silliness of doing so and you don't?"
> 
> Please do enlighten me, present the evidence that I have allegedly ignored.



Well first, you've refused to even look at the evidence presented at the website. So anything presented there you starkly ignore.

Second, I've already presented you pictures of the debris from the planes. And you utterly ignored that....so far refusing to acknowledge it even existed.

Lets start with those two, and then work our way through the deliberate, calculated ignorance that is your perspective.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 5, 2014)

"Delta colors painted on pieces of the fuselage"

and the alleged hijacked airliners were AMERICAN AIRLINES and UNITED AIRLINES.  ....... REALLY PEOPLE ..... ?

Problem here is that showing pix of a few bits of metal does NOT constitute accounting for the aircraft.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 5, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> "Delta colors painted on pieces of the fuselage"
> 
> and the alleged hijacked airliners were AMERICAN AIRLINES and UNITED AIRLINES.  ....... REALLY PEOPLE ..... ?
> 
> Problem here is that showing pix of a few bits of metal does NOT constitute accounting for the aircraft.




My bad.  American Airlines. And you'll still ignore every picture of the fuselage, every picture of debris, every eye witness account, every body pulled from the crash sites being affirmatively identified as that of a passenger, every black box recovered from the crash sites of Flight 77 and Flight 93. 

In short, you've ignored anything that contradicts your narrative.

*But why would anyone interested in the truth ignore what you do?* Especially when your 'no hijacked planes' narrative is factually baseless, contradicted by overwhelming evidence, and so comically fails the test of Occam's Razor as to be ridiculous.

Explain it to us.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 5, 2014)

Skylar said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > "Delta colors painted on pieces of the fuselage"
> ...



Big problem here, where is this "overwhelming" evidence?
the fact is that the world was shown a series of snap-shots of the various alleged crash sites and told this was sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that hijacked airliners were used as weapons.
HOWEVER, where is the accounting for how much of any given airliner was recovered and identified?  contrast the aircraft bits recovery with Pan Am 103 .....  The alleged hijacked airliners were not accounted for.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 5, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



Its already been presented to you. The half dozen massive holes in your 'bomb theory' that render it virtually impossible. The pictures of debris of planes admitted as evidence in criminal proceedings that explicitly contradict your narrative that there were no 'hijacked planes'. The eye witness accounts of the pile of debris indicating a mound as high as 15 stories, when you insist it was all reduced to 'street level'. We've provided you with links to the photos, the testimony, the evidence.

*You ignore it all, pretending none of it exists.* Every picture, every eye witness account, every piece of evidence that contradicts you. Without exception.

And of course, you neither question your own 'bomb theory', nor can resolve any of the theory killing holes in it that render it ludicrously improbable. *You simply ignore the enormous inconsistencies and again pretend they don't exist.*

But why would we ignore what you do? Why would anyone interested in the truth ignore what you do?

There is no reason. And that's why you fail.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 5, 2014)

"We've provided you with links to the photos, the testimony, the evidence."

Really, I'm interested and sorry if I missed the link the first time 'round
please bear with me and show me the pix of the 15 story high rubble at ground zero.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 5, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> "We've provided you with links to the photos, the testimony, the evidence."
> 
> Really, I'm interested and sorry if I missed the link the first time 'round
> please bear with me and show me the pix of the 15 story high rubble at ground zero.




I've provided you with eye witness testimony of Fred Marsilla.....who climbed the very debris field you insist never existed. Bear with me....but why would you ignore Mr. Marsilla's eye witness account when you have absolutely nothing to back your story that the towers collapsed to 'street level'?

There are also links to photos of the debris from the planes. *You ignored them.*

There's also a half dozen holes in the bomb theory that demonstrate its a virtual impossibility. *You ignored them. *

I've also cited the ASCE report on the damage to the Pentagon, affirming the damage to the building was consistent with an airliner collision, even providing the location of the bodies of the passengers from flight 77 within the Pentagon. *You ignore it. *

All for no particular reason.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 5, 2014)

Let the random lurker to this forum use on-line search and see what turns up, does the evidence support hijacked airliners used as weapons, .... or possibly something else?  do give it some though ....
have a nice day

: )


----------



## Skylar (Sep 5, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Let the random lurker to this forum use on-line search and see what turns up, does the evidence support hijacked airliners used as weapons, .... or possibly something else?  do give it some though ....
> have a nice day
> 
> : )


 Let the random lurker in this thread note that you're unable to back any of your conspiracy with actual evidence. Nor can you resolve any of the theory killing holes in the bomb theory that render it a virtual impossibility....but have instead ignored every inconsistency. And ignored every picture, every piece of evidence, every piece of testimony that contradicts you.

Where I've provided eye witness testimony or photographic evidence to support my claims, that any lurker can look up and verify. The 'random lurker' standard isn't your friend, Spam. As the evidence supports my claims and utterly destroy yours.

Smiling....have a nice day!


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 5, 2014)

"photographic evidence to support my claims"

Please, were is it?  When I asked, I was told that I would have to provide the evidence for my claims first ..... so its a stand off .... so be it,
I repeat, for the faction that would take great delight in being able to say
"I told you so... "  there appears to be very little supporting evidence to back up claims and this is for the mainstream media supported side, You see, the Mainstream media was the first to assert that 19 suicidal hijackers took control of airliners ( etc.... ) and so far, the PROOF has been very much lacking.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 5, 2014)

Skylar said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > "Delta colors painted on pieces of the fuselage"
> ...



So as usual, the conversation boils down not to differences of opinion but rather the unflagging resistance of CTs to deal with facts and realty and the question, as always, is what motivates them? Why do they cling so desperately to their silliness?


----------



## Skylar (Sep 5, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> "photographic evidence to support my claims"
> 
> Please, were is it?  When I asked, I was told that I would have to provide the evidence for my claims first ..... so its a stand off .... so be it,
> I repeat, for the faction that would take great delight in being able to say
> "I told you so... "  there appears to be very little supporting evidence to back up claims and this is for the mainstream media supported side, You see, the Mainstream media was the first to assert that 19 suicidal hijackers took control of airliners ( etc.... ) and so far, the PROOF has been very much lacking.



I've already provided you with the links to an entire gallery of photographs of debris of the hijacked planes.  *You ignored them entirely, now denying the photos even exist. *Just as you ignored every photograph ever taken that shows debris, from any source. And any eye witness testimony, from any source. And the black boxes. And the ASCE report. 

And of course, have absolutely nothing to back any part of your conspiracy. You simply say it must be so.

As for them being 'proof', they met the standards of the criminal courts, being documented into evidence during the trial of a suspected co-conspirator of 911`. 

Its good enough to be used as evidence by the criminal courts......*but you're gonna ignore it all?* That's unreasonable. Your entire argument has devolved into excuses for ignoring any evidence that contradicts you.....for no particular reason.

Try again.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 5, 2014)

Would people PLEASE simply look at the destruction of WTC1, 2 & 7
and ask the question, why, if this is an allegedly gravity powered event, is the wave of destruction ACCELERATING as it descends?


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 5, 2014)

Skylar said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Let the random lurker to this forum use on-line search and see what turns up, does the evidence support hijacked airliners used as weapons, .... or possibly something else?  do give it some though ....
> ...



The "random lurker" thing was just NoSpAm's surrender flag. He must visit other forum's where his sort of "thinking" is common.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 5, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



The conversation boils down to you having absolutely nothing to back your conspiracy narrative. While I have eye witness testimony and photographs that affirm my claims and contradict yours.

Unless you can explain why you are ignoring Fred Marsilla, an eye witness who climbed the very debris field that you insist never existed? And ignoring every picture of the debris from the crash sites. And ignoring the ASCE report on flight 77's collision with the Pentagon. And ignoring the legion of theory killing holes in your bomb conspiracy. And ignoring both black boxes  recovered from the flight 93 and flight 77 crash sites respectively. ANd ignoring the affirmative matches of the bodies of the passengers of flight 93 and flight 77 from their respective crash sites. And ignoring the eye witness accounts contradicting you.

But you can't. Remember, we can still see every piece of evidence you pretend doesn't exist.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 5, 2014)

BTW: did anybody actually look at the "FLT175" record?
the videos are quite interesting when you start actually examining what was alleged to have happened.

any comments .... anybody?

also, Please do look closely at the destruction of WTC1, 2 & 7
WTC7 spends 2.25 sec in free fall acceleration and WTC1, 2
spends a good bit of the descent at 64% of the acceleration of gravity.
how is that done without something to help it along?


----------



## Skylar (Sep 5, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Would people PLEASE simply look at the destruction of WTC1, 2 & 7
> and ask the question, why, if this is an allegedly gravity powered event, is the wave of destruction ACCELERATING as it descends?



I have. Your claims simply don't hold up. You don't have the evidence to back your conspiracy, you can't explain any of the conspiracy killing holes in your 'theory', and your claims are contradicted by overwhelming evidence. Eye witness testimony that you ignore, photographic evidence you won't look at, evidence you pretend doesn't exist.

Just because the evidence destroys your conspiracy doesn't mean that we have to ignore the evidence. Quite the opposite.

*And have you've never heard of the acceleration of gravity? *Well, I guess this another 'teaching moment'.

Acceleration of Gravity

Study up.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 5, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> BTW: did anybody actually look at the "FLT175" record?
> the videos are quite interesting when you start actually examining what was alleged to have happened.
> 
> any comments .... anybody?



Wow....more allusions and insinuations. But no actual evidence. How did I know that was coming. If you believe that 'FLT175' affirms your conspiracies, by all means present your evidence.

But innuendo isn't an argument. Its an excuse for one.



> also, Please do look closely at the destruction of WTC1, 2 & 7
> WTC7 spends 2.25 sec in free fall acceleration and WTC1, 2
> spends a good bit of the descent at 64% of the acceleration of gravity.
> how is that done without something to help it along?



Again, your timing on the WTC 7 collapse is just off. The penthouse at the top of the WTC 7 began collapsing into the WTC 7 about 19 seconds before the facade fell. Not 'off of' the WTC 7. INTO the WTC 7. Demonstrating undeniably and unambiguously that the structure was already collapsing before the facade came down.

Putting your '2.5 seconds of free fall' claim off by about an order of magnitude. Worse, you know all of this. You just really hope we don't.

As for WTC 1 and 2......you 'say' that its collapse required a lot of help. But you can't actually back that up with anything. You're offering us your personal opinion as fact. And it isn't. Worse, we've already blown your bomb theory completely apart with overlapping, overwhelming and conspiracy killing holes in your claims Demonstrating that your narrative is a virtual impossibility.

You ignore the holes, ignore the crippling inconsistencies in your claims, and pretend none of them exist.

But why would any one genuinely interested in what actually happened ignore what you do? There is no reason.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 5, 2014)

Yes, I stayed awake during Science 101 lectures.
In order to have the acceleration of gravity, the falling object must have NO resistance at all under it, its not crushing anything or pushing anything out of the way its only falling. and this is were it gets interesting because the supporters of the official story do not have an explanation for why in the case of the WTC buildings that fell as they did, WHY did the buildings accelerate on the way down.  Building structures are designed to stand and for fire to have so severely compromised the structure that the buildings fell in the manner and in the short time that it took them to fall.
The NIST got it WRONG on many counts with this whole thing and I'm surprised  that there as yet isn't a lawsuit against NIST for the FRAUD that they published at taxpayer expense.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 5, 2014)

"The "random lurker" thing was just NoSpAm's surrender flag. He must visit other forum's where his sort of "thinking" is common."

Question: has anybody here actually looked at the video of the alleged "FLT175" crashing into the South Tower, pick one of the views that actually shows the south wall so as to get the full effect.
if you have seen it, any discussion on this subject?


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 5, 2014)

Gary Anderson said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Gary Anderson said:
> ...



This is the problem with CTs. You cling desperately to incomplete or outright bogus info and reject or are ignorant of real facts. The first trial pitted Silverstein's firm against 10 reluctant insurers. The second trial involved 9 insurers.
You pretend that Travelers (or Citibank) and the other insurers (who existence you deny) eagerly paid billions in claims. As the two trials illustrate, your conclusion is self-serving silliness.
As already stated, those who paid those enormous claims would love the opportunity to recoup their losses. Perhaps you should let them see your "proof." Certainly there would be a handsome reward for your effort.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 5, 2014)

911SpeakOut.org The World Needs Truth
Second video down the page, NIST finally admits to free fall.

GOOD MATERIAL!


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 5, 2014)

Skylar said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...





Skylar said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I have no conspiracy narrative other than that of the 19 hijackers and their cohorts. Like you I am bemused by the CT's unwillingness or inability to process any info which contradicts their silliness.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 5, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Yes, I stayed awake during Science 101 lectures.
> In order to have the acceleration of gravity, the falling object must have NO resistance at all under it, its not crushing anything or pushing anything out of the way its only falling.


You clearly weren't paying attention as there's no such requirement. 

*For acceleration to occur the force of acceleration must exceed the resistance its facing. Its a contest of forces.* The greater the resistance, the less acceleration. If resistance completely exceeds the force of acceleration, we see *deceleration*. If resistance doesn't completely exceed the force of acceleration, we see _a lower rate of acceleration._

Your claim that only with NO resistance can acceleration occur is blithering nonsense and demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of physics. If a train is accelerating and I throw a walnut at it in the opposite direction.....per you, the train can't accelerate once the walnut hits it. As there is no longer 'NO resistance'. Back in reality, the train continues to accelerate....albeit at a slightly lower rate.

Remember, and this point is fundamental:* you have no idea what you're talking about. *Seriously.....you genuinely don't have a clue how physics works. And you're only demonstrating that with the above post. 

Which, of course....I just bookmarked. And every time you want to offer us your 'expertise' on physics, metallurgy, or structural engineering, I'm just going to quote your latest blunder.



> and this is were it gets interesting because the supporters of the official story do not have an explanation for why in the case of the WTC buildings that fell as they did, WHY did the buildings accelerate on the way down.



Because the acceleration of gravity exceeded the resistance of the floors being impacted. 

*Remember, you don't actually have a clue how physics works*. And fallaciously assume that ANY resistance makes acceleration impossible.  Anyone who has gotten onto the freeway just proved your entire theory mindless nonsense. As the wind resists the movement of my car. Yet in complete contradiction of your claims....I can still accelerate to 65 mph. 

Something you insist is quite impossible. And reality demonstrates really isn't. 



> Building structures are designed to stand and for fire to have so severely compromised the structure that the buildings fell in the manner and in the short time that it took them to fall.



In the case of the WTC 1 and 2, the fire proofing was an interegal part of the withstanding flames. WIth the fireproofing removed from the girders by the impact of the planes.

Leslie Robertson, designer of the WTC 1 and 2 affirmed that the collapse due to fire and structural damage on the scale of 911 was entirely possible. You say it isn't. 

Our sources are not equal.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 5, 2014)

at NO time did I assert that ACCELERATION isn't possible with some resistance.  The point is that the acceleration of GRAVITY is only possible with the falling object not being hindered by any other object or force.

"Your claim that only with NO resistance can acceleration occur is blithering nonsense and demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of physics."

Don't misread what I say.


----------



## MaryL (Sep 5, 2014)

The physic involved here, nobody knows for sure. One thing we know for sure, Muslims attacked America. The rest is moot.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 5, 2014)

MaryL said:


> The physic involved here, nobody knows for sure. One thing we know for sure, Muslims attacked America. The rest is moot.



Check post 293 of this thread.....


----------



## Skylar (Sep 5, 2014)

MaryL said:


> The physic involved here, nobody knows for sure. One thing we know for sure, Muslims attacked America. The rest is moot.



Physics kinda transcends conspiracy theories. And the idea that acceleration can only occur if there is NO resistence is quite simply blithering nonsense.

As demonstrated every time you overcome air resistance to accelerate onto the freeway.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 5, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > The physic involved here, nobody knows for sure. One thing we know for sure, Muslims attacked America. The rest is moot.
> ...



And show us where in the link it says that there can be no acceleration if there is any resistance.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 5, 2014)

Skylar said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...




find the exact quote from me that alleges that ACCELERATION
requires no resistance, FREE FALL ACCELERATION requires no resistance, now do you get it?


----------



## Skylar (Sep 5, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



Odd...I don't note the word 'free fall' here anywhere in your quote:



> Yes, I stayed awake during Science 101 lectures.
> In order to have the acceleration of gravity, the falling object must have NO resistance at all under it, its not crushing anything or pushing anything out of the way its only falling. and this is were it gets interesting because the supporters of the official story do not have an explanation for why in the case of the WTC buildings that fell as they did, WHY did the buildings accelerate on the way down.
> 
> n0spam4me
> ...



So where is the word 'free fall'? Oh, that's right.....you added it AFTER your blunder. Sorry Spam but 'NO resistance' isn't a requirement of acceleration under gravity.. And there's an obvious and rather simple reason why the debris accelerated as it fell:

*The force of acceleration of gravity pulling the debris field down was greater than the resistance of the floors being impacted could push up. *

Acceleration can _absolutely_ occur against resistance. And in fact, almost every instance of acceleration does exactly that. You simply don't know what you're talking about. Worse, the WTC 1 and 2 didn't fall at 'free fall'. By your own admission, at a fraction of that speed. 

This is why you probably shouldn't try to speak for me again. You're woefully under-qualified.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 5, 2014)

For the benefit of people who understand what 9.8 m/s^2 means,
WTC7 spent 2.25 sec dropping at that rate and the NIST agrees on this, just to cut down the noise factor here.  The fact is that 9.8 m/s^2 doesn't happen unless something is dropping totally unimpeded by any obstruction or resistance.  Therefore, to get WTC7 to fall as was seen, the event had to have been engineered to happen that way.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 5, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> For the benefit of people who understand what 9.8 m/s^2 means,
> WTC7 spent 2.25 sec dropping at that rate and the NIST agrees on this, just to cut down the noise factor here.  The fact is that 9.8 m/s^2 doesn't happen unless something is dropping totally unimpeded by any obstruction or resistance.  Therefore, to get WTC7 to fall as was seen, the event had to have been engineered to happen that way.


Laughing.....let the backpedalling continue! No mention of WTC 7 in that previous post either. But instead 'the buildings'. Plural. Now you're trying to convince us you were only talking about WTC 7. And have omitted _both _of the WTC towers. And of course, added 'free fall' out of thin air.

You blundered. You made a starkly ignorant statement about a topic you didn't understand, and embarrassed yourself. Take your licks instead of trying to retcon a post we can all clearly see....which doesn't include any of your latest revisions. For crying out loud, I'm quoting you more accurately than _you_ are.

Acceleration is entirely possible in the face of resistance. And in explicit contradiction of your absurd claims, the reason for the acceleration of the debris field is obvious: t*he acceleration of gravity pulled the debris field down with greater force than each impacted floor could push up. *

Done. 

Just because you have no idea how physics works doesn't mean the rest of us are similarly limited.



> Therefore, to get WTC7 to fall as was seen, the event had to have been engineered to happen that way.



Says you, citing yourself. And as you've demonstrated over and over, your source is clueless. 

Bombs have already been ruled out for the litany of reasons you've completely ignored and refuse to address. There's no such thing as 'silent bombs'. Or systems of explosives that work while on fire. Or cut girders without cutting them. Or leave no trace behind. Nor any that are invisible. Or can't be detected by bomb squads and bomb sniffing dogs.

All of which your theory requires. None of which actually happens. *Eliminating bombs as a plausible explanation for the collapse. *

A reality underscored by the fact that *your time frame is off. The penthouse on top of the WTC 7 began falling into the building about 19 seconds before the facade collapsed.* Not 'off of the WTC 7'. *But INTO the WTC 7*. Definitively proving undeniably that the structure of the building was already collapsing before the facade fell. Throwing your '2.25 seconds' off by about an order of magnitude.

And you already know all this. You just hope we don't.

Worse for you, the NIST found that the building's failure began on the 13th floor of a 47 story building. When that floor fully collapsed, all floors above it would have fallen. Yet you ignore this too.....pretending that if you ignore it, we won't notice this second massive hole in your narrative.

*Um, Spam....we noticed.* As did the FDNY. The FDNY anticipated the collapse of the WTC 7 by hours citing fire and structural damage. They measured its bulging, its buckling, its leaning. They saw fires burning uncontrolled on nearly every floor. And they pulled their people back, evacuated the area and waited for WTC 7 to fall from the fires.

And that's exactly what happened. There's a reason why your time frame is ludicrously inaccurate. Why your conception of physics is haplessly inaccurate. Why you can't back up any part of your 'bomb' narrative with any evidence. *

Because your narrative is imaginary nonsense. *Get used to the idea.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 5, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> For the benefit of people who understand what 9.8 m/s^2 means...



You actually think you have an appreciative audience here? Skylar has patiently and factually ripped you a new bunghole and you have failed miserably at every turn. At some point even an idiot realizes he is in over his head. Evidently you aren't even that smart. Woo.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 6, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > For the benefit of people who understand what 9.8 m/s^2 means...
> ...



How many people actually read this forum?
I'd be very curious to know .....


----------



## Skylar (Sep 6, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


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



Given your track record, you'd probably ignore any answer or any evidence of it if it didn't match what you already believed.


----------



## Gary Anderson (Sep 7, 2014)

Skylar said:


> Gary Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


Dov Zakheim who wrote the PNAC piece calling for a new Pearl Harbor, was CEO for a remote control plane business. http://www.barefootsworld.net/911/zakheim911.html This article will blow you away.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 7, 2014)

> Dov Zakheim who wrote the PNAC piece calling for a new Pearl Harbor, was CEO for a remote control plane business. http://www.barefootsworld.net/911/zakheim911.html This article will blow you away.



The PNAC doc didn't 'call for a new Pearl Harbor. '

Read the actual doc rather than the conspiracy talking point. You'll find that they simply don't match.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 7, 2014)

Gary Anderson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


sure they were dear!


----------



## daws101 (Sep 7, 2014)

Gary Anderson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Gary Anderson said:
> ...


Project for the New American Century



Formation1997Extinction2006TypePublic policy think tankLocation
Washington, D.C.
Websitenewamericancentury.org
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 7, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Gary Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, 9/11 was a conspiracy. Cheney had both motive and knowledge and I can prove it. And, WTC7 was identical to implosions. And, squibs were observed in all three buildings.
> ...



And here we are fully 3 days after promising to prove his silly claims and as of this post, still no proof. Mr. Anderson, it seems, is all talk and no substance.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 8, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Gary Anderson said:
> ...


mr anderson ? keanu reeves character in the matrix trilogy !


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 12, 2014)

"*The force of acceleration of gravity pulling the debris field down was greater than the resistance of the floors being impacted could push up. "*

*To quote from a previous post, I do not like for these things to get verbose.....
The acceleration of gravity that is 9.8m/s^2 is an indication of no resistance under the falling bit.  Other rates of acceleration are possible ( with or without explosives) however the very fact that anything spent 2.25 sec accelerating at a rate indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity is very significant.*


----------



## Penelope (Sep 12, 2014)

Skylar said:


> > Dov Zakheim who wrote the PNAC piece calling for a new Pearl Harbor, was CEO for a remote control plane business. http://www.barefootsworld.net/911/zakheim911.html This article will blow you away.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We will need something like Peal harbor to get the people behind us. You read it , your a lot of hot air.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 12, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> "*The force of acceleration of gravity pulling the debris field down was greater than the resistance of the floors being impacted could push up. "*
> 
> *To quote from a previous post, I do not like for these things to get verbose.....
> The acceleration of gravity that is 9.8m/s^2 is an indication of no resistance under the falling bit.  Other rates of acceleration are possible ( with or without explosives) however the very fact that anything spent 2.25 sec accelerating at a rate indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity is very significant.*


in reality it's not .
al it means is that portion of wtc7's north face  struck no obstacles for that short span of time.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 12, 2014)

daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > "*The force of acceleration of gravity pulling the debris field down was greater than the resistance of the floors being impacted could push up. "*
> ...



Lets be very clear on this shall we, the visible bit includes the west wall of WTC7 and so the North & West walls would have to become totally disconnected from anything that could provide resistance to the fall, and then the North & West walls dropped for 2.25 sec, and this is alleged to have been the product of chaotic fires.
right....................


----------



## Skylar (Sep 12, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> "*The force of acceleration of gravity pulling the debris field down was greater than the resistance of the floors being impacted could push up. "*
> 
> *To quote from a previous post, I do not like for these things to get verbose.....
> The acceleration of gravity that is 9.8m/s^2 is an indication of no resistance under the falling bit.  Other rates of acceleration are possible ( with or without explosives) however the very fact that anything spent 2.25 sec accelerating at a rate indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity is very significant.*



We've been through this. And I'll be happy to disabuse your of your misconceptions yet again.

First, your blunder encompassed 'the WTC buildings'';



> Yes, I stayed awake during Science 101 lectures.
> In order to have the acceleration of gravity, the falling object must have NO resistance at all under it, its not crushing anything or pushing anything out of the way its only falling. and this is were it gets interesting because the supporters of the official story do not have an explanation for why in the case of the WTC buildings that fell as they did, WHY did the buildings accelerate on the way down.
> 
> n0spam4me
> Post: 290



Only now that you've been proven ludicrously, stupidly wrong about basic physics do you start desperately backpedalling with 'the WTC buildings' magically morphing into only the WTC 7. Yes, Spammy.....acceleration can occur in the face of resistance. And in fact virtually all acceleration does.

Second, your time line is off. 19 seconds before the facade of the WTC 7 collapsed, the Penthouse on the top of the building began collapsing.  6 seconds before the collapse, the penthouse fell into the middle of the WTC 7. Not 'off of'. But INTO. Demonstrating undeniably and undebatably that the WTC 7's internal structure was already collapsing long before the facade fell. Putting your time line off by nearly an order of magnitude. 

Third, the collapse initiated on the 13th floor. 33 floors beneath the penthouse. And 15 floors beneath the 18 or so stories that we saw collapsing. When the 13th floor collapsed, all floors above it would fall. You insist this is impossible. Play a game of jenga one day and knock out all piece from the middle of the stack. If the pieces in the upper half don't continue to float in the air, your theory is disproven.

Fourth, bombs were virtually impossible. The building was on fire on virtually every floor. And any system of explosives would have been on fire as well. Melting or detonating them haphazardly before they could have brought down the WTC. The collapse of the WTC 7 initiated in near perfect silence where actual controlled demolition is ludicriously loud. There are no such thing as 'silent explosives'. There was no residue of explosives found in dust samples taken from the WTC plaza. The WTC plaza had been swept for bombs only a week before the collapse by the Port Authority bomb squad. 

And no girders were cut in a manner consistent with explosive demolition.

Fifth, the FDNY anticipated the collapse of the WTC due to fire and structural damage hours before it came down. They measured its bulging, its buckling, its leaning. They were witness to the massive structural damage the building had sustained when chucks of the collapsing WTC 1 had torn massive holes in WTC 7. They listened to the building groan as the fires grew out of control until nearly every floor was on fire. 

The FDNY abandoned their fire fighting effort, pulled their people back and waited for the building to collapse due to fire and structural damage. And they nailed it, with the building coming down within about an hour of their prediction.

And you already know all of this. You just really hope we don't. And how do you deal with this obvious and conspiracy killing contradiction of your little theory? *You ignore it entirely, pretending it never happened.*

So, um...how's that working out for you?


----------



## Skylar (Sep 12, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


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



Lets be clear: your time line is off and you have no idea what you're talking about. See above.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 12, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


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


even clearer: uncontrolled fires + no evidence of accelerants of any kind = the collapse of wtc7


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 12, 2014)

"even clearer: uncontrolled fires + no evidence of accelerants of any kind = the collapse of wtc7"   

This gets crazier and crazier, now its no evidence of acceleration at all...... REALLY PEOPLE?  When the NIST published a document that specifies 9.8m/s^2 acceleration, and its available on the web for all to see.... NIST - NC STAR 1A ..... look it up, page 46.
Thank U very much.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 12, 2014)

> "even clearer: uncontrolled fires + no evidence of accelerants of any kind = the collapse of wtc7"



Why would need 'accelerants' when the WTC had 8 hours to burn? All accelerants do is speed up the process. With 8 hours of uncontrolled burn, you don't need to speed it up.

And speaking of 'no evidence', there's zero evidence of bombs. 1) No apparatus of explosive has ever been found. Not a single inch of blasting wire, not a single charge, nothing. Not before, during or after the collapse. And your theory requires thousands.

2) There were also no girders cut in a manner consistent with controlled demolition.

3) And no residue of explosives found in any of the dust samples.

So with no evidence of bombs, clearly your bomb theory is nixed. These are your own standards that your conspiracy just failed after all.



> This gets crazier and crazier, now its no evidence of acceleration at all...... REALLY PEOPLE?



Huh? Who says there was no acceleration? Dude, you're talking to yourself.



> When the NIST published a document that specifies 9.8m/s^2 acceleration, and its available on the web for all to see.... NIST - NC STAR 1A ..... look it up, page 46.
> Thank U very much.



Here's the NIST timeline...more than double your estimates.



> 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).
> ...



And of course, you're still ignoring the collapse of the penthouse into the WTC 6 seconds before the facade fell. Which demonstrates undeniably that the internal structure of the wtc collapsing before the facade came down.

Oh, that's right. You always pretend that the penthouse never caved in. And ignore the issue of the WTC's collapsing internal structure entirely.

So much for that 'quest for truth' huh, buddy?[/quote]


----------



## daws101 (Sep 12, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> "even clearer: uncontrolled fires + no evidence of accelerants of any kind = the collapse of wtc7"
> 
> This gets crazier and crazier, now its no evidence of acceleration at all...... REALLY PEOPLE?  When the NIST published a document that specifies 9.8m/s^2 acceleration, and its available on the web for all to see.... NIST - NC STAR 1A ..... look it up, page 46.
> Thank U very much.


hey spammy your ignorance is showing: accelerants and acceleration are two separate things .
one is an action the other is a substance or substances..


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 12, 2014)

OK,  where is your DOCUMENTATION that somebody looked for and did not find any traces of accelerants?

"And of course, you're still ignoring the collapse of the penthouse into the WTC 6 seconds before the facade fell. Which demonstrates undeniably that the internal structure of the wtc collapsing before the facade came down.

Oh, that's right. You always pretend that the penthouse never caved in. And ignore the issue of the WTC's collapsing internal structure entirely."

When did I specify that I didn't recognize the drop of the penthouse?  The problem here is that the drop of the penthouse is being used as an excuse as to why the "facade" would fall at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec, and please note that the "facade" includes the west wall in addition to the north wall. and for that 2.25 sec, ALL of the resistance would have to just go away, like POOF as in Harry Potter just waved his wand and made it go away. .... what?


----------



## Faun (Sep 12, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> OK,  where is your DOCUMENTATION that somebody looked for and did not find any traces of accelerants?


Why is it anyone else's job to prove you wrong when you can't prove yourself right?

If there is evidence of accelerants, then post it.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 12, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> OK,  where is your DOCUMENTATION that somebody looked for and did not find any traces of accelerants?
> 
> "And of course, you're still ignoring the collapse of the penthouse into the WTC 6 seconds before the facade fell. Which demonstrates undeniably that the internal structure of the wtc collapsing before the facade came down.
> 
> ...


false! no one has ever claimed the penthouse never came down..or caved in.
*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.Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation


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.

*In June 2009, NIST began releasing documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from the International Center for 9/11 Studies for "all of the photographs and videos collected, reviewed, cited or in any other way used by NIST during its investigation of the World Trade Center building collapses." One of the items released, a video obtained from NBC News , shows World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) in the moments before it collapsed, then cuts to the collapse already in progress, with the building's east penthouse "disappearing" from the scene (as it had already fallen in the intervening time). Other videos of the WTC 7 collapse show the penthouse falling first, followed by the rest of the building. Did NIST edit the NBC News video to remove the collapse of the penthouse?*
The video footage released under the FOIA request was copied from the original video exactly as it was received from NBC News, with video documentation of the WTC 7 east penthouse collapse missing. The footage was not edited in any way by NIST. 


also
*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.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 12, 2014)

> When did I specify that I didn't recognize the drop of the penthouse?  The problem here is that the drop of the penthouse is being used as an excuse as to why the "facade" would fall at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec, and please note that the "facade" includes the west wall in addition to the north wall. and for that 2.25 sec, ALL of the resistance would have to just go away, like POOF as in Harry Potter just waved his wand and made it go away. .... what?



When you ignored it in calculating your collapse times. The collapse of the building began at least 19 seconds before you admit it began. Your timing is off by almost an order of magnitude.

And of course, the NIST explicitly contradicts your timeline:



> 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).
> ...



Putting it at 5.4 seconds. 

You ignore the collapsing beginning before you insist it should have collapsed, you ignore the fact that the collapse initiated low in the building, and you ignore the timeline of the collapse by the NIST.

And of course, ignore the facts that bombs were virtually impossible.

And ignore the FDNY in their assessment of fire and structural damage bringing down the WTC 7....correcting predicting its collapse by hours.

And ignore the fact that the collapse of the facade began in virtual silence. With actual controlled demolition being ludicriously loud. T*here is no such thing as 'silent explosives'.*

And you ignore the fact that the NIST did look for evidence of controlled demolition. And found none.

And you ignore the fact that there is zero evidence of any bombs in the WTC 1, 2 or 7. 

And you ignore the fact that there was no residue of explosives in the dust samples taken from the WTC.

And you ignore the fact that the Port Authority bomb squad had already gone through the entire WTC plaza and found no bombs....only a week before.

*But why would we or any rational person ignore the veritable Mongel Horde of contradictory evidence utterly destroying your silly conspiracy? *


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 12, 2014)

"Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)"  From the NIST

and everybody appears to be trying very hard to totally ignore this bit.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 12, 2014)

Faun said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > OK,  where is your DOCUMENTATION that somebody looked for and did not find any traces of accelerants?
> ...



The "authorities" had control of the site that day, who tested for explosives (etc....)
and if they did, where is it documented?


----------



## Faun (Sep 12, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


But you don't believe the authorities.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 12, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> "Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)"  From the NIST
> 
> and everybody appears to be trying very hard to totally ignore this bit.


nobody's ignoring it... it's just not important ..


----------



## daws101 (Sep 12, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


what do you mean by control? wtc7 was an after thought in the middle of the largest disaster in nyc's history.
no one was killed there nothing that could not be replaced was lost.
an analogy would be an empty barn burning down..


----------



## Faun (Sep 12, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> "Delta colors painted on pieces of the fuselage"
> 
> and the alleged hijacked airliners were AMERICAN AIRLINES and UNITED AIRLINES.  ....... REALLY PEOPLE ..... ?
> 
> Problem here is that showing pix of a few bits of metal does NOT constitute accounting for the aircraft.


Check out Carrie Feinstein's eyewitness account in this video starting at 0:54 ... if there were no planes that day flying into buildings, explain how she saw two?


----------



## Skylar (Sep 12, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> "Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)"  From the NIST
> 
> and everybody appears to be trying very hard to totally ignore this bit.



Nope. This is where the facade fell together after the central columns had already collapsed. Remember, the first to fully fail was the 13th. About 15 stories below the bottom of the visible portion of the WTC 7 in your video. And how long would it take those 18 stories in your videos to hit reach the level of the 13th floor?

About 2.25 seconds. But that's just a coincidence, huh?

And since your bomb theory has been demonstrated to be virtually impossible, failing even your own standards of 'documentation', we can rule that. Leaving the NIST account as the last man standing. And matching the evidence perfectly.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 12, 2014)

has anybody seen "sound evidence for demolition"
look it up ...... The NIST is peddling snake oil!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Sep 12, 2014)

Freewill said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...



so where is the rest of the plane or do you think a couple nuts and bolts equal a plane?  LOL


----------



## KokomoJojo (Sep 12, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> has anybody seen "sound evidence for demolition"
> look it up ...... The NIST is peddling snake oil!



sure big botta booma!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Sep 12, 2014)

Faun said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > "Delta colors painted on pieces of the fuselage"
> ...




the evidence shows she saw no plane impact world trade center.  

when a plane hits a solid object there is a huge ball of flames approx 3 microseconds after the tanks are severed


----------



## KokomoJojo (Sep 12, 2014)

Gary Anderson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...




yeh and the experts agree it was a demolition but debunkers are willfully ignorant tards pushing their propaganda.








hey ya ever see a thermate cutter?

takes one inch of steel and poof its fucking gone!


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 12, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> has anybody seen "sound evidence for demolition"
> look it up ...... The NIST is peddling snake oil!


Woo. The irony!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Sep 12, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > has anybody seen "sound evidence for demolition"
> ...


you fucking blind or stoopid or both?  Thermate cutter charges do not explode, they make a ffffft sound precisely like an acetyoxy torch because they are torches NOT explosives!  Try to pull your head out of your ass.

you fucked up and gobbled the hugger story hook line and sinker and now you pay the price by looking the fool.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 12, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


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


 
But there was no evidence of cut beams. Chalk that one up and try again, Princess.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 12, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> has anybody seen "sound evidence for demolition"
> look it up ...... The NIST is peddling snake oil!



Show us, don't tell us.


----------



## Faun (Sep 12, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


Who knows what you think you demonstrate by slowing the video down when the reality is, the explosion occurred within a fraction of a second. Certainly no longer than this plane took to explode after one of its engines smashed into the ground...


And you still can't explain how Carrie Feinstein saw two planes hit the Twin Towers. Had there been no planes, as you idiotically claim, she wouldn't have said she saw any planes since there would have been no planes to see.

And she's not alone, there were many eyewitnesses who saw at least one of the planes strike the WTC.

And there's at least 100 videos, recorded by at least 100 different people. According to your delusions, the government had to collect every one of them and edit every one of them by inserting the same exact image, though the 100+ videos were filmed at 100+ different angles. Even worse for your hallucinations, there's not one single person who recorded the plane hitting the tower who claims their video was confiscated and returned to them with a plane crash edited in.

Bottom line is ... you're batshit insane.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 12, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


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




So where were the thermal cutters? Scale up the video you showed us to somethign big enough to cut a girder, it would be a cylinda 12 feet long 3 to 4 feet across, weighting about a ton and sticking sideways of of each girder. And your theory requires thousands of them. 

Show us one. IF there were thousands and thousands used, roughly the length of a midsized car, then it will be remarkably easy for you to show us mounds and mounds of these thermal cutters in the debris. I mean, hell.....they'd be everywhere. 

Yet there were none. Huh..._its almost like you were talking completely out of your ass._

And if these thermal cutters would leave thousand and thousands of cut girders. We saw twisted girders. We saw bent girders. We saw smashed girders. But none of the cut girders you insist would be there by the thousands. Imagine that. More deal breakers that utterly destroy the 'thermal cutter' theory. Clearly, you need to ignore harder.

And of course, the building was on fire. With fire on virtuall every floor. Yet your system of 'thermal cutters' worked with perfect precision while in flames. None of their wires melted, none of the transmitters or timers melted. What magic material were these made out of? Adamantium? 

And of course, how were these giant canisters installed? I mean, they're kinda hard to miss. No one is going to fail to notice something nearly 3 times the height of a water heater sticking horizontally off of main building girders _by the thousands. _And the Port Authority bomb squad certainly wouldn't have missed it when they inspected the entire WTC plaza with bomb sniffing dogs. Was a cloaking device involved?

And clearly they weren't installed all the way to the roof (as you claim) while the buiding was on fire. As people are as flammable as the apparatus of your mighty morphin' thermal cutters. Its kinda hard to install thousands of 'ton each' thermal cutters when you're screaming on the ground trying to put yourself out._ And of course, you couldn't be seen despite reporters, fire fighters and cops milling nearby. So......fireproof ninjas was it?
_
Each of these enormous inconsistencies in your theory render it a virtual impossibility. All of them render your theory silly. Try again. This time with less ninjas and invisibility cloaks. _
_


----------



## Skylar (Sep 12, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Minor detail. Barely worth mentioning.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 13, 2014)

> Bottom line is ... you're batshit insane.



No, just emotionally invested. You're dealing with people that have invested so much of their faith, their emotion and their sense of self into these silly conspiracies that to acknowledge the theories don't work would them severe emotional strain.

So.....they go to objectively bizarre lengths to ignore anything that doesn't ape their conspiracies. Or even more ludicrous, to fold into their conspiracy anything that doesn't match their beliefs. 

To an outside observer, it seems quite mad. But its a defense mechanism. Its the way that they resolve the emotional dissonance that builds when what they believe doesn't match the mountains of evidence that contradicts them.


----------



## E.L.C. (Sep 13, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> *The acceleration of gravity that is 9.8m/s^2 is an indication of no resistance under the falling bit.  Other rates of acceleration are possible ( with or without explosives) however the very fact that anything spent 2.25 sec accelerating at a rate indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity is very significant.*



Right you are.... and It's particularly significant when it comes to WTC7, which wasn't even hit by a plane. It's really pretty worthless to bother with science in this forum though, these guys don't seem interested in solutions or getting to the bottom of anything, it seems to be more about agitation, distraction and fabrication. 

Though the possible composition and placement of the explosives can be endlessly debated, but the fact that they were indeed composed and placed cannot....

The conditions required for gravitational acceleration to occur have been known for centuries - "_The condition under which a body is, literally, free to fall under the influence of the local gravitational field with no resistance to its acceleration._"....


....and the _progressive_ collapse of the building (starting with column 79 on the left)....


....that essentially happens _all at once_.... 


....is _clearly_ inconsistent with what we _empirically know_ of natural progressive structural failure (defined as a time consuming process of individual/sequential/simultaneous failures involving a number of related structural components).

It's a matter of _empirical fact_ that, even if a giant laser beam were to suddenly vaporize all but the North Face of the building, resulting in the remaining exterior columns immediately beginning to buckle all at once, free fall still would not occur. 

The strength of buckled columns, whether one or a thousand, whether one at a time or all at once (or any combination thereof) won't just go from 100% to 0% _when_ they buckle, they'll go from 100% to 0% _while_ they buckle and that takes _time_.

The mechanism of buckling (a mode of natural progressive structural failure), whether caused by heat....


Control on the right, details....
http://picasion.com/pic76/ef2992a1bed34a1ad9d2e8f520c5ad7e.gif​
....or by overloading....


Control on the right, details....
http://picasion.com/pic76/ef2992a1bed34a1ad9d2e8f520c5ad7e.gif​
...._absolutely_ cannot create the conditions required for gravitational acceleration to occur, it's literally impossible. Some force _must_ be introduced to quickly remove _all support_ from beneath the _literally falling_ visible upper part of the building seen in the video....


It's a _physical impossibility_ for the lower part of the asymmetrically damaged building (reportedly three core columns and nine perimeter columns) to have naturally progressively collapsed in _any_ way that could result in the upper part of the building symmetrically descending straight down through itself at gravitational acceleration (NIST probable collapse sequence starting with column 79 circled below) for _any_ period of time....


....and there is _absolutely_ no mode or combination of modes of natural progressive structural failure driven _solely_ by gravity that can _ever_ give rise to the conditions required (below) for free fall to have occurred at _any_ point during it's descent.... 


The scenario (below) is an _absolute_ physical impossibility....


There is simply no point during a natural progressive gravity driven collapse of a steel frame skyscraper like this where one could say....

*"Hold it.... right there! That's the point where all the steel columns and structural components that were supporting the building just a moment ago (with an area greater than that of a football field) will undoubtedly be found to be behaving in a manner very much like air (below left). It will take very careful calculation to tell the fall times apart during this free fall period of the ongoing progressive structural failure (below right)"....*​

Not only is it _improbable_, it's _impossible_ that the lower asymmetrically damaged part of the building could have naturally progressively collapsed in a way that resulted in the upper part of the building actually _accelerating_ as it descended symmetrically straight down through itself, through the path of greatest resistance (below right), and that driven on _solely_ by gravity, it actually _continued_ to accelerate so nearly to gravitational acceleration (below left) as to require _very careful calculation_ for any difference between the two to be detected....


For the 2.25 seconds (eight stories, approximately 105 feet) that we _know_ the upper part of the building _literally fell_ at gravitational acceleration it _cannot_ have been using _any_ of it's potential energy to crush the building contents, columns and other structural components beneath it and undergo free fall _at the same time_....


Control on the right, details....
http://picasion.com/pic76/ef2992a1bed34a1ad9d2e8f520c5ad7e.gif​
Some _other force_ powerful enough to quickly remove _all support_ from beneath the upper part of the building as it descended _must_ be introduced to explain the observed rate of descent during the 2.25 second period of gravitational acceleration. 

For the 2.25 seconds that the building _iliterally fell_ at gravitational acceleration, no _other force_ powerful enough to quickly remove _all support_ from beneath the upper part of the building was seen to be introduced from _outside_ the building, and no _other force_ powerful enough to quickly remove _all support_ from beneath the upper part of the building is known to have existed _inside_ the building as an element or normal function of it's infrastructure.

For a load supported by a column to descend at gravitational acceleration, all support _must_ be quickly removed, there's _absolutely_ no other way. It _must_ be knocked out, pulled out, blown out, vaporized, etc. 

Since no eight story tall boulders were seen rumbling through Manhatten that day that could have quickly _knocked_ out all support....


Control on the right, details....
http://picasion.com/pic76/ef2992a1bed34a1a...8f520c5ad7e.gif​
....and no suspicious looking Frenchmen were spotted rigging for verinage (another form of controlled demolition) the night before that could have quickly _pulled_ out the support....


Control on the right, details....
http://picasion.com/pic76/ef2992a1bed34a1a...8f520c5ad7e.gif]​
....and no bombs or rockets were seen to be dropped on/fired at it that could have quickly _blown_ out all support....



Control on the right, details....
http://picasion.com/pic76/ef2992a1bed34a1a...8f520c5ad7e.gif​
....and no giant laser beams or other secret weapons were being tested in the area that could have quickly _vaporized_ all support....


Control on the right, details....
http://picasion.com/pic76/ef2992a1bed34a1a...8f520c5ad7e.gif​ 
....and no _other force_ capable of quickly removing all support from beneath the upper part of the building existed in the building as a normal function of it's infrastructure (blue below).... 




....it _naturally_ follows that whatever the _other force_ was that _must_ be introduced to explain the observed 2.25 seconds of descent at gravitional acceleration, it _must_ have been introduced some time _before_ the event, and unless someone can show how the _other force_ that _must_ be introduced either _during_ or just _before_ the collapse of the building was introduced from _outside_ the building, or that it was already existing _inside_ the building as a normal function of it's infrastructure, the process of elimination really leaves _only one_ possible explanation for the building's behaviour. 

Some energetic material powerful enough to quickly remove all support from beneath the upper part of the building during the 2.25 second period of gravitational acceleration _must_ have been physically transported _inside_ the building some time _before_ the event, it _had_ to be _brought_ in.

The explosion model (below) is the _only_ one....



....that can _realistically_ match and empirically be _expected_ to create the conditions (below) that we _know_ must have existed....



....beneath the _literally falling_ visible upper part of the building (below) during its observed largely symmetrical descent at gravitational acceleration for approximately 105 feet in 2.25 seconds....



The undisputed (both the NIST and independent researchers alike agree) confirmed observation of a significant period of gravitational acceleration.... 


....means an explosion, or a number of explosions, _must_ have occurred that was powerful enough to quickly remove _all support_ from beneath the upper part of the building (below right), either all at once or incrementally in advance of its descent, permitting it to descend at gravitational acceleration for the observed period and under the conditions required (below left) for free fall to occur.... 




The building was brought down by explosives.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 13, 2014)

Skylar said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



#1 - He doesn't "almost" speak completely out of his ass but rather "only" does so.
#2 - He may need to try to "ignore harder" but he already giving "110 percent."
#3 - "Adamantium" is some funny shit.
#4 - "mighty morphin' thermal cutters" & "_fireproof ninjas_" with "_invisibility cloaks_" are also some funny shit_.  _


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 13, 2014)

E.L.C. said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > *The acceleration of gravity that is 9.8m/s^2 is an indication of no resistance under the falling bit.  Other rates of acceleration are possible ( with or without explosives) however the very fact that anything spent 2.25 sec accelerating at a rate indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity is very significant.*
> ...



Or "chaotic fires" started by thousands of gallons of a powerful accelerant (like jet fuel) which weakened that which supported the building. 13 years later NO EVIDENCE OF EXPOSIVES or of preparation for an explosive demo have been found which should lead any rational "truther" - no matter how invested in his CT - to understand those buildings were not brought down by explosives. Even the desperately silly NoSpAm doesn't cling to your silliness but rather has more than enough silliness of his own ... like mighty morphin' thermal cutters & fireproof ninjas with invisibility cloaks all of which, like your non-existent explosives, could not have survived those "chaotic fires."


----------



## daws101 (Sep 13, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> Gary Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


wow! four masterbatorial  posts in a row from koko ,must have been a slow night  for trolling boy scouts


----------



## E.L.C. (Sep 13, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Right you are.... and It's particularly significant when it comes to *WTC7*, which wasn't even hit by a plane.
> ...



See what I mean? All talk, no useful empirically verifiable information.  I made it clear I was talking about *WTC7*. It wasn't hit by a plane, there were no "chaotic fires" from any "powerful accelerant".... agitation, distraction and fabrication. 

What a dope.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 13, 2014)

> Right you are.... and It's particularly significant when it comes to WTC7, which wasn't even hit by a plane. It's really pretty worthless to bother with science in this forum though, these guys don't seem interested in solutions or getting to the bottom of anything, it seems to be more about agitation, distraction and fabrication.



WTC 7 was, however, hit by enormous pieces of a collapsing WTC 1 that carved huge holes in the building and started numerous fires. The damage and fires were so severe that the FDNY eventually pulled their people from the building, anticipating its collapse due to fire and structural damage hours before it occured.

The FDNY then measured the buildings slow buckling, its bulging, leaning. They put a transit on the building and measured its slow structural failure as it burned.

And they were right. At around 5:30 the building did collapse, exact as the FDNY anticipated.



> Though the possible composition and placement of the explosives can be endlessly debated, but the fact that they were indeed composed and placed cannot....



Obviously, it can be debated. As 1) there's no need for bombs. And 2) bombs were quite impossible.

First, the initiation of the collapse of WTC 7 occurred in near silence. No matter how you stack it, twist it, make graphics of it,* there is no such thing as silent explosives. *Immediately ending your conspiracy. But it get so much worse:

*The building was on fire.* NO system of explosives would operate while in flames. Wires would have melted, detonators detonated, blasting wire, control boards, transmitters or timers would have been reduced to bubbling pools of goo. There's no way a building could have been explosively demolished in the manner you describe while on fire. Ending your conspiracy yet again. But lets kick a dead horse, shall we?

There was no evidence of explosive demolition. No girders cut in a manner consistent with explosive demolition. No residue of explosives in dust samples, not a single charge ever found, not a single inch of det cord, nor any remnants of the apparatus of explosives ever found. Not before, not during, not after.

The lack of cut girders is especially challenging for Truthers.....as it takes out the 'demolition' in 'explosive demolition'. The girders were twisted. They were bent. They were warped. But they weren't cut. And the truther conspiracy requires thousands upon thousands of such cuts. *There were zero.* Killing the conspiracy yet again. But lets jump up on down on the horse pulp a tad more!

The Port Authority Bomb squad had gone through the entire WTC plaza only a week before the collapse. With bomb sniffing dogs. They found nothing.

*Quite simply, there were no bombs.* And you arbitrarily insisting that there 'is no debate', while quite amusing, don't really resolve much. Worse your abject dismissal of the topic demonstrates elegantly that you already know of the theory killing holes in the 'bomb conspiracy'. Which is why you're avoiding discussing the bombs like they were on fire (pun intended)

As we've established rather compelling that there were no bombs and your theory requires bombs, your theory is invalid. Until you can resolve the numerous, overlapping and theory killing holes of course. Which your avoidance of the topic strongly indicates you can't.



> ....means an explosion, or a number of explosions, _must_ have occurred that was powerful enough to quickly remove _all support_ from beneath the upper part of the building (below right), either all at once or incrementally in advance of its descent, permitting it to descend at gravitational acceleration for the observed period and under the conditions required (below left) for free fall to occur....



Nope. The part you're ignoring is that the center of the building had already collapsed, as demonstrated by the penthouse falling into the WTC 7.

The collapse of the WTC 7 had already imitated with the penthouse falling into the bilding.   All that was left was the facade of the building. We know that floors below had already collapsed, as the collapse began on the 13th floor. So all the floors above the 13th floor falling in unison is not only plausible, its essentially inevitable. Save that by the time of the collapse of the upper floors, all that was left was a skeleton of a facade that began breaking up almost the moment it began falling. With both the collapse of the center columns and the later collapse of the facade initiating in near total silence.

No bombs required. And of course, no bombs present.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 13, 2014)

E.L.C. said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > E.L.C. said:
> ...



Says the guy that is avoiding the theory killing holes in the bomb conspiracy. Any one of which render his entire theory moot. All of which together make it silly. 

As for there being no 'chaotic fires', the FDNY begs to differ. Citing 'fires on nearly every floor'. And 'tremendous fires'. With horrendous structural damage. So much so that the FDNY anticipated the collapse due to those fires hours before the building came down.

Now why would we ignore the FDNY and instead believe you?


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 13, 2014)

E.L.C. said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > E.L.C. said:
> ...



Wait ... so you are admitting WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed by the planes that slammed into them and the ensuing fire damage but claiming WTC 7 was felled by silent explosives that no one planted, that survived hours of raging fires in order to be triggered by some shadowy figure and which left no evidence? Yeah ... I'm the dope.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 13, 2014)

"WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed by the planes that slammed into them and the ensuing fire damage but claiming WTC 7 was felled by silent explosives that no one planted, that survived hours of raging fires in order to be triggered by some shadowy figure and which left no evidence? Yeah ... I'm the dope."

do try to think about the real scene, the alleged scene has WTC7 a raging inferno, when in fact less than a quarter of the floors were showing fire and that fire was most probably a bit of theater, that is fires that had been intentionally set up in advance to look like the whole floor was on fire however only the part near the windows was involved.  The inside of the building were the cutter charges had been set, was still cool.
Also, note that getting the exact same result as a carefully planned and executed controlled demolition ( 3X ) is a good trick with fire and asymmetrical damage.
The alleged airliner strikes to WTC1 & 2 had to have been either missiles or something else, but NOT commercial airliners, it simply doesn't work, the idea that two hits from commercial airliners would produce gashes in the sides of WTC1 & 2 ( oh but we all saw it happen.... ) REALLY PEOPLE, were is the hard evidence? there isn't any! 
Somebody produce PROOF that there was any airliner at ground zero.......(?)


----------



## E.L.C. (Sep 13, 2014)

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## Faun (Sep 14, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> "WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed by the planes that slammed into them and the ensuing fire damage but claiming WTC 7 was felled by silent explosives that no one planted, that survived hours of raging fires in order to be triggered by some shadowy figure and which left no evidence? Yeah ... I'm the dope."
> 
> do try to think about the real scene, the alleged scene has WTC7 a raging inferno, when in fact less than a quarter of the floors were showing fire and that fire was most probably a bit of theater, that is fires that had been intentionally set up in advance to look like the whole floor was on fire however only the part near the windows was involved.  The inside of the building were the cutter charges had been set, was still cool.
> Also, note that getting the exact same result as a carefully planned and executed controlled demolition ( 3X ) is a good trick with fire and asymmetrical damage.
> ...





n0spam4me said:


> "WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed by the planes that slammed into them and the ensuing fire damage but claiming WTC 7 was felled by silent explosives that no one planted, that survived hours of raging fires in order to be triggered by some shadowy figure and which left no evidence? Yeah ... I'm the dope."
> 
> do try to think about the real scene, the alleged scene has WTC7 a raging inferno, when in fact less than a quarter of the floors were showing fire and that fire was most probably a bit of theater, that is fires that had been intentionally set up in advance to look like the whole floor was on fire however only the part near the windows was involved.  The inside of the building were the cutter charges had been set, was still cool.
> Also, note that getting the exact same result as a carefully planned and executed controlled demolition ( 3X ) is a good trick with fire and asymmetrical damage.
> ...


This looks like a missile to you, does it?


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 14, 2014)

and so for "FLT11" or "FLT175" there was only bits of metal to be found, no flight recorders, no pieces of wing or tail, no documented inventory of bits to ascertain exactly how much of either aircraft could be found, only some nebulous "we found enough to be certain that it was the airliner"  but what constitutes enough?  Where is the documentation on this?


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 14, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> "WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed by the planes that slammed into them and the ensuing fire damage but claiming WTC 7 was felled by silent explosives that no one planted, that survived hours of raging fires in order to be triggered by some shadowy figure and which left no evidence? Yeah ... I'm the dope."
> 
> do try to think about the real scene, the alleged scene has WTC7 a raging inferno, when in fact less than a quarter of the floors were showing fire and that fire was most probably a bit of theater, that is fires that had been intentionally set up in advance to look like the whole floor was on fire however only the part near the windows was involved...



Before I waste my time reading the rest of your silliness, please post some proof of what you have said so far. Your failure to do should prove once again to all rational peeps (relax ... I'm not referring to you, Spammy) that the "Truther" Movement is just like the Bowel Movement ... flushable.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 14, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...





E.L.C. said:


> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz



Typical non-response by the lame "Truther" who adamantly refuses to accept the obvious about his Swiss cheese 9/11 scenarios.
He will once again slither away, tail between legs, only to post the same silliness elsewhere or return here in a few months to again post it as though it suddenly has new found value.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 14, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > "WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed by the planes that slammed into them and the ensuing fire damage but claiming WTC 7 was felled by silent explosives that no one planted, that survived hours of raging fires in order to be triggered by some shadowy figure and which left no evidence? Yeah ... I'm the dope."
> ...



Also, note that getting the exact same result as a carefully planned and executed controlled demolition ( 3X ) is a good trick with fire and asymmetrical damage.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 14, 2014)

Faun said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > "WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed by the planes that slammed into them and the ensuing fire damage but claiming WTC 7 was felled by silent explosives that no one planted, that survived hours of raging fires in order to be triggered by some shadowy figure and which left no evidence? Yeah ... I'm the dope."
> ...



I don't see no stinkin' missile.


----------



## Faun (Sep 14, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> and so for "FLT11" or "FLT175" there was only bits of metal to be found, no flight recorders, no pieces of wing or tail, no documented inventory of bits to ascertain exactly how much of either aircraft could be found, only some nebulous "we found enough to be certain that it was the airliner"  but what constitutes enough?  Where is the documentation on this?


You didn't answer the question ... does this look like a "missile" to you?


And you see in that video where the wings, tail and the black box went. Where are they? You think they're easy to find after a million tons of debris collapsed on and around them? There's no shortage of videos and eyewitnesses to help any rational person understand what happened that day.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 14, 2014)

"He will once again slither away, tail between legs, only to post the same silliness elsewhere or return here in a few months to again post it as though it has value."

Have you actually read  the post explaining why free fall acceleration is indicative of an engineered event rather than the result of asymmetrical damage & fire.?


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 14, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


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



Please post any info you have on any 100 story buildings - other than the WTC - which have been felled by a controlled demo initiated from the upper middle floors after hours of "chaotic fires."
When the attack was viewed by the most experienced demo guys on the planet the thought occurred to one that they would be called upon to demo what was left after the fires. One admitted to having "no idea how" they were going to do it. As it turned out, they didn't have to worry about it but you would have us believe that GWB (or Cheney or Silverstein) and a troop of Girl Scouts wired those buildings on a long weekend.
Silliness ... just plain "Truther" silliness.


----------



## Faun (Sep 14, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


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


You're lying again. It was not the same result as a controlled demolition. A controlled demolition has loud explosions within seconds of a building coming down. WTC7 did not have that. A controlled demolition brings an entire building down. WTC7 came down in stages; first the interior of the structure collapsed and then the exterior came down. A controlled demolition is done on buildings not on fire. WTC7 was burning uncontrollably as sprinkler lines were severed and firefighters gave up trying to put the blaze out.

The only aspect of WTC7's collapse which shared commonality with a controlled demolition is that a building fell.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 14, 2014)

Faun said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > and so for "FLT11" or "FLT175" there was only bits of metal to be found, no flight recorders, no pieces of wing or tail, no documented inventory of bits to ascertain exactly how much of either aircraft could be found, only some nebulous "we found enough to be certain that it was the airliner"  but what constitutes enough?  Where is the documentation on this?
> ...



The words "rational" and "Truther" do not fit together in the same sentence. They are diametrically opposed.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 14, 2014)

"And you see in that video where the wings, tail and the black box went. Where are they? You think they're easy to find after a million tons of debris collapsed on and around them? There's no shortage of videos and eyewitnesses to help any rational person understand what happened that day."

In  the aftermath of 9/11/2001 - workers sorted through the rubble looking for human remains & personal items such as ID, ( etc.... ) and they found some watches and wallets and other things, so in the case of the sturdy metal boxes that the flight recorders had been, and sturdy metal boxes designed to survive a crash, why then not so much as an identifiable piece of a flight recorder found at ground zero, or in the sorted rubble that was not only checked at ground zero, but then gone over again at fresh-kills ...... 
The logical explanation is that the flight recorders were not there, because "FLT11" & "FLT175" didn't crash into the towers.  The Hezikani video proves beyond any doubt that "FLT175" is bogus.  There is something else going on here and speculating upon HOW it was done before we have a clear picture of what was done is futile.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 14, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> "He will once again slither away, tail between legs, only to post the same silliness elsewhere or return here in a few months to again post it as though it has value."
> 
> Have you actually read  the post explaining why free fall acceleration is indicative of an engineered event rather than the result of asymmetrical damage & fire.?



Have you read anything in this thread which renders all of your rationalizations moot?


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 14, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> "And you see in that video where the wings, tail and the black box went. Where are they? You think they're easy to find after a million tons of debris collapsed on and around them? There's no shortage of videos and eyewitnesses to help any rational person understand what happened that day."
> 
> In  the aftermath of 9/11/2001 - workers sorted through the rubble looking for human remains & personal items such as ID, ( etc.... ) and they found some watches and wallets and other things, so in the case of the sturdy metal boxes that the flight recorders had been, and sturdy metal boxes designed to survive a crash, why then not so much as an identifiable piece of a flight recorder found at ground zero, or in the sorted rubble that was not only checked at ground zero, but then gone over again at fresh-kills ......
> The logical explanation is that the flight recorders were not there, because "FLT11" & "FLT175" didn't crash into the towers.  The Hezikani video proves beyond any doubt that "FLT175" is bogus.  There is something else going on here and speculating upon HOW it was done before we have a clear picture of what was done is futile.



You have the fight to cover your eyes and ears and pretend your "Truther" silliness outweighs what actually happened (and I support your right) but the chances of you convincing any rational person of your fantasies are slim and none (and slim just left town). You are just pissing into the wind and getting wet.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 14, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > "He will once again slither away, tail between legs, only to post the same silliness elsewhere or return here in a few months to again post it as though it has value."
> ...



Quite frankly NO, there have been arguments that include bits like "WTC7 collapsed in silence" ..... etc.... and all sorts of totally undocumented and unsupported crap!
The fact that there were no flight recorders recovered from WTC1, or 2
the fact that for none of the 4 alleged hijacked airliners is there any accounting for the wreckage in the quantity of bits recovered or the validation of any of the bits as having been from the aircraft in question.  I'm talking DOCUMENTATION here not a few random snap-shots.  The problem here is that the difference  between the scientific argument that WTC7 fell in the manner that it did because of a pre-planned Controlled Demolition rather than the result of asymmetrical damage & fire, the debate about how much fire was actually burning in WTC7 ..... and other bits are really an indication of the gulf between the "truther" faction and the people who insist on supporting the official fiasco.

Just the Hezikani video alone is a show-stopper for the argument that allegedly, hijacked airliners were used as weapons ..... NOT!


----------



## Faun (Sep 14, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> "And you see in that video where the wings, tail and the black box went. Where are they? You think they're easy to find after a million tons of debris collapsed on and around them? There's no shortage of videos and eyewitnesses to help any rational person understand what happened that day."
> 
> In  the aftermath of 9/11/2001 - workers sorted through the rubble looking for human remains & personal items such as ID, ( etc.... ) and they found some watches and wallets and other things, so in the case of the sturdy metal boxes that the flight recorders had been, and sturdy metal boxes designed to survive a crash, why then not so much as an identifiable piece of a flight recorder found at ground zero, or in the sorted rubble that was not only checked at ground zero, but then gone over again at fresh-kills ......
> The logical explanation is that the flight recorders were not there, because "FLT11" & "FLT175" didn't crash into the towers.  The Hezikani video proves beyond any doubt that "FLT175" is bogus.  There is something else going on here and speculating upon HOW it was done before we have a clear picture of what was done is futile.


Absence of evidence is not evidence. Again, a million tons of debris collapsed on and around them. As far as your claim of a "hezikani video" proving flight #175 is "bogus," do you have a link to that video? A  Google search on it produced only one hit and there was no video.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 14, 2014)

"the chances of you convincing any rational person of your fantasies are slim and none"

If this is what it means to be a RATIONAL person these days, then  I want no part of it!
Thank U very much.  The false flag of 9/11/2001 has been turned to yet another sick & twisted purpose, that is to negate common sense.  so sad really.......


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 14, 2014)

Michael Hezarkhani Video CNN Best Angle - The WTC 2 Media Hoax

Sorry about misspelling the name the first time..... This and many other links
have INFORMATION about the totally fake "FLT175".

Ace Baker on YOUTUBE  "THE KEY"


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 14, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> "the chances of you convincing any rational person of your fantasies are slim and none"
> 
> If this is what it means to be a RATIONAL person these days, then  I want no part of it!
> Thank U very much.  The false flag of 9/11/2001 has been turned to yet another sick & twisted purpose, that is to negate common sense.  so sad really.......



Of course you don't and, I would add, for obvious reasons. You, like Paulie and 9/11Shit4Brains, have an agenda (the Jooos did it) which drives you to reject out of hand anything and everything which dispels your twisted POV.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 14, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > "the chances of you convincing any rational person of your fantasies are slim and none"
> ...



When & where is the quote from me as in "the j0000z did it"  REALLY people?
I am NOT speculating as to the actual identity of the perpetrators, getting clarification as to exactly WHAT happened comes before rounding up suspects!
also your use of "9/11Shit4Brains"  shows gross bias and attitude. this is really not necessary here.  are we not all grown-ups on this forum?

& who is "Paulie"  Please define,  I do not know ALL of the 9/11 pundits by nick-names.


----------



## Faun (Sep 14, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Michael Hezarkhani Video CNN Best Angle - The WTC 2 Media Hoax
> 
> Sorry about misspelling the name the first time..... This and many other links
> have INFORMATION about the totally fake "FLT175".
> ...


So it's a faker because the person who posted that on youtube couldn't exactly match the results with flight simulator??

As far as "the key," it's long so I'll watch it later after football.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 14, 2014)

what fight simulator bit are you referring to? I thought we were talking about Video evidence of the alleged "FLT175"?  The problem with all of this is that the commentary about how an airliner crashed into the WTC tower is not consistent with the video, the aircraft would have to defy the laws of physics to do what was shown in the video.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 14, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> "the chances of you convincing any rational person of your fantasies are slim and none"
> 
> If this is what it means to be a RATIONAL person these days, then  I want no part of it!
> Thank U very much.  The false flag of 9/11/2001 has been turned to yet another sick & twisted purpose, that is to negate common sense.  so sad really.......



You certainly don't burden yourself with rationality. Your theory has no physical evidence, is overwhelming contradicted by overlapping, utterly compelling evidence, and is based in you ignoring every picture, every quote, every video, every expert, every eye witness that contradicts you. And they are legion. If you were interested in the truth, you wouldn't ignore any evidence. *In order to hold your beliefs, you have to ignore almost all of it. *

Worse, your theory fails any test of logic. As you've imagined the most convoluted, wildly elaborate, fantastically complicated conspiracy that simply doesn't match the evidence. While ignoring explanations that are much simpler that match the evidence much better. 

That's completely irrational. Your willful ignorance is irrational. Your elaborate fantasies are irrational. And both are void of logic.

No thank you.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 14, 2014)

You really don't get it, the compelling evidence in the video of "FLT175" striking the south wall of the south tower and penetrating like a hot knife through butter.... the "collapse" of WTC1,2 & 7,  the whole Pentagon fiasco, ( where is the airliner? ) the total fraud that is the "FLT93" story .... and of course people have to demand speculation in the form of "WHERE ARE ALL THE PEOPLE" when faced with evidence that if you simply stop and consider the evidence we have, you would see that speculating about the alleged passengers of alleged airliner flights is simply a tangent and we need not waste energy on it.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 14, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> You really don't get it, the compelling evidence in the video of "FLT175" striking the south wall of the south tower and penetrating like a hot knife through butter.... the "collapse" of WTC1,2 & 7,  the whole Pentagon fiasco, ( where is the airliner? ) the total fraud that is the "FLT93" story .... and of course people have to demand speculation in the form of "WHERE ARE ALL THE PEOPLE" when faced with evidence that if you simply stop and consider the evidence we have, you would see that speculating about the alleged passengers of alleged airliner flights is simply a tangent and we need not waste energy on it.



If you had the evidence, you'd present it. Instead you make vague allusion to evidence you don't have. If you can't back your conspiracy with evidence......why cling to it?

There were thousands of witnesses and literally dozens of videos of the south tower being hit. Folks with camcorders, live feeds from every major network. You insist they are all fake.

How insanely complicated is that? I mean, every major network would have to be in on it. They'd have to have confiscated *every* video of the South Tower impact from everyone and replaced it with the your imaginary 'CG' footage....that just happened to match the angle to folks were standing in. And of course, do so in such a way that none of those folks with the camcorders noticed. They'd have to plant EVERY witness who saw the plane. There were thousands, literally thousands of people. They'd have to spontaneously silence every person who saw the building just explode.

You're literally talking about thousands and thousands of impromptu co-conspirators.....regular folks watching the disaster unfold that for no particular reason decided to help cover up mass murder. A*nd......maintain absolute and perfect secrecy for 13 years. *

Dude, we couldn't maintain absolute secrecy of the nuclear bomb for more than 7 years. And that was on a secure facility where we got to pick and choose who witnessed it. This happened in the downtown of one of the most heavily populated cities on earth, with virtually the whole world watching. And you insist its all faked?

That's just stupidly complicated and ridiculously implausible. Its an awful, awful explanation. One you can't possibly back up with evidence. And an explanation just torn to ribbons by Occam's Razor.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 14, 2014)

I have presented it, and people say NO, there would have to have been too many people involved, somebody would have talked...... ok, have it your way .... whatever ....

However, don't you wonder about the aluminum airliner that cuts through a skyscraper like a hot knife through butter?  don't you question at all the fact that there is so little documentation of Ground Zero? ( oh ya, looky here, whole books full of pix .... as if that constitutes DOCUMENTATION .... ) and as for questions .... QUESTION EVERYTHING
like why did the worlds greatest military power fail to defend even its own HQ?

AMERICA has been flim-flamed, screwed, ripped off, lied to, and WE THE PEOPLE 
need to wake up to what is going on and bust the real criminals in this case.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 15, 2014)

SAYIT said:


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



So days later


SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > "WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed by the planes that slammed into them and the ensuing fire damage but claiming WTC 7 was felled by silent explosives that no one planted, that survived hours of raging fires in order to be triggered by some shadowy figure and which left no evidence? Yeah ... I'm the dope."
> ...



So here we are once again DAYS LATER and you have failed (as expected) to produce a shred of evidence - other than your baseless opinions - which support your latest shrill and desperate claims (in bold above) proving, once again that you, like most "Truthers" really have NOTHING with which to support your silliness. Flushable.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 15, 2014)

The fact that WTC7 can be seen descending for 2.25 sec at 9.8m/s^2
and so few people are alarmed by this.... that is sooooo MAD!
There are all sorts of anomalies with this scene, ( see post 383 )
and people still insist on holding to the "19 radical hijackers" story..... 
truly sad!


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 15, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> The fact that WTC7 can be seen descending for 2.25 sec at 9.8m/s^2
> and so few people are alarmed by this.... that is sooooo MAD!
> There are all sorts of anomalies with this scene, ( see post 383 )
> and people still insist on holding to the "19 radical hijackers" story.....
> truly sad!



You obviously are still deflecting (and lamely I might add). Before sliding to your next absurd claim please post some support for that which you have already made:
"...in fact less than a quarter of the floors were showing fire and that fire was most probably a bit of theater, that is fires that had been intentionally set up in advance to look like the whole floor was on fire however only the part near the windows was involved..." - NoSpammy


----------



## Pennywise (Sep 15, 2014)

I'm not going to read this entire thread and I'm no expert on the subject of #7, so can one of you brain-trusts tell me why this building was flattened? Why did it need to be taken down?


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 15, 2014)

Pennywise said:


> I'm not going to read this entire thread and I'm no expert on the subject of #7, so can one of you brain-trusts tell me why this building was flattened? Why did it need to be taken down?


 
A legit question which no rational person can answer because no rational person believes WTC 7 needed "to be taken down." You will, however, find a myriad of "reasons" offered by the 9/11 "Truthers," none of which is supported by evidence and, to the rational mind, makes any sense. If nothing else this thread is dedicated to exposing the irrationality of the "Truther" Movement.


----------



## Faun (Sep 15, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> I have presented it, and people say NO, there would have to have been too many people involved, somebody would have talked...... ok, have it your way .... whatever ....
> 
> However, don't you wonder about the aluminum airliner that cuts through a skyscraper like a hot knife through butter?  don't you question at all the fact that there is so little documentation of Ground Zero? ( oh ya, looky here, whole books full of pix .... as if that constitutes DOCUMENTATION .... ) and as for questions .... QUESTION EVERYTHING
> like why did the worlds greatest military power fail to defend even its own HQ?
> ...


Ok, so I watched that video. It was well produced and interesting, however, there is a gaping head wound from which it cannot survive ...

As I pointed out earlier, there are 100 different videos from 100 different angles by 100 different people. The government would had to have confiscated every single one and edited in the image of a plane striking the south tower. As improbable as that is, it becomes impossible once you understand the government would have had to retrieve *EVERY* video; as in 100% of the videos, since if even one was missed, it would have surfaced, exposing such a hoax. And again, such a scam would also require 100% of the photographers to not notice their video was edited; or hope none would expose such a hoax. So there's absolutely no way that occurred.

... however ... there is another way the government _ could _ have gone about attempting this ... they could have prepared 100 different videos from 100 different angles in advance and released them, purporting them to be from 100 different people. That would mean, of course, that they had to wait until the weather matched the weather in their supposedly fake videos, but that in itself could be possible. But here's where this hypothesis falls apart ... there still would have been 100 videos at 100 different angles by 100 different people -- *but ALL depicting the tower exploding with NO plane hitting it *. Yet there are none.

Not one.

Nor are there any people claiming they recorded that but that their video mysteriously disappeared.

Not one.

That is simply not possible. With all those people recording that event, *someone * would have come forward with a video with no planes. The only way one can believe that no planes struck the WTC is to be batshit insane. Even batshit insane doesn't fully do justice in describing how insane one must be to believe no planes were involved.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 15, 2014)

E.L.C. said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > *The acceleration of gravity that is 9.8m/s^2 is an indication of no resistance under the falling bit.  Other rates of acceleration are possible ( with or without explosives) however the very fact that anything spent 2.25 sec accelerating at a rate indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity is very significant.*
> ...


oh no it's back!


----------



## daws101 (Sep 15, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Michael Hezarkhani Video CNN Best Angle - The WTC 2 Media Hoax
> 
> Sorry about misspelling the name the first time..... This and many other links
> have INFORMATION about the totally fake "FLT175".
> ...


911 research !

*About 9-11 Research *
9-11 Research is an ongoing effort to discover the truth about the attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. on September 11th, 2001. To that end we provide a growing hypertext documentary of the attack and its aftermath, easily browsed archives of evidence, and a body of original analysis based on that evidence. We maintain the website as a public service.

*Contents*

Mission
Disclaimer
Who We Are
Research History
Website History
Images and Videos
Terms of Service
Corrections
Language Translation
Acknowledgments
Frequently Asked Questions.)

If the attack was indeed a "black-op", then we can expect that the operatives will have hidden their identities behind layer upon layer of cover story. Only a genuine investigation with meaningful powers will be able to peel away the layers of deception to expose the true perpetrators. We hope to facilitate such an investigation by first exposing the falsity of the outermost cover story: the official myth of 9/11/01.

We intend for our work to honor the many victims of this horrendous attack. Many people will find it difficult and traumatic to confront the idea that the attack was the work, not of a religious extremist living in caves in Central Asia, but of people within the U.S. government. Apologists for the official story ridicule such ideas, and attempt to confuse compassion for the victims with certainty that bin Laden was the perpetrator. In fact, genuine compassion consists of learning and spreading the truth in order that future repetitions of such murderous frauds may be prevented.

 USA PATRIOT Act places restrictions on freedoms of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- restrictions that have yet to be tested in the courts. It allows individuals to be placed under electronic surveillance without their knowledge or consent, and without a court order. We have no way of knowing whether people visiting this site are being monitored, and if we did know, it would be illegal under the USA PATRIOT Act for us to share that knowledge with our visitors.

We have received several complaints of graffiti-like postings of the URLs for 9-11 Research and its companion websites in public places. We discourage and disavow such intrusive campaigning methods, which tend to be counterproductive to our mission of public education.

Jim Hoffman created the website and wrote the vast majority of its original content. Hoffman has a background in software engineering, mechanical engineering, and scientific visualization. Hoffman also created the Web publishing system used to maintain the 9-11 Research website.

Gregg Roberts has been investigating the September 11 attack since December 2003 and has provided extensive editorial assistance to 911Research. He authored the essay Where Are the 9/11 Whistleblowers?, and is working with Hoffman to produce a book based on the site. Roberts is a technical writer and business analyst with a bachelor's degree in psychology, master's-level study in social work, and earlier education in the "hard" sciences.

 Jan Hoyer is a former founding board member and graphic designer for the  National 9/11 Visibilty Project, 911Truth.org and the  D.C Emergency Truth Convergence. Hoyer has a degree in graphic design and experience in online multimedia.

*note: not one of the founders or editors of 911 "research" has any engineering or science education or experience.*


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 15, 2014)

Pennywise said:


> I'm not going to read this entire thread and I'm no expert on the subject of #7, so can one of you brain-trusts tell me why this building was flattened? Why did it need to be taken down?



There is a LOT of speculation as to why WTC7 was destroyed, and I really do not want to entertain a speculative tangent.  What I do have for you is the LOGIC that clearly indicates the destruction of WTC7 was an engineered event.  Note that the structure, or at least the North & West walls, are seen descending at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec, this is VERY significant and if you really can't get your head around this, please do consult your friendly local physics professor, or lacking that check out the Videos on youtube where any number of people discuss the physics of the "collapse" event.

also please do have a look at this  WTC7.net the hidden story of Building 7 Videos Show Building 7 s Vertical Collapse

Given  the logic & physical reality of this whole bit, it is obvious that WTC1,2 & 7 
were intentionally destroyed.  ( the WHY is quite another subject and I for one do not want to engage in that discussion )


----------



## Skylar (Sep 26, 2014)

> What I do have for you is the LOGIC that clearly indicates the destruction of WTC7 was an engineered event.



Logic has nothing to do with your process. Otherwise, you wouldn't ignore the theory crippling holes in your beliefs. For example, the WTC 7 collapse initiated in silence. Controlled demolition is ludicrously loud. And there are no such thing as silent explosives.

That just kills your 'bomb' theory. You can't resolve it. You can't explain it. You simply ignore it. That's both illogical and irrational. 

You also ignore the fact that there wasn't a single cut found on any girder (you know, the 'demolition' in controlled demolition'), the building was on fire (negating any system of controlled demolition, as it would have also been on fire), or the fact that the FDNY anticipated the collapse of the WTC 7 by hours due to fire and structural damage. They measured its bulging, its buckling, its leaning......for hours. 

You ignore it all. No rational person ever would.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 26, 2014)

Skylar said:


> > What I do have for you is the LOGIC that clearly indicates the destruction of WTC7 was an engineered event.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Funny thing that, when I point to obviously cut steel, people tell me that but bit in question was cut during the clean-up process and so my claim must be totally invalid.   ( What, no pix of ground zero right after the "collapse"? ) anyhow there are news videos full of people who report hearing explosions and also video sound-tracks that contain sounds of explosions.   But then again to the nay-sayers its all misinterpreted sounds and really there were no explosions..... oh my ..... get a grip!


----------



## daws101 (Sep 27, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > > What I do have for you is the LOGIC that clearly indicates the destruction of WTC7 was an engineered event.
> ...


of course people heard sounds of explosions burning causes lots of  non explosives to explode.
and the naysayers are right. most people not under stress cannot tell the difference  between a blowout and back fire.
under stress it gets a lot worse.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 27, 2014)

daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



so in another post, you were willing to assert that the "collapse" happened in silence 
and now we know that there were sounds, however the interpretation of said sounds is the question.
The fact that the building ( or at least a significant part of it ) was seen descending at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec and people are still debating the issue, is a wonder to me.  as far as I'm concerned, its controlled demolition, case closed!


----------



## daws101 (Sep 27, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


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


 false! I never said or asserted anything of the kind.
you in your delusional  state are making false connections as to who said what.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 27, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > > What I do have for you is the LOGIC that clearly indicates the destruction of WTC7 was an engineered event.
> ...



Funny thing is, you're not actually pointing to anything. You're alluding. You're insinuating. Remember, *almost every girder would have to be cut per your silly conspiracy.  * With 50,000 cuts in the WTC 1 and 2 alone. With more than 80% of them on the outside of the building. And yet......all you have is_ innuendo_.

......And of course, there's no such thing as silent explosives. Killing your conspiracy again. Here's the collapse of WTC 7:


Um, what explosions? The collapse initiated so quietly it didn't even interrupt the conversation of those nearby. Where actual controlled demolition is ridiculously loud:


No explosions, no explosives. Your theory doesn't work. But lets beat a dead horse, shall we?

.......There's also no residue of explosives found in dust samples. Killing your conspiracy yet again.

.......And the Port Authority bomb squad went through the WTC plaza only a week before the attack. And no bomb was ever found. And poof, your conspiracy dies yet again.

.......And not a single charge or any apparatus of explosive was ever found, before during or after the collapse. Not an inch of blasting wire. Not a single receiver, control board, or a single piece of det cord. Despite your conspiracy requiring tens of thousands of such charges, dozens of miles of wiring, and elaborate system of timers or signal receivers. 

*Yet...nothing. Absolutely nothing.*

......And the buildings were on fire, with the largest fires being the location of the initiation of each collapse.  Meaning any system of 'explosives' would have been on fire. Nixing your silly theory yet again.

But keep ignoring. Willful ignorance is really the only refuge for the truther. As their theory is insanely complicated, fact free, and just a stupidly awful explanation.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 28, 2014)

"*almost every girder would have to be cut per your silly conspiracy. * With 50,000 cuts in the WTC 1 and 2 alone. With more than 80% of them on the outside of the building. And yet......all you have is_ innuendo_."

No, not "innuendo" ..... look at what happened, the result that was observed required that all the structural bits be cut, or fail because of fire and do so on a schedule.  Think about this, with the damage from the alleged airliner crash having already compromised some of the structure, the descending mass from above would have had an easy time of traversing that space ( having already been damaged ) and more resistance from other parts of the structure horizontally parallel to the "crash site" ... so then, with that said, why the uniformity of the "collapse" event?


----------



## Skylar (Sep 28, 2014)

> o, not "innuendo" ..... look at what happened, the result that was observed required that all the structural bits be cut, or fail because of fire and do so on a schedule.



Then show us the thousands up thousands of cut girders. They would be *everywhere* if your theory were valid. That's 50,000 cuts in the WTC 1 and 2 alone. Remember, roughly 250 outer panels and 47 core columns per floor. With roughly 90 floors in one tower and 80 floors in the other from the impact site to the ground. 

That's 50,490 cuts in girders....which we'll round down to 50,000 for the sake of brevity.

*That's more cuts than there are girders in the building.* Every single girder should not only be cut, but cut multiple times. There should be thousand up thousands of such cuts. And yet when challenged to SHOW US, not allude to them or insinuate them.......*we get excuses.*

You can't show us....because the cuts your theory requires simply don't exist. Killing your conspiracy yet again.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 28, 2014)

Skylar said:


> > o, not "innuendo" ..... look at what happened, the result that was observed required that all the structural bits be cut, or fail because of fire and do so on a schedule.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In your interpretation of how the controlled demolition may have happened,  however, there are other possibilities.
The details, that is down in the nits of the event are very much still in question but the big picture simply screams controlled demolition,   One of the problems with the official version, is the fact that in the case of some mass from above  "collapsing" down and by staying on top of the tower, somehow beat down the entire structure when in fact any mass of rubble, descending upon the as yet undamaged part of the tower, would by the very nature of the event meet resistance and because the stuff would experience virtually no resistance by simply falling over the side of the tower and descending through air down to street level,  why should anybody believe in the special magic that kept the descending mass centered on the tower core?  Also, with the mass quantities of pulverized material forcibly ejected from the tower(s) how is it to be known if the "pile driver" increased in mass or for that matter decreased in mass on the way down?


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 28, 2014)

Skylar said:


> > o, not "innuendo" ..... look at what happened, the result that was observed required that all the structural bits be cut, or fail because of fire and do so on a schedule.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You seem to be hung-up on seeing evidence that isn't documented because the documentary pix were not done.
Problem with the bit you claim to be the only way that it could have been done, really isn't, don't try to second guess the controlled demolition.  Note that the event speaks for itself in that the towers were destroyed and the whole event went off like clock work,  with the towers disintegrating as if hit by the energy beam from a KLINGON war-bird .... Not that I'm somekinda disciple of Dr. Judy ..... lets keep an open mind here.  The fact is that the energy to destroy both towers had to have been focused, because without focus,  the towers would not have been completely destroyed.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 28, 2014)

> In your interpretation of how the controlled demolition may have happened, however, there are other possibilities.



So it was controlled demolition....*without the actual demolition? *Do you understand how monumentally stupid that sounds to anyone not as emotionally invested in your failed conspiracy as you are?

What do you think controlled demolition uses to bring down buildings.....harsh language? The charges CUT the girders. They SEVER the girders. For WTC 1 and 2, the collapse came down opposite of controlled demolition, beginning at the point of impact of the planes and proceeding downward all the way to the ground.

For your 'controlled demolition' theory to work, each floor would have to be destroyed individually. Both the outer panels and the core columns shared the load energy of the building. Both would have had to been cut in controlled demolition. Which means tens of thousands of cuts. 

*There were none. *

We have twisted girders. We have bent girders. We have warped girders. But the thousands and thousands and thousands of cuts that your theory requires........don't exist. It seems so obvious as it goes without saying, but clearly I need to clue you in:

*There's no such thing as demolition without demolition. *

And yet it never occured to you to ask these questions, did it? You've been apeing this nonsense for *how* many years, and it never occured to you to even think about this, did it? There were no bombs ever found. There were no girders cut in a manner consistent with controlled demolition. The entire WTC plaza was checked a week before the collapse by the port authority bomb squad....and neither they nor their bomb sniffing dogs found anything. The buildings were ON FIRE, which means that the bombs would have burned up. There was no apparatus of explosives ever found. There was no residue of explosives found in dust samples taken from the WTC plaza. 
*
Sorry, chum......but your bomb theory is shit. I*ts nonsensically complicated, void of actual evidence, and contradicted by overwhelming evidence. And yet you're still giving yourself blisters furiously polishing this little turd of a conspiracy. Its just an awful, awful explanation of the events of 911.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 28, 2014)

"conspiracy" aside, the physics of the event prove beyond any doubt that the towers & 7 had to have had help to "collapse" in the manner that was observed.

There are things that are I believe intentional voids in the data available, why are there no documentary pix
of ground zero right after the "collapse" event(s)?  Where is the documentation of how much of any one of the 4 alleged airliners used in the attack had been recovered and examined?  We are told by "newsgeeks" that all is as it should be, trust us, fear not good people, your Government is looking out for your best interests.  Right, & I'm the Easter Bunny!


----------



## Skylar (Sep 28, 2014)

> "conspiracy" aside, the physics of the event prove beyond any doubt that the towers & 7 had to have had help to "collapse" in the manner that was observed.



I'm not going to summarily ignore the monumental failures of your conspiracy just because they're inconvenient to your argument. Bombs are a physical impossibility. Charges cut girders. Your theory requires tens of thousands of cut girders. 

*The girders weren't cut.*

Ending your silly conspiracy yet again. There's no such thing as 'silent explosives'. And there's no such thing as controlled demolition without demolition. Your theory doesn't work. And even you can't make sense of it.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 29, 2014)

Skylar said:


> > "conspiracy" aside, the physics of the event prove beyond any doubt that the towers & 7 had to have had help to "collapse" in the manner that was observed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



obviously you haven't really looked at the "collapse" of the towers & 7,   You consistently deny the sounds heard and indeed the sounds recorded on the video soundtrack,  the "silent" demolition of WTC7 didn't happen.
have you bought into the NIST lame excuse that controlled demolition was impossible because it would involve explosives that make a loud noise and of course nobody heard anything at all as the buildings "collapsed" .....


----------



## daws101 (Sep 29, 2014)

Skylar said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...





n0spam4me said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > > "conspiracy" aside, the physics of the event prove beyond any doubt that the towers & 7 had to have had help to "collapse" in the manner that was observed.
> ...


the classic twoofer rationalization.
sorry spammy but no one has said nobody heard anything but as I explained before most people ,you included can't tell the difference between  a blowout and a back fire..


----------



## daws101 (Sep 29, 2014)




----------



## Faun (Sep 29, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > > o, not "innuendo" ..... look at what happened, the result that was observed required that all the structural bits be cut, or fail because of fire and do so on a schedule.
> ...


But it didn't go off like clockwork. Building 7 came down 7 hours later. If it were a controlled demolition, why not bring it down with the Twin Towers?


----------



## daws101 (Sep 29, 2014)

Faun said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


spammy has a huge problem with reality


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 29, 2014)

Wow, you guys have some real winners that moved in here. Or is it socks from Shitforbrains?

Enjoy my friends....​


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 30, 2014)

Faun said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Invitation to speculation ..... no thankx! 
The facts of the "collapse" of not only 7 but the towers also, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that all three buidligs were destroyed by controlled demolition.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 30, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



Yet fully 13 years later you have no evidence of a controlled demo, none of a magical energy source which could have survived hours of "chaotic" fires and none of those who perpetrated your version of 9/11. None.
Instead you insist "no planes were hijacked on 9/11" and that the fires were somehow "staged" but can't seem to prove any of that or even make it sound like anything but the ravings of a very strange and lonely boy.


----------



## Faun (Sep 30, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


How ironic then since your entire premise is based on the speculation that no planes were used, despite the void of evidence supporting your lunacy; and your speculation that controlled demolitions brought down the WTC, also despite the void of evidence.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 1, 2014)

"controlled demolitions brought down the WTC, also despite the void of evidence."

The above is opinion ONLY,  the evidence is present in abundance if you are willing to look, example: the towers & 7 experienced acceleration as they "collapsed" and all three were totally destroyed.

Note that buildings 3, 4, 5, & 6 were damaged but not totally destroyed .....  Why only WTC 1, 2 & 7?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 1, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> "controlled demolitions brought down the WTC, also despite the void of evidence."
> 
> The above is opinion ONLY,  the evidence is present in abundance if you are willing to look, example: the towers & 7 experienced acceleration as they "collapsed" and all three were totally destroyed.
> 
> Note that buildings 3, 4, 5, & 6 were damaged but not totally destroyed .....  Why only WTC 1, 2 & 7?



Collapsing buildings experienced acceleration?  

Some buildings were damaged and didn't collapse?

You're right, smoking gun evidence right there!


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 1, 2014)

Montrovant said:


> Collapsing buildings experienced acceleration?
> 
> Some buildings were damaged and didn't collapse?
> 
> You're right, smoking gun evidence right there!



Look at the "collapse"event(s) for the towers, the wave of destruction moves downward at aprox 64% of the acceleration of gravity, and this can be observed & measured.  Do you have a problem with scientific analysis of the "collapse" events?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 1, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Collapsing buildings experienced acceleration?
> ...



Nope, no problem with scientific analysis.  However, your ridiculous attempt at showing evidence is just that, ridiculous.  Of course the buildings experienced acceleration, that's a requirement in a collapse.  Of course some buildings were damaged and didn't collapse; plenty of buildings have been damaged without collapsing.  Neither of your statements indicate anything about demolition or intentional collapse.

Maybe you are using extremely poor wording in your brief summary, but it's still very funny.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 1, 2014)

Montrovant said:


> Of course the buildings experienced acceleration, that's a requirement in a collapse.



Wow man, can you support that statement with scientific evidence?  That is a rather tall order .... no?


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Oct 1, 2014)

The NIST investigation was contracted out to companies that have made out handsomely since, if not before the investigation.

Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC) was awarded an administrative services contract to "support" the two-year investigation.
WTC Investigation Contracts

In 2003 SAIC was the #3 government contractor.
2003 Top 100 -- Washington Technology

With a reported $11.17 billion in revenue at the time, it split in Sept 2013 to form the companies SAIC and Leidos Holdings, Inc

SAIC played a large part in the NSA's Trailblazer Project an early take on it's now more widely know phone, email communications surveillance and storage program.

Some of those passing through its Board Room:

Admiral Bobby Inman, former head NSA, Naval Intelligence, Vice Director of DIA and deputy director of the CIA
Robert Gates, former CIA director, Secretary of Defense, Iran-Contra
William B. Black, Jr.  went from NSA  (1959-1997) to SAIC VP (1997-2000) back to Deputy Director of NSA (2000-2006)
William Perry, former Secretary of Defense, chairman Global Technology Partners, LLC "a defense/aerospace-focused investment banking boutique"
John Deutch, former CIA director, Deputy Secretary of Defense,  director of Raytheon
Melvin Laird, Defense Secretary under President Nixon
J.B. Wiesler  Vice Chairman, Bank of  America
Donald Foley,  a top exec at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the military agency that invented the Internet, is a current SAIC director.
Retired General Max Thurman, commander of the Panama invasion,
Donald Hicks,  Chairman of Hicks & Associates, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary SAIC, former Under Secretary of Defense for Research & Engineering,  Senior VP, Marketing & Technology, for Northrop Grumman, head of Applied Physics Section of Boeing Aerospace
Donald Kerr, former head of the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Jerome Hauer, NY Office of Emergency Management,  managing director with Kroll Associates (WTC security), national security advisor with the Department of Health and Human Services
John P. Jumper Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force from September 6, 2001 to September 2, 2005


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 1, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Of course the buildings experienced acceleration, that's a requirement in a collapse.
> ...



You do understand, I hope, that when a stationary object begins to move, it accelerates?  Well, the buildings were stationary, it is a requirement for some acceleration to have occurred for them to collapse.  They cannot collapse without movement.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 1, 2014)

Montrovant said:


> You do understand, I hope, that when a stationary object begins to move, it accelerates?



Right, however when that acceleration continues for the better part of 900 ft and averages 64% of g ..... Then I have an issue with it.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 1, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> The NIST investigation was contracted out to companies that have made out handsomely since, if not before the investigation.
> 
> Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC) was awarded an administrative services contract to "support" the two-year investigation.
> WTC Investigation Contracts
> ...



And that is exactly what I mean by weedy CTs. Your fantasy begins with the shadowy designers, funders and producers of 9/11 then expands to include those who you just smeared with baseless innuendo, all who prepped the buildings for demo including planting explosives or accelerants that were not destroyed during hours of chaotic fires (an impossibility), all who witnessed what had to be weeks of preparation requiring heavy labor and much interior and exterior destruction, all who witnessed the attack on the WTC and The Pentagon, all who recorded or photographed it, all who responded including the FDNY which lost hundreds of responders, the clean-up people and all who volunteered, the entire mainstream media and all involved gov't agencies, their individual agents and, of course, any non-gov't investigators such as SAIC, etc, etc, etc...
You get the idea.
When you think any 9/11 CT through you find they must have consisted of millions of players which, of course, is an absolutely absurd concept.
So tell me ... what is your motivation?
Please don't give me that "just looking for the truth" BS or you will be relegated to the idiot can with the moron who insists "no planes were hijacked on 9/11" and that the fires in those buildings were "staged and controlled."


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Oct 1, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > The NIST investigation was contracted out to companies that have made out handsomely since, if not before the investigation.
> ...


Yadda, yadda , yadda, blah, blah, blah
Exaggerations, misrepresentation, faulty assumptions and assorted general nonsense
..and your naïveté is beyond belief, feigned or otherwise.

Ohh, I might be relegated to the idiot can. lol


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 1, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


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



Indeed. Your non-response is duly noted.


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> "controlled demolitions brought down the WTC, also despite the void of evidence."
> 
> The above is opinion ONLY,  the evidence is present in abundance if you are willing to look, example: the towers & 7 experienced acceleration as they "collapsed" and all three were totally destroyed.
> 
> Note that buildings 3, 4, 5, & 6 were damaged but not totally destroyed .....  Why only WTC 1, 2 & 7?


Possibly because they were nowhere as big and didn't support the massive amount of weight as the 3 skyscrapers which did collapse. And most of building #4 did collapse.


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


So where are the videos depicting the Twin Towers exploding where no plane can be seen flying into them??


----------



## daws101 (Oct 2, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


you must really thinks that if you repeaT THAT SHIT  endlessly it will come true.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 2, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


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


too late!


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 2, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Indeed. Your non-response is duly noted.



I'm not here to satisfy your requirements whatever that may happen to be, what is apparent in your attitude and your lack of genuine scientific inquiry, is that you will never stray from your support of the official story no matter what the evidence indicates.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 2, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Indeed. Your non-response is duly noted.
> ...


SPAMMY please refrain from using term and words you don't understand ...


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 2, 2014)

This thread is supposed to be about
"911 WTC 7 Silent Thermate Demolition,"

Think about it ..... if the mythical tests for explosives had been done at ground zero, someone could simply trot out the document and dispel all doubt about the issue, however no such test(s) were done, and when an independent researcher does come up with thermite in the dust, no end of flack starts up with all sorts of tangents developing having nothing to do with the scientific validity of the data, but rather discussion about the mode of publishing said results ( etc .... ) that alone speaks volumes about what is going on here.

Bottom line here, I state without any doubt that WTC1, 2 & 7 had to have been controlled demolition(s) with valid scientific foundation under my claim.  You are free to simply dismiss evidence, but that would be just YOUR opinion, the facts speak for themselves.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 2, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Indeed. Your non-response is duly noted.
> ...



Really? That was my reply (which you conveniently truncated) to CaptChat which raises the obvious question: Are you also CaptChat or are you simply every bit as stupid as your posts make you appear? Your choice.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 3, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Your fantasy begins with the shadowy designers,



To address this one bit, for some truthers, this may be the case, I say MAY be the case however speculation is fruitless and as for me, the starting point for my knowing that 9/11/2001 was an inside job is the fact that the alleged "FLT175" is obviously bogus, and the "collapse" of three steel framed skyscrapers was most certainly controlled demolition.  The events of the day as presented, noting the disconnect between the events as seen in the video and the official explanation of what was said to have happened.

and one more thing that should be cataloged in the compelling evidence dept. is the fact that in the "demonstrations" that were promoted to "prove" bits such as Thermite could not possibly have been used to bring down the towers, we have "documentaries" by outfits such as the History channel that show a kind of demonstration that simply heaps up thermite next to a steel column and sets it ablaze and then they say, see.... thermite doesn't destroy buildings ..... However have you seen any of the work of Jonathan Cole?
In his experiments with thermite, steel is most certainly cut and with simple fixtures that anybody could fabricate. 

for me, its not about political speculation, its about the physics of the events.


----------



## Gary Anderson (Oct 3, 2014)

I can't help it if you are intellectually not up for understanding 9/11.


----------



## Gary Anderson (Oct 3, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > "WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed by the planes that slammed into them and the ensuing fire damage but claiming WTC 7 was felled by silent explosives that no one planted, that survived hours of raging fires in order to be triggered by some shadowy figure and which left no evidence? Yeah ... I'm the dope."
> ...


You are either a troll or you are challenged. I feel sorry for you if you are challenged.


----------



## Gary Anderson (Oct 3, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


There are photos of cut beams: photos of 9 11 cut beams - Google Search


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 3, 2014)

Gary Anderson said:


> I can't help it if you are intellectually not up for understanding 9/11.



So you buy it completely that an airliner could penetrate a skyscraper wall and disappear inside said skyscraper ( and do so 2X ) and that steel framed skyscrapers can "collapse" down descending at 64% of g and pulverizing and ejecting thousands of tons of material as it does so and the event repeats, that is first the south tower and then the north tower in the same manner of destruction.  and then we have the case of the PENTAGON crash with what is said to be a huge commercial airliner crashed into the PENTAGON and the aircraft disappears inside the building. and then there is the Shanksville scene, where is the aircraft?  Do you totally buy it, that is the official explanation about the 19 fanatic hijackers ...?


----------



## Gary Anderson (Oct 3, 2014)

You may have misunderstood me. I believe that planes hit the towers, however whether they did or did not, the towers came down due to detonation. As far as WTC7 is concerned, our present Secretary of State explained the bottom line years ago:


----------



## daws101 (Oct 3, 2014)

the last four posts are as false as they are humorous.


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Oct 3, 2014)

daws101 said:


> the last four posts are as false as they are humorous.


daws101 still thinks the Earth is flat, otherwise how do you explain the water not falling off


----------



## daws101 (Oct 3, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > the last four posts are as false as they are humorous.
> ...


besides being false the worst thing about your "comments" is they have zero originality


----------



## Gary Anderson (Oct 3, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> now this is hilarious!
> 
> not even the debunker trolls want to stick their neck out on this one.
> 
> gotta love it when truthers present an unimpeachable case.


You don't know what techniques the 9/11 conspirators used to set off the thermite. And your nose is ugly. Change that picture!


----------



## Gary Anderson (Oct 3, 2014)

SteadyMercury said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > since it only takes one brain cell to see there is no visible fire and fire makes light and light is visible so you are fucking delusional and seeing things that do not exist.
> ...



Are you calling John Kerry a liar? That is just stupid. Kerry said it was detonated. He should know.


----------



## Gary Anderson (Oct 3, 2014)

And no, virtually every floor was not in flames. Even if they were fires don't bring down skyscrapers at the rate of gravity.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 11, 2014)

The whole argument for the untimely demise of WTC1,2 & 7
rests on the "progressive collapse" scenario and what was alleged to have happened was that the building behaved something like a row of dominoes in that all you have to do is knock over the first one, and there goes the whole thing, however, skyscrapers are NOT rows of dominoes and the statement from the taxpayer funded "report" that states "total collapse was inevitable after collapse initiation" is a FARCE, in fact I would go so far as to say that its FRAUD! There are a multitude of possible out-comes that do NOT include total destruction of the skyscraper.

some people may insist that since the demolition of WTC1, 2 & 7 doesn't fit their particular interpretation of what a Controlled Demolition should look like, its definitely not controlled demolition. However, the goal of controlled demolition is the demolition of the structure and in that matter, the "collapse" of WTC1,2 & 7 achieved the perfect controlled demolition.
What are the odds, that for three skyscrapers, the "accidental" collapse of these structures achieved the very same results that are achieved by very careful planning and execution of a controlled demolition.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 11, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > > wtc 7 was verified evacuated seems to me around noon, so there was no body in the building to see anything, and only takes a couple hours to tape up radio controlled charges at less than 30 seconds per pop.
> ...



Below are a few of the firefighter quotes from the 9/11 investigation. Do you have anything which supports your self-serving claim they were fabricated by "debunkers" or are you just blowing it out your nose ... again?

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

According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, there is a bulge in the southwest corner of the building between floors 10 and 13. [Firehouse Magazine, 4/02]

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

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti also later recalls recounts, “A big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.” Captain Chris Boyle recalls, “On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.” [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

 "The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html...gro_Daniel.txt

 "They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html...ki_Richard.txt

 "Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html...C/Cruthers.txt

 "Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - William Ryan
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html...an_William.txt


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 11, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> The whole argument for the untimely demise of WTC1,2 & 7
> rests on the "progressive collapse" scenario and what was alleged to have happened was that the building behaved something like a row of dominoes in that all you have to do is knock over the first one, and there goes the whole thing, however, skyscrapers are NOT rows of dominoes and the statement from the taxpayer funded "report" that states "total collapse was inevitable after collapse initiation" is a FARCE, in fact I would go so far as to say that its FRAUD! There are a multitude of possible out-comes that do NOT include total destruction of the skyscraper.
> 
> some people may insist that since the demolition of WTC1, 2 & 7 doesn't fit their particular interpretation of what a Controlled Demolition should look like, its definitely not controlled demolition. However, the goal of controlled demolition is the demolition of the structure and in that matter, the "collapse" of WTC1,2 & 7 achieved the perfect controlled demolition.
> What are the odds, that for three skyscrapers, the "accidental" collapse of these structures achieved the very same results that are achieved by very careful planning and execution of a controlled demolition.



Destroying your domino effect argument for the umpteenth time is the fact that many buildings were damaged on 9/11 but not all collapsed.

" ...We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about..." - Richard Banaciski
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html...ki_Richard.txt

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

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti also later recalls recounts, “A big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.” Captain Chris Boyle recalls, “On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.” [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 11, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Destroying your domino effect argument for the umpteenth time is the fact that many buildings were damaged on 9/11 but not all collapsed.



The fact that other buildings were damaged but not destroyed does NOTHING
to mitigate the fact that WTC1, 2 & 7 fell into complete & total destruction and this was alleged to be the result of "progressive collapse"  So again, how is it that asymmetrical damage & fire, causes the exact same result as a well planned & executed controlled demolition?


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 11, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Destroying your domino effect argument for the umpteenth time is the fact that many buildings were damaged on 9/11 but not all collapsed.
> ...



Those buildings fell precisely according to the law of GRAVITY. You have heard of it, right? For all your huffing and puffing you (and the entire CT Movement) have yet to provide a shred of evidence which supports your CD theory, other than the fact that the buildings fell down and that, in case you don't know, is what happens when their support fails.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 11, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Those buildings fell precisely according to the law of GRAVITY. You have heard of it, right? For all your huffing and puffing you (and the entire CT Movement) have yet to provide a shred of evidence which supports your CD theory, other than the fact that the buildings fell down and that, in case you don't know, is what happens when their support fails.



are you aware of the fact that in order to produce the result as observed, the buildings would have to have ALL of the bolts/welds (etc....) fail exactly on time on a schedule in order to produce the result, if any given bit were to give-way early, then the "pile driver" mass would shift and the center of gravity of the driving mass would no longer be centered on the tower(s) and therefore the mass would slide off one side or another and end the process before the total destruction of the building.
what makes anybody think that asymmetrical fires & damage, could do exactly the same job as a carefully planned & executed controlled demolition?


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 11, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Those buildings fell precisely according to the law of GRAVITY. You have heard of it, right? For all your huffing and puffing you (and the entire CT Movement) have yet to provide a shred of evidence which supports your CD theory, other than the fact that the buildings fell down and that, in case you don't know, is what happens when their support fails.
> ...



Horse manure. No CD of a 100 story building or for that matter, any building, has enjoyed a perfectly timed destruction. Gravity and momentum play a large part in the nature of any CD, just as they do in any non-CD. For all your huffing and puffing you (and the entire CT Movement) have yet to provide a shred of evidence which supports your CD theory, other than the fact that the buildings fell down and that, in case you don't know, is what happens when their support fails.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 11, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> I have presented it, and people say NO, there would have to have been too many people involved, somebody would have talked...... ok, have it your way .... whatever ....
> 
> However, don't you wonder about the aluminum airliner that cuts through a skyscraper like a hot knife through butter?  don't you question at all the fact that there is so little documentation of Ground Zero? ( oh ya, looky here, whole books full of pix .... as if that constitutes DOCUMENTATION .... ) and as for questions .... QUESTION EVERYTHING
> like why did the worlds greatest military power fail to defend even its own HQ?
> ...


 
*However, don't you wonder about the aluminum airliner that cuts through a skyscraper like a hot knife through butter?*

What is an aluminum airliner traveling at 500 mph supposed to do when it hits a skyscraper, bounce off?


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 11, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *However, don't you wonder about the aluminum airliner that cuts through a skyscraper like a hot knife through butter?*
> 
> What is an aluminum airliner traveling at 500 mph supposed to do when it hits a skyscraper, bounce off?



do you understand the concept of HOLLOW POINT AMMO?
the nose of an airliner is hollow, what more need I say?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 11, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *However, don't you wonder about the aluminum airliner that cuts through a skyscraper like a hot knife through butter?*
> ...



Well, you could say just what, exactly, you think should happen when an airliner flies into a skyscraper.....


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 11, 2014)

Montrovant said:


> Well, you could say just what, exactly, you think should happen when an airliner flies into a skyscraper.....



That would be the subject of some speculation, but to go off on that tangent, I can see the nose of the aircraft splat against the side of the building with the massive deceleration that would happen the entire aircraft would suffer massive deformation probably breaking of both wings in the process and most of the aircraft landing in the street below.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 11, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Well, you could say just what, exactly, you think should happen when an airliner flies into a skyscraper.....
> ...



Why do you think the side of the building is so sturdy that an airplane traveling hundreds of miles an hour would be unable to break through?  You do realize a good portion of the side of the building is glass, yes?  It's not a bomb shelter, it's not covered in titanium plating, it's a skyscraper where people work and enjoy a view outside.  I don't understand why you think that a plane is so flimsy, with so little kinetic energy despite its mass and the speed it was traveling at, that it would 'splat' against the side of the building.  What properties of the World Trade Centers' windows/facades do you think would prevent a fast-flying airliner from penetrating the building on impact?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 11, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *However, don't you wonder about the aluminum airliner that cuts through a skyscraper like a hot knife through butter?*
> ...


 
Was my question too simple for you?
Answer it.
Realizing, of course, that the WTC skin had lots of windows.
And again, the airliners were moving at something like 500 mph.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 11, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Was my question too simple for you?
> Answer it.
> Realizing, of course, that the WTC skin had lots of windows.
> And again, the airliners were moving at something like 500 mph.



#1 specious argument, "OH BUT THE PLANE WAS GOING SOOOO FAST!"
This is a matter of the strength of materials, speed alone does not impart any special qualities to anything. PERIOD! 

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-2-3.jpg

Note the steel box column construction, the force required to break these columns would exceed the strength of the aluminum aircraft by orders of magnitude.

also, have you ever been up in a skyscraper? and noticed the windows, these windows would NOT be easy to break, they are quite thick and heavy because they have to withstand bird strikes and high winds and the ordinary plate glass like you see in your home windows would not do the job.

You have not even touched upon the HOLLOW POINT issue because its a big obvious glaring fault in this whole business, the airliners nose would have mushroomed out in response to striking the wall and would have spread out the surface area of the airliners attempt to penetrate the wall, in addition to breaking the monocoque structure of the aircraft and also as the aircraft struck the wall, it would decelerate and at such a rate as to cause total global structural failure of the airframe.  in short, it would smash itself to bits against the wall causing minimal damage to the skyscraper and depositing most of the aircraft wreckage outside the building.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monocoque*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 11, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Was my question too simple for you?
> ...


 
*#1 specious argument*

Right, a 767 loaded with 10,000 gallons of fuel, traveling nearly 500 mph, and that's a specious argument. LOL!

*and noticed the windows, these windows would NOT be easy to break, they are quite thick and heavy because they have to withstand bird strikes and high winds*

And 767s? LOL!

*You have not even touched upon the HOLLOW POINT issue*

You're right, I haven't touched on your head issue.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 11, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Right, a 767 loaded with 10,000 gallons of fuel, traveling nearly 500 mph, and that's a specious argument. LOL!



This is what is called an argument from incredulity and illustrates the authors lack of understanding of material that clearly is covered in middle school science class.

Serious question for you, do you, or do you NOT understand what hollow point ammo is?
and my reference to the fact that the nose of an airliner is hollow...... (?)


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 11, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Right, a 767 loaded with 10,000 gallons of fuel, traveling nearly 500 mph, and that's a specious argument. LOL!
> ...


 
The videos of both airliners entering the WTC were fake, because planes are hollow?


----------



## Faun (Oct 11, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Was my question too simple for you?
> ...


And a potato is sturdier than paper, yet ...


----------



## Faun (Oct 11, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


If the videos were faked, there would also be videos of the building exploding with no plane in sight when looking at the south side of the tower.

Needless to say there are none. 
There are also NO people claiming a plane was edited into their videos. Not ONE.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 11, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Was my question too simple for you?
> ...



Well, velocity does directly affect kinetic energy, which I imagine affects impact force.  So while speed alone may not impart any 'special qualities' to anything, greater speed does mean greater energy which would seem to mean a greater chance of penetrating the building.

As far as your hollow point bullet issue, it would only be pertinent if such bullets did not penetrate at all.  As I understand it, while they expand upon impact, they also still penetrate; they don't penetrate as far as other bullets, but they are not in any way stopped before entering a body.  So, with such an analogy, the plane's nose would have penetrated into the building and begun expanding, which may have happened for all I know.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 12, 2014)

Note that in the card sticking in a potato demo, the card penetrates a finite distance and stops.  Lets take the case of the airliner striking the WTC wall, shall we, the airliner body is something a bit over 4 meters in dia. and the decks of the WTC were spaced at 3 meters so there is no-way that the airliner could strike the wall and miss a deck, the 4" thick concrete & steel deck would obviously be met by the airliner edge on, and constitute a knife edge against the nose of the aircraft, splitting the aircraft horizontally. This operation would take energy and using up energy = slowing down the aircraft. Where is the observable slowing down if the aircraft? not only that, but then the wings would have to encounter a dozen box columns each and penetrate the wall with the wings using up still more energy, so then for both "FLT11" and "FLT175" the airliner was alleged to have had so much KE as to make the tail of the aircraft enter the building and disappear inside but without having so much KE as to cause a gaping "exit wound" in the opposite wall of the tower...... Damn Good Trick, that.......


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 12, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Note that in the card sticking in a potato demo, the card penetrates a finite distance and stops.  Lets take the case of the airliner striking the WTC wall, shall we, the airliner body is something a bit over 4 meters in dia. and the decks of the WTC were spaced at 3 meters so there is no-way that the airliner could strike the wall and miss a deck, the 4" thick concrete & steel deck would obviously be met by the airliner edge on, and constitute a knife edge against the nose of the aircraft, splitting the aircraft horizontally. This operation would take energy and using up energy = slowing down the aircraft. Where is the observable slowing down if the aircraft? not only that, but then the wings would have to encounter a dozen box columns each and penetrate the wall with the wings using up still more energy, so then for both "FLT11" and "FLT175" the airliner was alleged to have had so much KE as to make the tail of the aircraft enter the building and disappear inside but without having so much KE as to cause a gaping "exit wound" in the opposite wall of the tower...... Damn Good Trick, that.......


 
Your ability to post with your low IQ is a much better trick.


----------



## Faun (Oct 12, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Note that in the card sticking in a potato demo, the card penetrates a finite distance and stops.  Lets take the case of the airliner striking the WTC wall, shall we, the airliner body is something a bit over 4 meters in dia. and the decks of the WTC were spaced at 3 meters so there is no-way that the airliner could strike the wall and miss a deck, the 4" thick concrete & steel deck would obviously be met by the airliner edge on, and constitute a knife edge against the nose of the aircraft, splitting the aircraft horizontally. This operation would take energy and using up energy = slowing down the aircraft. Where is the observable slowing down if the aircraft? not only that, but then the wings would have to encounter a dozen box columns each and penetrate the wall with the wings using up still more energy, so then for both "FLT11" and "FLT175" the airliner was alleged to have had so much KE as to make the tail of the aircraft enter the building and disappear inside but without having so much KE as to cause a gaping "exit wound" in the opposite wall of the tower...... Damn Good Trick, that.......


that card was not travelling at 500 MPG


----------



## percysunshine (Oct 12, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Well, you could say just what, exactly, you think should happen when an airliner flies into a skyscraper.....
> ...




Try this experiment; A) Try to jam a soda straw through a potato; B) try to jam a soda straw through a potato with your thumb covering the end so the air cannot escape.

The air is incompressible and turns the properties of the soda straw from a floppy piece of plastic into a rigid body. I would not recommend up-scaling this experiment to 500 mph. Someone might get hurt.

.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 12, 2014)

percysunshine said:


> Try this experiment; A) Try to jam a soda straw through a potato; B) try to jam a soda straw through a potato with your thumb covering the end so the air cannot escape.
> 
> The air is incompressible and turns the properties of the soda straw from a floppy piece of plastic into a rigid body. I would not recommend up-scaling this experiment to 500 mph. Someone might get hurt.



Did you Watch Mr. Wizard when you where young?
Thank you for the explanation.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 13, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Well, you could say just what, exactly, you think should happen when an airliner flies into a skyscraper.....
> ...


bullshit.....this has been explained to you before...


----------



## daws101 (Oct 13, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Was my question too simple for you?
> ...


 911 research 
*Who We Are*
9-11 Research is a research consortium consisting of just a few individuals volunteering their time and resources to the effort. The principal contributors to the site are:


Jim Hoffman, Webmaster and Senior Editor
Gregg Roberts, Associate Editor
Jan Hoyer, Outreach Coordinator
Jim Hoffman created the website and wrote the vast majority of its original content. Hoffman has a background in software engineering, mechanical engineering, and scientific visualization. Hoffman also created the Web publishing system used to maintain the 9-11 Research website.

Gregg Roberts has been investigating the September 11 attack since December 2003 and has provided extensive editorial assistance to 911Research. He authored the essay Where Are the 9/11 Whistleblowers?, and is working with Hoffman to produce a book based on the site. Roberts is a technical writer and business analyst with a bachelor's degree in psychology, master's-level study in social work, and earlier education in the "hard" sciences.

Jan Hoyer is a former founding board member and graphic designer for the National 9/11 Visibilty Project,911Truth.org and the D.C Emergency Truth Convergence. Hoyer has a degree in graphic design and experience in online multimedia.
not one scientist or engineer between them...another not credible twoofer site.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 13, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Note that in the card sticking in a potato demo, the card penetrates a finite distance and stops.  Lets take the case of the airliner striking the WTC wall, shall we, the airliner body is something a bit over 4 meters in dia. and the decks of the WTC were spaced at 3 meters so there is no-way that the airliner could strike the wall and miss a deck, the 4" thick concrete & steel deck would obviously be met by the airliner edge on, and constitute a knife edge against the nose of the aircraft, splitting the aircraft horizontally. This operation would take energy and using up energy = slowing down the aircraft. Where is the observable slowing down if the aircraft? not only that, but then the wings would have to encounter a dozen box columns each and penetrate the wall with the wings using up still more energy, so then for both "FLT11" and "FLT175" the airliner was alleged to have had so much KE as to make the tail of the aircraft enter the building and disappear inside but without having so much KE as to cause a gaping "exit wound" in the opposite wall of the tower...... Damn Good Trick, that.......


the previous is denial at it's finest ....


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 14, 2014)

daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Note that in the card sticking in a potato demo, the card penetrates a finite distance and stops.  Lets take the case of the airliner striking the WTC wall, shall we, the airliner body is something a bit over 4 meters in dia. and the decks of the WTC were spaced at 3 meters so there is no-way that the airliner could strike the wall and miss a deck, the 4" thick concrete & steel deck would obviously be met by the airliner edge on, and constitute a knife edge against the nose of the aircraft, splitting the aircraft horizontally. This operation would take energy and using up energy = slowing down the aircraft. Where is the observable slowing down if the aircraft? not only that, but then the wings would have to encounter a dozen box columns each and penetrate the wall with the wings using up still more energy, so then for both "FLT11" and "FLT175" the airliner was alleged to have had so much KE as to make the tail of the aircraft enter the building and disappear inside but without having so much KE as to cause a gaping "exit wound" in the opposite wall of the tower...... Damn Good Trick, that.......
> ...



and do you have an actual rebuttal rather than simply to name it as wrong?
Logic, Reason, Laws of Physics ..... what?


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


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


Laws of vision -- we all saw it happen.

[/thread]


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 14, 2014)

Faun said:


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



So if you saw some dood on TV pull a rabbit out of a hat, you would simply admire the magic, no?


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


We're not talking parlor magic tricks here. We're talking about a plane flying into a building, the building exploding, and then collapsing. You let me know when David Copperfield figures that one out.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 14, 2014)

Faun said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The parlor magic is in full play, the perpetrators made 4 commercial airliners disappear, good trick that......


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


How'd they do that with a million eye witnesses?


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 14, 2014)

Faun said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Magic Dust (Cheech & Chong).
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQyCkwAA&url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bf9lUdRWFA&ei=uds9VNXVNIiSyATQxoD4BA&usg=AFQjCNEvtR4dcydOE5yA2IvYkYSluuNtSg&bvm=bv.77412846,d.aWw


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 15, 2014)

Faun said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



oh, ...... now its a MILLION eye witnesses .... oh my!
and all of these million eye witnesses saw it on TV right?
and as we all know the TV would NEVER lie to us......


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 15, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



Our MS media reported and broadcast what they were seeing *as it transpired*! No one reported seeing anything different than what millions of us witnessed on TV *as it transpired*!
Those on the ground and in other buildings also reported the same and recorded it on their personal cameras *as it transpired* and the evidence, as so carefully posted by Skylar and others, supports what so many people saw that day!
Pretending all but you and a handful of pathetic "Truthers" were engaged in some gymormous conspiracy to kill thousands that day - without a shred of evidence to support your pretentions - is still just pretending.


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


No, I'm not even talking about people who saw it on TV. I'm talking about people who saw it happen live. I admit, I am just estimating. But there are about 8 million living in NYC with about 3 million living in Manhattan, Brooklyn, and New Jersey who had a clear vision of the Twin Towers. It was, and is, one of the nation's most densely populated regions. Undoubtedly, many of those roughly 4 million people were watching it live when the second plane struck the tower. At the very least, it could have been in the hundreds of thousands.

So how did someone pull off a magic trick of unprecedented magnitude by fooling so many people into believing they saw (and heard) a plane fly into the south tower?


----------



## daws101 (Oct 15, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


only in your delusional reality


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 15, 2014)

daws101 said:


> only in your delusional reality



Got a question 4 U
What does this mean - - - 
"as to the frame speed 2.25 sec = 60 frames the .25 is 1/4 of a sec = 1 quarter frame for all practical purposes it's useless"


----------



## daws101 (Oct 15, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > only in your delusional reality
> ...


wtc7


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 15, 2014)

Wow, still proving there were planes...
Somehow I'm almost glad I'm not stopping by here so often...
I see the nuts are still nuts...
Carry on my friends...


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 15, 2014)

daws101 said:


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



How about just a bit of detail as to exactly what you mean, its not difficult to discern that its about WTC7, but as to the bit
"for all practical purposes it's useless"  WHY stick this in there and exactly what does it refer to?


----------



## daws101 (Oct 16, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


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


you've been given all the necessary infromation


----------



## wihosa (Oct 20, 2014)

If you want to see what a high rise building looks like when it is engulfed in flames then check out the fire in the Windsor Hotel in Madrid Spain, I think it was in 2010. The hotel is fully inflames, burns for almost 24 hrs and not surprisingly was still standing after it was put out. Not surprising because fire has never brought down a modern steel framed high rise building...EXCEPT on 911when it happened THREE TIMES!!!!

Now if you can believe that, I've got some land to sell you in Florida!


----------



## Faun (Oct 20, 2014)

wihosa said:


> If you want to see what a high rise building looks like when it is engulfed in flames then check out the fire in the Windsor Hotel in Madrid Spain, I think it was in 2010. The hotel is fully inflames, burns for almost 24 hrs and not surprisingly was still standing after it was put out. Not surprising because fire has never brought down a modern steel framed high rise building...EXCEPT on 911when it happened THREE TIMES!!!!
> 
> Now if you can believe that, I've got some land to sell you in Florida!


Unlike WTC 7, which burned uncontrollably on some lower floors until they could no longer sustain the weight of the dozens of floors above them, the Windsor hotel fire broke out on the 21st floor of a building that was 29 floors above street level. And much of the top of the building did collapse. If there were dozens of floors above it, like in WTC 7, there would have been nothing to hold them up.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 20, 2014)

Faun said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to see what a high rise building looks like when it is engulfed in flames then check out the fire in the Windsor Hotel in Madrid Spain, I think it was in 2010. The hotel is fully inflames, burns for almost 24 hrs and not surprisingly was still standing after it was put out. Not surprising because fire has never brought down a modern steel framed high rise building...EXCEPT on 911when it happened THREE TIMES!!!!
> ...



As you well know, most 9/11 CTs have absolutely no interest in applying facts and logic to their (Chia) pet CTs. Wilhosa has proven as resistant to 9/11 facts as to telling the truth. No wonder the 9/11 "Truther" Movement is dying ... all that's left is t-shirt and DVD hawkers and the losers who buy their wares.


----------



## wihosa (Oct 20, 2014)

Faun said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to see what a high rise building looks like when it is engulfed in flames then check out the fire in the Windsor Hotel in Madrid Spain, I think it was in 2010. The hotel is fully inflames, burns for almost 24 hrs and not surprisingly was still standing after it was put out. Not surprising because fire has never brought down a modern steel framed high rise building...EXCEPT on 911when it happened THREE TIMES!!!!
> ...



Really? And you base this conjecture on what?

So you look at the video of B7 and compare it to the Windsor Hotel and conclude that B7 is most likely to collapse? You're lying to yourself. 

It doesn't matter how long B7 was on fire. The Official Conspiracy Theory says that for the first time ever fire caused the collapse of a modern steel framed high rise building. Not once but THREE TIMES. 

Thousands and thousands of high rise building fires and for the first time it results in a collapse on 911, three times and never again since...

The OCT is full of holes.


----------



## wihosa (Oct 20, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



Facts like no modern steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire except when it happened on 911. Thousands of high rise building fires and not until 911 when three collapse because of fire?


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 20, 2014)

wihosa said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Well, no 100 story building was ever rammed by a modern passenger jet loaded with fuel at hundreds of mph (two were on 9/11) and none ever had large chunks of building fall on it from hundreds of feet in the air. Now we have instances of both and we know the result. Do you have a credible alternative?


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 20, 2014)

wihosa said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



None of the "Truther" explanations come close to the official one for credibility or plausibility. Which of those CT fantasies is your personal fav?


----------



## Faun (Oct 20, 2014)

wihosa said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...


Many of the first responders to WTC7 believed the building was likely going to collapse. Were they lying to themselves? And you're under the misrepresentation that all fires are the same, but you're not comparing apples with apples. You're also comparing the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 with WTC7 when they actually collapsed in different fashions. And you're comparing WTC7, which was a 47 story building that collapsed around the 13th floor with the Windsor Hotel, a 29 story (above ground) building which collapsed around the upper floors; as though they are the same. And as far as WTC1 and WTC2, they demonstrate that 100% of the skyscrapers which had planes flown into them with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, have collapsed.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 21, 2014)

Faun said:


> And as far as WTC1 and WTC2, they demonstrate that 100% of the skyscrapers which had planes flown into them with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, have collapsed.



so you are alleging that 100% of the time, flying an airplane into a skyscraper will cause the complete & total destruction of said skyscraper? .... what?


----------



## Faun (Oct 21, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > And as far as WTC1 and WTC2, they demonstrate that 100% of the skyscrapers which had planes flown into them with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, have collapsed.
> ...


No, I am not alleging that. You truther nuts are delirious.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 21, 2014)

Faun said:


> truther nuts



Your attitude is showing ..... How about a real rebuttal?


----------



## Faun (Oct 21, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > truther nuts
> ...


Well in all fairness, a real rebuttal requires you understand what I wrote, which the question you asked reveals you clearly don't. And if I have an "attitude" towards you, it's because you flat out refuse to answer any questions which contain answers that don't conform to your beliefs. I even watched a video at your request only to have my subsequent questions ignored. Maybe if you demonstrated you were truly here with an open mind, instead of trying to push a conspiracy you have failed repeatedly to prove, you would be greeted with less "attitude."


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 21, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > And as far as WTC1 and WTC2, they demonstrate that 100% of the skyscrapers which had planes flown into them with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, have collapsed.
> ...


 
You seem to have a comprehension problem. Faun clearly and unequivocally stated that 100% of the skyscrapers which have had planes flown into them with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, have collapsed.
If you still don't get it, ask someone for some help.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 21, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> 100% of the skyscrapers which have had planes flown into them with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, have collapsed.



and so, it is alleged to be a sure thing, a total certainty that crashing an airliner into a skyscraper will result in complete and total destruction of said skyscraper..... "total collapse was inevitable ........ " 
right, & that is the ONLY out-come allowable under what black magic?


----------



## Faun (Oct 21, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > 100% of the skyscrapers which have had planes flown into them with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, have collapsed.
> ...


No one alleges it to be a sure thing. But this is a perfect example of how the "truther" brain works; and this goes a long way in revealing why the truther uses the false argument that since there was never a building which collapsed due to fire, WTC 7 could not possibly have collapsed due to fire. Your brain is not wired to understand that not everything is an absolute.

You've just revealed much about how truthers think and why they can't accept that just because something hasn't happened -- doesn't mean it can't happen.

Thanks!


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 21, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > 100% of the skyscrapers which have had planes flown into them with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, have collapsed.
> ...



No, but it is a certainty that 100% of all skyscrapers that have been rammed by jetliners with thousands of gallons of fuel have collapsed and that officials at Ground Zero has reason to believe WTC7 was going to collapse also. How is it you can absorb so much 9/11 Internet CT "knowledge" but can't comprehend so simple a statement?
Are you by chance learning impaired? Dyslexic? Mentally challenged? A slow learner? Really, really stupid?


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 22, 2014)

Faun said:


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



Not only was WTC7 destroyed, but did you notice the manner in witch it was destroyed?


----------



## Faun (Oct 22, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


Yes, we've exhausted this debate as well.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 22, 2014)

Faun said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Yes, exhausted this debate, because some people refuse to recognize the significance of the manner in witch the towers & 7 fell as a valid piece of evidence.


----------



## Faun (Oct 22, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


Sure, dude.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 22, 2014)

Faun said:


> Sure, dude.



So you have no FACTS to present to support the official story?

Fact is, the opposition is out of ammo, there isn't anything to support the "collapse" because of "office fires" < words used by Dr. Sunder in presenting the final report on the "collapse" of WTC7.

Your tax dollars at work, funding total FRAUD from the NIST ( etc.... )


----------



## Faun (Oct 22, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, dude.
> ...


Facts have been presented to you repeatedly. You ignore them. We're beyond that now.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 22, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, dude.
> ...


you must have short and long term memory problems.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 22, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > 100% of the skyscrapers which have had planes flown into them with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, have collapsed.
> ...


----------



## Faun (Oct 22, 2014)

daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


His name is Tom.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 24, 2014)

If others insist on posting rubbish, that is not my problem,
I intend to discuss the demolition of the WTC.
Note that in all three buildings, that is WTC1, 2 & 7
the "collapse" event led to the total destruction of the building,
and that the destruction proceeded without hesitation or any jolt to be seen indicating energy transfer.  The rubble from above completely and totally destroyed each and ever level of the building, not just the floors but the outside wall columns + the core, Damn good trick, don't you think?


----------



## daws101 (Oct 25, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> If others insist on posting rubbish, that is not my problem,
> I intend to discuss the demolition of the WTC.
> Note that in all three buildings, that is WTC1, 2 & 7
> the "collapse" event led to the total destruction of the building,
> and that the destruction proceeded without hesitation or any jolt to be seen indicating energy transfer.  The rubble from above completely and totally destroyed each and ever level of the building, not just the floors but the outside wall columns + the core, Damn good trick, don't you think?


says the queen of piling it high and deep.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 25, 2014)

Question about the Kader Toy Factory, were all of those toys UL approved fire rated materials?  Because it can be shown beyond any doubt that the Jet fuel had insufficient energy to bring down the skyscrapers and the office contents most certainly lacked the fuel value to significantly add to the heat load in the structure.
so without a fire capable of producing sufficient heat to cause total structural failure, what do you have?


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 26, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Question about the Kader Toy Factory, were all of those toys UL approved fire rated materials?  Because it can be shown beyond any doubt that the Jet fuel had insufficient energy to bring down the skyscrapers and the office contents most certainly lacked the fuel value to significantly add to the heat load in the structure.
> so without a fire capable of producing sufficient heat to cause total structural failure, what do you have?



 Stop! Please stop! You're killing me!  
No one said the jet fuel brought down those buildings but it is well established that they started the fires that eventually did. What was in those buildings fueled the fire long after the jet fuel was spent. You knew that before you posted that "Kadar Toy Factory" BS, so what are you trying to prove now? As always you have nothing but half-truths and outright fabrications.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 26, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Question about the Kader Toy Factory, were all of those toys UL approved fire rated materials?  Because it can be shown beyond any doubt that the Jet fuel had insufficient energy to bring down the skyscrapers and the office contents most certainly lacked the fuel value to significantly add to the heat load in the structure.
> ...



Note that Dr. Sunder of the NIST specified in his speech before the assembled press ... that OFFICE CONTENTS fueled the fires that brought down WTC7,  now you are saying also OFFICE CONTENTS allegedly fueled the fires that destroyed WTC 1, & 2,  However the only thing that could supply fuel, was the paper, because all of the desks, chairs ( etc... ) that are in cubicle-land are known to be fire resistant.  The ONLY place where fires burn intensely is specific offices that have LOTS of paper.  Note a pix of the earlier WTC tower fire showed shelves similar to library shelves with mass quantities of paper in the form of either books or files but my point is that fire concentrates where there is fuel, and was that fuel sufficient, and not only sufficient, but focused enough to do the job, that is the complete & total destruction of the tower(s)?


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 26, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


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



Again you willfully resort to half-truths and disinformation. Whatever burned that day clearly burned hot enough to weaken the structures to the point of collapse. Fire resistant does not mean fire proof and you must be well aware of that. You strike me as the nomad type ... you dump your silliness on some Internet forum until there's no oxygen left and then move on to the next forum where you begin the same old tired BS all over again. Read my lips, Princess: It's O-V-E-R.
There's nothing left of the "Truther" Movement except you and the cleanup crew.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 26, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Again you willfully resort to half-truths and disinformation.



Please provide detail as to these alleged "half-truths"  ( etc.... ) and lets have a discussion about it, obviously you believe that I have posted something basically inaccurate or misleading...... So please do, by all means, show me the logic of your official explanation of the events of 9/11/2001


----------



## Faun (Oct 26, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Again you willfully resort to half-truths and disinformation.
> ...


Start by proving there were no planes involved.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 26, 2014)

Faun said:


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



on that topic, since the mainstream media was the first to assert that hijacked airliners were used as weapons, and has indeed failed to substantiate that claim, I would say that the work is already done in this matter.  Where is the proof that any of the 4 airliners even existed at all? How much of any one of the airliners was recovered and by what means examined to determine its validity as an actual bit of the aircraft in question and not simply a random scrap of metal?


----------



## Faun (Oct 26, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


look, parts from a plane ...






You're failing to prove no planes were involved.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 26, 2014)

Faun said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



And exactly what makes you so certain that this was guaranteed for sure a part from either "FLT11" or "FLT175"?  critical bits of airliners have serial numbers and was any serial numbered part recovered from the wreckage ever verified as to belonging to any one of the alleged hijacked airliners?


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 26, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Again you willfully resort to half-truths and disinformation.
> ...



No thanks. I've participated in that "conversation" too many times with numerous "Truther's" and most recently watched Skylar try patiently for MONTHS to reason with you. Anyone who insists that "no planes were hijacked on 9/11" and "the fires were staged and controlled" without providing a shred of evidence is clearly irrational. As with all you "Truthers" it was an exercise in dealing with the irrational but if you care to re-live your ignominy feel free to revisit any of those threads ... I'm certain they still exist.
But before you go I will remind you of Charlie Veitch's last words as he admitted that the "Truther" Movement was anything but:
"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." He was almost immediately trashed and burned - including death threats - by those he left behind as he stepped into the light.
Insecure much?


----------



## Faun (Oct 26, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


That's pretty fucking retarded, even for a truther. Plane parts don't just fall out of the sky without a plane. 

Not to mention ... that's landing gear. If that landing gear didn't come from either flights 11 or 175, then post a link to an article about a plane crashing that day upon trying to land without landing gear. Or an engine...






You're failing miserably. And I'm not done yet.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 26, 2014)

Faun said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



How do you know for sure
that somebody didn't drive by in a pickup truck
and drop the engine or other part, while all eyes were on the exploding tower?  Do you have proof that this did not happen?


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 26, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> trashed and burned - including death threats



I'm saddened by the fact that some people fail to see the psychological warfare angle on this and simply act out of frustration & anger.  The bottom line here is that there is sufficient evidence in the events of 9/11/2001 to at the very least QUESTION the official story.  Starting out with the controlled demolition of WTC7 ...... 

if you are not outraged, you are not paying attention!


----------



## Faun (Oct 26, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


The burden of proof is yours. There are eyewitnesses who saw the plane fly into the south tower, there were networks who televised it live as it happened, there were dozens upon dozens of people who video taped it. Given that, there is no logical explanation for how plane parts ended up in lower Manhattan other than the official narrative. You have the burden to prove those plane parts came from elsewhere since the evidence they came from flight 11 or 175 is overwhelming.

So what have you got besides supposition and inuendo?


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 26, 2014)

Faun said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > How do you know for sure
> ...



Irrationality, desperation, shrillness and insipidity. 'Nuff said?


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 26, 2014)

Faun said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Without hard evidence, the supporters of the official narrative should just throw in the towel and admit that they can NOT prove the validity of the hijacked airliners story, for all anyone knows the images on the videos ( Evan Fairbanks Vid. etc.... ) are all totally fake, where is the hard evidence?
why hasn't anyone accounted for the aircraft?


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 26, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



sorry about that, but without hard evidence,
the case for the whole hijacked airliners fiasco falls apart!  WHY wasn't the "airliner wreckage" actually examined and identified?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 26, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


* 
for all anyone knows the images on the videos ( Evan Fairbanks Vid. etc.... ) are all totally fake*

Sure.
And all the witnesses, the people injured by falling debris that you feel was planted......are they fake too?


----------



## Faun (Oct 26, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


Umm, I guess it needs to be said ... not a single video has ever proven to be fraudulent. Not one.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 26, 2014)

Faun said:


> Umm, I guess it needs to be said ... not a single video has ever proven to be fraudulent. Not one.



Do you need for some "expert" to speak up and declare it fraudulent, or can you LOOK with open eyes and an open mind and understand what you are looking at?  The fact is that ALL of the videos that show the south wall of the South tower being penetrated by the alleged "FLT175" show an alleged airliner penetrating without slowing down.
now do you get it?


----------



## Faun (Oct 26, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Umm, I guess it needs to be said ... not a single video has ever proven to be fraudulent. Not one.
> ...


This is more absurdity from you. Since a commercial jet had never been flown into a skyscraper at more than 400 MPH, the *reality* is, you have absolutely no idea what such an event would look like. So to declare that every single version recorded that day are faked because it does not meet your seal of approval is beyond ridiculous. But then, ridiculous is all you've ever been armed with.

Meanwhile, you also need to ignore the multitude of eyewitnesses who also saw a plane fly into the south tower.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 27, 2014)

Faun said:


> Meanwhile, you also need to ignore the multitude of eyewitnesses who also saw a plane fly into the south tower.



Just for you own info, I'm not asking you to post to this forum what you find, but look up the number of witnesses who made statements that they saw an airliner strike the South Tower. 

There is at least one eye witness in Manhattan that morning who said "it was not a plane, it was a bomb" and the reporter, rather than staying and actually interviewing the guy, moved on very quickly.

"you have absolutely no idea what such an event would look like."

YES I DO, and so does everybody else with a bit of common sense,
the crash of an airliner would have to be by the very nature of the event
very violent and involve breaking the aircraft, in the scenario shown on 9/11
the aircraft keeps its shape as it penetrates, and does not slow down in response
to having hit a wall.  This is looney toons physics!


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 27, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> How do you know for sure
> that somebody didn't drive by in a pickup truck
> and drop the engine or other part, while all eyes were on the exploding tower?  Do you have proof that this did not happen?


And what proof would be good enough for you? If we supplied an identification number that ties the part to the plane, all you would do is claim the government made it up. It's never ending. We supply evidence, you claim it's faked.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 27, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Meanwhile, you also need to ignore the multitude of eyewitnesses who also saw a plane fly into the south tower.
> ...


 
*the aircraft keeps its shape as it penetrates, and does not slow down in response
to having hit a wall*

What was the plane's speed at every 100th of a second, before and after impact?
You do have the data that would prove your claim, right?
You're not just talking out of your ass, are you?

*This is looney toons physics!*

I agree, you conspiracy guys get your science from comic books.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 28, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *the aircraft keeps its shape as it penetrates, and does not slow down in response
> to having hit a wall*
> 
> What was the plane's speed at every 100th of a second, before and after impact?



911 Research Home Page

Are you aware that NTSC standard Video is 30 frames/sec?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 28, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *the aircraft keeps its shape as it penetrates, and does not slow down in response
> ...


 
Feel free to post the speed every 30th of a second, so we can see the plane did not slow down.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 28, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Feel free to post the speed every 30th of a second, so we can see the plane did not slow down.



Did you actually look at the link?

any moving object that is observed on video, observed moving a given distance in a known number of frames of the video, and then under rather different conditions also travels the same distance in the same number of frames.....

NOW DO YOU GET IT?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 28, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Feel free to post the speed every 30th of a second, so we can see the plane did not slow down.
> ...


 
I get that you haven't posted the plane speed at every 30th of a second.
Why are you afraid of the truth?


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 28, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why are you afraid of the truth?



WHY are YOU afraid of the TRUTH,
you haven't actually addressed the ISSUE,
do you understand any of what I wrote in #543?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 28, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you afraid of the truth?
> ...


 
You made a claim that the plane did not slow down.
So show me the speed, unless you're afraid of the truth?
Coward.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 28, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You made a claim that the plane did not slow down.
> So show me the speed,



Yes, and I supplied supporting evidence to that claim.
did you read it?  My post #543

can YOU address the issue?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 28, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You made a claim that the plane did not slow down.
> ...


 
Your post #543 does not support your claim that the plane did not slow.
Post the speed, or whine some more. Coward.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 28, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you afraid of the truth?
> ...


 
there are many americans who re afrid f the truth indeed and wont look at the evidence but he knows it was an inside job.he is a paid troll on the governments payroll that has penetrated this  site sent by his handlers to troll these threads.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 28, 2014)

*Mission*
9-11 Research critically examines the official government explanation of the attack and concludes that many of its key assertions are impossible. We do not pretend to know exactly how the attack was carried out or exactly who the perpetrators are, but there are plausible scenarios of how the attack could have been executed by insiders. (See our Frequently Asked Questions.)
If the attack was indeed a "black-op", then we can expect that the operatives will have hidden their identities behind layer upon layer of cover story. Only a genuine investigation with meaningful powers will be able to peel away the layers of deception to expose the true perpetrators. We hope to facilitate such an investigation by first exposing the falsity of the outermost cover story: the official myth of 9/11/01.
We intend for our work to honor the many victims of this horrendous attack. Many people will find it difficult and traumatic to confront the idea that the attack was the work, not of a religious extremist living in caves in Central Asia, but of people within the U.S. government. Apologists for the official story ridicule such ideas, and attempt to confuse compassion for the victims with certainty that bin Laden was the perpetrator. In fact, genuine compassion consists of learning and spreading the truth in order that future repetitions of such murderous frauds may be prevented.
 USA PATRIOT Act places restrictions on freedoms of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- restrictions that have yet to be tested in the courts. It allows individuals to be placed under electronic surveillance without their knowledge or consent, and without a court order. We have no way of knowing whether people visiting this site are being monitored, and if we did know, it would be illegal under the USA PATRIOT Act for us to share that knowledge with our visitors.
We have received several complaints of graffiti-like postings of the URLs for 9-11 Research and its companion websites in public places. We discourage and disavow such intrusive campaigning methods, which tend to be counterproductive to our mission of public education.
Jim Hoffman created the website and wrote the vast majority of its original content. Hoffman has a background in software engineering, mechanical engineering, and scientific visualization. Hoffman also created the Web publishing system used to maintain the 9-11 Research website.
Gregg Roberts has been investigating the September 11 attack since December 2003 and has provided extensive editorial assistance to 911Research. He authored the essay Where Are the 9/11 Whistleblowers?, and is working with Hoffman to produce a book based on the site. Roberts is a technical writer and business analyst with a bachelor's degree in psychology, master's-level study in social work, and earlier education in the "hard" sciences.
 Jan Hoyer is a former founding board member and graphic designer for the  National 9/11 Visibilty Project, 911Truth.org and the  D.C Emergency Truth Convergence. Hoyer has a degree in graphic design and experience in online multimedia.
not one physics, engineering ,or hard science degree between them...
NOT CREDIBLE 

Jim Hoffman created WTC7.net, 911Research.WTC7.net, and 911Review.com. This bio provides some detail about how he came to investigate the attacks of 9/11/01.
Gregg Roberts


----------



## daws101 (Oct 28, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *the aircraft keeps its shape as it penetrates, and does not slow down in response
> ...


you weren't  TILL I EXPLAINED IT TO YOU.
NOW THEN WHAT DOES A FRAME RATE HAVE TO DO WITH ANY OF THIS?


----------



## daws101 (Oct 28, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *the aircraft keeps its shape as it penetrates, and does not slow down in response
> ...


THE VIDEO CLIPS ON THE SITE ARE FROM Home - 911 Truth Archive
ANOTHER NON CEDIBLE SOURSE.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 28, 2014)

daws101 said:


> you weren't TILL I EXPLAINED IT TO YOU.
> NOW THEN WHAT DOES A FRAME RATE HAVE TO DO WITH ANY OF THIS?



U R kidding ..... right?

BTW:  do you know about "Carl & Jerry" .....?


----------



## daws101 (Oct 28, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > you weren't TILL I EXPLAINED IT TO YOU.
> ...


can't say I do? debunking them should be fun..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 28, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > you weren't TILL I EXPLAINED IT TO YOU.
> ...


 
Did they get to you?
Is that why you're afraid to post the speed of the plane, frame by frame?
Coward.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 28, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


problem is you'd need a super slow motion camera to even see that they human eye cannot.. but there would be nothing to see as the wall of the tower  offered little resistance.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 28, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


 
He's such a moron.
He thinks the 500 mph, 270,000 lb jet should have crumpled on the outside of the WTC and fallen to the ground.
Like it was a paperball.
He's too stupid to breathe.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 28, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > you weren't TILL I EXPLAINED IT TO YOU.
> ...



C'mon, Spammy!
Gamolon challenged you to a round of your favorite game ... "pretend physicists" and yet more than 24 hrs later you have failed to respond. In fact, one would get the impression you are avoiding him or are you just too busy playing "Grab Your Ankles" again?


----------



## daws101 (Oct 28, 2014)

SAYIT said:


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


is that with or without the lube?


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 28, 2014)

daws101 said:


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



I just don't get it. Finally someone is willing to play "Pretend Physics" with our village idiot and he packs up his stuff and disappears. What a surprise!


----------



## daws101 (Oct 28, 2014)

SAYIT said:


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


on the collapse thread he dodge you and gave another massively bogus answer to me..


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 28, 2014)

daws101 said:


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



He strikes me as the emotionally fragile type who struggles to come to grips with the reality that his fantasies are just in his head but fortunately one cannot get seriously injured jumping from one's Mom's basement window.
Whew.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 28, 2014)

SAYIT said:


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


and the room's padded


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 29, 2014)

SAYIT said:


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



And here we are another full day later and still no response by Spammy to Gamolon's willingness to engage in a game of Let's-do-the-Math. I bear Spammy no ill will and sincerely hope he will take a cold, hard look at the raging idiot he has become and get some professional help. I further hope he will share his tale of Life-in-the-Rabbit-Hole so others can know how damaging it is.
"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - Charlie Veitch


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 1, 2014)

This is getting worrisome (and ridiculous). It now almost a week since Gamolon challenged Spammy's pseudo-physics and one of the CT board's most prolific 9/11 CT posters vanished like a fart in the wind.
C'mon, Spammy ... come back and take your whuppin' like a man.


----------



## n0spam4me (Nov 27, 2014)

Its really a sort of a moot point, the fact is that whatever was used, be it atomic weapons or firecrackers, the bottom line is that the towers + 7 were an engineered demolition.  So whats to argue?  Look at the fact of complete & total demolition + the speed of demolition and people dare to allege that the buildings just fell down because of fires ( + alleged airliner crashes to the towers )


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 15, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Its really a sort of a moot point, the fact is that whatever was used, be it atomic weapons or firecrackers, the bottom line is that the towers + 7 were an engineered demolition.  So whats to argue?  Look at the fact of complete & total demolition + the speed of demolition and people dare to allege that the buildings just fell down because of fires ( + alleged airliner crashes to the towers )



Anyone ever told you that you were a nut?


----------



## Faun (Dec 15, 2014)

Seems the Mossad has silently taken out the OP because he knew too much.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2014)

Faun said:


> Seems the Mossad has silently taken out the OP because he knew too much.


 
"KokomoJojo......knew too much".








What is something no one said, ever?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Dec 21, 2014)

Skylar said:


> So this is the ....third?... 'thermetic cutter' you've claimed was in common use?
> 
> 1) *You can't factually establish that any 'thermetic cutter' even exists.* You've show us yet another drawing. Not an actual device.
> 
> ...



awe skylar did I ignore you?

So sorry, sure here is a cutter just for you, just to show you what backwards neanderthal you are.





the technology is really easy and simple. you could make on in your back yard and it slices through steel far better than a hot knife through butter and requires very little thermate too.

Oh yeh, well the proof is all that molten shit, unless you want to go for a nook, otherwise the only other options you have available that could produce that kind of heat are the looney tune posers and official story huggers hot air.

enjoy, been a pleasure teaching you how wrong you are.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 21, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > So this is the ....third?... 'thermetic cutter' you've claimed was in common use?
> ...


 
So how many of those were found in the wreckage?


----------



## daws101 (Dec 22, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > So this is the ....third?... 'thermetic cutter' you've claimed was in common use?
> ...


problem is  it would never work on any thing larger than rebar.
also no evidence was found.
sane people 10 koko 0


----------



## Skylar (Dec 22, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Exactly. Remember, if you size up the devices to match the size of the girders it would be cutting, it would be approximately 10 feet long and about 3 and half feet in diameter, weighing as much as a small car. And there's need to be one for each girder at each floor. So there would be thousands of them.

So, um....where are they? They'd be everywhere, scattered throughout the rubble, especially toward the top of the pile, as you insist they were used at the top of the building. Yet no one ever found one. Not before, not during, not after the fire and collapse.

Second, how were they syncronized? Remember, they were on fire BEFORE they would have gone off. So all those cables wouldn't have been consumed by the fire. Any timers would have been reduced to bubbling pools of plastic. So how, pray tell, do you get perfect syncronization. 

And if they were installed BEFORE the impacts, do you think someone might have noticed these car sized canisters strapped sideways to every girder? These buildings weren't museums. They were used, maintained, inspected. Yet no one ever saw any of the imagined 'thermite canisters' despite your theory mandating thousands. 

And if they were installed AFTER the impacts, how did the FDNY miss them? How were they installed while the building was ON FIRE? Invisible, fire proof, ninja janitors was it?

Truthers can't resolve any of these theory killing holes. Any one of which renders the theory virtually impossible. Together, they demonstrate its silliness.


----------



## Skylar (Dec 22, 2014)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Koko's thermite cutters change like magic depending what hole in his theory he's desperately trying plug. When you ask him where the thousands and thousands of thermite cutters are, he quotes one source that shows a device that is consumed in use. But couldn't cut a girder.

When you ask him how the girders could have been cut by such a device, he shows you something that may well be able to cut a girder......if it were 10 feet long, 3 and half feet in diameter and weighing as much as a small car. And were placed on the building by the thousands....and would have absolutely survived a buidling fire.

When you ask him where the thousands and thousands of car sized canisters were.....he cites the 'cutter' that doesn't actually cut anything that would have been consumed by use.

Brainwash, rinse, repeat.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Dec 28, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So how many of those were found in the wreckage?



none if they worked properly, since they self consume and become molten iron upon exhaustion.

doesnt matter though because they ruled out anything related to demolition and didnt bother to look.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Dec 28, 2014)

Skylar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...




Nah its fun watching ignoramusus maximus huggerus wallow in foolishness.

Actually the amount of high grade thermate needed is very little since its only the catalyst and the devices are WAY smaller than what the predictions some web idiots made.  Especially if you dope em with generically speaking exotic metals.

I suppose you are one of the neandrathals who think the only way is det cord?

Just watch the pretty twinkles and you can follow the sychronization

Oh and this one is NOT the wtc




This one is 



Now had you taken the time to actually understand the material you are ridiculing you wouldnt look so foolish aboyt now.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 28, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > So how many of those were found in the wreckage?
> ...


* 
none if they worked properly, since they self consume*

The device in your video doesn't self consume.
Try again?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Dec 28, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *
> none if they worked properly, since they self consume*
> 
> The device in your video doesn't self consume.
> Try again?



no shit!  LOL





do you think that maybe its because the kid who built it in his back yard didnt construct it according to the patents?  LOL

Just imagine how kick ass the real mcCoy is now that we have seen a kid who built one that works that good out of shit from his back yard scrap heap eh!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 29, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...


 
*do you think that maybe its because the kid who built it in his back yard didnt construct it according to the patents?*

No. I think its because there would have to be tens of thousands, hundreds of which would have been dislodged by the planes crashing into the towers. And because the patented version wouldn't even self consume.


----------



## Skylar (Dec 29, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Laughing.....and yet you still can't tell me where all the enormous canisters strapped to each of the girders on each floor holding the nanothermite went after the buildling collapsed. Because none were ever found. Despite your theory requiring thousands.

Nor can you explain why no girder was cut in a manner consistent with thermite. We had bending. We have warping. We had twisting. But no cuts. 

And of course, no thermite reactions were ever observed. And they use nanothermite in fireworks. So we're not exactly talking about subtle here. Your theory mandates they occured by the thousand. And there were none. And you have no explaination.

You also can't explain for how this fantastically complex system of demolition worked while ON FIRE. As the WTC 7 was engulfed in flames. 

Nor can you explain how canisters the size of a small car strapped to the side of a girder would go unnoticed by say, the folks that work in the building. Or the janitors. Or the building inspectors. Or the Port Authority Bomb Squad. Or the FDNY. 

So......giant canisters of thermite that can't be seen, disappear completely after use, that produce thermite reactions that can't be seen either, bringing down a building by NOT cutting any girder. *While the building is on fire. *

Does that about cover it? 






> Actually the amount of high grade thermate needed is very little since its only the catalyst and the devices are WAY smaller than what the predictions some web idiots made.  Especially if you dope em with generically speaking exotic metals.



Surely you realize that you're talking completely out of your ass, as you don't have the slightest clue how much 'nanothermite' it would take to do anything. Let alone bring down a building. As you don't know what yuo

Hell, you can even decide what conspiracy you're going to follow. As your description of the devices changes with virtually every recitation. 



> I suppose you are one of the neandrathals who think the only way is det cord?
> 
> Just watch the pretty twinkles and you can follow the sychronization
> 
> ...



Why are your gifs so uselessly small? Why are they so wildly modified? Why are they in black and white?  *Remember, in the unmodified images, nothing you're describing is visible.* You can't tell us how they were modified, or by whom. 

So how do we know that they're even remotely accurate? And why aren't you asking these questions?


----------



## Skylar (Dec 29, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Don't worry yourself with such details as 'self consuming'. Koko has a completely different thermite diagram to show you of a completely different 'cutter' that supposed to self consume. Its not actually a cutter, but an igniter. And it can't even remotely cut through a girder. 

But when you point this out, Koko will go back to the original cutter. That doesn't self consume.

When you point this out, Koko returns to the self consuming model that doesn't cut shit. 

Brainwash. Rinse. Repeat.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 29, 2014)

Skylar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



So what do you think it is? You've been observing the nature and methods of these 9/11 "Truthers." What drives them to make such silly arguments and half-baked conclusions?


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 29, 2014)

an inability to deal with reality mostly


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 29, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Just wondering ... the only way the CD theory works - even if one ignores the lack of any evidence of such - is if the perps could predict exactly where those planes would hit the towers.
How could anyone know exactly where those planes would hit?


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 29, 2014)

jon_berzerk said:


> an inability to deal with reality mostly


 
Yeah, I've read that but sometimes I think it's something more.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 29, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...




that should have been obvious 

because the the huge black X marked 

on each building


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 29, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > an inability to deal with reality mostly
> ...




true it is more 

some people can not deal with the fact that a few people 

or in some cases one person could do such horrible things 

so they assign governmental conspiracies 

in a way of dealing with it


----------



## Skylar (Dec 29, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



They've internalized their conspiracy. They've Jack Burton'd their narrative. And made their imagined ability to  'see what no one else can see, do what no one else can do' part of their identity.

So if you point out holes in their theories, they get wildly defensive or evasive. As you're essentially attacking a piece of who they are. Equally, they need to perpetuate their stories to maintain this feeling of having 'special knowledge'.

Which is why most 'Truthers' are so invulnerable to contrary evidence. Acknowledging the holes in their theory is often seen as a personal failure or an almost blasphemous attack. As if you were talking shit about their religion. They shut down. And they will ignore anything, from any source, even their own....that contradicts their narrative.


----------



## n0spam4me (Dec 29, 2014)

> They've internalized their conspiracy. They've Jack Burton'd their narrative. And made their imagined ability to 'see what no one else can see, do what no one else can do' part of their identity.
> 
> So if you point out holes in their theories, they get wildly defensive or evasive. As you're essentially attacking a piece of who they are. Equally, they need to perpetuate their stories to maintain this feeling of having 'special knowledge'.
> 
> Which is why most 'Truthers' are so invulnerable to contrary evidence. Acknowledging the holes in their theory is often seen as a personal failure or an almost blasphemous attack. As if you were talking shit about their religion. They shut down. And they will ignore anything, from any source, even their own....that contradicts their narrative.



The above can be applied to those who support  the fanatical hijacker conspiracy bit also. and it only applies to some of the people, some of the time.


----------



## Faun (Dec 29, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> > They've internalized their conspiracy. They've Jack Burton'd their narrative. And made their imagined ability to 'see what no one else can see, do what no one else can do' part of their identity.
> >
> > So if you point out holes in their theories, they get wildly defensive or evasive. As you're essentially attacking a piece of who they are. Equally, they need to perpetuate their stories to maintain this feeling of having 'special knowledge'.
> >
> ...


ummm ... not for nothin', but ... that _'fanatical hijacker conspiracy'_ has thousands upon thousands of eye witnesses; whereas the _revered truther versions_ remain cemented in a combustible mixture of conjecture and hallucinations.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 29, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> > They've internalized their conspiracy. They've Jack Burton'd their narrative. And made their imagined ability to 'see what no one else can see, do what no one else can do' part of their identity.
> >
> > So if you point out holes in their theories, they get wildly defensive or evasive. As you're essentially attacking a piece of who they are. Equally, they need to perpetuate their stories to maintain this feeling of having 'special knowledge'.
> >
> ...


for ,you it would be all the time.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 29, 2014)

guess koko got tossed off the necrophilia thread again!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > > They've internalized their conspiracy. They've Jack Burton'd their narrative. And made their imagined ability to 'see what no one else can see, do what no one else can do' part of their identity.
> ...




*wtf you smokin?

post the names of these witnesses and validations.*


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 4, 2015)

Skylar said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...




*problem is you havent punched holes in anything I posted, if you think you have by all means cite them and I will be happy to explain the facts to you.*


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 4, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*
truther arguments arent very silly when you continually wind up with your ass handed to you.*


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 4, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



*read the footer below, pshychologists warn us that posers/debunkers/huggers are bat shit crazy losers.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 4, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


 
*do you think that maybe its because the kid who built it in his back yard didnt construct it according to the patents?*

No. I think its because there would have to be tens of thousands, hundreds of which would have been dislodged by the planes crashing into the towers. And because the patented version wouldn't even self consume.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 4, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...




*you are confused as usual.  try to sort it all out next time;.*


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 4, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...




*scratch you off the credible demolition knowledge list.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 4, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


 
Idiot says what?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 4, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...





Skylar said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


*
you may want to study video forensics and stop talking tard.  otherwise its a well known fact that debunkers huggers and posers are are too fucking stoopid to recognize whats going on any other way.*


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 4, 2015)

Looks ok to me

awe skylar did I ignore you?

So sorry, sure here is a cutter just for you, just to show you what backwards neanderthal you are.





the technology is really easy and simple. you could make on in your back yard and it slices through steel far better than a hot knife through butter and requires very little thermate too.

Oh yeh, well the proof is all that molten shit, unless you want to go for a nook, otherwise the only other options you have available that could produce that kind of heat are the looney tune posers and official story huggers hot air.


Nah its fun watching ignoramusus maximus huggerus wallow in foolishness.

Actually the amount of high grade thermate needed is very little since its only the catalyst and the devices are WAY smaller than what the predictions some web idiots made.  Especially if you dope em with generically speaking exotic metals.

I suppose you are one of the neandrathals who think the only way is det cord?

Just watch the pretty twinkles and you can follow the sychronization

Oh and this one is NOT the wtc




This one is 



Now had you taken the time to actually understand the material you are ridiculing you wouldnt look so foolish aboyt now.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 4, 2015)

Where is the video of the self consuming device?

Or the ones that magically self-destruct, after they're dislodged?


----------



## Faun (Jan 4, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


Moronic distraction. I don't know the names of all the folks who worked on the Apollo 11 mission but I still know thousands worked on it and landed two men on the moon.

But here, check out this video ....


...that's 43 separate eye witnesses who caught it on video plus additional eye witnesses seen in some of the videos. There were also millions more who lived and worked within eye shot of the Twin Towers, many of whom were watching when the second plane hit as they were watching the fire burn from the first plane.


----------



## Faun (Jan 4, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> Looks ok to me
> 
> awe skylar did I ignore you?
> 
> ...


So simple yet you can't prove a single one ever existed in 2001, was powerful enough to cut through an actual steel beam, or explain why none were found.

 Other than your hallucinations, you have nothing at all.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 5, 2015)

Faun said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



the ghost plane HAHAHA

this among several other compositing errors proves its a composite fake, if you think its not be my guest and prove it.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 5, 2015)

Faun said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Looks ok to me
> ...



you may want to stop doing drugs before posting or are you a psychopathic liar?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 5, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Where is the video of the self consuming device?
> 
> Or the ones that magically self-destruct, after they're dislodged?



buy one FFS!

no one is stopping you.  are you too fucking stoopid to read patents.

How do you know anything was dislodged?  Got proof?


----------



## Faun (Jan 5, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


The proof exists in no less than 43 video recordings, each one recorded independently. The burden to prove they are all 100% faked falls upon you -- beginning with evidence of whomever you delude yourself into believing was behind 9.11, acquiring 100% of the videos ... editing 100% of the videos with the identical image of a plane striking the building, regardless of the angle ... rational explanation for how eyewitnesses said they saw the same image you claim was digitally added ... rational explanation for why not one single video exists without the plane striking the building ... rational explanation for why not a single person who recorded the event has claimed their video was edited by adding a plane which wasn't there.

The reality is -- you can't even begin to touch any one of those, no less all of them. You're still stuck with nothing at all but your psychotic delusions.


----------



## Faun (Jan 5, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


You retard.  I challenged you for proof that a "thermate cutter" existed in 2001 -- not proof of a drawing of one. 

Making an ass of yourself does not impress anyone.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 5, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


 

All of those videos were faked?

Can you tell us how many times you were dropped on your head?
At least give us a range.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 5, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


 
Where is the drawing for the magical self-consuming device?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 5, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Where is the video of the self consuming device?
> ...


 

*buy one FFS!*

Buy a magical device that only exists in your mind? Where?

*How do you know anything was dislodged?* 

Thousands of devices were secretly installed and none were dislodged by the planes hitting the buildings?
Wow, that's some precision flying.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 5, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Thousands of devices were secretly installed and none were dislodged by the planes hitting the buildings?



Nor destroyed by the ensuing fires. It's amazing how the planners of KooKoo's CT could know where those planes would hit and where those fires would burn and managed to rig their CD precisely where required to destroy all the critical supports.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 5, 2015)

Faun said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




heh heh

that last post a little painful for ya eh!  

You say the are real then I want to know every source with all the details, what kind of camera, the cameraman where they were standing the whole 9 yards.

Oh and good luck with that btw since they are video composites and computer generated.

I patiently await your _*proof *_that you have 43 distinct videos from different authors.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 5, 2015)

Faun said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Both thermate cutters and thermate welders existed when they made the railroad.

Face it you should have stayed in school instead of doing so many drugs.


> The thermite (_thermit_) reaction was discovered in 1893 and patented in 1895 by German chemist Hans Goldschmidt.[7] Consequently, the reaction is sometimes called the "Goldschmidt reaction" or "Goldschmidt process". Goldschmidt was originally interested in producing very pure metals by avoiding the use of carbon in smelting, but he soon discovered the value of thermite in welding.[8]
> 
> The first commercial application of thermite was the welding of tram tracks in Essen in 1899.[9]



Actually making an ass out of myself would shock many people, making an ass out of you on the other hand is another story, with both brains tied behind my head.

Have a wonderful day


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 5, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Thousands of devices were secretly installed and none were dislodged by the planes hitting the buildings?
> ...



hey loonar tick, thermate cutters are immune to fires, see if you can figure out why! 

I feel like I entered tardville, got anyone with a functional braincell around here other than me?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 5, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


 
*I feel like I entered tardville*

The day you were born.
 If you ever decide to move out of there, let us know.


----------



## Faun (Jan 5, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


Of course they're computer generated.  That's why there are eyewitnesses who said they saw a plane fly into the building.  Because eyewitnesses saw a computer generated image while looking at the WTC. 

You come up with the dumbest shit.

Like asking for proof that 43 distinct videos came from 43 distinct "authors." Moron, first of all, an author writes. These were video recordings. I posted a video of 43 separate videos of the event from 43 different angles from various parts of the city and New Jersey, many of which were recorded with hand held cameras. That requires as many as 43 distinct people.

Meanwhile, I note you can't even touch the points I made.

Not one.


----------



## Faun (Jan 5, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


Holyfuckingshit!! 

After all your posting, it turns out you don't know the difference between "thermite welding" and a "thermate cutter."



That would be like you saying the Chinese had AK-47s in the 1300's because they invented gunpowder in the 9th century.


----------



## whitehall (Jan 5, 2015)

Since the conspiracy went on for several years, president Clinton had to be part of it. What did Clinton know and when did he know it?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 5, 2015)

Faun said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



geezus yer a dumbass.

why dont you tell us what you think is so vastly different outside the way it is applied to the material.

Dont hold your breath people the dumbass cant answer that.


----------



## Faun (Jan 5, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


The difference is a cutter, as you insanely claim was employed to bring down the Twin Towers, didn't exist yet. Again, this is akin to my gun powder analogy. What a pity you're not equipped with the necessary tools to grasp it.


----------



## Skylar (Jan 5, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Laughing.....then where are all the thousands and thousands of thermite cutters? They would have been the size of small cars. Yet...nothing.

And why were not girders cut in a manner consist with thermite?

And why were there no thermite reactions?

And why didn't anyone notice these giant canisters hanging off the side of girders?

And what of the FDNY that gives a completely different account, accurately predicting the collapse of WTC 7 due to fire to within 30 minutes?

And how would any such 'thermite' system work if on fire?

You can resolve any of these theory killing holes in your silly conspiracy. Talk to me when you can.


----------



## Skylar (Jan 5, 2015)

Faun said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




And of course, where were they in the wreckage. The cutter would have been enormous, obvious, the source of huge quantities of slag, and numbered by the 10s of thousands.

Yet.....jack shit.


----------



## Capstone (Jan 5, 2015)

US4216721.pdf describes a "thermite penetration device" that was patented on August 12, 1980 (after having been filed for in 1972).

US5698812.pdf describes a "thermite destructive device" patented in 1997, which improved on the former device by venting the top (note that the potential for use with thermate-th3 is explicitly mentioned in the document).

Both devices could serve the purpose of a "thermate cutter charge", and both had long been available to military contractors on 9/11/01.


----------



## Skylar (Jan 5, 2015)

Capstone said:


> US4216721.pdf describes a "thermite penetration device" that was patented on August 12, 1980 (after having been filed for in 1972).
> 
> US5698812.pdf describes a "thermite destructive device" patented in 1997, which improved on the former device by venting the top (note that thermate-th3 is explicitly mentioned in the document).
> 
> Both devices could serve the purpose of a "thermate cutter charge", and both had long been available to military contractors on 9/11/01.



Then where were they? Tocut a girder, you'd need something roughly the size of a compact car. And you'd need them by the thousands.

The other is a grenade. And there were no girders cut in a manner consistent with grenades.

Or thermite, for that matter.

Nor were there any thermite reactions, despite the thermite theory requiring 10s of thousands.

So......how's that working out for you?


----------



## Faun (Jan 5, 2015)

Capstone said:


> US4216721.pdf describes a "thermite penetration device" that was patented on August 12, 1980 (after having been filed for in 1972).
> 
> US5698812.pdf describes a "thermite destructive device" patented in 1997, which improved on the former device by venting the top (note that the potential for use with thermate-th3 is explicitly mentioned in the document).
> 
> Both devices could serve the purpose of a "thermate cutter charge", and both had long been available to military contractors on 9/11/01.


Patents don't prove anything. There are many patents which were never developed. Try showing evidence that such a device actually existed prior to 9.11 and worked as designed.


----------



## Capstone (Jan 6, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Then where were they? Tocut a girder, you'd need something roughly the size of a compact car. And you'd need them by the thousands. ...



Not to concede the point as to the size or number of military-grade cutter charge devices required to account for the observable aspects of the "collapses", but where were _many_ things that should have been present in the debris piles, absent the use of incendiaries/pyrotechnics?  Several witnesses and participants in the clean-up efforts remarked on the virtual lack of recognizable pieces from the enormous quantity of office equipment, furniture, ETC., particularly from the vast majority of the lower floors of the Twins, which, according to the official story, experienced few or no fires prior to the "collapses". What _were_ discovered *at the bottom of the piles* (indicating self-contained oxygen sources) were streams and pools of molten metals, which should lead any rational person to wonder whether _that's_ where many of the conspicuously missing objects ended up.

It's also perfectly reasonable to suspect that any badly mangled remnants of demolition devices that may have been recovered (perhaps unknowingly) during the clean-up stages were likely shipped-out (in quick fasion) along with the bulk of the crime scene evidence.

Regarding the majority of the "thermitic reactions", they took place from the inside-out and were therefore covered, first by the intact building materials/components and then by the horizontally ejected clouds of pulverized building materials/components (along with everything else in the buildings, including human beings). This was particularly effective in the top-down initiations of the "collapses" of buildings 1 and 2, because the laterally-ejected debris clouds also cascaded downward due to gravity, providing some cover for what was going on with lower portions of the buildings at the time of their respective destructions. Having said all of that, there were possible thermitic reactions caught on tape during what may have been either an intentional pre-weakening ignition or an unintentional one of the pre-coated interior columns/walls. I'm talking about the videos of yellow/reddish molten metal pouring out from exploded windows prior to the "collapses". There were also a number of "squibs" caught on camera during the "collapses", which are typical of top-down implosions (I think there's a video out there of a known top-down demolition of a high-rise building in China, in which all the characteristics observed in the destructions of buildings 1 and 2 are visible, as well).

As for how my beliefs are working out for me, all I can say is that remaining true to my core principles is its own reward, yes, even in the face of heavy ridicule from sell-outs like you and others on this board.


----------



## Capstone (Jan 6, 2015)

Faun said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > US4216721.pdf describes a "thermite penetration device" that was patented on August 12, 1980 (after having been filed for in 1972).
> ...



Those aren't your run-of-the-mill patents, Faun; they're military patents.

My dad (Ret. Air Force, now deceased) worked on the SR-71 project several years before most people (even in the military) knew it existed. The lack of widespread knowledge of (or access to) much of the evidence of a thing's existence aren't themselves evidence of its lack of existence. That's true of all things, but most especially true where many military things are concerned.


----------



## irosie91 (Jan 6, 2015)

I saw the buildings collapse-----they neither imploded
as one sees in a controlled demolition-----nor did anything
SHOOT outward----horizontally-----until the collapse hit bottom
when the energy of the collapse propelled stuff all over
the city-----from the bottom outward-----bodies were not thrown
out    THEY JUMPED------some fell out and down-----nothing got TOSSED out from the upper end


----------



## daws101 (Jan 6, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


how do you punch holes in a gigantic hole. nothing you 've posted ever is based on fact...


----------



## daws101 (Jan 6, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


*Correspondence from James Bennett to Laurie Manwell with Responses
(06/17/07 to 06/17/07):
James Bennett:*
I was reading your paper published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and I was wondering
why you misrepresented the Angus-Reid poll on page 16:
"An Angus-Reid poll comparing responses from 2002 and 2006 found similar results, and
that in 2006, _only _16% of Americans believed that the government is telling the truth

about the events of 9/11[16].” "
If you go to the poll, which you footnote, you find that that question does not even ask
people whether they believe "the government is lying about the events of 9/11":
81. When it comes to what they knew _prior _to September 11th, 2001, about possible

terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush
Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or
are they mostly lying?
On the contrary, it very specifically asks people whether they believe that government
was lying about warnings of terrorist attacks, not the attacks themselves. This becomes
even more obvious when you read the previous two poll questions, which ask whether
they believe the Clinton and Bush administrations paid enough attention to terrorism.
So I have to ask, why did you entirely change the premise of the question for your paper,
and are you going to issue a correction?
*Laurie Manwell:*
I must respectfully disagree with your interpretation. I did state in my paper that it was
regarding the "events of 9/11" which, in fact, includes prior knowledge of the attacks.
I would also argue that this fact itself, _foreknowledge of the attacks, is the single most
important fact, _because if properly dealt with, all of the events of 9/11 could have been

prevented.
Moreover, it speaks to the fact that the majority of people believe that George W. Bush is
lying about many things and consider such behavior to be above the law. Below are some
of the other questions that I also considered in making my statement. Misrepresentation
of the events of 9/11 – both before, during and after – have been well documented and
many people are becoming more and more aware that the official account of the events of
9/11 is full of lies.

not credible!  any scientist  making the above statements is erroneously speculating !
http://www.journalof911studies.com/... Bennett to Laurie Manwell with Responses.pdf

*James Bennett:*
Thanks for the response, but I think you are being somewhat disingenuous. No
honest person is going to think that "what they knew prior to 9/11" and the
"events of 9/11" are synonymous. In fact even you indicate that you think
they are two different issues when you state that with prior knowledge of
the attacks "all of the events of 9/11 could have been prevented." If you
actually regarded these as interchangeable, that statement would be
illogical.
Incidentally that logic is also based on the assumption that the attacks were
carried out by a third party, not by the US government, as one does not
receives "warnings" from oneself, which seems to contradict your main
thesis.
*Laurie Manwell:*
It seems that you have an agenda here rather than open discussion of the topic of my
paper. Nowhere do I say that the US government "did it" and nor is my main thesis that.
All research is subject to interpretation and I include all of my sources for
verification.
If you strongly disagree I would encourage you to write a letter or article
for submission to the Journal of 9/11 Studies where we can debate this issue within an
academic - rather than personal - domain, as I am not sure what your point is other than
to attack me personally by calling me disingenuous.
If you wish to discuss the research professionally that is fine but I am not interested in
responding to questions regarding my character, especially since we do not even know
each other.
*James Bennett:*
Actually I would argue that you have a personal agenda, otherwise you would
not have changed the wording from "what they knew prior to September
11th, 2001," to "the events of 9/11". There is no reason to do that except to advance an
agenda.
I have already had letters posted on the Journal. I have no interest in
having any articles posted to what is essentially a crackpot echo
chamber without academic or intellectual standards.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 6, 2015)

Capstone said:


> US4216721.pdf describes a "thermite penetration device" that was patented on August 12, 1980 (after having been filed for in 1972).
> 
> US5698812.pdf describes a "thermite destructive device" patented in 1997, which improved on the former device by venting the top (note that the potential for use with thermate-th3 is explicitly mentioned in the document).
> 
> Both devices could serve the purpose of a "thermate cutter charge", and both had long been available to military contractors on 9/11/01.


odd how no whole or part of said cutter charge were found, neither was the signature cutting style of said units.


----------



## Faun (Jan 6, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Capstone said:
> ...


Nothing personal, but your words carry no weight. Saying _people knew they existed, I just can't prove it,_ proves it as much as claiming your dad knew there were aliens in area 51.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 6, 2015)

Faun said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


that's an old twoofer trick.
koko's show me documented proof  nonsense is denial of reality at it's best.


----------



## MrDVS1 (Jan 6, 2015)

Like I've always said 9/11 was an inside job. The official story is too full of holes to be believed, except by people who don't know much of anything.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 6, 2015)

MrDVS1 said:


> Like I've always said 9/11 was an inside job. The official story is too full of holes to be believed, except by people who don't know much of anything.


speaking of people who don't know jack shit about anything
here's one now.
before you start to go off on erroneous speculation... be prepared to have your ass handed to you.
btw real life has lots of holes in it.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 6, 2015)

daws101 said:


> MrDVS1 said:
> 
> 
> > Like I've always said 9/11 was an inside job. The official story is too full of holes to be believed, except by people who don't know much of anything.
> ...



Yeh so says the tard that doesnt know the difference between the bank building and wtc7.

too bad they dont have a 'what a dumb fuck' button I can click!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 6, 2015)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



great post dawes, too bad it doesnt have one damn thing to do with this thread.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 6, 2015)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



it seems to work on the amoeba you call a brain as you manage to demonstrate in every post.  Now if you could only a find a few more maybe you could conjure up a coherent post.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 6, 2015)

irosie91 said:


> I saw the buildings collapse-----they neither imploded
> as one sees in a controlled demolition-----nor did anything
> SHOOT outward----horizontally-----until the collapse hit bottom
> when the energy of the collapse propelled stuff all over
> ...




Might be an awesome post if you can *PROVE IT*

Lets see your EVIDENCE and examine how you conjured up your assumptions.

Oh btw the whole world saw the building collapse DUH!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 6, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...




and you base that on what?  as usual your wild imagination?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 6, 2015)

Capstone said:


> US4216721.pdf describes a "thermite penetration device" that was patented on August 12, 1980 (after having been filed for in 1972).
> 
> US5698812.pdf describes a "thermite destructive device" patented in 1997, which improved on the former device by venting the top (note that the potential for use with thermate-th3 is explicitly mentioned in the document).
> 
> Both devices could serve the purpose of a "thermate cutter charge", and both had long been available to military contractors on 9/11/01.



true.

thermate cutters are made with highly doped incendiary materials, very little thermate is required and it operates like a cety torch for all intents and purposes, only can slich through virtually any reasonable thickness of steel as low as milliseconds, and of course like a torch you need very little gas.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 6, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Then where were they? Tocut a girder, you'd need something roughly the size of a compact car. And you'd need them by the thousands. ...
> ...


----------



## Faun (Jan 7, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


----------



## Faun (Jan 7, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


You are truly demented. Only a fruit loop dingus is incapable of noticing the demolitions you post exhibit explosions *before* the structures begin to collapse. Unlike the Twin Towers.

That you have to resort to lying exposes just how vacuous your insane claims are.


----------



## irosie91 (Jan 7, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > I saw the buildings collapse-----they neither imploded
> ...



"prove"  WHAT?   -----as you say---   "the whole world saw it"
       I really did not know that.            then the whole world knows that there was no visible evidence of implosion and
people and objects were not jettisoned outward as one would
see in an    EXPLOSION  ---of the kind used in demolitions----     to what  "assumptions" do you allude?


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 7, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


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



C'mon, KooKoo, you're not stupid. 9/11HandJob has no options ... his whole world collapses without his 9/11 beliefs. So just what is it that causes you to cling so desperately to your 9/11 CT silliness even as so many of your comrades have bailed out? Fear that you are nothing without it? Just trying to get laid? Doing it for the laughs?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 7, 2015)

Faun said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Capstone said:
> ...



yeh if you were not a dumb ass youd be nothing at all! LOL





Capstone was kind enough to post a couple very well written explanations that obviously were wasted on ass helmets.

just watch the pretty sparklies


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 7, 2015)

irosie91 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



yeh on tv dumb ass.

I suppose you are one of the idjits that believe everything you see on tv.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 7, 2015)

SAYIT said:


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



your lies.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 7, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



OK ... so maybe my last post was a bit optimistic. Perhaps you really are just as stupid as 9/11HandJob.


----------



## Skylar (Jan 7, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




The fact that there's never been one report, photograph or video of even one of these car sized cutters. Before, during or after the collapse. Not by the port authority bomb squad that searched the plaza only a week before 911. Not by any of the fire fighters, janitors, engineers or building managers during the attack. And nothing at any part of the clean up. Ever. 

And your theory requires thousands. Tens of thousands if you include WTC 1 and 2. Yet absolutely nothing.

So where were the thousnads and thousands of truck sized canisters? This isn't a trivial detail. But a great big, huge bleeding hole in your silly conspiracy. One of many.


----------



## Skylar (Jan 8, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Not to concede the point as to the size or number of military-grade cutter charge devices required to account for the observable aspects of the "collapses", but where were _many_ things that should have been present in the debris piles, absent the use of incendiaries/pyrotechnics?



Several enormous problems with that analysis. If we're talking about WTC 7, Koko has imagined that they went off on the top floors. Meaning they would have been near the top of the debris pile. Yet....nothing. None was ever found. And there would have had to have been thousands. These would have been huge, enormously heavy canisters each about 10 to 12 feet long and about 3.5 to 4 feet in diameter, sticking sideways off the side of each girder. On each floor. By the thousands.

Yet there were none.

*Second, thermite is intensely, ludicrously, insanely bright.* So bright that it will literally damage your eyes if you look directly at it. With nano-thermite being even more laughably bright, being used in fire works. Meaning that any thermite reaction of the magnitude being described would have been seen for miles. And there would have been thousands and thousand and thousands of them. Yet, nothing. Not one.

*Third, thermite provides its own oxygen. It can't be extinguished.* So once it started burning, it would have kept burning until all thermite is consumed. And yet even after the building had collapsed, there were no thermite reactions. Despite girders splattered across 9 square blocks and embedded in nearby buildings, there were no thermite reactions.Unless you're arguing that every single one of tens of thousands of individual reactions just happened to land jam side down and be invisible to the naked eye, then the theory dies again.

*Fourth WTC 1 and 2 fell exactly opposite of controlled demolition.* Controlled demolition starts at the bottom with the entire buildling falling at once to the ground. The WTC 1 and 2 fell top to bottom. With the collapse initiating on the floors hit by the planes, and then falling one story at a time all the way to the ground. Meaning that each and every floor, from the point the collapsed initiated all the way to the ground would have been subject to thermite demolition per the thermite conspiracy. 

Yet, nothing.

*Fifth, half of the WTC's load bearing girders were on the outside of the building. *Open to the office space on one side and open air on the other. With roughly 250 outer panels per floor and 47 core columns per floor, that means that *5 in 6 thermite reactions would have been visible on the outside of the building per the thermite theory. Yet...there were no such reactions. . *

*Sixth, thermite MELTS metal. THere were no girders cut in a manner consistent with thermite.* None. There were twisted girders. There were bent girders. There were no cut girders. Quite simply obliterating the absurd thermite theory yet again. 

*Seventh, the buildings were on fire.* With building fires scattered across the WTC 1 and 2. And WTC fully engaged with fires on virtually all floors. Any aparatus of explosive demolition, timers, det cord, radio receivers, control boards, etc.....would have melted. Yet per the thermite theory, they went off in perfect sequence. There's simply no way for this type of coordination to have been accomplished in a burning building. 

*Eight, these buildings weren't museums.* They were occupied. They were regularly inspected. They were maintained. They were cleaned. With each floor having 249 outer panels and 47 core columns, and there being 90 floors to the ground from the impact site on the north tower and 79 to the ground on the south......that means that there would have had to have been over 50,000 car sized thermite canisters sticking sideways in WTC 1 and 2.

50,000. And no one ever saw 1. Not even the port authority bomb squad that inspected the building only 1 week before it came down. There's no plausible way this many devices, or any number close to it could have been hidden. Rendering the theory more useless idiocy. 



> Several witnesses and participants in the clean-up efforts remarked on the virtual lack of recognizable pieces from the enormous quantity of office equipment, furniture, ETC., particularly from the vast majority of the lower floors of the Twins, which, according to the official story, experienced few or no fires prior to the "collapses". What _were_ discovered *at the bottom of the piles* (indicating self-contained oxygen sources) were streams and pools of molten metals, which should lead any rational person to wonder whether _that's_ where many of the conspicuously missing objects ended up.



There were such reports 3 months after the WTC came down. So...if your explanation is thermite, and thermite can't be extinguished, and the reactions began on 911 when the tower fell, that means that upto 50,000 different thermite reactions would have had to have been burning for 2,160 hours, none stop. *The quantity of thermite necessary to burn that long would have been roughly the size of the WTC itself. *

But it gets so much worse. Because the standing theory is NANO thermite. Which burns so, so much faster than thermite. Meaning that it would consumed about an order of magnitude more nano-thermite over that same 2,160 hours of time than thermite. Meaning the pile of nano-thermite would have been roughly the size of the WTC plaza itself. *You would have been able to see the pile from orbit. *

And it was burning, with fire work intensity......*.for 3 months. *Yet no one ever saw a single thermite reaction, not an ounce of thermite, not a single charge, not a single canister, not a single inch of det cord, nor any apparatus of controlled demolition. 

*Ever.*

Demonstrating the physical impossibility of the thermite theory. And the ludicrous absurdity of it. 



> It's also perfectly reasonable to suspect that any badly mangled remnants of demolition devices that may have been recovered (perhaps unknowingly) during the clean-up stages were likely shipped-out (in quick fasion) along with the bulk of the crime scene evidence.



Something the size of a small car, sticking sideways off the girders every 12 feet or so? Um, not its not reasonable to assume those would have been missed. Especially in the quantities that the thermite theory requires. 50,000 of them. 

*And of course, there were no cut girders. Not one.* Your theory doesn't work. Its an awful, awful explanation that's factually baseless, ludicrously complicated, insanely elaborate, contradicted by overwhelming evidence, and doesn't make the slightest sense.



> Regarding the majority of the "thermitic reactions", they took place from the inside-out and were therefore covered, first by the intact building materials/components and then by the horizontally ejected clouds of pulverized building materials/components (along with everything else in the buildings, including human beings).



Ah, but your theory mandates molten metal 3 MONTHS after the collapse. So the reactions would have been burning still, even AS the building collapsed. And for months afterwards. We would have seen thousands upon thousands of such reactions as the building came apart even if they were only on the inside. As they are insanely bright....being the primary ingredients in FIREWORKS. They would have been absolutely impossible to miss and there would have been dozens of videos of them from every conceivable angle. 

*Yet there were none. Absolutely none. Not at any point before, during or after the collapse. Despite your theory requiring tens of thousands.*

And of course, there were no girders cut. Which just beats the rotting carcass of a dead horse that is your silly conspiracy.

Your theory just sucks. Its an awful explanation of events. And there's exactly dick to back it up. Your story might as well begin with 'once upon a time'. 



> This was particularly effective in the top-down initiations of the "collapses" of buildings 1 and 2, because the laterally-ejected debris clouds also cascaded downward due to gravity, providing some cover for what was going on with lower portions of the buildings at the time of their respective destructions.



The thermite reactions you're describing would have been like small suns in the building by the 10s of thousands. Even if you assume ONLY the core columns (which carry only half the gravity load of the structure), that's still 8000 separate reactions between the towers. Which your theory mandates burned for 3 months. Any one of which would have burned so brightly that it would have easily been seen the dust. And 8000 of them would have been so ludicrously obvious that anyone looking at the towers probably would have substained permenant damage to their eyes from the overwhelming brightness.

Yet we saw absolute none. Not a single reaction. Not a single cut girder. Not a single canister. Not a single charge.

Nothing. Which is what your theory is worth.


----------



## Faun (Jan 8, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


When are you going to show a video of a demolished build that *doesn't * start with visible explosions?


----------



## irosie91 (Jan 8, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



I saw it from  my living room window.     I was getting ready to
go to work -------on the subway  ----A  LINE----the one that passes right under the  World Trade Center-------the mossad
had forgotten to call me and tell me to  STAY HOME THAT DAY


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 8, 2015)

irosie91 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...




saw what?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 8, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > Not to concede the point as to the size or number of military-grade cutter charge devices required to account for the observable aspects of the "collapses", but where were _many_ things that should have been present in the debris piles, absent the use of incendiaries/pyrotechnics?
> ...



you kids really need to educate yourselves before playing investigator

Yeh they had a hell of a time, it just flares up worse!





The evidence left behind from thermate cutters is melted metal  DUH




you neandrathals just a little behind the times eh.




yep its pretty brite





yep quite brite indeedie







sure thats normal every day steel! LMAO


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 8, 2015)

Faun said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




how many times do I have to show it? Pull your heads out of yer asses and , wipe off your glasses!

ok here goes!  Are you ready?





they lit that fucker right up.

not a lame cheapo demo like this one.


----------



## irosie91 (Jan 8, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



I am delighted that you are interested in my life.      I saw----THICK PLUME of smoke----rising from the    WTC  building.
The TV news was on--------"airplane struck the building"
"oh damn,,    some  'piper cub'   from teterboro airport
went out of control'  <<< I thought" -----"the pilot must have died"  <<<< I thought.      Hubby said  "TERRORISM"
----"don't be silly"     I said.          I watched ------then SUDDENLY ----the second  building      BANG


----------



## Skylar (Jan 8, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Capstone said:
> ...


And what, pray tell, is that a video of? With sources please. You've got a rather nasty little history of offering us bullshit claims in animated gifs, or radically altered images.



> The evidence left behind from thermate cutters is melted metal  DUH
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Um, slick....that's not a thermite reaction. That's not even molten metal.

Try again.



>



Oh, Tom Sullivan?* Are you really stupid enough to quote him again?* Do you think we already forgot that the patent your 'expert' cited wasn't a cutter.....but an low energy igniter? That it doesn't actually cut shit? That Sullivvan's claim was so utterly debunked that even AE911 folks printed a retraction and abandoned his claims?

Laughing.....well, here's a refresher course, provided by none other than yours truly:

Here's what Tom Sullivan said:



> _In the case of Thermite cutter charges, that may also be the case [referring to being used in the World Trade Center]. Thermite self-consuming cutter charge casings have been around since first patented back in 1984._


_
And here's the patent that Tom Sullivan gave the AE911Truth to back up his claim;_



> _Application Number: 06/494487
> Publication Date: 08/14/1984
> Integral low-energy thermite igniter - The United States of America as represented by the United States_



_AE911Truther even labeled this 'Thermite Cutting Charge' on their website. For a while anyway. Until someone actually looked at the patent and realized it wasn't a cutting charge. It was a low energy thermite*ignition* system. 
_


> _This invention relates to a new low-energy integral thermite igniter/heat source, e.g., for use in igniting larger charges, e.g., propellant charges.
> 
> Integral low-energy thermite igniter - The United States of America as represented by the United States_


_
Yeah, nothing says 'cutting through a steel column in milliseconds' like the phrase 'low energy'. Which AE911Truth realized a little too late. *And you never realized at all.* They even had to post a retraction:
_


> _We incorrectly identified the thermite device illustrated in this article as a cutter charge... Our intention was to note that the technology for self consuming consolidated thermite cases existed as far back as 1984 (Source)_
> 
> Correction and Clarification Article Explosive Evidence at WTC Cited by Former CDI Employee



_*Laughing.......Oops, is it?* So much for your 'expert' testimony. And you want to know the fun part? You already know all of this......as you've already offered up your 'self consuming cutter' bullshit, and already abandoned it *when I slapped you down 4 months ago*
_
The mossad and CIA did 9 11.overwhelming facts prove it. Page 25 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

*And like a dog returning to its own vomit, you just tried to sneak that bullshit in again!* Laughing....as always, truther conspiracies require an ignorant audience. As you know your 'self consuming cutter' is blithering nonsense. But really hope we don't.

You're really not very good at this, are you Koko?




> sure thats normal every day steel! LMAO



And where, pray tell are these images from? With sources, please. As your colossal blunder with Tom Sullivan just demonstrated, your typical animated gif bullshit isn't going to cut it.

Oh, and Koko dear.....*where are the thousands and thousands and thousands of car sized 'cutters' your theory requires? *This is a detail that isn't going away.


----------



## Skylar (Jan 8, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> how many times do I have to show it? Pull your heads out of yer asses and , wipe off your glasses!
> 
> ok here goes!  Are you ready?
> 
> ...



The obvious problem with your analysis being that the altered black and white footage* isn't the actual video.* The color image is the actual video. And it shows no lights, no explosions, no thermite reactions, nothing. You have no actual footage of the collapse that shows anything you claim.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have had to 'creatively edit' and digitally alter the video to support it.



> n




And where pray tell did your video come from? Its odd that you can't show us any actual video that supports anything you've said. *Only digitally altered images from...somewhere. *

Show us the original video. Not your creatively edited, digitally altered version. And you've never been able to. Not in 6 months. And we both now why:

*The unedited and unaltered video doesn't show what you claim it does. *

Oh, and Koko...where are the thousands upon thousands of car sized canisters that your theory requires? 

As there are none. Nor any thermite reactions. Nor any plausible way they could have been hidden. Or used while the building was on fire.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 8, 2015)

foia releases.

Never been to the nist site eh? 

and foolish enough to argue with me?  interesting.

*you can do the same thing by turning the brightness down and contrast up on your computer monitor,* but most debunkers /huggers and posers are too tarded to do that with anything they do not want to see.

No material alteration, something else tards do not understand. 






they lit that fucker right up.

If not thermite then linear shaped charges, unless you think osama bin laden cloned himself and flipped lights on and off on every other floor in perfect demolition sequence.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 8, 2015)

seems you have personal issues?

you think thats normal every day steel! LMAO





_And where, pray tell are these images from? With sources, please. As your colossal blunder with Tom Sullivan just demonstrated, your typical animated gif bullshit isn't going to cut it._

_Oh, and Koko dear.....*where are the thousands and thousands and thousands of car sized 'cutters' your theory requires? *This is a detail that isn't going away._

Yeh sullivan (the demolition loader) does cut it, youve got toilets to finish cleaning, get crackin. 
Leave demolition to people who know something about it.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 8, 2015)

That's not even molten metal.

Really are you that fucking dumb?  
*What is it then?*











*Second, thermite is intensely, ludicrously, insanely bright.* So bright that it will literally damage your eyes if you look directly at it. 

Kid dont look blind to me, wtf is wrong with you?

*



*
*Third, thermite provides its own oxygen. It can't be extinguished.* 

*NYFD found that out the hard way, *

*



*
*Fourth WTC 1 and 2 fell exactly opposite of controlled demolition.* Controlled demolition starts at the bottom 

*Controlled demolition starts wherever you want to start it at.*


*Fifth, half of the WTC's load bearing girders were on the outside of the building. *

*I suppose you think they were on the lawn.*





*Sixth, thermite MELTS metal. THere were no girders cut in a manner consistent with thermite.* 

*Maximus dumb assinus, look again*






*Seventh, the buildings were on fire.* With building fires scattered across the WTC 1 and 2. And WTC fully engaged with fires on virtually all floors. Any aparatus of explosive demolition, timers, det cord, radio receivers, control boards, etc.....would have melted. Yet per the thermite theory, they went off in perfect sequence. There's simply no way for this type of coordination to have been accomplished in a burning building.

*Dont quit your day job, we dont want to sit on dirty toilets.  the sprinklers were working, the massive fire lie did not happen on wtc2.  As for the rest of what you said, prove it since its the usual it Poser stupidity.*


*Eight, these buildings weren't museums.* They were occupied. They were regularly inspected that means that there would have had to have been over 50,000 car sized thermite canisters sticking sideways in WTC 1 and 2.

50,000. And no one ever saw 1. Not even the port authority bomb squad that inspected the building only 1 week before it came down. There's no plausible way this many devices, or any number close to it could have been hidden. Rendering the theory more useless idiocy.

*So we can rule out 'conventional' explosives, which leaves thermate and nukes or the port authority for some reason didnt see it.*


*The quantity of thermite necessary to burn that long would have been roughly the size of the WTC itself.*
*Demonstrating the physical impossibility of the thermite theory. And the ludicrous absurdity of it. *

*Bullshit prove it. caveat: Using the patented devices not myth tards who cant even light a match and get it to burn*





*And of course, there were no cut girders. Not one.* 
*
LIES as the pics above clearly show*

*Ah, but your theory mandates molten metal 3 MONTHS after the collapse. *
*Mandates no such thing, prove it.*

*no thats not my theory that your retarded restatement of my theory illustrating you are a asshelmet fucktard dumbass who couldnt find his ass despite your head is stuck in it.*

*Yet there were none. Absolutely none. Not at any point before, during or after the collapse. Despite your theory requiring tens of thousands.*

*Again they are self consuming*

*Just because sullivan or who whoever sited the igniter for a cutter that you would have people believe does not exist it does not change the FACT they are a reality despite your head is up your ass.*


----------



## daws101 (Jan 8, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > MrDVS1 said:
> ...


which bank?
(pressing dumb fuck button)


----------



## daws101 (Jan 8, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


false! they would be your lies...why because everything in the truther universe is based on lies, misperceptions, gullibility, stupidity, ignorance, hubris and a highly tenuous grasp of reality.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 8, 2015)

irosie91 said:


> I am delighted that you are interested in my life.      I saw----THICK PLUME of smoke----rising from the    WTC  building.
> The TV news was on--------"airplane struck the building"
> "oh damn,,    some  'piper cub'   from teterboro airport
> went out of control'  <<< I thought" -----"the pilot must have died"  <<<< I thought.      Hubby said  "TERRORISM"
> ----"don't be silly"     I said.          I watched ------then SUDDENLY ----the second  building      BANG


I am not the least bit interested in your life.

So you saw a piper cub


----------



## daws101 (Jan 8, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Capstone said:
> ...


Conspiracy sites like to bring up molten metal found 6 weeks after the buildings fell to suggest a bomb must have created the effect. The explanation doesn't go into the amount of explosive material needed because it would be an absurd amount. There is another explanation which is more plausible.
* Before reading the below, it might be a good idea for the novice to read Mark Ferran's explanation on how* "*Iron Burns!!!*"




 Oxidation of iron by air is not the only EXOTHERMIC reaction of iron (= structural steel which is about 98 % Fe, 1 % Mn, 0.2 % C, 0.2 % Si.....). There is at least one additional reaction of iron with the capability of keeping the rubble pile hot and cooking!

The reaction between IRON AND STEAM is also very EXOTHERMIC and fast at temperatures above 400 deg C. This reaction produces Fe3O4 AND HYDROGEN. It is the classic example of a REVERSIBLE REACTION studied in Chemistry labs at high school. But believe it or not, back at the turn of the century, the reaction of iron and steam was used as an industrial process for the manufacture of hydrogen.
I think iron and steam could have reacted in this way (at least for a while) and generated a lot of heat. What is more, the hydrogen released would have been converted back to water by reaction with oxygen, thereby generating even more heat. In this case spraying water on the rubble pile was like adding fuel to a fire!

Now add in gypsum reactions with H2 and CO and we have a great source of SO2 and/or H2S to sulfide the steel!
Perhaps the endless spraying of water on the rubble pile was not such a good idea!

In the usual lab experiment on the reversible reaction of iron and "steam", nitrogen (or some inert gas) is bubbled through water to create a gas stream saturated with water vapor at room temperature. This gas is then allowed to flow into a glass tube about 1 meter long containing iron in an inert boat at its center. This assembly is heated in a tube furnace to some desired temperature, say 500 deg C. The hydrogen/ nitrogen gas mixture is collected at the outlet of the tube furnace.

In the industrial process the feed gas might also be "water gas" which is a mixture of CO and water vapor. The outlet gas contains mostly H2 and CO2.

I am sure there was plenty of water vapor AND oxygen in the void spaces in the rubble pile. This is the "steam" I am referring to.

Please remember that the recovered pieces of structural steel were heavily OXIDIZED as well as sulfided. The most important oxidizing agents available in the rubble pile were obviously O2 and H2O.
The rubble pile was not only inhomogeneous with regard to its composition, it was inhomogeneous with regard to its temperature. This was due to localized chemical reactions. Such reactions were capable of generating high temperatures in these localized hot spots.

The demolitionists much beloved thermite is a good example, BUT NOT THE ONLY EXAMPLE. AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF WHATSOEVER THAT THERMITE, THERMATE, SOL-GEL NANO-THERMITE WAS EVER PRESENT AT THE WTC SITE!!!!!!

It is irrelevant whether or not the steam was wet or dry, that is a chemical engineering notion only of interest in a closed and controlled system, usually under high-pressure, such as a steam generator in a power station.

Water vapor was present in the rubble pile and water vapor reacts with iron releasing HYDROGEN.

ITS CALLED A CORROSION REACTION:

METAL + WATER = METAL OXIDE + HYDROGEN

WHEN IT HAPPENED AT THREE MILE ISLAND IT CREATED A HYDROGEN BUBBLE
- NEU-FONZE

Debunking 9 11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Steel Deformed by Fire


----------



## daws101 (Jan 8, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > I am delighted that you are interested in my life.      I saw----THICK PLUME of smoke----rising from the    WTC  building.
> ...


really? you gonna stick with that total denial of reality retort ?
speaking of issues....


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 8, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> The evidence left behind from thermate cutters is melted metal  DUH


 
Melted metal is not evidence of thermate cutters. Aluminum melts well below the estimated temp of the 9/11 fires and 13 years after the attack (and many years after the "Truther" Movement stopped trying to sell your BS) there remains absolutely no evidence of melted steel.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 8, 2015)

*Hey dumb ass, show me an example of water + iron + oxygen = MOLTEN IRON so I can heat my property with it.  Fucking dumb ass.*


----------



## daws101 (Jan 8, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> foia releases.
> 
> Never been to the nist site eh?
> 
> ...


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 8, 2015)

The evidence left behind from thermate cutters is melted metal  DUH

SAYIT
*Melted metal is not evidence of thermate cutters.* Aluminum melts well below the estimated temp of the 9/11 fires and 13 years after the attack (and many years after the "Truther" Movement stopped trying to sell your BS) there remains absolutely no evidence of melted steel.

*More poser dumb ass shit, why dont you guys get a fucking education?*




*
If I have to continue educating you it will cost your reputation.

So what do you think melted metal in a collapse is?*


----------



## daws101 (Jan 8, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> Hey dumb ass, show me an example of water + iron + oxygen = MOLTEN IRON so I can heat my property with it.  Fucking dumb ass.


posting to yourself.?
the shit you've been posting was debunked 5mins after it was presented...
you silly fuck!


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 8, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> The evidence left behind from thermate cutters is melted metal  DUH
> 
> Melted metal is not evidence of thermate cutters. Aluminum melts well below the estimated temp of the 9/11 fires and 13 years after the attack (and many years after the "Truther" Movement stopped trying to sell your BS) there remains absolutely no evidence of melted steel.
> 
> ...



In order to be educable by a leftover "Truther" who hasn't the good sense to know his movement is DEAD I'd need the radical lobotomy you clearly have already enjoyed.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 8, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> The evidence left behind from thermate cutters is melted metal  DUH
> 
> Melted metal is not evidence of thermate cutters. Aluminum melts well below the estimated temp of the 9/11 fires and 13 years after the attack (and many years after the "Truther" Movement stopped trying to sell your BS) there remains absolutely no evidence of melted steel.
> 
> ...


your point? there were no cutters of any kind  used in the 911 attack! 
your proof is meaningless.
you're not even brave enough to post your links to it. 
really chicken shit .


----------



## Faun (Jan 8, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


It must be nice to be as crazy as you. Makes it easy to see things that aren't there. In this case, the lights you see are the reaction to the interior of the building collapsing, not the other way around as you insanely posit. Evidence of this, aside from the fact that the flashes of do not occur before the collapse of the interior of the building, *is the absence of the brilliant flash of light produced by thermate as seen in all of your gif's demonstrating thermate being ignited. The flashes of light in your edited video are so dim, you had to darken the images to the point the building looks like a black box just to make them barely visible. *

Your delusions are noted as always.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 8, 2015)

*
*
*daws101*
your point? there were no cutters of any kind  used in the 911 attack! 
*your proof is meaningless.*
you're not even brave enough to post your links to it. 
really chicken shit .

*Now that was precious, when does your amoeba brain split?*


----------



## daws101 (Jan 8, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> *
> *
> *daws101*
> your point? there were no cutters of any kind  used in the 911 attack!
> ...


 that's what we call denial.
notice the obsessive needs to dehumanize his detractors.
never answering direct questions..
a text book case.


----------



## Faun (Jan 8, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> *
> *
> *daws101*
> your point? there were no cutters of any kind  used in the 911 attack!
> ...


Nice animated gif of molten aluminum dripping. Too bad that one image destroys your hallucinations. If it were planted thermite, there would have been hundreds, if not thousands, of such sightings. Instead, between 3 skyscrapers totaling about 250 stories -- *there was one. * And it burned for almost an hour until the building collapsed.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 8, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> foia releases.
> 
> Never been to the nist site eh?
> 
> ...


bahahahahahahah!
maybe one day you'll learn something real.

*Contrast* is the difference in luminance and/or color that makes an object (or its representation in an image or display) distinguishable. In visual perception of the real world, contrast is determined by the difference in the color and brightness of the object and other objects within the same field of view. Because the human visual system is more sensitive to contrast than absolute luminance, we can perceive the world similarly regardless of the huge changes in illumination over the day or from place to place. The maximum _contrast_ of an image is the contrast ratio or dynamic range.
Contrast is also the difference between the color or shading of the printed material on a document and the background on which it is printed, for example in optical character recognition.

*Brightness*

Brightness is an attribute of visual perception in which a source appears to be radiating or reflecting light. In other words, brightness is the perception elicited by the luminance of a visual target. This is a subjective attribute/property of an object being observed.
there is no way to know by fucking with those controls if the" bright spots" are explosions, fire or thermite. 

In other words, brightness is the perception elicited by the luminance of a visual target. This is a subjective attribute/property of an object being observed.

asshat.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 8, 2015)

[/QUOTE]
You are truly demented. Only a fruit loop dingus is incapable of noticing the demolitions you post exhibit explosions *before* the structures begin to collapse. Unlike the Twin Towers.

That you have to resort to lying exposes just how vacuous your insane claims are. [/QUOTE]

yeh if you were not a dumb ass youd be nothing at all! LOL





Capstone was kind enough to post a couple very well written explanations that obviously were wasted on ass helmets.

just watch the pretty sparklies[/QUOTE]
When are you going to show a video of a demolished build that *doesn't * start with visible explosions?[/QUOTE]


how many times do I have to show it? Pull your heads out of yer asses and , wipe off your glasses!

ok here goes!  Are you ready?





they lit that fucker right up.

not a lame cheapo demo like this one.





It must be nice to be as crazy as you. Makes it easy to see things that aren't there. In this case, the lights you see are the reaction to the interior of the building collapsing, not the other way around as you insanely posit. Evidence of this, aside from the fact that the flashes of do not occur before the collapse of the interior of the building, *is the absence of the brilliant flash of light produced by thermate as seen in all of your gif's demonstrating thermate being ignited. The flashes of light in your edited video are so dim, you had to darken the images to the point the building looks like a black box just to make them barely visible. *

Your delusions are noted as always.[/QUOTE]


daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > foia releases.
> ...




Now thats funny school boy, who doesnt understand not one damn word of his copy and paste.

You got the brains of an amoebae.  On second thought an amoebae is smarter than you.  Now I could be nice and explain the numerous ways you are fucked up, but I like you so I wont cause you any unnecessary stress that might cause you to blow a gasket or whatever.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 8, 2015)

Faun said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...




One?  WTF are you smokin?  Too much arsenic man.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 8, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


>


You are truly demented. Only a fruit loop dingus is incapable of noticing the demolitions you post exhibit explosions *before* the structures begin to collapse. Unlike the Twin Towers.

That you have to resort to lying exposes just how vacuous your insane claims are. [/QUOTE]

yeh if you were not a dumb ass youd be nothing at all! LOL





Capstone was kind enough to post a couple very well written explanations that obviously were wasted on ass helmets.

just watch the pretty sparklies[/QUOTE]
When are you going to show a video of a demolished build that *doesn't * start with visible explosions?[/QUOTE]


how many times do I have to show it? Pull your heads out of yer asses and , wipe off your glasses!

ok here goes!  Are you ready?





they lit that fucker right up.

not a lame cheapo demo like this one.





It must be nice to be as crazy as you. Makes it easy to see things that aren't there. In this case, the lights you see are the reaction to the interior of the building collapsing, not the other way around as you insanely posit. Evidence of this, aside from the fact that the flashes of do not occur before the collapse of the interior of the building, *is the absence of the brilliant flash of light produced by thermate as seen in all of your gif's demonstrating thermate being ignited. The flashes of light in your edited video are so dim, you had to darken the images to the point the building looks like a black box just to make them barely visible. *

Your delusions are noted as always.[/QUOTE]


daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > foia releases.
> ...




Now thats funny school boy, who doesnt understand not one damn word of his copy and paste.

You got the brains of an amoebae.  On second thought an amoebae is smarter than you.  Now I could be nice and explain the numerous ways you are fucked up, but I like you so I wont cause you any unnecessary stress that might cause you to blow a gasket or whatever.[/QUOTE]

false! you could attempt to bolster your brightness, contrast fantasy. but that would only add further proof that you don't jack shit about optics or fire science or  how to wipe your own ass.
oh no not the old you're too dumb ploy.
so explain away this should be a hoot...
please wow us with your grade school education... and your ged.

also dump the pics you are falsely using as examples...


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 8, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> One?  WTF are you smokin?  Too much arsenic man.



Yanno, I just noticed. You have received 19 attaboys for your 1273 posts. 19 times your fellow posters thought your angry, desperate, silly 9/11 CTBS was worth positive recognition. 19 ... 19 ... 19 ... hmm. I do believe you are the singular most disrespected poster at USMB and your work here has done more to discredit the 9/11 "Truther" Movement than all those who disagree with and/or ridicule your silliness, combined. Thank you.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 8, 2015)




----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 9, 2015)

Posted for those who have more than 1 brain cell, not the above retard.





the above is bullshit, here is a thermate cutter.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 9, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > One?  WTF are you smokin?  Too much arsenic man.
> ...



How the hell did they do that?   I'm not into dicksuckers.  I turned that shit off!


----------



## Faun (Jan 9, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> Posted for those who have more than 1 brain cell, not the above retard.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What a pity you have no proof an actual one ever existed in 2001.


----------



## Faun (Jan 9, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> Posted for those who have more than 1 brain cell, not the above retard.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Speaking of eyewitnesses .... still waiting for you to provide an example of a video recorded of the west side of the south tower exploding without a plane hitting it.

Certainly, if it occurred the way you hallucinate, there would have been some video of that captured.

And what about people who recorded it? There were dozens upon dozens. According to your delusions, not one of them captured a plane flying into the south tower ... find *ONE* of them screaming about how _someone_ edited that plane into their video.


----------



## Capstone (Jan 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Several enormous problems with that analysis. If we're talking about WTC 7, Koko has imagined that they went off on the top floors. Meaning they would have been near the top of the debris pile. Yet....nothing. None was ever found. And there would have had to have been thousands. These would have been huge, enormously heavy canisters each about 10 to 12 feet long and about 3.5 to 4 feet in diameter, sticking sideways off the side of each girder. On each floor. By the thousands. ...




There were many things (some quite large and composed primarily of steel and other metal alloys) that _should_ have been recognizable in the debris piles from all three buildings. In the Twin Towers, for instance, there were two sub-stations each on the 108th, 75th, 41st, and 7th floors of both towers. At those 8 locations there were 4 massive transformers per sub-station that weighed in excess of 4 tons apiece. These were air-cooled, dry-type transformers that wouldn't have exploded on their own, yet after the "collapses" there wasn't a trace of evidence in the debris piles that any of them ever existed, _unless_ one considers the pools/streams of molten metals observed by several independent witnesses as a possible explanation for their otherwise apparent absence among the wreckage.

In my opinion, the use of thermate cutter charges, nano-thermite coatings, and other more effective 'explosives' aren't mutually exclusive propositions. Explosives could have been placed on or near the outward-facing sides of the beams, while thermate cutter charges were placed on the inward-facing sides. The expected effect would have been one of lateral ejections of pulverized concrete that clouded the brilliance of the internal thermitic reactions, like so many clouds over sunlight on an overcast day. In line with this, the general vicinities of the beams to which the cutter charges and explosives were placed/affixed (on opposite sides) would have been turned into a mixture molten metals and exploded concrete that would have fallen to the ground at or near gravitational acceleration, leaving little or no _recognizable_ evidence of anything that occupied those vicinities prior to their destruction (in other words: exactly what was observed both during and in the aftermath of the "collapses" of the Twins).

Now, minus the strike of a large aircraft/drone (which I believe was most likely either "Flight 93's" or "Flight 77's" initially-intended target), building 7's "collapse" had to be carried out in a classic bottom-up implosion, because that's the only way a purely gravitational _global_ collapse could be pushed as even remotely feasible (the explanation needed as much downward weight as possible from the upper 39 floors, you see). Of course, the symmetry and speed of its destruction remain unaccounted for to this very day, but the "mystery" would have been far greater had 7 come down like the other buildings. I'm no expert when it comes to planning clandestine operations, but the capacity to adjust the initiation sequence on-the-fly from top-down to bottom-up would seem a good idea to include in the plan, in the event that any of the remotely flown aircraft/drones failed to reach their intended targets. Nevertheless, the devices, materials, and placement method used were probably identical in all three structures, because this would explain both the absence of recognizable objects that _should_ have been among 7's debris pile and the presence of pools of molten metals that _shouldn't_ have been there; and again, the thermitic reactions would have largely been covered by the intact bearing walls and/or the rising cloud of pulverized concrete as the bearing walls exploded from the bottom-up.

Regarding your cartoonishly-exaggerated figures for the amount of cutter-charge devices you _claim_ are required by the thermate/nano-thermite theory: where the Twin Towers were concerned, there were 47 core columns in each building, so placing cutter-charges on every other floor would have required 2,585 devices for each of the 110-story buildings. Since Building 7 was less than half the height/size of the Twins, a similar placement methodology (though perhaps fine-tuned to the nature of _its_ internal skeleton) would have likely required less than half of the demolition materials used in the other buildings. 6,462 cutter-charge devices between all three buildings is a far cry from 50,000 or more.

Gotta run, but more to come later...


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 9, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Several enormous problems with that analysis. If we're talking about WTC 7, Koko has imagined that they went off on the top floors. Meaning they would have been near the top of the debris pile. Yet....nothing. None was ever found. And there would have had to have been thousands. These would have been huge, enormously heavy canisters each about 10 to 12 feet long and about 3.5 to 4 feet in diameter, sticking sideways off the side of each girder. On each floor. By the thousands. ...
> ...



Of course, there is _still_ the small matter of how your alleged CD rigging  survived the impact of the jets and the ensuing fires but why bother with such annoying details when one can write pages of CTBS by simply ignoring reality. Carry on.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 9, 2015)

Faun said:


> And what about people who recorded it? There were dozens upon dozens. According to your delusions, not one of them captured a plane flying into the south tower ... find *ONE* of them screaming about how _someone_ edited that plane into their video.



yeh and be forced to move out of the country to avoid persecution or being murdered.

there are hundreds of witnesses on record who said there were no planes, but you pretend those facts do not exist.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 9, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Of course, there is _still_ the small matter of how your alleged CD rigging  survived the impact of the jets and the ensuing fires but why bother with such annoying details when one can write pages of CTBS by simply ignoring reality. Carry on.



yeh that keeps amoeba brained simpletons occupied for a very long time.


----------



## Capstone (Jan 10, 2015)

Skylar said:
			
		

> . . .the buildings were on fire. With building fires scattered across the WTC 1 and 2. And WTC [7?] fully engaged with fires on virtually all floors. Any aparatus of explosive demolition, timers, det cord, radio receivers, control boards, etc.....would have melted. Yet per the thermite theory, they went off in perfect sequence. There's simply no way for this type of coordination to have been accomplished in a burning building.



The use of precision RC guidance (and/or pre-planted laser/radar homing devices placed by the same teams that rigged the buildings with explosives) would have ensured that the aircraft/drones hit predetermined impact zones, and the higher ignition temperatures of the incendiary/pyrotechnic devices (detonation cords, and all) would have prevented unintentional/premature ignitions in the portions of the buildings sufficiently above or below those impact zones. So, despite the _longer burning_ sporadic office fires that you claim "fully engulfed" Building 7, they wouldn't have burned hotly enough to ignite such devices/materials, particularly because no jet fuel (or fuel of any kind, according to the NIST group) was involved in those fires.



			
				Skylar said:
			
		

> . . .these buildings weren't museums. They were occupied. They were regularly inspected. They were maintained. They were cleaned. With each floor having 249 outer panels and 47 core columns, and there being 90 floors to the ground from the impact site on the north tower and 79 to the ground on the south......that means that there would have had to have been over 50,000 car sized thermite canisters sticking sideways in WTC 1 and 2.



From newspaper reports prior to 9/11, we know that unfettered access to the interior columns of buildings 1 and 2 had been granted for bottom-to-top renovations/modernizations of the elevator systems in both buildings. This work would have been chiefly conducted outside of normal business hours and any security-type witnesses _outside-of-the-loop_ would have thought nothing of the many loads of palleted materials required by such a massive publicly-reported project.

Regarding Building 7, and speaking of "security-type" personnel, there's been a great deal of interest generated by questions surrounding the ownership of the companies responsible for security in the WTC complex. It's not too difficult to see how a handful of strategically-placed operatives (in a building known to house offices for the CIA, BTW) might have seen to it that certain activities in the wee hours of the mornings over the weeks and months leading up to those dastardly "terrorist attacks" remained largely unseen/unheard by the majority of the building's occupants during normal business hours.



			
				Skylar said:
			
		

> ......that means that there would have had to have been over 50,000 car sized thermite canisters sticking sideways in WTC 1 and 2.



As alluded to in my last post, if the (pre-weakened?) columns/girders in the bearing walls were taken out with pressure explosives (as the visible evidence seems to indicate), then fewer than 6.500 thermate cutter charges would have been needed for the interior "core columns" of all three buildings, and the thermitic reactions would have been heavily clouded.

Once the bulk of the thermite/thermate had ignited, there'd have been no evidence in the debris piles, beyond the molten material left behind and any thermitic chips that escaped ignition temperatures by way of dispersion in the clouds of pulverized building materials (I.E. no evidence other than that which was documented/discovered).

In total, this _nutty_ conspiracy theory of mine has *much more* explanatory power than the far nuttier _Official Conspiracy Theory_® ... which not only fails to explain *many* observed and documented aspects of the events of the day, it also requires the suspension of faith in both common sense principles *and the friggin' laws of physics* with the _non_-explanations it does provide.


----------



## Faun (Jan 10, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > And what about people who recorded it? There were dozens upon dozens. According to your delusions, not one of them captured a plane flying into the south tower ... find *ONE* of them screaming about how _someone_ edited that plane into their video.
> ...


You have zero evidence that any one of them had to flee the country, *no less ALL of them. * But thanks; your contrived notion goes a long way in revealing how you'll desperately offer any excuse imaginable to further your delusions. 

Regardless, there remains not a single video of the west side of the south tower exploding without a plane or a single person crying out how their video was altered with having a plane added.

As far as witnesses who didn't see a plane, those are easily dismissed. They may have not been at a vantage point to see the plane, thereby assuming it was a bomb; or they may have not been looking up during the few seconds as the plane approached.

Here's more evidence of your lunacy .... what type of bomb explodes serially across an office building from the west end to the other side, blowing through the east end? And then leaving an imprint like this on the west side?


----------



## daws101 (Jan 11, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > And what about people who recorded it? There were dozens upon dozens. According to your delusions, not one of them captured a plane flying into the south tower ... find *ONE* of them screaming about how _someone_ edited that plane into their video.
> ...


link ?
in reality there were a dozen maybe...


----------



## daws101 (Jan 11, 2015)

*Lies from 07 The Key:*
·  Only *three* *airplane videos* are confirmed to have been shown *live*.
·  The live FOX Chopper5 video contains an editing mistake which reveals *the nose of a fake CGI airplane* added to the live video  feed.
·  There is *no plane in the wide shot* in the Chopper5 video prior to the camera zooming-in as the chopper approaches the towers.
·  The Hezarkhani footage shows *a big gaping hole* that appeared after the fuel explosion and is larger than the initial impact damage area.
·  There are *contradicting explosion "puff balls"* between the Fairbanks and Hezarkhani videos.
·  All existing 9/11 airplane videos have *reduced picture quality* in order to "hide the messy fingerprints of the compositing process".
*Lies from 06 What planes?*
·  *There were very few eyewitnesses*, and in the FDNY and EMT accounts, there's *only one person* who saw the plane, heard it, and watched it crash.
·  There was *no airplane debris* below the impacts.
·  The impact of the 2nd plane through the South Tower exhibits *impossible, "cartoon physics"* that violate Newton's laws.
·  When the FOX Chopper5 video is stabilized, *the plane's motion becomes jittery*, proving that it's an inserted animation.
·  Purdue University *will not release their data* used in their animated computer simulation of the plane impacting the North Tower.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 11, 2015)




----------



## theHawk (Jan 11, 2015)

So what is the motive for bringing down WTC 7 when everyone was evacuated?

And why do people seem to believe that burning buildings won't collapse?


----------



## n0spam4me (Jan 11, 2015)

theHawk said:


> So what is the motive for bringing down WTC 7 when everyone was evacuated?
> 
> And why do people seem to believe that burning buildings won't collapse?



It isn't so much that people will not buy it 
that is burning building suffering damage,
HOWEVER when it comes to the complete & total
destruction of 3 steel framed skyscrapers, that is a bit much,
don't you think?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 11, 2015)

daws101 said:


>



thats a funny one, someone dumped off the wrong engine DUH

the guy that made that video is cherry picking and making up a boat load of bullshit.  I imagine that is why you found it since you thrive on bullshit.

cant have it both ways,

*OOPSIE!*


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 11, 2015)

daws101 said:


> link ?
> in reality there were a dozen maybe...



the only reality is that you dont know anything about video composting.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 11, 2015)

Faun said:


> You have zero evidence that any one of them had to flee the country, *no less ALL of them.
> *
> Regardless, there remains not a single video of the west side of the south tower exploding without a plane or a single person crying out how their video was altered with having a plane added.
> 
> ...




sure argentina is extraditing one back now.

when the men in black drop by you STFU or wind up like oneil or jennings or jowenko.  This is the land of the free after all.

They cant be dismissed except by unreasonable posers, but they dismiss everything.

a whole lot of bombs


----------



## Faun (Jan 12, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > You have zero evidence that any one of them had to flee the country, *no less ALL of them.
> ...


Now you're lying again. The guy they're extraditing did not shoot a video of the building blowing up without a plane and then complain someone added the plane flying into the building.

What a pity your delusions are so bizarre, you have to lie to make them work.

There is not a single person on the planet claiming their video had a plane added.

Not one.

Nor is there a single video of the west side of the south tower exploding without a plane in it.

Not one.

How is that possible? How is it possible that 50 or more videos were taken that day and whomever it is you delude yourself into believing was behind this, managed to acquire *every single one*? And then edit *every single one* so perfectly, they all appear to be of the exact same image, regardless of the angle of the camera or the motion of the camera? And all to exactly match the video which aired live?

And you still haven't explained what type of bomb was used to create a hole like this ....


----------



## n0spam4me (Jan 12, 2015)

> And you still haven't explained what type of bomb was used to create a hole like this ....



This is like many of the debunker questions is out of place, if this were MUCH later in the process, one could ask such a question and expect an answer, however for now, the questions that need answering are about the evidence we currently have.  Note that there are some small number ... possibly 4 total videos that actually show the south wall of the south tower as it is allegedly being penetrated by a commercial airliner.  These videos are clearly fake because the airliner does not actually crash into the WTC wall, it disappears into the wall as would a ghost in a B movie.


----------



## Capstone (Jan 12, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> > And you still haven't explained what type of bomb was used to create a hole like this ....
> 
> 
> 
> This is like many of the debunker questions is out of place, if this were MUCH later in the process, one could ask such a question and expect an answer, however for now, the questions that need answering are about the evidence we currently have.  Note that there are some small number ... possibly 4 total videos that actually show the south wall of the south tower as it is allegedly being penetrated by a commercial airliner.  These videos are clearly fake because the airliner does not actually crash into the WTC wall, it disappears into the wall as would a ghost in a B movie.



Very briefly here, the videos aren't the only evidence that aircraft of some type impacted the Towers and the Pentagon. A certain body of eyewitness testimonies, information provided by the NTSB, professional analyses of recorded radar tracks from the day of the incidents, and the data reportedly retrieved from Flight 77's FDR are especially compelling, because they all directly contradict the official story as to what type of aircraft were involved, and, in the case of Flight 77, the officially reported trajectory. If this mountain of other evidence was also faked, why on Earth didn't the planners fake it in a manner that would actually support the official narrative?!


----------



## Montrovant (Jan 12, 2015)

Capstone said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > > And you still haven't explained what type of bomb was used to create a hole like this ....
> ...



I've probably read this before, but I have to admit I cannot remember at all.  What type of plane does this evidence purport hit the towers?


----------



## daws101 (Jan 12, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > So what is the motive for bringing down WTC 7 when everyone was evacuated?
> ...


no considering you are unable or unwilling to tell fact from fiction.
every bit of you "theory" is based on intentional misrepresentation.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 12, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


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


once again you are posting false examples. as you have no real rebuttal


----------



## daws101 (Jan 12, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > link ?
> ...


wrong as always MC SHIT for brains....I have a masters degree in filmmaking I was doing composting before you started masturbating..
nothing you have posted shows you have any understanding of even the most basic film and video techniques..
your Capt. kirk  clip proves that.
it's one of the oldest trick in film efx and has jck shit to do with video composting   


n0spam4me said:


> > And you still haven't explained what type of bomb was used to create a hole like this ....
> 
> 
> 
> This is like many of the debunker questions is out of place, if this were MUCH later in the process, one could ask such a question and expect an answer, however for now, the questions that need answering are about the evidence we currently have.  Note that there are some small number ... possibly 4 total videos that actually show the south wall of the south tower as it is allegedly being penetrated by a commercial airliner.  These videos are clearly fake because the airliner does not actually crash into the WTC wall, it disappears into the wall as would a ghost in a B movie.





if they are fake how large a crew did it take to place these props?
when did they do it ,with out been detected?


----------



## daws101 (Jan 12, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> > And you still haven't explained what type of bomb was used to create a hole like this ....
> 
> 
> 
> This is like many of the debunker questions is out of place, if this were MUCH later in the process, one could ask such a question and expect an answer, however for now, the questions that need answering are about the evidence we currently have.  Note that there are some small number ... possibly 4 total videos that actually show the south wall of the south tower as it is allegedly being penetrated by a commercial airliner.  These videos are clearly fake because the airliner does not actually crash into the WTC wall, it disappears into the wall as would a ghost in a B movie.




fake ..ok, describe in detail what techniques were used to fake this still?


----------



## daws101 (Jan 12, 2015)

Capstone said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > > And you still haven't explained what type of bomb was used to create a hole like this ....
> ...


----------



## Faun (Jan 12, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> > And you still haven't explained what type of bomb was used to create a hole like this ....
> 
> 
> 
> This is like many of the debunker questions is out of place, if this were MUCH later in the process, one could ask such a question and expect an answer, however for now, the questions that need answering are about the evidence we currently have.  Note that there are some small number ... possibly 4 total videos that actually show the south wall of the south tower as it is allegedly being penetrated by a commercial airliner.  These videos are clearly fake because the airliner does not actually crash into the WTC wall, it disappears into the wall as would a ghost in a B movie.


The only logical conclusion a reasonable person can reach after reading your post -- is that you're batshit insane. 

Other than on 9.11, a commercial jet had never been flown into the WTC at no less than 400 MPH. Meaning other than what was witnessed that day, no one knows what it should have looked like. Yet here you are, claiming you know what everyone saw that day had to be fake because it shouldn't look like the way it did. 

Meanwhile, you have no proof to how you _think _ it should have looked like nor can you explain how any of it was done. You can't explain how the shape of the hole was formed. You can't explain how the explosion swept across the tower after entering from the west, blowing out the east side, as though propelled. You can't explain how someone acquired 100% of the videos that day in order to edit them. You can't explain why not a single person who filmed it complained their video was edited. You can't explain how so many videos were edited so perfectly regardless of the angle or motion; and in such a short period of time since personal videos began appearing soon after. You can't explain how eye witnesses said they saw a plane fly into the building. You can't explain how the live image televised was altered. You can't explain what happened to to missing passengers from the flights' manifest.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



never said it did dumb ass.  stop making shit up to pretend I am lying when its you who is lying.

yeh one kid most definitely did shoot a video like that but dont worry we had a good heart to heart talk with him about what happens to witnesses who tell the truth and he denies it now.  

you really should learn 101 video compositing so you dont sound like such a dawes.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jan 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > > And you still haven't explained what type of bomb was used to create a hole like this ....
> ...



you know if you would pull your head out of your ass long enough to breath some fresh air you might figure out there is no material evidence to prove planes went in any of those buildings.





some asshole drove by and unloaded his pickup truck LOL.


sure it would look like this






then you wouldnt have all those CGI errors to pretend do not exist.


----------



## Capstone (Jan 13, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> I've probably read this before, but I have to admit I cannot remember at all.  What type of plane does this evidence purport hit the towers?



The type that could've withstood the physical strain of the 'at altitude EAS's' that were documented by the NTSB and corroborated by the FAA. Exceeding the max. operating limits by 130-150 knots at sea level would not have been possible for any of the standard commercial airliners that reportedly did as much on 9/11/01. 

Furthermore, the _flight data recorder_ that was reportedly retrieved from the Pentagon crash site showed that the cockpit door hadn't been opened during Flight 77's flight (meaning the alleged hijackers couldn't have gained access to the cockpit) and that the rudder pedals were never engaged from inside of the cockpit, even though the rudders must have been engaged somehow in order to maintain 'coordinated flight' during the 330° banking maneuver that was reportedly executed in order to account for the light pole damage and the trajectory to the Pentagon that was also contradicted by the FDR (a couple of possible indications of RC piloting).

I personally don't place too much stock in Flight 77's FDR data, because the flight/fleet ID numbers had apparently been erased (and not replaced), and the module itself was discovered to have been of the wrong type for the aircraft it supposedly came from ― a couple of facts that exposed the evidence as a likely fraud not long after its public release.


----------



## Faun (Jan 13, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


Sure, uh-huh....

*Faun: *_And what about people who recorded it? There were dozens upon dozens. According to your delusions, not one of them captured a plane flying into the south tower ... *find ONE of them screaming about how someone edited that plane into their video*._

*kokomojojo: *_yeh and be forced to move out of the country to avoid persecution or being murdered. there are hundreds of witnesses on record who said there were no planes, but you pretend those facts do not exist._

*Faun: *_You have zero evidence that any one of them had to flee the country, no less ALL of them._

*kokomojojo: *_sure argentina is extraditing one back now._​
Liar.

We were talking about eyewitnesses who videotaped the plane flying into the tower and how none of them complained about a plane being edited into their videos or being forced to flee the country.

You then lied and said there was one. Only he recorded the aftermath, not the plane on 9.11.


----------



## deep_space (Jan 14, 2015)

incredulity about HOW it may or may not have been done, does nothing to modify the facts here, what is observed on the video constitutes a violation of the laws of physics.


----------



## Montrovant (Jan 14, 2015)

deep_space said:


> incredulity about HOW it may or may not have been done, does nothing to modify the facts here, what is observed on the video constitutes a violation of the laws of physics.



Would you care to point out which laws of physics are being violated by which parts of what video?


----------



## daws101 (Jan 14, 2015)

deep_space said:


> incredulity about HOW it may or may not have been done, does nothing to modify the facts here, what is observed on the video constitutes a violation of the laws of physics.


bullshit!


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 16, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> deep_space said:
> 
> 
> > incredulity about HOW it may or may not have been done, does nothing to modify the facts here, what is observed on the video constitutes a violation of the laws of physics.
> ...



Amazing how the dentheads come through here making grandiose pronouncements about "inside jobs" and "black ops" and disappear when it comes to supporting their silliness. The "brain" on Islam:


----------



## deep_space (Jan 16, 2015)

Considering the fact that it should be considered overwhelmingly obvious that if one considers the force required to breach the WTC tower wall, and uses the figure for the KE of the entire aircraft, therefore the entire aircraft is involved, that is the forces unleashed are not specifically focused on putting a hole in the tower wall, these same forces will act on the aircraft and tear it apart before it had a chance to make that wing shaped impression in the wall.  DUH!


----------



## Faun (Jan 16, 2015)

deep_space said:


> Considering the fact that it should be considered overwhelmingly obvious that if one considers the force required to breach the WTC tower wall, and uses the figure for the KE of the entire aircraft, therefore the entire aircraft is involved, that is the forces unleashed are not specifically focused on putting a hole in the tower wall, these same forces will act on the aircraft and tear it apart before it had a chance to make that wing shaped impression in the wall.  DUH!


Fizzicks, according to Truthers ...


----------



## deep_space (Jan 16, 2015)

Did I ever say that the airliner crash should look like the video you showed?
What I do say, is that the airliner would have broken into pieces before making the gash in the wall.


----------



## Capstone (Jan 16, 2015)

deep_space said:


> Did I ever say that the airliner crash should look like the video you showed?
> What I do say, is that the airliner would have broken into pieces before making the gash in the wall.



Right on the money.

No _standard_ commercial jumbo jets could have remained intact at the sea level EAS's that were documented by the NTSB. Since they'd have broken up long before reaching speeds in excess of 150 knots above their max. operating limits, the video of the alleged Flight 175 (a supposedly _standard_ commercial airliner) *does*, in fact, portray a physical impossibility. Only a modified commercial jumbo jet (or a non-commercial aircraft/drone that was initially manufactured to different specifications) could have possibly managed what was caught on tape there.


----------



## Faun (Jan 16, 2015)

deep_space said:


> Did I ever say that the airliner crash should look like the video you showed?
> What I do say, is that the airliner would have broken into pieces before making the gash in the wall.


LOL.

Like you know better than what actually happened.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 16, 2015)

deep_space said:


> Considering the fact that it should be considered overwhelmingly obvious that if one considers the force required to breach the WTC tower wall, and uses the figure for the KE of the entire aircraft, therefore the entire aircraft is involved, that is the forces unleashed are not specifically focused on putting a hole in the tower wall, these same forces will act on the aircraft and tear it apart before it had a chance to make that wing shaped impression in the wall.  DUH!


 
Consider instead what would have been required to rig the towers (there were 2) for demo, have the rigging survive the airline crashes (and fires), and then have every one of the millions of people involved maintain silence ... then consider loosening that foil hat before you do any further brain damage.


----------



## n0spam4me (Jan 26, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> deep_space said:
> 
> 
> > Considering the fact that it should be considered overwhelmingly obvious that if one considers the force required to breach the WTC tower wall, and uses the figure for the KE of the entire aircraft, therefore the entire aircraft is involved, that is the forces unleashed are not specifically focused on putting a hole in the tower wall, these same forces will act on the aircraft and tear it apart before it had a chance to make that wing shaped impression in the wall.  DUH!
> ...



The above constitutes not an answer, but a deflection from the discussion.  Should an airliner be expected to perform as a steel punch, penetrating the wall as it was alleged to have done?


----------



## daws101 (Jan 26, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > deep_space said:
> ...


It's not an allegation it a fact...


----------



## deep_space (Jan 26, 2015)

daws101 said:


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



so exactly what is the proof that an airliner was used as a weapon to attack the WTC tower?


----------



## daws101 (Jan 26, 2015)

deep_space said:


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


asked and answered....


----------



## Faun (Jan 26, 2015)

deep_space said:


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


No less than 43 independently shot videos...


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 26, 2015)

Faun said:


> deep_space said:
> 
> 
> > so exactly what is the proof that an airliner was used as a weapon to attack the WTC tower?
> ...



C'mon, Faun ... everybody knows the peeps who recorded 9/11 were all co-conspirators. How else could they just happen to have had their camera phones with them?
The hundreds (or thousands) of techs who allegedly rigged the buildings for demolition?
Co-conspirators!
All the cops and firemen who responded?
Co-conspirators!
The courts, media and insurers?
Co-conspirators!
The investigators?
Co-conspirators!
All the experts and scientists who find the 9/11 "Truther" Movement to be about anything except truth?
Co-conspirators!
Anyone who finds the "Truther" alleged scenarios to be the work of child-like imaginations?
Co-conspirators! 
In fact, anyone who is not a card carrying, foil-hat wearing member of the Movement is probably a co-conspirator!


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 3, 2015)

Speculation about WHO may have been the real perpetrator(s)
in no way negates the observed phenomenon of 9/11/2001.


----------



## Faun (Feb 3, 2015)

I don't get it? Deepspace asks for evidence that airliners were used to attack the WTC ... I post evidence ... deepspace flees.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 3, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> Speculation about WHO may have been the real perpetrator(s)
> in no way negates the observed phenomenon of 9/11/2001.


who:  the World Heath  Organization!
AS TO YOUR BOGUS REASONING: BIAS OBSERVATION IS NOT EVIDENCE.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 3, 2015)

daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Speculation about WHO may have been the real perpetrator(s)
> ...




Biased observation is NOT what is going on here,
at the heart of the argument is the fact that WTC7 is seen falling at free-fall acceleration for 2.25 sec and the fact that even some part of the building is seen falling in the manner that it did, is very clear proof that the falling bit had NO structure under it at all, that is this was NOT "negligible" resistance, this was very clearly NO resistance and some people are clearly on a mission to muddy the waters here, rather than embrace the reality that WTC7 fell as the result of an engineered event that was intended to destroy the building.


----------



## Faun (Feb 3, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


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


With no explosions immediately preceding the collapse, there is nothing to muddy since it couldn't have been a demolition without explosives.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 3, 2015)

> it couldn't have been a demolition without explosives.



Hey Boris, whachU got there
>> New Super Secret Weapon - HUSHABOOM!

wow man ... 

& All joking aside, the narrow minded view that only high explosives & extremely loud noise would have been the way to create the observed "collapse" oh well + the fact that at such time as explosive sounds are pointed out as to having been part of the audio track to recordings made that day, the anti-truther faction back-peddles and insists that any sounds hear/recorded were most certainly not explosions ..... The fact is that by the very nature of the "collapse" event, the chances of it happening just like that are more remote than you winning the lottery & getting struck by lightning on the same day.


----------



## Faun (Feb 3, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> > it couldn't have been a demolition without explosives.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The explosions heard that day came throughout the day. They didn't occur when they needed to occur in order for it to be a controlled demolition, which is within seconds of the building collapsing.

No explosions ... no controlled demolition.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 3, 2015)

> No explosions ... no controlled demolition.



Really?  and the concept of a thermite induced "collapse" simply isn't in the cards, right?  Have you seen the videos by Jonathan Cole? and also, how is it DOCUMENTED that anybody actually looked for traces of accelerants or explosives immediately post-collapse?  There is something VERY wrong with this picture, in that the "collapse" seen in all the various videos that show WTC7 falling in a manner that is clearly an UNNATURAL act.


----------



## Faun (Feb 3, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> > No explosions ... no controlled demolition.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  and the concept of a thermite induced "collapse" simply isn't in the cards, right?  Have you seen the videos by Jonathan Cole? and also, how is it DOCUMENTED that anybody actually looked for traces of accelerants or explosives immediately post-collapse?  There is something VERY wrong with this picture, in that the "collapse" seen in all the various videos that show WTC7 falling in a manner that is clearly an UNNATURAL act.


A "concept" is not reality. You might as well say it's possible aliens from another planet used a death ray to destroy the building. That's a "concept" too.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 3, 2015)

Faun said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > > No explosions ... no controlled demolition.
> ...


 
One trotted out by no less than Dr. Judy Wood and Jesse Ventura, neither of whom ever saw a foil-hatted conspiracy theorist they wouldn't fleece.

Review Jesse Ventura Death Ray Conspiracy Theory - PESWiki


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 4, 2015)

Of course derail the discussion into speculation about HOW it was done, first of all, examine what we can see in what was done.

Also, note that demonstrations by actual engineers, that is having both the advanced degrees & state licenses, prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that Nat-Geo published fraud in alleging that thermite could not be used to cut steel.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 4, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


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


bullshit!


----------



## daws101 (Feb 4, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> Of course derail the discussion into speculation about HOW it was done, first of all, examine what we can see in what was done.
> 
> Also, note that demonstrations by actual engineers, that is having both the advanced degrees & state licenses, prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that Nat-Geo published fraud in alleging that thermite could not be used to cut steel.


lots O thermite no cuts.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 4, 2015)




----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 4, 2015)

and so when it is a contest between "mythbusters" & people who hold advanced degrees + state licenses to be ENGINEERS, people accept the "mythbusters" as proof?


----------



## daws101 (Feb 5, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> and so when it is a contest between "mythbusters" & people who hold advanced degrees + state licenses to be ENGINEERS, people accept the "mythbusters" as proof?


do you miss the point on purpose or as I suspect your connection with reality is tenuous at best?


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 5, 2015)

Who here, reading this forum .. understand the difference between applying Thermite as a loose powder, and having a purpose built fixture to apply the energy to a specific location?


----------



## daws101 (Feb 5, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> Who here, reading this forum .. understand the difference between applying Thermite as a loose powder, and having a purpose built fixture to apply the energy to a specific location?


no evidence of "fixtures" were found. But anything is possible in fantasy,


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 7, 2015)

daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Who here, reading this forum .. understand the difference between applying Thermite as a loose powder, and having a purpose built fixture to apply the energy to a specific location?
> ...



Maybe the fact that nobody was looking for anything of the sort, the clean up operation focused on locating humans ( or remains ) and yet another twisted bit of metal was most probably not at all interesting.  The fact remains that there is a HUGE difference between applying loose powder thermite to any given bit of steel, or using a fixture ( that indeed may have been designed to be self-consuming ) to focus the heat against a given bit of steel.  In exactly what way should the results obtained by Jonathan Cole be discredited?  Be specific.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 7, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> Maybe the fact that nobody was looking for anything of the sort, the clean up operation focused on locating humans ( or remains ) and yet another twisted bit of metal was most probably not at all interesting.  The fact remains that there is a HUGE difference between applying loose powder thermite to any given bit of steel, or using a fixture ( that indeed may have been designed to be self-consuming ) to focus the heat against a given bit of steel.  In exactly what way should the results obtained by Jonathan Cole be discredited?  Be specific.



But it was indeed looked for:

"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...
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."

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 7, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe the fact that nobody was looking for anything of the sort, the clean up operation focused on locating humans ( or remains ) and yet another twisted bit of metal was most probably not at all interesting.  The fact remains that there is a HUGE difference between applying loose powder thermite to any given bit of steel, or using a fixture ( that indeed may have been designed to be self-consuming ) to focus the heat against a given bit of steel.  In exactly what way should the results obtained by Jonathan Cole be discredited?  Be specific.
> ...



Before I address this, PLEASE are there others who read this forum who see the obvious problem with the "NIST looked for it" argument
+ what about the mystery steel, that is the eutectic melting of steel, caused by the sulfur in the gypsum board?  REALLY PEOPLE.
Talk about low hanging fruit.......


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 7, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


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



There is no evidence of "melting of steel" and if you insist on rejecting out-of-hand the NIST findings which were authored by real experts (both gov't and private) while accepting and promoting your "Truther" silliness, you expose yourself to the ridicule you so richly deserve.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 8, 2015)

Still waiting for real proof of molten steel.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 8, 2015)

SFC Ollie said:


> Still waiting for real proof of molten steel.



9-11 Research Forensic Metallurgy


----------



## Capstone (Feb 9, 2015)

The RJ Lee Group's dust study showed that the WTC dust had a unique signature that was marked primarily by "spherical iron particles", from which it concluded that "[iron had] melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles". The study also showed that the iron particulate content of the WTC dust was nearly 150 times greater than normal, and that temperatures "at which lead would have undergone vaporization" had occurred (that's 1,749°C/3,180°F).

The US Geological Survey's WTC dust study independently verified the RJ Lee Group's findings, but further found that molybdenum had melted, which meant that temperatures at ground zero must have reached at least 2,623°C/4,753°F.

Not to mention the study that was carried out by the Harrit Group, my somewhat lengthy defense of which can be found in another thread on this board. 

FEMA's infamous chunk of swiss-cheesified steel, a number of fused iron/concrete formations like the so-called 'meteorite', the providentially welded-together cross of iron, the inexplicably non-deformed 'horseshoe', and the 3 independent dust studies mentioned above constitute a body of physical evidence that steel had indeed been melted. Alongside the video documentation that was captured during the clean-up at ground zero and the several highly credible eyewitness accounts of "flowing, dripping, running, pool[ing], molten" metal that was variously described as the sort of thing seen "in a foundry" or in the aftermath of a volcanic eruption ("like lava" and "little rivers of molten steel"), the hard physical evidence that was entirely ignored or outright denied by the NIST group is especially damning.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 9, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> and so when it is a contest between "mythbusters" & people who hold advanced degrees + state licenses to be ENGINEERS, people accept the "mythbusters" as proof?


thats the loyal Bush dupes for you.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 9, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting for real proof of molten steel.
> ...


 
Bogus, self-serving speculation. The thinning and holes were deemed to have been the result of corrosion, not melting. As you twice bailed out when Gamelon agreed to play your pseudoscience game, your presence here is now strictly for amusement only.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 9, 2015)

two farts in a row from the agent trolls,.^^
gomer Ollie and dawgshit,your handlers sure are worried the fact they sent you here so quick to troll this thread.lol.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 9, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> two farts in a row from the agent trolls,.^^
> gomer Ollie and dawgshit,your handlers sure are worried the fact they sent you here so quick to troll this thread.lol.


 
And you are what passes for "rational & mature" in the now defunct "Truther" Movement. You may well be the reason it's so D-E-A-D..


----------



## daws101 (Feb 9, 2015)




----------



## Capstone (Feb 11, 2015)

I hope the 'hit and miss' tactics of the OCT apologists haven't escaped the attention of anyone who's sincerely out to weigh the cases for and against the presence of molten steel at ground zero. The two most recent objections, namely that FEMA's documentation of swiss-cheesified steel was "due to corrosion" (by means of a 'eutectic reaction', BTW) and that aluminum can attain a yellow-orange color during melting, are spurious at best. Understanding what a 'eutectic _reaction_' is...is all it should take for people like Sayit to seek to avoid mentioning that aspect of the early official explanation at all costs. As for the color of molten aluminum, while it can reflect the color of the heat source during the melting process, it is invaribly silvery-grey _when poured_ (as it _should_ have appeared while pouring out from the south tower). The lack of response in reference to fused together formations of steel and concrete (which would have required previously molten states for both), the 3 independent dust studies that confirmed the presence of spherical iron particles (which again would have required a previously molten state), the numerous eyewitness accounts of rivers, streams, and pools of molten metal at the bottom of all three debris piles (completely unrelated to the molten metal seen pouring down from WTC2), should speak as loudly as the misleading nature of the responses that _were_ offered.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 11, 2015)

Capstone said:


> I hope the 'hit and miss' tactics of the OCT apologists haven't escaped the attention of anyone who's sincerely out to weigh the cases for and against the presence of molten steel at ground zero. The two most recent objections, namely that FEMA's documentation of swiss-cheesified steel was "due to corrosion" (by means of a 'eutectic reaction', BTW) and that aluminum can attain a yellow-orange color during melting, are spurious at best. Understanding what a 'eutectic _reaction_' is...is all it should take for people like Sayit to seek to avoid mentioning that aspect of the early official explanation at all costs. As for the color of molten aluminum, while it can reflect the color of the heat source during the melting process, it is invaribly silvery-grey _when poured_ (as it _should_ have appeared while pouring out from the south tower). The lack of response in reference to fused together formations of steel and concrete (which would have required previously molten states for both), the 3 independent dust studies that confirmed the presence of spherical iron particles (which again would have required a previously molten state), the numerous eyewitness accounts of rivers, streams, and pools of molten metal at the bottom of all three debris piles (completely unrelated to the molten metal seen pouring down from WTC2), should speak as loudly as the misleading nature of the responses that _were_ offered.



So did any of those eyewitnesses actually test the "rivers, streams, and pools of molten metal at the bottom of all three debris piles" to determine their composition or were the observers simply stating what _they thought it appeared to be_ at a glance? You should know that many eyewitnesses also saw planes slam into the Towers and the Pentagon as well as plenty of damage to WTC 7 from large chunks of falling debris. You must also know that many within the now defunct "Truther" Movement deny the existence of those planes.
BTW, all steel was once molten and if you examine virtually any large steel beam you will find plenty of imperfections including small sphericals.


----------



## Faun (Feb 11, 2015)

Capstone said:


> I hope the 'hit and miss' tactics of the OCT apologists haven't escaped the attention of anyone who's sincerely out to weigh the cases for and against the presence of molten steel at ground zero. The two most recent objections, namely that FEMA's documentation of swiss-cheesified steel was "due to corrosion" (by means of a 'eutectic reaction', BTW) and that aluminum can attain a yellow-orange color during melting, are spurious at best. Understanding what a 'eutectic _reaction_' is...is all it should take for people like Sayit to seek to avoid mentioning that aspect of the early official explanation at all costs. As for the color of molten aluminum, while it can reflect the color of the heat source during the melting process, it is invaribly silvery-grey _when poured_ (as it _should_ have appeared while pouring out from the south tower). The lack of response in reference to fused together formations of steel and concrete (which would have required previously molten states for both), the 3 independent dust studies that confirmed the presence of spherical iron particles (which again would have required a previously molten state), the numerous eyewitness accounts of rivers, streams, and pools of molten metal at the bottom of all three debris piles (completely unrelated to the molten metal seen pouring down from WTC2), should speak as loudly as the misleading nature of the responses that _were_ offered.


Yeah, who ever heard of molten aliminum glowing oranage? 

Oh ... wait ........


----------



## Capstone (Feb 11, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> So did any of those eyewitnesses actually test the "rivers, streams, and pools of molten metal at the bottom of all three debris piles" to determine their composition or were the observers simply stating what _they thought it appeared to be_ at a glance?...



Should I list the credentials of some of the individuals who independently reported what appeared to *all of them* to be molten metal? This agreement among several highly credible eyewitnesses _should_ have served as one of several bases for the NIST group's decision as to whether to test for evidence of explosives/incendiaries (which they've admitted they didn't).



			
				SAYIT said:
			
		

> ...You should know that many eyewitnesses also saw planes slam into the Towers and the Pentagon as well as plenty of damage to WTC 7 from large chunks of falling debris. ...



Exactly where have I argued to the contrary? 

In fact, my appeal to an entire body of eyewitness accounts is crucial to my claim that the aircraft/drones were not the Flights we were told they were...



			
				SAYIT said:
			
		

> ...You must also know that many within the <snip> "Truther" Movement deny the existence of those planes. ...



That's not my problem, nor is it relevant to the issue of the widely reported presence of molten steel at ground zero. 



			
				SAYIT said:
			
		

> ...BTW, all steel was once molten and if you examine virtually any large steel beam you will find plenty of imperfections including small sphericals.



Not in the vast quantities discovered and documented by the 3 independent dust studies, as I'm fairly confident you know. 

Beyond that, indicators of vaporized lead, melted molybdenum, and active/unreacted chips of an apparently nano-engineered incendiary remain to be considered.


----------



## Capstone (Feb 11, 2015)

Faun said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > I hope the 'hit and miss' tactics of the OCT apologists haven't escaped the attention of anyone who's sincerely out to weigh the cases for and against the presence of molten steel at ground zero. The two most recent objections, namely that FEMA's documentation of swiss-cheesified steel was "due to corrosion" (by means of a 'eutectic reaction', BTW) and that aluminum can attain a yellow-orange color during melting, are spurious at best. Understanding what a 'eutectic _reaction_' is...is all it should take for people like Sayit to seek to avoid mentioning that aspect of the early official explanation at all costs. As for the color of molten aluminum, while it can reflect the color of the heat source during the melting process, it is invaribly silvery-grey _when poured_ (as it _should_ have appeared while pouring out from the south tower). The lack of response in reference to fused together formations of steel and concrete (which would have required previously molten states for both), the 3 independent dust studies that confirmed the presence of spherical iron particles (which again would have required a previously molten state), the numerous eyewitness accounts of rivers, streams, and pools of molten metal at the bottom of all three debris piles (completely unrelated to the molten metal seen pouring down from WTC2), should speak as loudly as the misleading nature of the responses that _were_ offered.
> ...



_Again_ the distinction between molten aluminum reflecting the color of the heat source within whatever crucible is responsible for its molten state and the color attained *while being poured* (as it would have been in the case of the south tower) is ignored in order to prop up a misleading argument.


----------



## Faun (Feb 11, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Capstone said:
> ...


Had you watched the video, you would have seen it poured glowing orange. Next nonsense?


----------



## Capstone (Feb 11, 2015)

Faun said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Had _you_ watched the video, you should have perceived the tint of the lighting apparently shining down on the molds...and that, even though the poured aluminum vaguely reflected that light, it still appeared more silvery-white than orange.

Next misleading statement?


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 11, 2015)

The fact that the color of the incandescence is a function of the temperature of the material is one factor, and additionally the fact that the scenes have been recorded on video is rather problematic because video cameras can be adjusted to record color in all sorts of different ways.  It would be difficult if not impossible to get a truly accurate reading on the temperature from a video especially in the orange/red region of the spectrum.  What is extreamly telling, is the fact of total demolition of not only the towers but WTC7.   My point being that total destruction of anything is indicative of an engineered event.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 11, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> The fact that the color of the incandescence is a function of the temperature of the material is one factor, and additionally the fact that the scenes have been recorded on video is rather problematic because video cameras can be adjusted to record color in all sorts of different ways.  It would be difficult if not impossible to get a truly accurate reading on the temperature from a video especially in the orange/red region of the spectrum.  What is extreamly telling, is the fact of total demolition of not only the towers but WTC7.   My point being that total destruction of anything is indicative of an engineered event.


it's bullshit too.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 11, 2015)

WTC Molten Steel

*The story...*

Molten steel was discovered in the basements of the collapsed WTC. Fire couldn't raise the temperature high enough to melt steel, but explosives, particularly thermite, could.

As Lisa Giuliani put it:

The existence of these burning pools of molten steel were confirmed by: 

- Mark Lorieux of Controlled Demolition, Inc 
- Peter Tully, President of Tully Construction 
- and the American Free Press newspaper 

Please explain where these molten pools of steel came from, because hydrocarbon fires are not going to burn in an oxygen-starved environment as these underground fires did. 
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/03/312837.shtml

*Our take...*

So we have three sources? Maybe not. Let's go back to a more complete telling of the story.

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, New York, told AFP that he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the World Trade Center. Tully was contracted on September 11 to remove the debris from the site. 

Tully called Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Maryland, for consultation about removing the debris. CDI calls itself "the innovator and global leader in the controlled demolition and implosion of structures." 

Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived on the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation. 

AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site. "Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements." These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels," Loizeaux said. The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon. 

Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2,800° Fahrenheit (1535° Celsius). Asked what could have caused such extreme heat, Tully said, "Think of the jet fuel." 
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/bollyn2.htm

Okay, so we have two sources here, Tully and Loizeaux, who were then reported in the third (American Free Press). Or do we? Note that Tully is the one claiming he saw the steel, and the article then says he called Loizeaux. So it Loizeaux simply repeating what he's heard from Tully? That would make sense, and it appears to be confirmed by this claimed email from Loizeaux:

Here is what he wrote to me today at 10:38 PST:
Mr. Bryan:

I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy.

Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation. 

Regards,
==========================

Mark Loizeaux, President
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC.
2737 Merryman's Mill Road
Phoenix, Maryland USA 21131
Tel:  1-410-667-6610
Fax: 1-410-667-6624
Controlled Demolition Inc. 
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.alien.visitors/msg/dfef90067070254e?dmode=source

If accurate, the source has now moved from Loizeaux back to contractors, but there’s no information here on how the substance was identified as “molten steel”, or who might have performed the analysis to figure it out.

There’s another complication in terms of the WTC debris temperatures, according to NASA analyses made on September 16th and 23rd.

Initial analysis of these data revealed a number of thermal hot spots on September 16 in the region where the buildings collapsed 5 days earlier. Analysis of the data indicates temperatures greater than 800 degrees F. Over 3 dozen hot spots appear in the core zone. By September 23, only 4, or possibly 5, hot spots are apparent, with temperatures cooler than those on September 16. 
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0405/ofr-01-0405.html

Over 800 degrees F is hot, but not nearly hot enough. A more speculative view on the paper suggests maximum temperatures of 1341 degrees F ( http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html ), but that's still well below the “about 2,800° Fahrenheit” we need to get "literally molten steel". 

The get-out here is that NASA could only see surface temperatures, obviously. And they took their first measurements on the 16th, so temperatures could have been even higher before then. Keep in mind that the hotspots had reduced significantly by the 23rd, though, and excavators wouldn’t have been digging anywhere close to the basement levels until some time after that.

Other accounts suggest the temperatures needn’t have been that high to produce noticeable and dramatic effects.

However, Clark doesn't know how deep into the pile AVIRIS could see. The infrared data certainly revealed surface temperatures, yet the smoldering piles below the surface may have remained at much higher temperatures. "In mid-October, in the evening," said Thomas A. Cahill, a retired professor of physics and atmospheric science at the University of California, Davis, "when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order of 500 to 600 °C. And we know that people were turning over pieces of concrete in December that would flash into fire--which requires about 300 °C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk of the pile stayed hot all the way to December."
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html

Perhaps aware of these problems, some people use other accounts to support the "molten steel" idea. Let's look at a few of those.

Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer , "They showed us many fascinating slides [Eaton] continued, ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster." (Structural Engineer , September 3, 2002, p. 6;.) 

The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." (Williams, 2001, p. 3.) 

Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences , summer 2002, "'Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet." (Penn, 2002.) 

Dr. Allison Geyh was one of a team of public health investigators from Johns Hopkins who visited the WTC site after 9-11. She reported in the Late Fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, "In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel. 
http://www.reopen911.org/womaninhole.htm

Eaton's quote refers to "molten metal", not steel. The use of “glowing red” suggests he may not mean it’s liquid metal, either.

The "Leslie Robertson" quote comes second-hand from James Williams, SEAU President, in an account of a Robertson presentation ( http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf ). We emailed Roberston to find out if it was accuate, and his brief reply arrived quickly:

I've no recollection of having made any such statements...nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge.
Details here

Williams notes of the presentation only talk of “molten metal”, not steel. It’s possible to construct a case that Robertson mentioned “molten steel” in the lecture, but forgot it later, and Williams wrote “molten steel” rather than metal because, ah, he just did. But short of some evidence to support that, this quote doesn’t appear to have much substance.

The Sarah Atlas story also appears to be use “molten steel” for dramatic effect, rather than anything else. How could she possibly know for sure that “molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet"? We checked with the author, and he said this information would have been a quote from someone, but he doesn’t remember who (and none of the possible subjects would really qualify as an expert witness).

We recently discovered another pointer to the use of “molten steel”, too. A message on the LibertyPost forum referred to a now defunct site called WTCGodsHouse.com, where a WTC construction worker published a potentially relevant photo ( http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=30926 ). Could this be true? The site is dead, but there’s a copy in the WayBack machine, and the front page has this guys credentials:

My name is Frank Silecchia. I am one of the many WTC Ground Zero workers who was devastated by what I saw and encountered after the Twin Towers collasped.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020608142217/http://www.wtcgodshouse.com/

Proceed to the photos section ( http://web.archive.org/web/20020609005905/www.wtcgodshouse.com/photos.html ) and you’ll find something captioned “this is a picture of Tower #1 ..2 months later, molten steel”. Which looks like this.






Now maybe it’s just us, but we have some problems with that.

First, there’s no proof here other than the caption of when and where this was taken.

Second, whatever’s glowing red here clearly isn’t isn’t “molten” in the sense of “melted”.There may possibly be something dripping off one end, but we don’t know what that is.

Third, there seems an odd lack of conduction amongst the materials being picked up. We can see that the excavator has picked up a considerable amount of nearby material that presumably was very close to the same heat source, and it looks like glowing metal, but it’s completely black. There’s no orange -- bright red -- dull red transition across the materials, it’s just a straight orange to black. Steel isn’t a good conductor of heat, it’s true, but is that enough to explain the photo?

And fourth, we know there were underground fires at the site for some time. How hot could they get? Depends on the materials and the supply of oxygen, but in some cases the temperatures can be surprisingly high:

Australia is the home of one of the world's few naturally burning coal seams...
The fire temperature reaches temperatures of 1,700°C deep beneath the ground. 
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_786127.htm

Coal fires produce higher temperatures than we’d expect from the debris pile, but then Steve Jones suggests we only need 845°C to 1,040°C to explain our glowing steel.  Could that be produced with the materials available, and oxygen filtering in from above, or from the subways connected to the WTC basement level? 

There’s a clue in the results of this fire test intended to simulate conditions in a timber frame building:

Peak temperatures in the living area of the fire flat reached approximately 1000°C and remained at this level until the test was stopped at 64 minutes...

Despite average atmosphere temperatures in excess of 900°C for 30 minutes...

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/Timber/default.htm

The Structural Fire Engineering department of the University of Manchester tells us that adding plastics to the mix can make things hotter still:

The standard fires do not always represent the most severe fire conditions. Structural members having been designed to standard fires may fail to survive in real fires. For example, the modern offices tend to contain large quantities of hydrocarbon fuels in decoration, furniture, computers and electric devices, in forms of polymers, plastics, artificial leathers and laminates etc. Consequently, the fire becomes more severe than the conventional standard fire.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/Design/performance/fireModelling/nominalFireCurves/defaul t.htm

Office fires can be severe, then. What temperatures are achievable? The same page details four different fire types, and shows their temperature range over time.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 11, 2015)

daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that the color of the incandescence is a function of the temperature of the material is one factor, and additionally the fact that the scenes have been recorded on video is rather problematic because video cameras can be adjusted to record color in all sorts of different ways.  It would be difficult if not impossible to get a truly accurate reading on the temperature from a video especially in the orange/red region of the spectrum.  What is extreamly telling, is the fact of total demolition of not only the towers but WTC7.   My point being that total destruction of anything is indicative of an engineered event.
> ...




HEAT-COLORS-for-Blacksmiths


and as 4 "bullshit"  Please elaborate as to exactly what it is about my post that you disagree with.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 11, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


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


AS BEFORE It's based on a false assumption. so any conclusion or observation based on that false assumption is also false..
yes there was a small amount of melted metal at the wtc site...my post explains it all...


----------



## daws101 (Feb 11, 2015)

USGS Spectroscopy Lab - World Trade Center USGS thermal


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 11, 2015)

Capstone said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > So did any of those eyewitnesses actually test the "rivers, streams, and pools of molten metal at the bottom of all three debris piles" to determine their composition or were the observers simply stating what _they thought it appeared to be_ at a glance?...
> ...



Soooo, now you are admitting that what was believed to be _*molten metal*_ - not necessarily _*steel*_ - was seen. We were talking about damaged steel, remember?


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 11, 2015)

> yes there was a small amount of melted metal at the wtc site.



Question is: what constitutes a "small" amount of melted metal and what was the composition of said metal.  From the iron micro-spheres that were found at the site, some Iron/Steel must have been melted.


----------



## Capstone (Feb 11, 2015)

SAYIT said:
			
		

> Soooo, now you are admitting that what was believed to be _*molten metal*_ - not necessarily _*steel*_ - was seen. We were talking about damaged steel, remember?



No, I'm admitting something I've never  denied, specifically that some or all of the eyewitness  accounts were based on perceptive *assumptions* that were later corroborated by other physical evidence (thanks to FEMA and the USGS, among other investigative efforts from the private sector). That's part of the reason I've consistently maintained that the best evidence for the CD hypothesis is physical (as opposed to anecdotal) in nature.

There's agreement on both sides of the debate that some amount of molten metal was witnessed. The question is: what does the physical evidence suggest might have constituted those "running, flowing, dripping, pool[ing] rivers [and] streams" of molten metals?

Here's a clue for you, SAYIT: corrosion based on a 'eutectic reaction' would support the CD hypothesis, not your preferred fairy tale.

Common features of the tactics used by members of opposing camps show that OCT apologists are often forced to deny or 'explain away' physical, anecdotal, and observational forms of evidence, while members of my preferred camp tend to form their hypotheses on much of that very same evidence. There's no need for us to 'explain away' things like swiss-cheesified girders, the inexplicably high prevalence of iron micro-spheres and other tell-tale particles in the WTC dust, fused-together formations of concrete and steel, or beams that somehow managed to weld themselves together in the form of a cross, because our common hypothesis would explain it all.


----------



## Faun (Feb 11, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Capstone said:
> ...


Thanks for revealing how vacuous your position is that you feel the need to lie to preserve your delusions. Not only does the molten aluminum glow from the heat as it's poured, but it continues to glow as it sits in molds even after the crucible is moved away to pour molten aluminum into other molds.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 11, 2015)

A! does anybody other than me, dig the concept that the color of incandescence is a function of the temperature of said material regardless of the type of metal that is glowing.


----------



## Capstone (Feb 11, 2015)

Faun said:


> Thanks for revealing how vacuous your position is that you feel the need to lie to preserve your delusions. Not only does the molten aluminum glow from the heat as it's poured, but it continues to glow as it sits in molds even after the crucible is moved away to pour molten aluminum into other molds.



Thank _you_, for failing to acknowledge the obvious tint of the lighting that's shining down on the molds, which explains how so highly reflective a metal (both in liquid and solid form) might vaguely appear to have a twinge of orange as it's being poured out and as it's setting under those lighting conditions. That failure speaks volumes about _your_ approach to this discussion.

Notice that *I haven't denied* that molten aluminum can appear to be yellowish/orange; I've simply asserted that its appearance as such is contingent upon its surroundings, unlike other less reflective metals of higher emissivity.

The molten metal that flowed out from the south tower fell away from the fires and therefore could not have been reflecting the color of the heat source, which means it's reasonable to believe that it wasn't purely molten aluminum from the aircraft's fuselage.


----------



## Faun (Feb 11, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for revealing how vacuous your position is that you feel the need to lie to preserve your delusions. Not only does the molten aluminum glow from the heat as it's poured, but it continues to glow as it sits in molds even after the crucible is moved away to pour molten aluminum into other molds.
> ...


Your bullshit is already exposed. As pointed out, the molten aluminum continued to glow *even after * the crucible was moved to fill other molds.  But I give you credit where it's due -- you certainly cling tenaciously to your delusions even after they're debunked. Good for you and the psychologist who prescribes your meds.


----------



## Capstone (Feb 11, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> A! does anybody other than me, dig the concept that the color of incandescence is a function of the temperature of said material regardless of the type of metal that is glowing.



Yes, but the apparent color and the incandescence are two different aspects of the glowing material in question.

You raise a good point though. The molten material that poured out from the south tower must have retained a sufficiently high temperature all the way down.


----------



## Capstone (Feb 11, 2015)

Faun said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The biggest problem with basing your argument on that video is that the effects of the lighting (and possibly the tampered-with tint of the video itself) are easily seen on the molds even prior to the pouring out of the molten aluminum. The visible lights on the storefront in the background, as well as that emanating from what appears to be an adjacent garage, all glow with reddish-orange halos, which might indicate that the tint of the original recording was purposely adjusted by the uploader in order to mislead the intended audience on YouTube. Anyone who views it should be able to see exactly what I'm talking about, a fact that renders the video suspect from the giddyup.

However, even if the tint wasn't purposely manipulated by the uploader, the extremely high reflectivity of aluminum (which is known to be on the order of 95%) and the reddish-orange lighting that's visible throughout the exercise collectively account for the vague twinge of orange that's barely apparent _on_ the aluminum in the video.

Now go take your chill pills and have a nice nap.


----------



## Capstone (Feb 11, 2015)

daws101 said:


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



My sense of fair play would normally prevent me from responding to individuals who aren't here to defend themselves, but it really should be said: that the only thing proven by the wall of text copied and pasted by Daws (without explicitly crediting the original author, as usual) is that the NIST group had *ample cause* to test for explosives, which only deepens the mystery as to why they chose not to do so.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 11, 2015)

Capstone said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Of course, common to the "Truthers" here would be an obvious disregard for the truth and a cynical propensity to cover that lack of veracity with verbosity. In post #767 you _specifically_ referred to "molten steel at ground zero" but later switched to the more honest "molten metal."


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 11, 2015)

Capstone said:


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



Ah-ha! Clear and overwhelming evidence that thousands of people conspired to slam passenger jets into 2 of America's tallest buildings (and the Pentagon and an open field in PA) which just happened to be rigged for silent CD for no apparent reason and then successfully maintained silence for the next 13+ years.
And you wonder why rational peeps refer to you "Truthers" as foil-haters?
 "I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." -  Charlie Veitch


----------



## Capstone (Feb 11, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Not nearly as common as the tendency of certain advocates of the OCT to purposely mischaracterize their opponents' statements for maximum emotional effect. 

I've used _both_ phrases throughout this and other discussions on the board, because various eyewitnesses used both of those phrases.

I've also granted a point I never denied in the first place, namely that some of the eyewitness accounts of "molten _steel_" were based on perceptive _assumptions_, which were only later corroborated by hard physical evidence.


----------



## Capstone (Feb 11, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Ah-ha! Clear and overwhelming evidence that thousands of people conspired to slam passenger jets into 2 of America's tallest buildings (and the Pentagon and an open field in PA) which just happened to be rigged for silent CD for no apparent reason and then successfully maintained silence for the next 13+ years.
> And you wonder why rational peeps refer to you "Truthers" as foil-haters?
> "I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." -  Charlie Veitch



NO, clear and overwhelming anecdotal evidence that was further supported by hard physical evidence that explosives/incendiaries were used.

All further implications of those bodies of evidence would have been scientifically irrelevant.


----------



## Faun (Feb 11, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Capstone said:
> ...


Holyfuck!  

Yeah, it's not that the molten aluminum is glowing, it's that the producer of the video tinted the aluminum to appear glowing so that the video could be used as evidence to twooffers who moronically deny that aluminum can be heated to the point of glowing.


----------



## Capstone (Feb 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> ...Yeah, it's not that the molten aluminum is glowing, it's that the producer of the video tinted the aluminum to appear glowing so that the video could be used as evidence to twooffers who moronically deny that aluminum can be heated to the point of glowing. ...



First of all, it's not a foregone conclusion that the producer of the video and the individual who uploaded it to YouTube are one and the same person, but, in any case, the bizarre tint and reddish-orange halos around the lighting fixtures that are visible in various spots during the video are undeniable.

Secondly, this isn't just about the capacity of molten aluminum to incandesce (I.E. "glow") both near and away from a given light/heat source; it's about its capacity to appear yellowish-orange while its being poured through the open air in broad daylight (as it would have been in the case of WTC2).

That you're apparently either unable or simply refuse to acknowledge the above facts and distinctions (due to delusional _incorrigibility_, maybe?)...speaks only of _your_ mindset and/or emotional well being, not anyone else's. 

Listen, you might want to look into switching doctors, since your current psychotherapist apparently hasn't found the right mix of anti-psychotics and mood stablizers for your personal imbalances and disorder(s).


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Feb 12, 2015)

Have to ask why faking a foreign terror attack bringing down a rather important structures in NYC was more worthwhile than just faking a US citizen abduction, making a video of their execution, then going on air every day and night for weeks speculating about how she was raped and tortured...


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Feb 12, 2015)

Anyone who's seen thermite cook off knows it's anything but silent and discreet.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 12, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Listen, you might want to look into switching doctors, since your current psychotherapist apparently hasn't found the right mix of anti-psychotics and mood stablizers for your personal imbalances and disorder(s).




Now that's rich! A flaming 9/11 CT "Truther" judging the emotional stability of others! Thanks for starting my day with a good belly laugh.


----------



## Capstone (Feb 12, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > Listen, you might want to look into switching doctors, since your current psychotherapist apparently hasn't found the right mix of anti-psychotics and mood stablizers for your personal imbalances and disorder(s).
> ...



Just trying to make sure that Faun has ample opportunity to taste a nibble or two of what he or she has so often dished out.

All in good fun, right?


----------



## Faun (Feb 12, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > ...Yeah, it's not that the molten aluminum is glowing, it's that the producer of the video tinted the aluminum to appear glowing so that the video could be used as evidence to twooffers who moronically deny that aluminum can be heated to the point of glowing. ...
> ...


You're a fucking nut.  The fact that you defend your hallucinations with such furor reveals that as well as revealing a common psychosis which appears common among you twoofers -- the need the twist reality into your distorted world view to accommodate the conspiracy you've married.

Here's a perfect example. In your world, aluminum can't glow when heated enough. You must believe that and defend that at all costs (even at the cost of your sanity) because your goal is to remain faithful to your idiotic notion that the molten metal seen pouring out of the tower cannot possibly be aluminum. Even when shown an example of molten aluminum glowing red hot, your instincts kick in, block all abilities at sound reasoning and logic, and spit forth a string of empty and worthless denials. All key, mind you, to being the quintessential twoofer  (i.e., batshit crazy).

sorry twoofer,  your lock step denials fail to alter that video. The molten aluminum seen it is most certainly glowing from the heat. It's amazing, disturbing & revealing you would try to deny something as clear as that; but again, that's what earns you a blue ribbon twoofer award.



Capstone said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Polly, want a cracker?


----------



## Capstone (Feb 12, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Have to ask why faking a foreign terror attack bringing down a rather important structures in NYC was more worthwhile than just faking a US citizen abduction, making a video of their execution, then going on air every day and night for weeks speculating about how she was raped and tortured...



I suppose that's really a question of the perspectives of various dirtbags, whose viewpoints aren't individually or collectively as worthy of intelligent consideration as the wad of soiled toilet paper I flushed after my morning dump a little while ago...


----------



## Capstone (Feb 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> You're a fucking nut.  The fact that you defend your hallucinations with such furor reveals that as well as revealing a common psychosis which appears common among you twoofers -- the need the twist reality into your distorted world view to accommodate the conspiracy you've married....



Projecting much? 

Speaking of perfect examples of twisted realities...



			
				Faun said:
			
		

> ...Here's a perfect example. In your world, aluminum can't glow when heated enough. ...



*Again*, it's not a matter of incandescence; it's a matter of color, more specifically that which may or may not be attainable under very specific conditions (E.G. pouring down 80-some stories in both open air and broad daylight). Now pay close attention, Faun: *I don't deny that molten aluminum can glow, nor do I deny that it can apparently do so with red hot intensity under certain conditions.* What I deny is that those conditions could have been present as whatever we saw was pouring out into the open air outside of the south tower on 9/11/01.



			
				Faun said:
			
		

> ...You must believe that and defend that at all costs (even at the cost of your sanity) because your goal is to remain faithful to your idiotic notion that the molten metal seen pouring out of the tower cannot possibly be aluminum. Even when shown an example of molten aluminum glowing red hot, your instincts kick in, block all abilities at sound reasoning and logic, and spit forth a string of empty and worthless denials. All key, mind you, to being the quintessential twoofer  (i.e., batshit crazy). ...



Meanwhile, _you_ must continue to misinterpret, distort, and mischaracterize your opponents' statements and views (albeit maybe sometimes subconsciously, as a defense mechanism to safeguard your cherished delusions?), even after the "evidence" you've provided has been exposed as suspect at best. Almost as if the tendency to distort rather than address opposing views were an _instinctive_ behavior commonly triggered with the 'life or death' level of urgency that seems so key to the deep-seated motivations of the quintessential "debwunker" you are (I.E. hopelessly self-deluded on a pathological scale).



			
				Faun said:
			
		

> ...sorry twoofer,  your lock step denials fail to alter that video. The molten aluminum seen it is most certainly glowing...



Nor does the accusation of a denial I never made alter the fact that the video was clearly either filmed under intensely reddish-orange lighting (for whatever reasons) or later tampered with by someone with an agenda (possibly the uploader).

In any event, *the color* on the glowing aluminum that was poured into the molds (I'm talking about that barely perceptible hint of orange from which your entire argument _dangles_ like the last remaining baby tooth in the mouth of a disillusioned 13 year-old) can easily be explained by reflectivity or manipulative deception.



			
				Faun said:
			
		

> Polly, want a cracker?



What, imitation _isn't_ the sincerest form of flattery? 

Sorry, I was just trying to be complimentary................


----------



## KokomoJojo (Feb 13, 2015)

daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Who here, reading this forum .. understand the difference between applying Thermite as a loose powder, and having a purpose built fixture to apply the energy to a specific location?
> ...



the fixtures are iron and guess what thermite does to iron?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 13, 2015)

Capstone said:


> The RJ Lee Group's dust study showed that the WTC dust had a unique signature that was marked primarily by "spherical iron particles", from which it concluded that "[iron had] melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles". The study also showed that the iron particulate content of the WTC dust was nearly 150 times greater than normal, and that temperatures "at which lead would have undergone vaporization" had occurred (that's 1,749°C/3,180°F).
> 
> The US Geological Survey's WTC dust study independently verified the RJ Lee Group's findings, but further found that molybdenum had melted, which meant that temperatures at ground zero must have reached at least 2,623°C/4,753°F.
> 
> ...



I just did what the paid trolls here at this site refuse to do.watched those videos,they prove beyond a doubt the government purposely lied and how Robertson who was one of the engineers,quickly changed his story later on as did other officials.the paid shills here such as gomer pyle ollie,faun  and dawgshit with his sock puppet  say,it can only sling shit in defeat like the monkey trolls hey are.lol


----------



## Capstone (Feb 14, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> I just did what the paid trolls here at this site refuse to do.watched those videos,they prove beyond a doubt the government purposely lied and how Robertson who was one of the engineers,quickly changed his story later on as did other officials. ...



I think it's worth mentioning that all the notable testimonial flip-flops (from Michael Hess to Les Robertson, ETC.) just _happened_  to swing in favor of the official narrative. Not that any of us should blame them, considering the well-documented persecution of those with the moral fiber and courage to stand their ground (people like Susan Lindauer, Sibel Edmonds, and Barry Jennings). Such patterns abound in the post-9/11 era, regardless of anyone's refusal to see them.


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 14, 2015)

Capstone said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > I just did what the paid trolls here at this site refuse to do.watched those videos,they prove beyond a doubt the government purposely lied and how Robertson who was one of the engineers,quickly changed his story later on as did other officials. ...
> ...



I get the feeling that if 'all the notable testimonial flip-flops' went in favor of your position, you'd hail them as evidence of what you consider the truth.


----------



## Capstone (Feb 14, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> I get the feeling that if 'all the notable testimonial flip-flops' went in favor of your position, you'd hail them as evidence of what you consider the truth.



I can't speak to that "feeling", Monty. I can, however, assure you that I most certainly would _not_ be hailing the testimonies of flip-floppers as evidence of anything but their lack of credibility. I've never been one to undermine my own intellectual honesty.

We're not talking about minor differences, which could be rationalized as natural lapses of memory ETC.; we're talking about *complete reversals* of previously documented accounts.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 14, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I get the feeling that if 'all the notable testimonial flip-flops' went in favor of your position, you'd hail them as evidence of what you consider the truth.
> ...



monte worships the governments version of events no matter how absurd they are.He worships the versions of what the media and our corrupt government institutions tell him over experts in their fields.lol

He would rather listen to what our corrupt government institutuions tell him about the version of the pentagon that a plane hit that building and did all those incredible manuvers in the air instead of the best expert pilots in the world what THEY have to say.what they have to say means nothing to him.

It means ZERO to him for example that the lady in the air traffic control tower said the air manuvers that were being done by the alleged airliner in the air were so incredible,she thought that it was a jet fighter since a jet fighter would be the only aircraft that could do all those incredible manuvers in the air that were done.not to mention the fact that the best pilots in the world have said THEY could not have pulled off those incredible feats of manuver in the air with a jet airliner  that an ALLEGED airliner did.

somehow what that lady traffic controller said and what expert pilots from around the world have said,they are not credible people to him,only the LAMESTREAM media and our government are credible to him.

thats how you know that agents faun,gomer pyle ollie and dawshit-aka sayit,are all indeed paid goverment disinfo agents the fact they constantly come back here everyday for their constant ass beatings they get here everyday.no way would they come back here everyday and make up lies like they do here everyday without getting paid,no way would they do it for free,no way no how.

when you bring up those facts to monte,he is left only capable of doing this in reply.

thats why i dont waste my time with him anymore in the conspiracy section.Now the nonsense he talks in the sports section i can put up with and tolerate, but not in the conspiracy section.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 14, 2015)

Capstone said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > I just did what the paid trolls here at this site refuse to do.watched those videos,they prove beyond a doubt the government purposely lied and how Robertson who was one of the engineers,quickly changed his story later on as did other officials. ...
> ...



exactly,Barry Jennings paid for it with his life telling the truth about bld 7 and not flip flopping because Bld 7 which is the crux od the 9/11 coverup commission these paid trolls faun,gomer pyle ollie and dawgshit-aka sayit,have never been able to get around. Robertson probabably knew he would end up dying like Jennings did if he did not flip flop.


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 14, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Yeah, I worship the government's version of events.  You total nitwit.


----------



## MaryL (Feb 14, 2015)

Actually, nobody  knows the physics  of a jet plane colliding with a modern steel/concrete multilevel  building until after 9/11. Steel girders  melt under a  burning gas tanker under steel bridge  under a San  Francisco  bridge. Steel and concrete. And Jet  fuel burns much hotter. All these people that tell me that no multilevel  skyscraper ever  collapsed from the heat of a fire, 9/11 was the first time.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 14, 2015)

I totally agree that burning gasoline demonstrated what it can do, & BTW that bridge was not in San Francisco but Oakland, ( details, details ..... ) anyhow my question is about the actual conditions of the fire damage with regards to WTC1, 2 & 7,  did the fire burn in such a manner as to uniformly weaken, or melt steel in such a way as to cause the observed result?  and how can that be accounted for, considering the fuel-load in each building had to have been non-uniform.


----------



## Capstone (Feb 14, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Actually, nobody  knows the physics  of a jet plane colliding with a modern steel/concrete multilevel  building until after 9/11. ...



The B-25 that struck the Empire State Building in thick fog back in 1945 provided a bit of a test case. Granted, it was significantly smaller and much slower than the 9/11 aircraft/drones, not only due to its archaic twin propeller-driven engines, but also because the pilot probably wasn't flying _balls to the walls_ in that pea soup fog. The Empire State Building was also a horse of a different color, in comparison to the far more modern WTC Towers, but a couple of things stand out about that horrible accident. One: the bulk of the aircraft did mangage to pentrate the building's exterior, leaving only a small section sticking out from the hole. Two: one of the engines "shot through the South side opposite the impact and flew as far as the next block, dropping 900 feet and landing on the roof of a nearby building and starting a fire that destroyed a penthouse.", ...exemplifying the physics of penetration in the process. In my view, this is pretty compelling evidence that the physics of the observed 9/11 aircraft impacts (at least in NYC) were probably in line with those of the 1945 crash.

I like the 'mosquito netting' analogy I once heard an engineer use to describe the Towers' external bearing walls, because the penetrated areas similarly wouldn't have compromised the integrity of the rest of the super-structures. The visual called to mind by the analogy isn't far off-base either, because there _were_ significant spaces between the penetrated columns, meaning it wasn't as if the aircraft/drones slammed headlong into a _single_ massive concrete block.

I personally see no viable basis for the 'no-planes' argument, at least not where the physics of the observed impacts are concerned; and yes, I'm fully aware that this puts me at odds with some of my fellow 'twoofers'. 



			
				MaryL said:
			
		

> ...Steel girders  melt under a  burning gas tanker under steel bridge  under a San  Francisco  bridge. Steel and concrete. And Jet  fuel burns much hotter. All these people that tell me that no multilevel  skyscraper ever  collapsed from the heat of a fire, 9/11 was the first time.



I'm not familiar with the situation you're referring to in the San Francisco 'bay area' (and I'm originally from NoCal, BTW), but I _do_ know why the official narrative had to be rewritten in a manner that scrubbed all previous references to "molten steel". It had to do with the widely influential work of an MIT professor, for whom the laws of physics were apparently more authoritative than anything else. We could discuss the details of his findings if you'd like, but you can rest assured, that if there were a way to explain the mountain of various types of evidence that steel had indeed been melted at Ground Zero (as opposed to merely weakened), he'd have done so.


----------



## MaryL (Feb 14, 2015)

That  plane that struck the empire  state building, I rest my case. The fully loadoaded jet plane that  was used as a fully laden  human missile, different  story. The physics involved in the collapse of the twin towers, nobody knows and it's never been  fully understood.


----------



## MaryL (Feb 14, 2015)

That thermite  thing is just a delusion. Nobody has ever seen a  101 story building collapse. Physics  is scary. Nobody knows  what to think  when  those towers  went down, but unknown physics and a couple of planes   full of jet A fuel and  planes crashed  used by  wacko Islamo nut jobs  had everything to do with this...


----------



## deep_space (Feb 14, 2015)

Montrovant said:


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



Rather than just saying "nitwit",  please tell your interpretation of the events as different from the official story.


----------



## deep_space (Feb 14, 2015)

MaryL said:


> That thermite  thing is just a delusion. Nobody has ever seen a  101 story building collapse. Physics  is scary. Nobody knows  what to think  when  those towers  went down, but unknown physics and a couple of planes   full of jet A fuel and  planes crashed  used by  wacko Islamo nut jobs  had everything to do with this...



So even though there are some significant unknowns, you believe that the terrorist attack ( that is the radical Arabs flying airliners into buildings ) is the explanation for the total destruction of not only the twin towers but WTC7  also.


----------



## MaryL (Feb 14, 2015)

Significant  unknowns? Really? Islam and 9/11. Wow, I just don't know  how to reply  to that. What color is the sky in your world...?


----------



## deep_space (Feb 14, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Significant  unknowns? Really? Islam and 9/11. Wow, I just don't know  how to reply  to that. What color is the sky in your world...?





> Nobody has ever seen a 101 story building collapse. Physics is scary. Nobody knows what to think when those towers went down, but unknown physics and a couple of planes full of jet A fuel and planes crashed used by wacko Islamo nut jobs had everything to do with this...



BTW: that is 110 story skyscraper and even though it has never been done before, there are some fundamental physical laws to consider, and the total destruction of the towers is definitely the least likely out-come of all the available options.

Maybe to you "physics is scary" but to some of us who have made a career out of handling applied physics, its really not.

From a previous post by you "And Jet fuel burns much hotter."  Allegedly in comparison to gasoline, Please tell me where you got this bit of information.


----------



## MaryL (Feb 14, 2015)

Really? Panes use jet A fule because I say so.


deep_space said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > Significant  unknowns? Really? Islam and 9/11. Wow, I just don't know  how to reply  to that. What color is the sky in your world...?
> ...


 Look it up kidoo , how do I know? I have lived aviation all my life, it's  a  given,  JET A, not  gas from a car or a truck. You been a around airport,  you smell the  difference.  I have flown, there is a difference in the octane rating.  Plane  pure and simple.


----------



## deep_space (Feb 15, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Really? Panes use jet A fule because I say so.
> 
> 
> deep_space said:
> ...



"look it up"  Gasoline - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia  ( scroll down to the table comparing different fuels )


----------



## Capstone (Feb 15, 2015)

MaryL said:


> ...The physics involved in the collapse of the twin towers, nobody knows and it's never been  fully understood.



I love it! All the work done by the government's science lackeys and private sector boot-lickers, along with hundreds of years of experimental validation of Newtonian physics, ..._whisked away  _like so much dust on the jacket of a long-forgotten book. I _will_ say this, if it weren't for the fact that it's actually one of the more compelling arguments for the OCT I've seen to date, I wouldn't have bothered to respond.

I know, let's put it in the form of a syllogism, just  to see how it looks:

*P1)* If the Laws of Physics are a bunch of hooey, nobody could draw any reliable conclusions from their application to observed phenomena.

*P2)* The Laws of Physics are a bunch of hooey.

*Conclusion:* Therefore, 19 coke-snorting, stripper-scrogging, devout Islamic fundamentalists hijacked 4 airliners, flew them at speeds documented by the NTSB that would have been impossible for the types of aircraft they were allegedly piloting, brought down 3 enormous skyscrapers in NYC with only 2 airplanes; and things like freefall, molten steel, and the unreacted but still active nano-engineered thermitic chips that were found in samples of WTC dust collected from 4 seperate locations...just don't matter.

Sound about right?


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 15, 2015)

deep_space said:


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



If you haven't followed 9/11's posts to see how this is just the same tired spiel he throws around no matter the subject, perhaps you would be better off not inserting yourself into it. 

As to how I think events were different from the official story, I don't.  I'm certainly aware that the official story is incomplete in some details and that it may be wrong in places, but I, along with millions of others, watched as the planes flew into the towers live on television.  I've seen various video clips, read statements from witnesses, etc. enough that I find the idea there were no planes, or the planes were something other than what we've all seen, to be pretty ludicrous.

So, planes flew into the towers.  I've said before that the nature of the collapses, straight down into themselves, struck me as odd when it happened and still seems odd.  However, as I saw no evidence of demolition at the time and have seen no compelling evidence of demolition since, I'm left with the options of either accepting what I saw and the official reports, or believing in some sort of secretive, massive conspiracy using possibly unknown technology to bring down the buildings.

As there are plenty of other instances in life in which something appears odd but clearly happened, I'm willing to go with the official report, in general.

I'm not opposed to questioning, but the trend among the CT posters on this site is not to question but to assume that some or all of the official report is lies, intentional fabrications to cover up a grand conspiracy by some international cabal that secretly controls the world, or something to that effect.  9/11IJ has a long history of finding conspiracy in everything (he's suddenly decided the NFL is part of a conspiracy because of a playcall he didn't like in the Super Bowl) and claiming that everyone who disagrees with him is ignoring the facts, then following that up by claiming to have put those posters on ignore and making fart jokes.


----------



## deep_space (Feb 15, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> deep_space said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Thank you for your opinion, so you agree with the official account of what allegedly happened.  are you willing to revise your position if you were shown facts that prove the official story is a crock?


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 15, 2015)

deep_space said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > deep_space said:
> ...



Assuming they actually proved such a thing, of course.  To date, no such thing has been proven that I've seen, and I find it extremely unlikely this far past the event that some new facts will emerge to change things, particularly in the conspiracy theory section of a message board.


----------



## deep_space (Feb 15, 2015)

> Assuming they actually proved such a thing, of course.



and therein lies the crux of the matter, people have produced proof that constitutes ( at least to me + others I know.... ) proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the events of 9/11/2001 were most definitely NOT as reported in the media, or the NIST "reports" on the subject.

I understand that there are some people with HUGE expectations as to the level of proof to be provided, however, when the evidence supporting the official story is shown to be so very thin, that is the alleged recovery of X% of "FLT93" but all that is available is pix of a huge bin of rubble.
And the very fact that three skyscrapers were totally destroyed on that day.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 15, 2015)

deep_space said:


> > Assuming they actually proved such a thing, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, let's deal with that. Most of us have a prob with the destruction of 9/11. Specifically what prob do _you_ have with it?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Feb 15, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> As to how I think events were different from the official story, I don't.  I'm certainly aware that the official story is incomplete in some details and that it may be wrong in places, but *I, along with millions of others, watched as the planes flew into the towers live on television.*  I've seen various video clips, read statements from witnesses, etc. enough that I find the idea there were no planes, or the planes were something other than what we've all seen, to be pretty ludicrous.


Thats right you saw it on TV so you know its twu!


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 15, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > As to how I think events were different from the official story, I don't.  I'm certainly aware that the official story is incomplete in some details and that it may be wrong in places, but *I, along with millions of others, watched as the planes flew into the towers live on television.*  I've seen various video clips, read statements from witnesses, etc. enough that I find the idea there were no planes, or the planes were something other than what we've all seen, to be pretty ludicrous.
> ...



And then there were all those peeps - some who recorded it - who saw it live without the aid of TV but yanno KooKoo, maybe you're right. Maybe there were no planes on 9/11 and maybe there were no WTC skyscrapers and maybe no one died that day and maybe there's no al-Qaeda and maybe...


----------



## KokomoJojo (Feb 15, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


then there were all those peeps and reporters who saw only an explosion.
Stay calm dont pop your cork now.


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 16, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



If some people saw planes fly into the towers, and some people did not, why do you assume there were no planes?  Would it not seem more reasonable to think that some people only viewed it from the opposite side of the tower when a plane hit and therefore only saw the explosion it caused, rather than that many, many people are just lying about what they saw for no discernible reason?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Feb 16, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


no its not reasonable unless I wanted to call them a liar since they said they neither saw nor heard a plane, and no they were not on the opposite side of the building.   Seems to me no one heard a plane.  further more its easy to see they were blew up and the plane cgi'd over the top.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 16, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



And there you have it. No matter how hard Cappy tries to pretend the 9/11 "Truther" Movement was a sincere and serious search for the truth [  ], fellow "Truthers" like KooKoo and Spammy and HandJob keep proving that was never the case.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 16, 2015)

Major problem I have with the whole fiasco, is the fact that it is obvious any airliner flying into a skyscraper would have to experience a huge jolt upon contact with the wall.  This jolt would be sufficient to break up the aircraft, and considering the fact that the alleged hit by "FLT175" happened at a 12.5 deg off perpendicular to the wall, no airframe ever flown could withstand the forces involved.
Just to make an example here and to be VERY generous with the estimations lets say that the airliner looses 1/8th of its velocity in the first 15 meters of penetration, that is >60g and as such the 5 ton jet engines will stress their mounts by 300 tons, and for that 15 meters of travel, it would take 0.06 sec. so there is plenty of time for the engines to break off and in breaking off, they would most certainly tumble, and as a rotating object striking the WTC wall with only the KE of the jet engine, there is NO WAY either jet engine would have penetrated the WTC wall.
The whole bit about "FLT11", "FLT175", & "FLT77 having penetrated walls and disappeared inside the building(s) is a total FARCE, its FRAUD!


----------



## Capstone (Feb 16, 2015)

Montrovant said:
			
		

> Assuming they actually proved such a thing, of course.  To date, no such thing has been proven that I've seen, and I find it extremely unlikely this far past the event that some new facts will emerge to change things, particularly in the conspiracy theory section of a message board.



The agreed upon period of freefall that's been observed and charted by experts from both sides of the debate (including NIST) is proof positive that the official explanation requires the suspension of faith in the laws of physics. The second law of motion (f = ma) dictates that the acceleration of a falling object is governed by its mass and the resultant force(s) acting on it. When the acceleration is equal to that of gravity, the resultant force is _demonstrably_ *only* the force of gravity. Since the third law tells us that interacting falling objects would exert equal and opposite forces between them, thereby decreasing the acceleration of their fall, we can say *with certainty* that Building 7's outer shell experienced *zero resistance* (which is very different from "negligible support") from more than 8 floors worth of internal AND external materials. What's more, in order to account for the symmetry of the observed collapse, those 8 floors would had to have been removed in a manner that cannot be explained by any of the natural forces at work in a 'fire-induced progressive collapse'. The only _physically possible_  explanation for the complete removal of an 8-story portion from the highly symmetrical path of descent of the upper 39 floors...is a precisely timed/controlled demolition. Since this body of empirical evidence alone totally falsifies a major piece of the official explanation and *strongly suggests* that Building 7 was rigged in advance of 9/11/01, the remainder of the NEOCT should be cast into serious doubt in the minds of all _reasonable_ people.

All the squabbling over other aspects of the available evidence aside, Monty, if you believe in the veracity of some of the best-established fundamental principles in physics, you cannot also believe in the veracity of the NEOCT. This alone should be ample cause for the rejection (not just the "questioning") of the latter, at least for those who don't incorrigibly cling to their officially authorized fantasy worlds.


----------



## Faun (Feb 16, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > You're a fucking nut.  The fact that you defend your hallucinations with such furor reveals that as well as revealing a common psychosis which appears common among you twoofers -- the need the twist reality into your distorted world view to accommodate the conspiracy you've married....
> ...


Your denials of denying the molten aluminum glowed from being heated are noted, but for the benefit of the casual read who might not have seen your denial .... of the molten aluminum seen glowing in that video,  you attributed it not to being heated, but to ....

_"Had you watched the video, you should have perceived the tint of the lighting apparently shining down on the molds...and that, even though the poured aluminum vaguely reflected that light, it still appeared more silvery-white than orange."_​
Only after being bashed over the head a couple of times did you finally acknowledge the molten aluminium did glow from heat, but even that came after your ridiculous notion that someone tinkered with the tint of the video itself. 

But even after acknowledging that molten aluminum can indeed glow from heat, you then deny the possibility of it being the material seen falling from the tower. 

About the only consistency among you brain-dead Twoofers is insanity.


----------



## Faun (Feb 16, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


Not seeing a plane is not proof there was no plane. There are many reasons that can occur. Many of the people who said that were not at a vantage point to see the plane as they were inside one of the towers and only heard and saw the explosion (which they accurately described sounding like a bomb). Many others were on the east side of the tower while many others may not have been looking up at that moment. Whatever the reasons for not seeing a plane, while absence of evidence is not evidence, there are many witnesses who said they saw a plane fly into the building.

And of course, there are dozens upon dozens of personal videos of it from people from all around the city. Not one single person has ever complained their video had the plane added.


----------



## Capstone (Feb 16, 2015)

Faun said:


> Your denials of denying the molten aluminum glowed from being heated are noted, but for the benefit of the casual read who might not have seen your denial .... of the molten aluminum seen glowing in that video,  you attributed it not to being heated, but to ....
> 
> _"Had you watched the video, you should have perceived the tint of the lighting apparently shining down on the molds...and that, even though the poured aluminum vaguely reflected that light, it still appeared more silvery-white than orange."_​
> Only after being bashed over the head a couple of times did you finally acknowledge the molten aluminium did glow from heat, but even that came after your ridiculous notion that someone tinkered with the tint of the video itself.  ...



Well, for the benefit of those with capacities for reading comprehension either equal to or weaker than yours...



> *tint*
> /tint/
> _noun_
> *1.* a shade or variety of color. ...



...pointing out that the poured/setting aluminum was apparently reflecting the bizarre "tint" (read: color) of the lighting (which was clearly visible in various places throughout that video) was in no way a denial of the fact that molten aluminum can "glow". 

The reason I've consistently specified the color aspect of the incandescence is because _that_ is the aspect that's relevant to the issue at hand, namely the color of the molten material seen pouring out of the South Tower on 9/11/01.



			
				FAUN said:
			
		

> ...But even after acknowledging that molten aluminum can indeed glow from heat, you then deny the possibility of it being the material seen falling from the tower. ...



What I denied is that the conditions required for molten aluminum to attain *the proper color*...could have been met as it poured down 80-some stories in the open air and broad daylight after having been melted at the temperatures reportedly reached inside WTC2 -- a fact that's been perfectly consistent with my unwavering focus on color all along.



			
				FAUN said:
			
		

> ...About the only consistency among you brain-dead Twoofers is insanity.



And about the only thing _you've_ consistently demonstrated in our somewhat limited interaction on this board is your virtual lack of worthiness to be taken seriously...by anyone. By all means though, keep up the good work.


----------



## Faun (Feb 17, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Your denials of denying the molten aluminum glowed from being heated are noted, but for the benefit of the casual read who might not have seen your denial .... of the molten aluminum seen glowing in that video,  you attributed it not to being heated, but to ....
> ...


Watching your denials shift from first attributing the glowing to reflecting the glow from the crucible to your shifting to the "bizarre tint," possibly by intentional "tampering" of the video, has been almost as amusing as watching you deny you initially denied molten aluminum can glow when sufficiently heated. A state for molten aluminum which you called spurious. So you had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, but you've now proved 4 separate opinions on the matter; ranging from spurious, to reflecting the glow from the crucible, to possible tampering, to finally admitting molten aluminum actually can glow ... but not the right color. 

You're so intent on clinging to your conspiracy idiocy, you have no choice but to shift your fluid positions like the tide as they are exposed as the delusions all rational people recognize them to be.


----------



## Capstone (Feb 17, 2015)

The molten aluminum in the video may well have been reflecting the color emanating from within the crucible, _as well_ as that coming from the ambient lighting after it was poured into the molds. Pointing out both possibilities isn't tantamount to "switch[ing]" a thing.

As for my use of the word "spurious", it was partially in reference to the fact that the video embedded by Daws in post #766 made no mention of the distinction between the colors attainable (by whatever means) during the melting process vs. those that could be exhibited as molten aluminum is poured down 80+ stories through the open air in broad daylight. It had nothing to do with the glowing aspect of incandescence...and everything to do with the color aspect, as have all the relevant statements I've made since.

Too bad for you all my posts are still there for any and all newcomers to the thread to go back and read for themselves.

What _is_ amusing though, speaking of the ol' switcheroo, is how you started out talking about both aspects of incandescence  ("glowing orange") and then suddenly dropped the color aspect after only two posts.


----------



## Faun (Feb 17, 2015)

Capstone said:


> The molten aluminum in the video may well have been reflecting the color emanating from within the crucible, _as well_ as that coming from the ambient lighting after it was poured into the molds. Pointing out both possibilities isn't tantamount to "switch[ing]" a thing.
> 
> As for my use of the word "spurious", it was partially in reference to the fact that the video embedded by Daws in post #766 made no mention of the distinction between the colors attainable (by whatever means) during the melting process vs. those that could be exhibited as molten aluminum is poured down 80+ stories through the open air in broad daylight. It had nothing to do with the glowing aspect of incandescence...and everything to do with the color aspect, as have all the relevant statements I've made since.
> 
> ...


Translation of your idiocy ... unlike you, my description of that molten aluminum has not wavered.


----------



## Capstone (Feb 17, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Significant  unknowns? Really? Islam and 9/11. Wow, I just don't know  how to reply  to that. *What color is the sky in your world...?* [emphasis Capstone's]



What a poignantly ironic question. I'm almost envious at the completely unqualified confidence on which it's based. I sometimes pine for the days when I held a similar outlook on world events -- the blackness and whiteness that still permeates the _them vs. us_ mentality so vigorously promoted in the propaganda of those who created the boogeymen of our darkest nightmares. Yes, the _evil_  Muslims of *Al Qaeda*, *ISIS & ISIL*, for whom the raging jealousy of our _American freedoms_ is so potent a motivator that many of them have been driven to play the role of mercenary in the proxy armies of the US/Israeli destabilization efforts in the Middle East! Ah, the good ol' days.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 17, 2015)

someone farted in here.^


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 17, 2015)

deep_space said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > deep_space said:
> ...



believe me,with him,you might as well be talking to a brick wall.No he only sees what he WANTS to see,he wont watch videos or read links that shoot down the governments fairy tales.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 17, 2015)

Capstone said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Ah-ha! Clear and overwhelming evidence that thousands of people conspired to slam passenger jets into 2 of America's tallest buildings (and the Pentagon and an open field in PA) which just happened to be rigged for silent CD for no apparent reason and then successfully maintained silence for the next 13+ years.
> ...




you still arguing with paid troll dawgshit?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 17, 2015)

deep_space said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > That thermite  thing is just a delusion. Nobody has ever seen a  101 story building collapse. Physics  is scary. Nobody knows  what to think  when  those towers  went down, but unknown physics and a couple of planes   full of jet A fuel and  planes crashed  used by  wacko Islamo nut jobs  had everything to do with this...
> ...


you'll never get anywhere with mary,she actually STILL believes JFK got us into Vietnam and esculated the war amazingly.


another brick wall who only sees what she WANTS to see.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 17, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> you'll never get anywhere with mary,she actually STILL believes JFK got us into Vietnam and esculated the war amazingly.
> 
> 
> another brick wall who only sees what she WANTS to see.



Judging by the number of responses and 'Thanks' your posts generate, I'd say I'm the only poster who doesn't have you on ignore (and that's only because I don't have anyone on ignore). Normal peeps modify their behavior when _consistently_ rejected. You're just not normal, Princess, but thanks for playing.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 18, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > As to how I think events were different from the official story, I don't.  I'm certainly aware that the official story is incomplete in some details and that it may be wrong in places, but *I, along with millions of others, watched as the planes flew into the towers live on television.*  I've seen various video clips, read statements from witnesses, etc. enough that I find the idea there were no planes, or the planes were something other than what we've all seen, to be pretty ludicrous.
> ...


thats the logic Monty uses.He probably thinks pro wresting is real as well.


you took him to school and handed his ass to him on a platter,an easy thing to do with him.lol


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 18, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Your denials of denying the molten aluminum glowed from being heated are noted, but for the benefit of the casual read who might not have seen your denial .... of the molten aluminum seen glowing in that video,  you attributed it not to being heated, but to ....
> ...


yep good work on showing HE is the insane one being gullible believing in holographic images worshipping what the media and government tells him instead of listening to experts and witnesses. talk about bush dupes who are insane.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 18, 2015)

Capstone said:


> The molten aluminum in the video may well have been reflecting the color emanating from within the crucible, _as well_ as that coming from the ambient lighting after it was poured into the molds. Pointing out both possibilities isn't tantamount to "switch[ing]" a thing.
> 
> As for my use of the word "spurious", it was partially in reference to the fact that the video embedded by Daws in post #766 made no mention of the distinction between the colors attainable (by whatever means) during the melting process vs. those that could be exhibited as molten aluminum is poured down 80+ stories through the open air in broad daylight. It had nothing to do with the glowing aspect of incandescence...and everything to do with the color aspect, as have all the relevant statements I've made since.
> 
> ...



thanks for posting that video you did where robertson initially sais molten steel  but then later did a flip flop and said there was none.

I had heard how initially that day when it happened how he first said that  but later changed his story to go along with the governments version of events but never had seen any facts that talked about that so i never mentioned that.But now thanks to that video of yours I have proof positive he DID say that initially.

Too bad for barry jennings sake he didnt change his story later on.He would be alive today right now had he done so.

Have you read griffins book DEBUNKING THE 9/11 DEBUNKING? its interesting that you mention that about rebertson flip flopping his story because that book also talks about some man who was the head of a government demolition company,cant remember his name,but he like robertson ALSO initially changed his story.He initially said explosives brought the towers down but just like robertson,ALSO changed his story later on to go along with the governments version.are you familiar with that? do you know who I am talking about?

Robertson and that demolition expert no doubt obviously remember the countless number of people who died in mysterious deaths in the JFK assassination who gave version of events that did not go along with the warren commissions version of  of events insisting they saw a gunman behind the picket fence firing a rifle.

He no doubt remembered Hale Boggs who was on the warren commission and even HE said he did not agree with the commissions findings that oswald was the lone assassin and was extremely criticial of their report and as a result,meant an untimely death in a mysterious plane crash.

You just KNOW Boggs murder was fresh in his mind later on when he changed his story.

Robertson got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.He totally about everything years later saying he saw no molten steel when that was EXACTLY what he said he saw three weeks later.lol.


----------



## Capstone (Feb 18, 2015)

Faun said:


> Translation of your idiocy ... unlike you, my description of that molten aluminum has not wavered.



I started out with color and never strayed from that aspect of incandescence. _You_ started out with glowing _and_ color ("glowing orange") and then quickly dropped color like a red-hot potato, most likely hoping nobody'd notice. Watching as your subconscious tattles on your conscious behavior (by way of accusing me of your own goal-post-switching M.O.)...would be a lot funnier...if it weren't such a sad indication of your desperation.

The thrust of my argument, which has been perfectly congruent with my observations on any side issues (such as the empirical presence of strange reddish/orange halos around visible light sources in the video you posted), is that the conditions required for molten aluminum to attain the color exhibited by the material seen pouring from WTC2...could not have been met under those circumstances. In other words, while it's possible to continue heating aluminum way past its melting point (at 1,220°F) into the yellow-white temperature range (Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't the guys in your video mention something about 2,900°F?), the officially reported max. temperatures of the fires that burned in the South Tower weren't high enough to do so, especially minus the aid of a crucible for concentrated heating. Without such a mechanism in place, it's highly likely that the unrestrained aluminum would have trickled away before it could have reached/sustained a sufficiently high temperature for an adequate length of time. Most damning of all to the offical explanation, is that even if aluminum from the airplane's fuselage could have somehow met the neccessary conditions to exhibit the proper color during the melting phase, it still would have appeared silvery within the first two meters of falling through the open air in broad daylight, primarily because of its extremely high reflectivity and low emissivity.


----------



## Capstone (Feb 18, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:
			
		

> . . .Have you read griffins book DEBUNKING THE 9/11 DEBUNKING? its interesting that you mention that about rebertson flip flopping his story because that book also talks about some man who was the head of a government demolition company,cant remember his name,but he like robertson ALSO initially changed hisstory.He initially said explosives brought the towers down but just like robertson,ALSO changed his story later on to go along with the governmentsversion.are you familiar with that? do you know who I am talking about? ...



I haven't read any of D.R. Griffin's books. I _have_ seen and even cited his work from several online articles and videos, and have a ton of respect for the man.

I can't think of the name of the person you're talking about, but the story does ring a bell. I'm pretty sure the info is available somewhere on the net.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 18, 2015)

Capstone said:


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



its a great book,you really should read it sometime.Nobody has ever been able to debunk it.the paid shills here will say bullshit like ITS BEEN DEBUNKED with no facts whatsoever to prove it of course. They never take any of my challenges i issue them to read the book or watch any of my videos and then try to refute the facts in them. they are just left doing this of course all the time in defeat.

same as they are doing with you here.

I have read it at least two times and have highlighted many key facts in there so I'll find that quote in that part of the book and post it for you sometime this week.

amazingly he doesnt cover that information in there about robertson you posted in that video  on how he initially reported molten steel and then changed his story later on.He does mention Robertsons name and that he did say he saw molten steel initially,but he doesnt mention how robertson changed his story like you proved though so Im glad you posted that video because like i said,i had heard from people that robertson said that in his initial testimony but then changed his story but never saw anything on that so because of that,i have refrained from ever mentioning that over the years  but NOW since you provided facts that prove all that did happen,i now have something to go on and i CAN mention that now.

so just feel good to know that there was ONE person who took the time to watch that video here on this thread and had a real interest in it.


----------



## Faun (Feb 18, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Insanity is believing that it wasn't planes which people saw fly into the Twin Towers, but holographic images -- *a technology which not only didn't exist on 9.11, but more than 13 years later, still doesn't exist.

  *


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 18, 2015)

someone farted in here.^


----------



## Faun (Feb 18, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Translation of your idiocy ... unlike you, my description of that molten aluminum has not wavered.
> ...


As my position has remained consistent and unwavering, I have nothing to be desperate about. You, on the other hand, reveal desperation in your ever shifting claims as well as your lies.

Lie #1: that I switched my argument because I didn't repeat myself when I said the molten aluminum was glowing orange. In reality, I switched nothing as I still maintain that. Repeating it is not necessary and I gave no other description.
To dumb this down to terms you may possibly comprehend,  you earlier mentioned the planes but didn't repeat that you believed they were drones. Applying your brain-dead [il]logic to that would mean you abandoned your ridiculous claim that drones were used.

Lie #2: that you never changed your excuses for the incandescence of the molten aluminum. Again, your initial knee-jerk reaction was to claim the molten aluminum was "silvery-white" in color and reflected its color from the crucible. After I suggested you actually watch the video, you shifted your claim to the molten aluminum reflecting its color from other sources of light. You also suggested the video had been "tampered" with.  And your position shifted from denying the molten aluminum produced its own glow to finally admitting it can if heated enough. You have almost as many positions on that video as the Yankees do on the field.


----------



## Faun (Feb 18, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> someone farted in here.^


Suuure, you're not insane ... you just smell bad.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 18, 2015)

Personal attacks aside, What temperature is indicated by a metal object ( that is ANY metal ) heated to the point where it glows red/orange?


----------



## Capstone (Feb 18, 2015)

Faun said:


> ...your initial knee-jerk reaction was to claim the molten aluminum was "silvery-white" in color and reflected its color from the crucible. After I suggested you actually watch the video, you shifted your claim to the molten aluminum reflecting its color from other sources of light. You also suggested the video had been "tampered" with. And your position shifted from denying the molten aluminum produced its own glow to finally admitting it can if heated enough.



First of all, the post in which I characterized the molten aluminum from your video as "silvery-white" came immediately _after_ your suggestion that I watch the video I'd already watched. At least try to keep the chronology of your appeals to silence in order. 

Secondly, my mentioning two possible sources of reflected light in separate posts didn't amount to a change of position, which has remained to this very moment that molten aluminum is highly reflective and therefore may have been reflecting the reddish-orange lighting that's visible from more than one source in your video -- the operative notion being that of reflectivity, _not_ the number of prospective sources of reflected light.

Third and most importantly, since the equally true facts, that liquid aluminum is highly reflective and that it can be heated beyond its melting point into the yellow/white color range (albeit under conditions that couldn't have been present inside/outside of the South Tower), aren't mutually exclusive, your accusation that I shifted positions by affirming both of them simultaneously (after the unfounded allegation that I denied the latter) could only be based on my previous silence,...which, as you pointed out about my sardonic charge that _you_ shifted positions, would make it fallacious. 



			
				Faun said:
			
		

> ...You have almost as many positions on that video as the Yankees do on the field.



My single take on that video is that it's unreliable, for *all* of the reasons/possibilities I've mentioned (and some I haven't). Moreover, should I choose to bring up any of those previously unmentioned reasons, it certainly wouldn't constitute a change of position on my part.

So, now that it's clear the allegations that either of us changed our positions would both constitute appeals to silence, maybe you'd care to address the thrust of my steadfast argument, which remains that the conditions both inside and outside of WTC2 could not have met the requirements of orange/yellow/white-hot aluminum...


----------



## daws101 (Feb 18, 2015)

Capstone said:


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


total bullshit......if you'd bothered to click on the red highlighted wtc molten metal   
0n post #776 you would have seen this WTC Molten Steel
but being far too busy attempting and failing to patch the gaping rents in your bullshit you missed that detail...


----------



## Capstone (Feb 18, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> Personal attacks aside, What temperature is indicated by a metal object ( that is ANY metal ) heated to the point where it glows red/orange?



Between 1598°F and 1706°F, I.E. significantly hotter than the oxygen-starved fires that were still burning when the _orange/yellow_ molten material was seen exiting the South Tower (long after the bulk of the jet fuel had burned-off in the initial fireball).


----------



## daws101 (Feb 18, 2015)

KokomoJojo said:


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


funny why build a device that would self destruct before it did it's job.
that's what would have happened if the fantasy thermite fixture would have been used  ......total asshat!


----------



## daws101 (Feb 18, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> Personal attacks aside, What temperature is indicated by a metal object ( that is ANY metal ) heated to the point where it glows red/orange?


glowing red, orange or mauve does not make it molten...
NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, * since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires.* Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning. 

*Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."*

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm


*The melting point of steel is 2500F. A higher point of 6152F is needed to melt Tungsten.* 

Read more http://www.kgbanswers.co.uk/at-what-temperature-does-steel-become-molten/3352047#ixzz3S9BlPgcC


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 18, 2015)

daws101 said:


> the fixtures are iron and guess what thermite does to iron?


funny why build a device that would self destruct before it did it's job.
that's what would have happened if the fantasy thermite fixture would have been used  ......total asshat![/QUOTE]

Yanno Daws, any number of normal, rational, logical adults have been having the exact same conversation with the exact same asshats for years here and sometimes it occurs to me that at least some of them may well be the mis and dis informationalists that the now defunct "Truther" Movement  believed to have so thoroughly muddied the waters. I mean, can anyone really be so dim as to "reason" and "think" as our more strident "Truthers" do? If you had to pick one, which of the asshats do you think is bright enough to be a double agent?


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 18, 2015)

speculation aside, WHY is it considered even plausible for WTC1,2 & 7 to have Collapsed into complete & total destruction?  Other buildings in the same complex were damaged but not leveled, so WHY WTC1,2 & 7?
and in the manner of the collapse events being as described by the newspeople on TV as just like when an old building is intentionally destroyed.... 
This in addition to the fact that allegedly two airliners left airplane shaped gashes in the towers, REALLY PEOPLE? 
and my question is.... WHY is there so little questioning of the official fairy tale?  Are all of the voters/taxpayers of this land so completely fooled by this fraud that they choose not to ask any questions at all?


----------



## daws101 (Feb 18, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > the fixtures are iron and guess what thermite does to iron?
> ...



Yanno Daws, any number of normal, rational, logical adults have been having the exact same conversation with the exact same asshats for years here and sometimes it occurs to me that at least some of them may well be the mis and dis informationalists that the now defunct "Truther" Movement  believed to have so thoroughly muddied the waters. I mean, can anyone really be so dim as to "reason" and "think" as our more strident "Truthers" do? If you had to pick one, which of the asshats do you think is bright enough to be a double agent?[/QUOTE]


none in the current crop of dumb fucks but capstone does a fair imitation a nearly rational person!


----------



## daws101 (Feb 18, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> speculation aside, WHY is it considered even plausible for WTC1,2 & 7 to have Collapsed into complete & total destruction?  Other buildings in the same complex were damaged but not leveled, so WHY WTC1,2 & 7?
> and in the manner of the collapse events being as described by the newspeople on TV as just like when an old building is intentionally destroyed....
> This in addition to the fact that allegedly two airliners left airplane shaped gashes in the towers, REALLY PEOPLE?
> and my question is.... WHY is there so little questioning of the official fairy tale?  Are all of the voters/taxpayers of this land so completely fooled by this fraud that they choose not to ask any questions at all?


spammy do use a favor and take a break...!.


----------



## MaryL (Feb 18, 2015)

Don't need  termite or that. Jet  A Fuel burns hot enough to  melt steel girders, how about we just get back to Islamic  extremist again? Same people that are  beheading people  in the name of some imaginary  fantasy?


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 18, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Don't need  termite or that. Jet  A Fuel burns hot enough to  melt steel girders, how about we just get back to Islamic  extremist again? Same people that are  beheading people  in the name of some imaginary  fantasy?


 
I don't believe jet fuel burns long enough to melt thick steel girders just as I don't believe thermite devices surreptitiously duct-taped to some girders by silent ninja Girl Scout CD riggers would survive the chaotic fires or cut the steel as suggested by our loonier "Truthers." The fact remains there are easier and far more reliable ways to demo a building and far easier and more rational ways to accomplish whatever agenda - other than that of the 19 hijackers - that  the "Truthers" believe was in play.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 18, 2015)

daws101 said:


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



none in the current crop of dumb fucks but capstone does a fair imitation a nearly rational person![/QUOTE]

Too obvious. Cappy tries too hard to avoid appearing loony. I too doubt any of the current crop has the smarts to be a double agent but it would be one or more of the irregulars (as if any "Truther" can be described as regular). Maybe one who drops in, spews some silly 9/11 lunacy, and then drops out.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 18, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> speculation aside, WHY is it considered even plausible for WTC1,2 & 7 to have Collapsed into complete & total destruction?



Because they did.



n0spam4me said:


> .... WHY is there so little questioning of the official fairy tale?  Are all of the voters/taxpayers of this land so completely fooled by this fraud that they choose not to ask any questions at all?



Because rational adults don't consider the NIST findings - incomplete and imperfect as they may be - to be an "official fairy tale" and for those same rational adults, short of physically re-enacting 9/11, the questions have been answered to a reasonable degree. Your frustration seems to stem from your inability - and that of the now-defunct "Truther" Movement - to convince normal peeps to slide down that silly wabbit hole with you.
More Spammy pseudoscience in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 19, 2015)

Note that in post 871, there is a very clear example of circular logic in that


> Because they did.


is offered up as the reason why it had to have been the product of the fires and damage from an airliner crash rather than any pre-planned demolition.


----------



## hadit (Feb 19, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> Note that in post 871, there is a very clear example of circular logic in that
> 
> 
> > Because they did.
> ...



Occam's razor.  When considering many alternatives the simplest one is usually the right one.  Conspiracy theorists continue to widen the conspiracy, come up with ever wilder speculations, and add layer upon layer of complexity.  The whole "pre-planned demolition" idea rests on some pretty extreme assumptions.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 19, 2015)

Occam's razor is often invoked in these discussions and may I add a bit if info here.  In order to do what was alleged to have been done in the case of "FLT175" the airliner would have to be traveling aprox 240 meters/sec. or about 540 mph, now this is considerably faster than any pilot has previously flown any commercial airliner so near sea-level. So we are expected to believe that the hijacker/pilot took a gamble in this case, that is attempting and succeeding to fly the aircraft in a manner that has NEVER been done and is outside the specified standard operating parameters for said aircraft.
not only that, but the hijacker/pilot was able to actually control the aircraft so as to strike the WTC tower.  We are then expected to believe that an airliner can perform as a missile in penetrating the wall of the skyscraper, penetrating completely and leaving behind a wing shaped gash.
When ever two physical object collide, there is the strength of materials issue, consider the case of a steel automobile striking a fiberglass sports car, what happens in that case?

The whole scenario with the alleged hijacked airliners used as weapons is beyond improbable its impossible!


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 19, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> Note that in post 871, there is a very clear example of circular logic in that
> 
> 
> > Because they did.
> ...


 
You are a lame liar as well as a coward, Spammy.
"Because they did" was a specific response to your post which asked only: "speculation aside, WHY is it considered even plausible for WTC1,2 & 7 to have Collapsed into complete & total destruction?" Clearly you truncated the conversation because it did not support the lie you wanted to post in your "war for hearts and minds."


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 19, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Don't need  termite or that. Jet  A Fuel burns hot enough to  melt steel girders, how about we just get back to Islamic  extremist again? Same people that are  beheading people  in the name of some imaginary  fantasy?


great fantasys you have that they are hot enough to melt steel girders.

No surprise that's the latest babble from you considering that you also have fantasy that JFK got us into Vietnam and esculated the Vietnam war.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 19, 2015)

hadit said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Note that in post 871, there is a very clear example of circular logic in that
> ...


the only conspiracy THEORISTS are the bush dupes who believe the fires brought the towers down.


assumption is assuming the did without any facts whatsoever to back them up.

its asinine to say it wasn't pre planned the fact so many architects and engineers have said fires have never caused a bld to collapse and that demoltion experts have said they were brought down by explosives.also bld 7 is the crux of the 9/11 coverup commission Bush dupes cant get around.

the fact that disinfo agent dawgshit-aka sayit sockpuppet clicked on a like for it,proves this post is BS.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 19, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



The shrill and incessant lunacy of poor HandJob should convince any 9/11 "Truther" and any potential "Truther" that all is lost and to quickly abandon that sinking ship.


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 19, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> Occam's razor is often invoked in these discussions and may I add a bit if info here.  In order to do what was alleged to have been done in the case of "FLT175" the airliner would have to be traveling aprox 240 meters/sec. or about 540 mph, now this is considerably faster than any pilot has previously flown any commercial airliner so near sea-level. So we are expected to believe that the hijacker/pilot took a gamble in this case, that is attempting and succeeding to fly the aircraft in a manner that has NEVER been done and is outside the specified standard operating parameters for said aircraft.
> not only that, but the hijacker/pilot was able to actually control the aircraft so as to strike the WTC tower.  We are then expected to believe that an airliner can perform as a missile in penetrating the wall of the skyscraper, penetrating completely and leaving behind a wing shaped gash.
> When ever two physical object collide, there is the strength of materials issue, consider the case of a steel automobile striking a fiberglass sports car, what happens in that case?
> 
> The whole scenario with the alleged hijacked airliners used as weapons is beyond improbable its impossible!



A couple of points.

First, flying outside 'specified standard operating parameters' does not seem like much to me.  I would think that those parameters usually fall on the side of safety, rather than going to the edge of possibility.  Further, while perhaps no passenger plane of the type had ever been flow in such a manner, it's also likely that no test had been done of such flight by people not only willing but expecting to crash and die.  

As to the planes entering and making holes in the sides of the buildings, what exactly did the planes penetrate?  The sides of the buildings were, in large part, windows, were they not?  You (and others) talk about it as though the planes were made of aluminum foil and the towers were covered in an inches thick layer of solid steel.

As far as the two automobiles colliding, it's entirely dependent on the specific circumstances as to what happens.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 19, 2015)

someone farted in here.^

I usually reserve that line in the conspiracy section for paid trolls such as faun,rat in the ass,and dawgshit and his sock puppet he is posting under sayit but with you,i am making an exception with since you are scared of facts about government corruption  and only see what you want to see.


----------



## hadit (Feb 19, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > Don't need  termite or that. Jet  A Fuel burns hot enough to  melt steel girders, how about we just get back to Islamic  extremist again? Same people that are  beheading people  in the name of some imaginary  fantasy?
> ...



Who says the fires had to be hot enough to melt steel?  They didn't have to be anywhere near that hot because all they had to was weaken the steel enough to start the collapse.  Jet fuel could easily do that, eliminating a tremendous amount of angst-filled misinformation.  See how much simpler things are when you start from a factual basis?


----------



## hadit (Feb 19, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



And the conspiracy widens...


----------



## daws101 (Feb 19, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> Note that in post 871, there is a very clear example of circular logic in that
> 
> 
> > Because they did.
> ...


THIS COMING FROM A POSTER  who swears there were no planes .
just screams nut job don't cha think?


----------



## daws101 (Feb 19, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> Occam's razor is often invoked in these discussions and may I add a bit if info here.  In order to do what was alleged to have been done in the case of "FLT175" the airliner would have to be traveling aprox 240 meters/sec. or about 540 mph, now this is considerably faster than any pilot has previously flown any commercial airliner so near sea-level. So we are expected to believe that the hijacker/pilot took a gamble in this case, that is attempting and succeeding to fly the aircraft in a manner that has NEVER been done and is outside the specified standard operating parameters for said aircraft.
> not only that, but the hijacker/pilot was able to actually control the aircraft so as to strike the WTC tower.  We are then expected to believe that an airliner can perform as a missile in penetrating the wall of the skyscraper, penetrating completely and leaving behind a wing shaped gash.
> When ever two physical object collide, there is the strength of materials issue, consider the case of a steel automobile striking a fiberglass sports car, what happens in that case?
> 
> The whole scenario with the alleged hijacked airliners used as weapons is beyond improbable its impossible!


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 19, 2015)

> The sides of the buildings were, in large part, windows, were they not?


  The wall of the WTC towers was less than 1/3 window area, check it out! there is an abundance of data available on this subject!


----------



## MaryL (Feb 20, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > Don't need  termite or that. Jet  A Fuel burns hot enough to  melt steel girders, how about we just get back to Islamic  extremist again? Same people that are  beheading people  in the name of some imaginary  fantasy?
> ...


It's pointless to argue this. I was told gas doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel.
Really. A gas tanker overturned under a steel bridge  in Oakland in  2007 and melted the steel girders  on a overpass, destroyed the concrete. Look it up, East bay MacArthur maze. Big thick  heavy  girders and concrete  just  melt or disintegrate. And Jet  fuel burns hotter. So don't tell me the towers couldn't have collapsed because steel cant melt in a gas  fire. It does. This was about  muslim  extremist murdering people, plain pure and simple.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 20, 2015)

> Jet fuel burns hotter.



We have been over this territory before, look it up!
Basic Liquid hydrocarbon fuel, how many BTU/gallon can you get from either petol or Jet fuel?


----------



## Capstone (Feb 20, 2015)

MaryL said:


> It's pointless to argue this. I was told gas doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel.
> Really. A gas tanker overturned under a steel bridge  in Oakland in  2007 and melted the steel girders  on a overpass, destroyed the concrete. Look it up, East bay MacArthur maze. Big thick  heavy  girders and concrete  just  melt or disintegrate. And Jet  fuel burns hotter. So don't tell me the towers couldn't have collapsed because steel cant melt in a gas  fire. It does. This was about  muslim  extremist murdering people, plain pure and simple.



For the same reason "it's pointless to argue" with you over the jet fuel that experts on all sides agree burned-off very quickly, it's equally pointless to engage you on your myopic understanding of geopolitical issues. Your opinions in both areas are clearly informed only by the curdled milk you've consumed from the teats of western 'mainstream' sources that have been exposed as liars time and again.

For the benefit of others not so fully indoctrinated, groups like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda have long been exposed as creations/assets of the CIA and similar agencies from a few other countries.

Knowing the foregoing tidbit of information, any reasonable person should be relunctant to accept the current narrative involving so-called 'Muslim extremists' at face value.

Even the most cursory of glances at what's been going on in Iraq and Syria over the past few years reveal that there's something very wrong with the stories we've been fed by our media.

The truth is that ISIS is a proxy army led by western black operators and composed primarily of mercenaries and a smaller portion of faith-driven fools too clueless to see the strings attached to their own limbs. These forces have trained in Jordan, Turkey, and western Iraq (by US forces). They've been allowed to move in massive convoys without US/Iraqi interference, as Obama has routinely taken the blame in stride, in order to prop up the illusion that the US actually _wants_ to stop them. Anyone with the sense God gave the common housefly should be able to see the agenda behind all of it.


----------



## MaryL (Feb 20, 2015)

What? Islam is all up into suicide bombers. Hell. Islam taxes  non muslims, There is a muslim concept for that. Islam is all about submission, an not co-existence  American liberals masturbate  too. Islam isn't about that , shame on Obama. Islam is  at war with the free world. Kill cartoonists? Really? Buggs Bunny is a threat to Allah? Islam is weak. Pitiful.  Fuck Allah.


----------



## Capstone (Feb 20, 2015)

MaryL said:


> What? Islam is all up into suicide bombers. Hell. Islam taxes  non muslims, There is a muslim concept for that. Islam is all about submission, an not co-existence  American liberals masturbate  too. Islam isn't about that , shame on Obama. Islam is  at war with the free world. Kill cartoonists? Really? Buggs Bunny is a threat to Allah? Islam is weak. Pitiful.  Fuck Allah.



It's like talking to a wall. 

You're the embodiment of everything that's wrong with our beloved country, Mary.

Good news is: the willful ignorance and hateful mores that seem so prevalent among your generation...are on their way out.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 20, 2015)

Capstone said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > What? Islam is all up into suicide bombers. Hell. Islam taxes  non muslims, There is a muslim concept for that. Islam is all about submission, an not co-existence  American liberals masturbate  too. Islam isn't about that , shame on Obama. Islam is  at war with the free world. Kill cartoonists? Really? Buggs Bunny is a threat to Allah? Islam is weak. Pitiful.  Fuck Allah.
> ...



Did you notice that the posting time for your last message was 9:11?
wow ..... 

Oh well .... I notice that my comment about how much glass was in the face of the towers & also the science about the intensity of the jet fuel fire, was not commented on at all..... whats up with that?


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Feb 20, 2015)

Silent thermite?

Bwahahahahahahahaha!

Enough said.


----------



## MaryL (Feb 20, 2015)

Occam's  razor says Islam  brought down the twin towers. Islamic  terrorist are the scourge around the world. Islam excludes other  religions. It doesn't accept  other religions or other ways of thought. They KILL anything they don't like, or tax it. Islam is the nearest thing to evil I can think of. Even Nazis weren't this bad.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 21, 2015)

> Islam brought down the twin towers. Islamic terrorist are the scourge around the world.



So the allegation that Islam is such a bad thing is given as justification for the total destruction of WTC1, 2 & 7 ..... and laws of physics be damned.... right?


----------



## MaryL (Feb 21, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> > Islam brought down the twin towers. Islamic terrorist are the scourge around the world.
> 
> 
> 
> So the allegation that Islam is such a bad thing is given as justification for the total destruction of WTC1, 2 & 7 ..... and laws of physics be damned.... right?


Laws of physics might be a side point, All those  zombies, Islam  is what this is all  about. And the hate Islam brings, more to the point...Drink the koolaid.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 21, 2015)

> Laws of physics might be a side point,



In YOUR interpretation, however, it is of considerable importance to note that the collapse of WTC1, 2 & 7 had to have been engineered events to happen the way that they happened, this is not simply a "side effect" of an airplane crash, it would have had to be planned for, that is the total destruction of the building.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Feb 21, 2015)

There was no "free fall."

There was no conspiratorial plan to bring down the buildings beyond that which we sadly know; that some fucking savage lowlife scumbags Islamic terrorists hijacked several aircraft, crashed them into the twin towers and the Pentagon (and failed in one other attempt but still brought down another aircraft) causing the death of all passengers and crew and lots of civilians and folks in the military. 

The insane lunatic notions about an American inside job to take down the towers is so fucking stupid as to be almost laughable.  But it's not actually funny.  It's tragically stupid.


----------



## MaryL (Feb 21, 2015)

Isam brought  down the towers, physics aside, Islam, plain pure and simple. Islam did that. 3000  dead in Manhattan. Islam DID that, not a accident. deliberate  man made  caused hate. ISLAM . They  BURN  people to death, or chop off heads? FUCK alah,  islam is  made up bullshit.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 21, 2015)

> There was no "free fall."




Note for MaryL,  will you at least look at the physical reality of the 3 skyscrapers completely destroyed & by what sort of cause.  You seem to be very much stuck on Anti-Islam sentiments.


----------



## Capstone (Feb 21, 2015)

The revised (November 2008) version of NIST's 'final report' conceded *and charted* approximately two and a quarter seconds worth of gravitational acceleration through stage 2 of its multi-stage analysis. That made freefall for something like 105 ft. of the so-called 'facade's' descent official dogma. So, it's not just twoofers who've documented the freefall.


----------



## Capstone (Feb 21, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> ...Note for MaryL,  will you at least look at the physical reality of the 3 skyscrapers completely destroyed & by what sort of cause.  You seem to be very much stuck on Anti-Islam sentiments.



Why bother with physics and such, when _Argumentum ad Evil Muslim  (vis-a-vis Occam's Razor) _so beautifully explains everything?


----------



## daws101 (Feb 21, 2015)

Capstone said:


> The revised (November 2008) version of NIST's 'final report' conceded *and charted* approximately two and a quarter seconds worth of gravitational acceleration through stage 2 of its multi-stage analysis. That made freefall for something like 105 ft. of the so-called 'facade's' descent official dogma. So, it's not just twoofers who've documented the freefall.


2.5 seconds is of partial  free fall is no evidence of cause...


*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 http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), 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 http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf).

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


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 21, 2015)

> Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)



This is the critical bit right here, the fact that in the video the building can be seen keeping its shape and descending straight down while accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2, is most definitely sufficient evidence to call it.

I call it what it is, controlled demolition.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 21, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> > Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


false! you call it what you wish it was.
 there is no evidence credible or otherwise to support you false assumption...  

"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."
so stfu ....


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 21, 2015)

> During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below.



Free fall clearly indicates NO support, not "negligible support"
the fact is that if the falling bit had to do any work at all such as bending/breaking/pushing away any bit of structure, the fall would NOT have been at 9.8 m/s^2


----------



## daws101 (Feb 21, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> > During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


bullshit again no proof.

the rate of acceleration of a falling object due to gravity is again no proof of cause ...it's effect

*cause-and-effect*
[kawz-uh nd-i-fekt, -uh n-]  /ˈkɔz ənd ɪˈfɛkt, -ən-/
Spell Syllables

 Examples 
adjective
1.
noting a relationship between actions or events such that one or more are the result of the other or others

if you had any understanding of  the above  you'd see how full of shit you are


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 21, 2015)

So exactly by what mechanism was ALL of the structure removed out from under the falling building? The fact is that falling at 9.8 m/s^2 means that there is NO support, NOTHING the falling bit doesn't push anything or bend anything, it is ONLY falling.  Therefore at the moment that the building started falling ALL of the support would have had to disappear and ALL at the same time.

By what means does fire in a skyscraper cause this effect?


----------



## daws101 (Feb 21, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> So exactly by what mechanism was ALL of the structure removed out from under the falling building? The fact is that falling at 9.8 m/s^2 means that there is NO support, NOTHING the falling bit doesn't push anything or bend anything, it is ONLY falling.  Therefore at the moment that the building started falling ALL of the support would have had to disappear and ALL at the same time.
> 
> By what means does fire in a skyscraper cause this effect?


that's what the evidence says....


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 21, 2015)

daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > So exactly by what mechanism was ALL of the structure removed out from under the falling building? The fact is that falling at 9.8 m/s^2 means that there is NO support, NOTHING the falling bit doesn't push anything or bend anything, it is ONLY falling.  Therefore at the moment that the building started falling ALL of the support would have had to disappear and ALL at the same time.
> ...



and exactly what is this "evidence"  Please be specific.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 21, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


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


you know what it says, if not look it up yourself. I'm not gonna rehash it again ...


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 21, 2015)

so in other words, the "proof" really isn't there, the NIST has performed a lot of hand waving and doublespeak, and in the end, its down to the physics of the observed phenomenon and therein lies the proof that it was controlled demolition.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 21, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> so in other words, the "proof" really isn't there, the NIST has performed a lot of hand waving and doublespeak, and in the end, its down to the physics of the observed phenomenon and therein lies the proof that it was controlled demolition.


bullshit ! all of what you just posted is your personal fantasy not fact.
it's full to bursting with false assumptions a lack of any real science knowledge and just plain nut jobbery...


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 21, 2015)

and without actually looking at the blueprints of the WTC, somebody sez
"the wall was mostly glass" and when the allegation is proven wrong.
I get attacked for presenting the info that the wall was > 2/3 steel.
WHAT?
and additionally the opposition can not provide an explanation that satisfies the conditions, that is the observation that WTC7 fell at free fall and kept its shape while descending straight down.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 21, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> and without actually looking at the blueprints of the WTC, somebody sez
> "the wall was mostly glass" and when the allegation is proven wrong.
> I get attacked for presenting the info that the wall was > 2/3 steel.
> WHAT?
> and additionally the opposition can not provide an explanation that satisfies the conditions, that is the observation that WTC7 fell at free fall and kept its shape while descending straight down.


spammy "WE" HAVE DONE THE SHIT YOU ARE POSTING TO DEATH.
EVERYONE HAS SEEN THE BLUE PRINTS VIDEO CLIPS ETC...
so you are talking out your ass again.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 21, 2015)

Question for all who read this forum, 
does the factual info, that is the blueprints of the towers and the laws of physics support the assertions that I have made?  If not, can somebody show me where it is wrong, issue an actual correction with factual data.
can you do that?


----------



## daws101 (Feb 21, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> Question for all who read this forum,
> does the factual info, that is the blueprints of the towers and the laws of physics support the assertions that I have made?  If not, can somebody show me where it is wrong, issue an actual correction with factual data.
> can you do that?


your assertions are based on a false premise.

*false premise* is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument or syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.

For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:


If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
The streets are wet. (premise)
Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably wrong, because its first premise is false - one could hose down the streets, the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.


----------



## Capstone (Feb 21, 2015)

daws101 said:


> 2.5 seconds is of partial  free fall is no evidence of cause...



It is, however, clear evidence that certain means could _not_ have been causal, namely any means that would call for interaction between the portion of the building that descended 105 ft. against zero resistance and a solitary speck of debris from the building materials that *must have been removed* from the path of descent (as opposed to having been crushed or destroyed under the weight of the "collapsing" structure).



			
				daws101 said:
			
		

> In the draft WTC 7 report *(released Aug. 21, 2008*; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), ...[emphasis Capstone's]



Typical. Even after I specified the charting that was done in the "revised (Novemeber 2008) version of NIST's final report", you go and cite the earlier non-revised version. 

Nevertheless, the measurement from a single data point at the center of the roof-line doesn't override the clearly observable facts that both the roof-line and the "facade" remained intact throughout the 105 ft. drop of the "north face". Accordingly, even with limiting the freefall to the northern "facade", an incredible amount of material would still had to have been *completely removed* from its visually symmetrical path of descent. What makes an already laughable notion truly hilarious, though, is that the prospect of such an occurrence is clearly defeated by the video itself. If only the north side fell against zero resistance, where the hell were the remaining three sides of the building that should have been observed collapsing more slowly and in a non-symmetrical fashion?! 

Contrary to such ridiculous assertions by the NEOCT's apologists, there's plenty of video evidence that shows various sides of Building 7's exterior walls coming down intact, empirically proving the symmetry of the "collapse", which in turn demands that the freefall was evenly distributed among all four exterior walls.


The 40% longer than freefall time has not only been exposed as the likely result of 'dry-labbing' the timeframe on which NIST's multi-stage analysis was based; *it's irrelevant anyway,* because the 2.25 sec. period of freefall was admitted and charted through the second stage. As I've said before, the building could've taken a week to _completely_ collapse, and that still wouldn't account for the period of freefall admitted by NIST, despite the fact that the admission amounts to a violation of physical law under the fire-induced progressive collapse hypothesis (yes, *even if* it only applies to the "north face").


----------



## Faun (Feb 21, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> and without actually looking at the blueprints of the WTC, somebody sez
> "the wall was mostly glass" and when the allegation is proven wrong.
> I get attacked for presenting the info that the wall was > 2/3 steel.
> WHAT?
> and additionally the opposition can not provide an explanation that satisfies the conditions, that is the observation that WTC7 fell at free fall and kept its shape while descending straight down.


Umm ... whom here, besides you, said, _"the wall was mostly glass?"_


----------



## Faun (Feb 21, 2015)

Capstone said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > 2.5 seconds is of partial  free fall is no evidence of cause...
> ...


And glaringly absent from every one of those videos is the sight and sound of and explosives and/or thermite. And of course, while it is known much of the interior collapsed prior to the facade, it is unknown how extensively that critically damaged the building's supporting columns.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 21, 2015)

> your assertions are based on a false premise.



Thank you ever so much for your OPINION, note that it is not a matter of opinion that the WTC wall was composed of > 2/3 steel by area.  You may dispute this, but you would be wrong.

Also the quantity of jet fuel alleged to have burned in the towers has insufficient energy to cause the destruction of the towers.



Faun said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > and without actually looking at the blueprints of the WTC, somebody sez
> ...





> The sides of the buildings were, in large part, windows, were they not?


  From post # 879 of this thread and there are others if one but looks.  This is one of the cornerstone arguments for the alleged "FLT175" being able to penetrate the wall in the manner observed. and its WRONG.
the wall is > 2/3 steel by area.  Its in the blueprints, I'm not going to list a link because the links are in abundance and even in the infamous Prof. Tomasz Wierzbicki paper on the crash mechanics he at least gets the dimensions of the steel in the WTC wall(s) correct.


----------



## Faun (Feb 21, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> > your assertions are based on a false premise.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nowhere in post #879 is the claim made that the walls were mostly glass. 

You lied.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 21, 2015)

> The sides of the buildings were, in large part, windows, were they not?



How does one read this and NOT interpret that the writer was attempting to maximize the perception of window area over that of the steel structure?

Bottom line here is that the wall(s) of the WTC skyscrapers had very substantial steel structure to them and the backing by steel reinforced concrete decks at 3.6 meter intervals in the structure.  Considering the fact that the aircraft body of the alleged attacking airliner was 5 meters in diameter, the aircraft would have a considerable amount of steel to break before the aircraft could penetrate the wall.

Note that in the case of actually calculating the stress to the aircraft, 
Lets go with an expenditure of aprox 120,000,000 joules of energy out of the total KE of the aircraft 3,658,000,000 joules and if that expenditure of energy were to happen in the first meter of penetration, then the calculated g forces on the aircraft = 80g, therefore the 5 ton jet engines would exert a force of 400 tons upon the mounts, no aircraft ever flown could survive such forces. the aircraft would have to break up before having a chance to make the wing shaped gash in the wall.


----------



## Faun (Feb 21, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> > The sides of the buildings were, in large part, windows, were they not?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Even you know no such statement was made. Otherwise, you wouldn't have altered his statement from _"the sides of the buildings were, *in large part*, windows"_ ... to ... _"the wall was *mostly* glass."_ No one in this thread said those words except for you; and even worse for your credibility -- *you put those words in quotation marks* as though you were quoting someone else verbatim.

You're a fucking liar.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 21, 2015)

Faun said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > > The sides of the buildings were, in large part, windows, were they not?
> ...



Your opinion is NOT relevant here, 
also did you notice the calculations, first the quantity of jet fuel was insufficient to raise the temperature of the steel by any stretch of the imagination such that it was in any danger of weakening.  and also calculations as to the stress upon the aircraft at initial contact with the wall.  Do you dispute any of these calculations and if so how do you support your case?


----------



## Faun (Feb 21, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


It's not my opinion, ya fruit loop dingus. You posted a quote as though someone said that; when in fact, no one said that but you.

You're a fucking liar.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 21, 2015)

So nobody wants to actually discuss the facts about why there could not possibly have been hijacked airliners used as weapons.  Thank U very much!


----------



## Capstone (Feb 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> And glaringly absent from every one of those videos is the sight and sound of and explosives and/or thermite. ...



At least a couple of possible explosions can be heard between 0:46 and 0:50 (one near the onset of descent and another large one about half way down).

Of course, with the much quieter incendiary doing the lion's share of the work from deep inside the building (where its audio and visual effects would have been muffled and masked), the need for straight-up explosives would have been greatly diminished.

Having said that, the structure itself exhibited all the visual characteristics of a classic bottom-up controlled demolition, from the visible kink to the highly symmetrical drop into its own footprint, as corroborated by the eyewitness accounts between 5:30 - 6:06 and 6:46 - 7:00, as well as by some of the media commentators (most notably Peter Jennings and Dan Rather).



			
				Faun said:
			
		

> ...And of course, while it is known much of the interior collapsed prior to the facade, it is unknown how extensively that critically damaged the building's supporting columns.



Well, this much we know for sure: no matter how extensive the pre-"collapse" internal/external damage that could have possibly been caused by the forces at work in a fire-induced progressive collapse, it could NOT have been great enough to completely circumvent the physical resistance from more than 8 stories worth of internal and external building materials. That's why the two and a quarter seconds of freefall are proof positive that the official explanation is a farce.


----------



## Faun (Feb 22, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > And glaringly absent from every one of those videos is the sight and sound of and explosives and/or thermite. ...
> ...


Between 0:46 and 0:50 of which video?

And with the interior collapsing of a 47 story building, it could have caused enough damage to 8 of the lower floors to remove resistance from dozens of floors above.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



So in your words "it could have caused enough damage.... "
then again it may not have caused enough damage to create the result that was seen.  What are the odds that ALL of the structural support would be removed uniformly and all at the same time from under the bit that was seen falling?
We are talking having a pickup truck full of dice and dumping them all out and having ALL of them come up snake eyes!


----------



## Capstone (Feb 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Between 0:46 and 0:50 of which video?...



You know which video, just as I'm pretty sure you know which noises I'm talking about (although you'll likely claim they're simply the sounds of the "collapse"). Obviously, people from opposing camps will interpret such things differently, which is why I referred to them as "_possible_ explosions".

Whether you accept my interpretation there or not, the point behind posting the video was proven. Footage of the "collapse" from various angles clearly demonstrates the symmetry of descent and shows that it wasn't just a visible feature on the "north face".



			
				Faun said:
			
		

> ...And with the interior collapsing of a 47 story building, it could have caused enough damage to 8 of the lower floors to remove resistance from dozens of floors above.



Either you don't understand what "the removal of resistance" means in this case, or you're purposely trying to obfuscate the meaning of the phrase. We're not just talking about crushed concrete, broken girders, ETC.; we're talking about the *absence of physical resistance* from a solitary speck of debris from more than 8 floors worth of such stuff. Unless you're suggesting that the office fires had the capacity to completely annihilate every atom of the materials that composed those 8 floors, you must accept that the debris from the damaged areas would have prevented the 105 ft. freefall.

What's more, the symmetry of the "collapse", in conjunction with the distance covered from the onset of freefall to the point at which resistance began to slow the acceleration (approximately 105 ft.), tells us two very important things: first, that around 8 floors (debris and all) were *entirely removed* from the path of descent, and secondly, that they were taken out simultaneously or in _extremely rapid_ succession (neither of which can be explaind by the _fire-induced progressive collapse_ model).


----------



## Faun (Feb 22, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Capstone said:
> ...


How unexpected that the same person who lied about another poster's description of the walls of the Twin Towers; now mischaracterizes the collapse of the interior as just the "bit that was seen falling?"

There was far more visible collapse of the interior than just the east penthouse disappearing from the rooftop. Most of the structure beneath it can be seen affected as explosions from the pressure caused by the collapse can be seen.

Again, as far as how extensive the wreckage  caused by that was cannot be known since there was no one to inspect the damage before the remainder of the building fell; but in light of there being no explosives or thermite, there is no alternate explanation.


----------



## Faun (Feb 22, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Between 0:46 and 0:50 of which video?...
> ...


If I knew which video you meant, I wouldn't need to ask you. I'm neither a mind read nor interested in hunting for it. So which video is it?

As far as the rest of your post... it's beyond stupid since thermite cannot *"entirely remove"* eight floors and again, there is no way of measuring how extensive the damage was following the collapse of the interior. It cannot be ruled out.


----------



## Capstone (Feb 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> If I knew which video you meant, I wouldn't need to ask you. I'm neither a mind read nor interested in hunting for it. So which video is it?...



I must have given you too much credit. My bad.

How's about the _only_ video (compilation though it is) that's embedded in the post you quoted and replied to, in part, as follows:



			
				faun said:
			
		

> And glaringly absent from every one of those videos is the sight and sound of and explosives...







			
				faun said:
			
		

> ...As far as the rest of your post... it's beyond stupid since thermite cannot *"entirely remove"* eight floors...



...from the path of descent? 

In concert with other materials, yes, it could! In fact, it has regularly been used to do just that in building demolitions for many years. It's a major reason why some period of freefall has been a common feature of the many controlled demolitions in which it played a role.

As far as Building 7 was concerned, the thermate would have likely been used to melt down/remove the necessary quantities of the internal supports in advance of the pressure explosives that would later blow material from the external bearing walls out from under the upper majority's path of descent, as evidenced by the uniformity and speed of the "collapse".



> ...and again, there is no way of measuring how extensive the damage was following the collapse of the interior. It cannot be ruled out.



Yes, it can be ruled out, by virtue of the clearly unnatural symmetry of the "collapse". As pointed out succinctly by noSpam, the prospect that such damage could have naturally occurred in the manner *required* to account for the observed "collapse"...is so wildly unlikely, that the _only_ thing it deserves more than ridicule is being ruled the fuck out.


----------



## Faun (Feb 22, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > If I knew which video you meant, I wouldn't need to ask you. I'm neither a mind read nor interested in hunting for it. So which video is it?...
> ...


It figures a Twoofer would resort to an edited video as evidence of their hallucinations.  During the 0:46 - 0:50 mark in that video, it's cut so badly, [edit: there] is virtually no delay between the east penthouse collapsing into the interior from the collapse of the facade, which in real time occurred some 7 to 8 seconds later.

Try harder, Twoofer.

The rest of your idiocy is just that. There's no evidence explosives were used. There's no visual evidence or audible evidence. And thermite would at best, cut beams (even that is dubious since there were no such devices available at that time), not _*"entirely remove"*_ eight floors of the building.

Even worse for your delusions are the improbabilities of such devices either discharging prematurely or not firing at all due to the fires that raged uncontrollably for 7 hours.

What role do your fantasies tell you the firemen on the scene that day played in the conspiracy? You know, the firemen who were recorded speculating the building was going to come down?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 22, 2015)

hadit said:


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



problem with that fantasy was they were not anywhere hot enough to weaken them,they weren't even hot enough to melt a marshmellow let along weaken steel not to mention the laws of physics were violated in their collapse. that's pure fantasy that the fires cause it and wekaend them.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 22, 2015)

Capstone said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > What? Islam is all up into suicide bombers. Hell. Islam taxes  non muslims, There is a muslim concept for that. Islam is all about submission, an not co-existence  American liberals masturbate  too. Islam isn't about that , shame on Obama. Islam is  at war with the free world. Kill cartoonists? Really? Buggs Bunny is a threat to Allah? Islam is weak. Pitiful.  Fuck Allah.
> ...




indeed.like you said,mary is just a brick wall that you end up talking with.


----------



## Faun (Feb 22, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


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


Bullshit...


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 22, 2015)

Thank U ever so much for that bit of news about the freeway bridge that collapsed.  Please think about this, that incident was a single failure, and what we have in the case of WTC7 collapsing is the necessity for HUNDREDS of bits of structure to disappear all at the same time to cause the observed result.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 22, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Who says the fires had to be hot enough to melt steel?  They didn't have to be anywhere near that hot because all they had to was weaken the steel enough to start the collapse.  Jet fuel could easily do that, eliminating a tremendous amount of angst-filled misinformation.  See how much simpler things are when you start from a factual basis?
> ...



WTC fires were neither hot enough to weaken steel nor "melt a marshmellow?" No wonder even your fellow "Truthers" roll their eyes at your monumental silliness. You are monumentally silly, Princess.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 22, 2015)

Wow man Hyperbole all around, what a CROCK!
The critical bit of data about the whole thing is the manner in witch WTC7 is seen falling, and the news people on TV even commented that it looked just like when an old building is destroyed on purpose.


----------



## Capstone (Feb 23, 2015)

Faun said:


> It figures a Twoofer would resort to an edited video as evidence of their hallucinations. ...


I posted that compilation video as evidence of the symmetry of the "collapse", which is proven thoroughly by the various perspectives of the excerpts used in the compilation. In other words, in order to support the claim I made, it was necessary to appeal to more than one recording. Obviously, using the edited-together compilation was the most efficient way to get the job done. Beyond that, I wonder how realistic it is to expect that any of the 9/11 videos available to amateur researchers haven't been cropped or edited in some way or other over the past 13 years.

Regarding the side issue of the "possible explosions" that can be heard between 0:46 and 0:50...



			
				Faun said:
			
		

> ...During the 0:46 - 0:50 mark in that video, it's cut so badly, [edit: there] is virtually no delay between the east penthouse collapsing into the interior from the collapse of the facade, which in real time occurred some 7 to 8 seconds later. ...



...yet, despite the missing time, the noises I mentioned can still be heard.

But again, that's a side issue, and as usual, one you've raised without having bothered to address the main issue.



			
				faun said:
			
		

> ...The rest of your idiocy is just that. There's no evidence explosives were used. There's no visual evidence or audible evidence. ...



Both the observed symmetry and the charted freefall are based on "visual evidence" that supports the CD hypothesis and defeats the fire-induced progressive collapse model in one fell swoop, which further reinforces the common pattern exhibited by several other bodies of evidence, including hundreds of highly credible eyewitness accounts involving a great deal of audible evidence.



			
				faun said:
			
		

> ..And thermite would at best, cut beams (even that is dubious since there were no such devices available at that time), not _*"entirely remove"*_ eight floors of the building.



I never claimed that thermate was the sole demolition material used on 9/11. In fact, I've always maintained that a smaller amount of more conventional explosives likely played a crucial role in heavily clouding what went on nearer the core columns. The thermate would have worked "in concert" with other materials to "*entirely remove*" all physical resistance "from the path of descent" (which is something that *must* have preceded the 105 ft. freefall, whether one believes it was accomplished by explosives or not).

The disingenuous assertion that "there were no such devices available at that time" is cast into doubt by a string of military patents going back to the early 70's. It's been said that the military (not just the US military) often controls access to technology that's up to 30 years ahead of what's available to the general public at any given point in time.



			
				faun said:
			
		

> ...Even worse for your delusions are the improbabilities of such devices either discharging prematurely or not firing at all due to the fires that raged uncontrollably for 7 hours. ...



Both of which were likely circumvented by predetermined impact zones that were later ensured by precision RC/laser guidance of the aircraft/drones.

The high ignition temperatures of the demolition materials that were likely used would have been key in safe-guarding against premature detonations, as well.



			
				faun said:
			
		

> ...What role do your fantasies tell you the firemen on the scene that day played in the conspiracy? You know, the firemen who were recorded speculating the building was going to come down?



Here you go: US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Now, I know it's your style to ignore the aspects of your opponents' arguments for which you apparently have no rebuttals (besides the usual name-calling and the telling efforts to change the subject), but the facts remain: the observed symmetry and charted acceleration of Building 7's "collapse" (with the 2.25 seconds of freefall admitted by NIST) are proof positive that the official explanation is a farce.


----------



## Capstone (Feb 23, 2015)

Since the permalink feature didn't work properly in my previous post (I know, user error, right?), here's the post to which I intended to link:



Capstone said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > The Fire Department of New York had a very different account. They cited the structural damage and most significantly, the fires that raged for most of the day. The FDNY noted the massive structural damage caused by falling pieces of the WTC and put a transit on WTC 7. Over several hours they measured the building's buckling, bulging and leaning as it burned out of control.
> ...



Skylar never bothered to reply...


----------



## hadit (Feb 23, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


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



Do you realize how stupid your post sounds?  Read it carefully.  You just tried to make the case that a jet fuel fire can't melt a marshmallow.  That's seriously screwed up, and you just lost the credibility you so desperately need right now.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 23, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> Thank U ever so much for that bit of news about the freeway bridge that collapsed.  Please think about this, that incident was a single failure, and what we have in the case of WTC7 collapsing is the necessity for HUNDREDS of bits of structure to disappear all at the same time to cause the observed result.


mary is getting desperate now.hee hee.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 23, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> Wow man Hyperbole all around, what a CROCK!
> The critical bit of data about the whole thing is the manner in witch WTC7 is seen falling, and the news people on TV even commented that it looked just like when an old building is destroyed on purpose.


mary and the other bush dupe trolls cant get around bld 7.barry jenning who they murdered cause his testimony sunk NISTS lies,is the crux of the 9/11 coverup they can only sling shit in defeat on like the monkey trolls they are.lol.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 23, 2015)

hadit said:


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



you idiot,dont know what SARCASM is,also you prove what an idiot you are because the collapse violated the laws of physics that all junior high school students learn at that age,and you cant get around bld 7 the crux of the 9/11 coverup no matter how desperately you try.


----------



## hadit (Feb 23, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


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



You're not helping your case, you do realize that, right?  I mean, communicating like a 6 year old does not make you sound like you understand metallurgy or anything much at all, for that matter.  And yes, the fires were hot enough to weaken steel.


----------



## Skylar (Feb 23, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Since the permalink feature didn't work properly in my previous post (I know, user error, right?), here's the post to which I intended to link:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Here's my reply: "Why would I care what Graeme MacQueen thinks?"

As best as I've been able to glean, Graeme MacQueen is an associate professor of Buddhist Studies at McMaster University in Ontario Canada. He has no engineering experience, no fire fighting experience, no direct knowledge of anything that occured on 911, didn't directly witness anything that happened to WTC 7.

So why would I care what he has concluded is or isn't a 'rational reason' for determining that WTC 7 was going to collapse?

If this were say, Sanskrit, I might be interested in what he had to say.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 23, 2015)

hadit said:


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





you troll are not helping yourself ignoring barry jennings witness testimony.

another disinformation agent paid troll who can only fart in defeat when cornered with facts to add to ignore.

you should change your user name to HAD IT WITH THE TRUTH.

like an idiot,you worship the government and  medias version of events instead of listening to the witnesses,"many being very credible  firefighters experienced in explosives." and experts as well.


keep on believing in your fantasys they were hot enough to weaken the steel troll.lol.

you can brainwash others with your lies,wont work on me though idiot.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 23, 2015)

someone farted in here.^


----------



## hadit (Feb 23, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


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



You are rapidly devolving into a playground idiot, mindlessly regurgitating idiocy, desperately hoping to obtain some legitimacy.  All that's left at this point is to watch you spin yourself uselessly into the ground, and laugh.  Tell you what, find for us some demolition wires, a few unexploded charges, some traces of a planned demolition, and you are not allowed to claim that every single trace was destroyed in the collapse because that does not happen.  That is your assignment, should you wish to stop digging deeper the hole in which you currently reside.


----------



## hadit (Feb 23, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> someone farted in here.^



I've never seen anyone so thoroughly disparage their own post <polite chuckles and winks all around>.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 23, 2015)

the disinfo agent trolls handlers are really getting desperate now the way they got them trolling with their lies in droves out  in force now.


----------



## Capstone (Feb 23, 2015)

Skylar said:


> As best as I've been able to glean, Graeme MacQueen is an associate professor of Buddhist Studies at McMaster University in Ontario Canada. He has no engineering experience, no fire fighting experience, no direct knowledge of anything that occured on 911, didn't directly witness anything that happened to WTC 7. ...



His analyses of the transcripts from the FDNY oral histories were textual in nature. They required no expertise other than the abibilities to read and appeal to what the witnesses actually stated during those interviews.

Is that the best you could come up with after two months, Skylar? Ad hominem based on a man's scholarly credentials, which, BTW, are more than adequate for the type of critical analysis in question? Talk about anticlimactic!



			
				skylar said:
			
		

> ...So why would I care what he has concluded is or isn't a 'rational reason' for determining that WTC 7 was going to collapse?
> 
> If this were say, Sanskrit, I might be interested in what he had to say.



You know what, let me think about it for a couple of months and get back to you later.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 23, 2015)

Capstone said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > 2.5 seconds is of partial  free fall is no evidence of cause...
> ...


the old baffle um wit bullshit ploy is still in operation..


----------



## daws101 (Feb 23, 2015)

hadit said:


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


hey hadit hand job is the site's fool and should be treated as such..


----------



## daws101 (Feb 23, 2015)

http://youtu.be/Atbrn4k55lA 
as for cappy's analysis of the audio between 40 and 50secs on this clip what he and everyone else are hearing is the sound of rushing air and breaking glass, and steel .
plush a million other things crashing into each other before hitting the ground.
if there had been explosives used as they are in actual CD'S the sound would have been like a string of firecrackers going off ,only louder.
besides cappy like most people is unable to tell the difference between a tire blowout and backfire.
imo, he like all the other twoofers wants to believe explosives were used in spite of the fact there is no evidence of any kind for their use.


----------



## Faun (Feb 23, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> Thank U ever so much for that bit of news about the freeway bridge that collapsed.  Please think about this, that incident was a single failure, and what we have in the case of WTC7 collapsing is the necessity for HUNDREDS of bits of structure to disappear all at the same time to cause the observed result.


The claim made was that fire doesn't weaken steel. The video I posted proves that's bullshit.


----------



## Faun (Feb 23, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > It figures a Twoofer would resort to an edited video as evidence of their hallucinations. ...
> ...


The clip you cited is edited. End of story. Meaning the sound you point to can be anything from the interior collapsing to the exterior collapsing.

Still, there were no explosives used. Explosives are incredibly loud and very visible. That never happened.

And your idiocy of a patent is beyond stupid. A patent in no way proves the product existed nor does it even prove the patent would work even had it been built, which there is zero evidence beyond your hallucinations that it did.


----------



## Faun (Feb 23, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Since the permalink feature didn't work properly in my previous post (I know, user error, right?), here's the post to which I intended to link:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's not what I asked. I asked you what role you think they played in your conspiracy.


----------



## Faun (Feb 23, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


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


The Twin Towers were never designed to withstand a direct hit from a 767. It's not a surprise they came down.


----------



## hadit (Feb 24, 2015)

daws101 said:


> http://youtu.be/Atbrn4k55lA
> as for cappy's analysis of the audio between 40 and 50secs on this clip what he and everyone else are hearing is the sound of rushing air and breaking glass, and steel .
> plush a million other things crashing into each other before hitting the ground.
> if there had been explosives used as they are in actual CD'S the sound would have been like a string of firecrackers going off ,only louder.
> ...



Exactly.  When Pan Am flight 103 was bombed, they were able to identify the bomb by minute fragments left behind in the rubble.  The sheer amount of explosives needed to bring down the buildings in this case would have left behind evidence of their existence, yet NO ONE has brought forth ANY such evidence.  None.


----------



## Capstone (Feb 24, 2015)

Faun said:


> The clip you cited is edited. End of story. Meaning the sound you point to can be anything from the interior collapsing to the exterior collapsing. ...



That might be the dumbest 3-sentence paragraph I've ever laid eyes on, and I've been arguing with the likes of Sayit and Daws since 2012, so that's saying something! By all means though, please elaborate as to how such an obvious non sequitur (that the video's editing ends up "meaning" what you claim it does) could be rationalized.

I've already admitted that people from opposing camps would interpret those noises differently. That's why I referred to them from the very beginning as "_possible_ explosions".

Oh, and one more time for good measure, my goal in posting that compilation video was to demonstrate the symmetry of the "collapse" from various angles, not to provide audible evidence of explosives. I only mentioned the "possible explosions" in response to your irrelevant objection, because, unlike you, I tend to isolate and reply in reference to _all_ of my opponent's points (even those that are completely irrelevant in relation to my argument).



			
				faun said:
			
		

> ...Still, there were no explosives used. Explosives are incredibly loud and very visible. That never happened. ...



Let's see, should I believe _you_ (a self-deluded NEOCT conspiracy theorist)...or the scores of eyewitness testimonies of people who were there (including 118 accounts from the FDNY's oral histories)? 

Remember these guys:

After all, if explosives were used on the Twins, as much of the anecdotal evidence clearly indicates, there's little reason to doubt they were used on Building 7, as well, especially considering the visually identical pools of molten metal that were found beneath the rubble of all three debris piles.



			
				FAUN said:
			
		

> ...And your idiocy of a patent is beyond stupid. A patent in no way proves the product existed nor does it even prove the patent would work even had it been built, which there is zero evidence beyond your hallucinations that it did.



These aren't just any patents we're talking about; they're military patents going back to the 1970's, some with specifications drawn from testing. While they don't "prove" such devices existed prior to 9/11/01, they _do_ constitute a body of evidence to that effect.

Still nothing to say about the necessary implications of the combined symmetry and charted speed of Building 7's collapse?


----------



## Capstone (Feb 24, 2015)

Faun said:


> That's not what I asked. I asked you what role you think they played in your conspiracy.



And the answer to that question is implicit in the post I quoted. MacQueen's analysis shows that most of the accounts of apparent foreknowledge of Building 7's "collapse" were not indicative of rationales based on direct observation.  The vast majority of those firefighters "_believed_ the building was going to collpase because they were _told_ that it was going to collapse". The analysis further provides a test case which explains how and why *none* of the FDNY's Fire Chiefs and/or anyone in the rank and file were necessarily 'in the know'. To spell it out for you a bit more clearly, I don't believe anyone in the FDNY on 9/11/01 was _necessarily_ in on the conspiracy.


----------



## Faun (Feb 24, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > The clip you cited is edited. End of story. Meaning the sound you point to can be anything from the interior collapsing to the exterior collapsing. ...
> ...


You're too funny. You admit that even after about 3 years, you've yet to prove your delusions, yet you cling to them despite having zero proof. 

There is no proof explosives were used to bring down buildings 1, 2 or 7. There is no proof thermite was used. You rely on edited clips as evidence of possible explosions when there were none. Or like in the case of the last video you posted, you don't understand it. They did not say they heard or saw explosions ... they did not say they heard or saw thermite ... they said the building began collapsing floor by floor as if it had been detonated.

But that exemplifies the existence of you Twoofers. All you know is the buildings fell straight down. You then fill in the rest with overactive imaginations to explain causation to conclude it had to be a controlled demolition despite the lack of evidence. On top of which the Twin Towers did not come down in the same fashion as is commonly seen in a controlled demolition; which is from the bottom up. The Twin Towers fell from the top down.

But keep it up ... maybe in another 3 years you'll find some evidence to give a rational person pause.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 24, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > The clip you cited is edited. End of story. Meaning the sound you point to can be anything from the interior collapsing to the exterior collapsing. ...
> ...


your last statement is meaningless minutia.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 24, 2015)

Faun said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


even worse it's a clip  from 
Naudet brothers 9/11 Documentary - 1st plane hits North Tower

which debunks all twoofer bullshit all by itself...


----------



## Faun (Feb 24, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Capstone said:
> ...


My favorite part of that dumbfuck's post was submitting a video clip as evidence for what he claims could have been an explosion; when in fact, the only identifiable sound in it comes from a voice off-camera saying, _"I told you that sucker was gonna go."_ The idiot posts a video indicating some of the people watching it burn felt it was damaged badly enough to collapse.

Twoofers are insane.


----------



## Capstone (Feb 25, 2015)

Faun said:


> You're too funny. You admit that even after about 3 years, you've yet to prove your delusions, yet you cling to them despite having zero proof. ...



I don't take the distinction between "proof" and "evidence" lightly, so when I say the observable symmetry and charted freefall of the "collapse" constitute "proof positive" that the official explanation is a farce, you can rest assured that the claim is based on irrefutable facts. There's no question that the symmetrical 105 ft. drop at gravitational acceleration required an unnatural uniformity of damage that cannot be plausibly explained by the forces at work in a fire-induced progressive collapse. That's just the reality of the situation, and not even 3 years of denial from your fellow debwunkers have succeeded in altering that reality.



			
				faun said:
			
		

> ...There is no proof explosives were used to bring down buildings 1, 2 or 7. There is no proof thermite was used. You rely on edited clips as evidence of possible explosions when there were none. ...



Audible evidence of explosives aside, the compilation video is rock-solid visual evidence of the unnatural symmetry from which we can infer controlled demolition. As such, it's a component of the proof I mentioned above, which again, is that the official explanation is a crock of shit. You can go on until you're blue in the face about the editing, or the noises, or any number of irrelevant things, but the symmetry that's visible from several different angles will still be standing there when you finally stop to take a breath. _That's_ the relevant issue here, not your obfuscatory bullshit.



			
				faun said:
			
		

> ...Or like in the case of the last video you posted, you don't understand it. They did not say they heard or saw explosions ... they did not say they heard or saw thermite ... they said the building began collapsing floor by floor as if it had been detonated. ...




See, now that little nugget of excrement should tell everyone all they need to know about your approach to this topic, Faun. It's that sort of nonsense that makes it so easy for me to avoid descending into your adolescent pit of name-calling. Your posts do such a magnificent job of speaking for themselves.

*"It was as if they had detonated [Yeah.], as if they planned to take down the building -- boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom."*

In case there's any doubt as to the meaning of "detonated", _The Oxford English Dictionary_ should lay it to rest:



> *Definition of detonate in English:*





> *VERB*
> Explode or cause to explode: ...



As if it shouldn't go without saying, since it seemed to that firefighter "as if they had detonated" the building, he must have _perceived_ the "booms" very much as he described them.



			
				faun said:
			
		

> ...But that exemplifies the existence of you Twoofers. All you know is the buildings fell straight down. You then fill in the rest with overactive imaginations to explain causation to conclude it had to be a controlled demolition despite the lack of evidence. ...



And the follow-up further exemplifies the stupidity behind the implied denial that at least two of the firefighters in the video I posted were clearly talking about demolition-style _explosives_ (via synomyms), by way of appealing to that ridiculous denial as a means to denounce "Twoofers" in general. _Compelling_, ain't it. 



			
				faun said:
			
		

> ...On top of which the Twin Towers did not come down in the same fashion as is commonly seen in a controlled demolition; which is from the bottom up. The Twin Towers fell from the top down. ...



The implication being: they couldn't have been controlled demolitions?

I suppose you might be onto something there, if it weren't common knowledge that buildings can be rigged to implode in virtually any number of ways. 



			
				faun said:
			
		

> ...But keep it up ... maybe in another 3 years you'll find some evidence to give a rational person pause.



Yeah, who knows, maybe even some of the _irrational_ people will have come to grips with their delusional mindsets by then. Hope springs eternal!


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 25, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > The clip you cited is edited. End of story. Meaning the sound you point to can be anything from the interior collapsing to the exterior collapsing. ...
> ...



Wow. Has it really been 3 years of reading the silliness that you author? Your claim that you have "from the very beginning," referred to the noises as "_possible_ explosions" does not square with your adamant claims that the buildings were felled by some combination of thermite and standard CD charges which, unless you are referring to some sort of heretofore unknown _silent_ technology, would have made loud, sequential EXPLOSIONS. That also would of course would have required those charges to survive the chaotic fires which engulfed those buildings but if one is going to believe and promote silly 9/11 CT lunacy, one might as well go all in. Any chance I can entice you to try to move your feet fast enough to wiggle out of your latest mess?


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 25, 2015)

Faun said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



And your final sentence neatly sums up the problem all 9/11 "Truthers" share ... rationality.

Excerpted from *Confessions of an Ex-Truther*:
There are no facts in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Just a lot of theories, which eventually break down to "hey, we're just asking questions" if someone questions the validity of such. No structural, civil, or any engineers agree with the truthers. Yet, most of my friends will try to explain the hard physics involved in structural collapses. None of these people are engineers, physicists, or even in a scientific field, for that matter. Someone's supposed to take their word over an expert's?

The truthers will just tell you that all the experts are "in on it." Yeah, sure. Every engineer in the world is complicit in the government's murder of 3,000 people. And so are the firemen, who apparently ordered Larry Silverstein to "pull" Building 7. The truthers' misrepresentation of Silverstein's quote is one of the most popular "facts" to spit out, but in doing so, you are effectively in agreement that firefighters were not only involved in the controlled demolition of WTC7, but they are also aiding and abetting in the government's cover-up. Yeah, every firefighter who was out there on 9/11 is going to be complicit in the MURDER OF 343 OF THEIR FALLEN BROTHERS! To quote Loose Change co-creator Jason Bermas, "the firefighters are paid off."

This is absolute horseshit, which brings me to why I've formally distanced myself from this sorry excuse for a movement. Loose Change, 9/11 Mysteries, Alex Jones, and all the other kooks out there are fucking lying about, distorting, and misrepresenting the facts to further their personal agendas. And what is their agenda, you ask? Money, in the words of Shaggy 2 Dope, "mutha fuckin bitch ass money." Not only are they desecrating 3,000 graves, but they are profiting off of it. That, my friends, makes me sick to my fuckin stomach.

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


----------



## daws101 (Feb 25, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > You're too funny. You admit that even after about 3 years, you've yet to prove your delusions, yet you cling to them despite having zero proof. ...
> ...


another mountainous steaming pile of non answers!


----------



## hadit (Feb 25, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Capstone said:
> ...



And therein lies the Achilles heel of the conspiracy movement.  When a conspiracy keeps getting bigger and bigger, more and more layers of people have to be in on it, kept silent, lie about it, etc just to maintain credibility, it's time to call shenanigans.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 25, 2015)

hadit said:


> And therein lies the Achilles heel of the conspiracy movement.  When a conspiracy keeps getting bigger and bigger, more and more layers of people have to be in on it, kept silent, lie about it, etc just to maintain credibility, it's time to call shenanigans.



Just try to get them to focus on who rigged those buildings, how they did it without being noticed, and how the rigging survived the impacts and chaotic fires. You get crickets. At some point rationality becomes part of any honest, normal person's thinking. Not so with "Truthers." They are immune.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 25, 2015)

> There are no facts in the 9/11 Truth Movement.



I'm sorry to see that some people believe that.
However there are facts, such as the manner of the total destruction of WTC1, 2 & 7 + the facts about the alleged airliner crashes.

Also, if you saw a pix allegedly taken of a bunny rabbit in the forest, however you can clearly see that its NOT a bunny at all, you do not have to specifically identify what it really is, another type of animal or? to get it that its not a bunny.
what the TRUTH movement has as a total certainty is that the official story about how WTC1,2 & 7 collapsed allegedly because of fire & damage from aircraft crashes, is totally bogus. Speculation as to how many people would have to be involved ( etc.... ) does nothing to negate the facts here.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 25, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> > There are no facts in the 9/11 Truth Movement.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


but you have no facts! none ,zero, zilch.....why the need to carry on with this inane bullshit?


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 25, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> > There are no facts in the 9/11 Truth Movement.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're a coward and a fraud, Spamy, and that unattributed quote at the top of your post is that of the co-founder of 9/11 Truth UAlbany who, after years of wallowing in "Truther" BS resigned his position and abandoned the Movement with a disdain reserved for those who know they have been duped by unscrupulous people.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 25, 2015)

I'm really sorry for AMERICA, there is evidence and lots of it to show that 9/11/2001 was a false flag operation.  However all I see on this forum are a bunch of closed minds.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 25, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> I'm really sorry for AMERICA, there is evidence and lots of it to show that 9/11/2001 was a false flag operation.  However all I see on this forum are a bunch of closed minds.


 
Au contraire. What you see here are Americans who can see through your BS and that of the unscrupulous people who made their living by selling DVDs and T-shirts to not-too-brights like ... you. I understand how difficult it must be to come to grips with the fact that you've wasted years of your life and perhaps your sense of self worth playing Spammyscience on the Internet but the sooner you admit you've been duped the sooner you can get started on your next "mission."


----------



## Faun (Feb 25, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > You're too funny. You admit that even after about 3 years, you've yet to prove your delusions, yet you cling to them despite having zero proof. ...
> ...



You can rest assured I do not rest assured when a person who truly impresses me as batshit insane claims something they can't prove (and have failed to prove after years of trying) is based on "irrefutable facts."



Capstone said:


> faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Of course .... ignore the fact that no evidence of explosives exists and you can *infer* anything, doesn't make it reality. Hell, you can *infer* G-d smote the building.

But let's examine your bizarre claim ... hopefully, I get this right ... if I'm not mistaken, your claim is that some group of people wired buildings 1 & 2 from top to bottom, and building 7 at least from the bottom, with a blend of explosives and thermite in order to bring the three buildings down with the intent and purpose of *completely concealing* the fact that they demolished the buildings. That's quite a monumental task and would go without saying, require a monumental effort and planning. Never been done before and would have to fool everyone. So they fly planes into the Twin Towers as a diversion and explanation. Again, pristine and immaculate planning required. After flying 2 large jets into buildings 1 & 2, they would presumably have ignited the fires in building seven as part of their plan but somehow know the fire department would abandon putting out those fires. But here's the key ..... they go to such Herculean effort to hide the explosives and thermite *so no one would know it was a controlled demolition* ... according to you, they simulate hijacking 4 commercial jets *so no one will know it was a controlled demolition* ... they even fly jets into the Twin Towers *so no one would know it was a controlled demolition* ... they go to all that planning and execution *so no one will know it was a controlled demolition* ....... but after all that ........ *they intentionally bring all three buildings straight down so they resemble a controlled demolition*. 

See why sane people think you Twoofers are nuts?


----------



## Faun (Feb 25, 2015)

Capstone said:


> faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Now you're showing the forum you're either lying or delusional or a combination thereof. The firefighter did not employ the word "boom" to describe explosions as you falsely assert. They were describing the manner in which the building came down in that it came down floor by floor, not that explosives were used. The first fireman describes, _"floor by floor, it started popping out,"_ while gesturing that with his hand. You'll note, he's not gesturing explosions. The second fireman making similar hand gestures while describing, _"boom, boom, boom, boom, boom."_ They were explaining the way the building came down, floor by floor, "booming" with each floor that pancaked ... which they described *"as if"* it had been detonated, not that it was.


----------



## Faun (Feb 26, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> I'm really sorry for AMERICA, there is evidence and lots of it to show that 9/11/2001 was a false flag operation.  However all I see on this forum are a bunch of closed minds.


With no evidence of explosions, there is no evidence the buildings were brought down in a controlled demolition. Believing there was no other alternative because of the manner in which it fell is insufficient proof without evidence of explosives ... a requirement in bringing down a building.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 27, 2015)

What we have here is a propaganda war.

"Let us not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories"
( remember that bit?)

The perpetrators have made very sure that anybody who dares question the official version of events is ridiculed & marginalized.

There are facts here that can not be negated by anybody, and that being the fact that WTC7 fell straight down and in free-fall acceleration for 2.25 sec and the building kept its shape as it fell.  Now tell me that was NOT the result of a pre-engineered demolition of the building?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 27, 2015)

That was NOT the result of a pre-engineered demolition of the building.


----------



## Capstone (Feb 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Now you're showing the forum you're either lying or delusional or a combination thereof.The firefighter did not employ the word "boom" to describe explosions as you falsely assert. They were describing the manner in which the building came down in that it came down floor by floor, not that explosives were used. The first fireman describes, _"floor by floor, it started popping out,"_ while gesturing that with his hand. You'll note, he's not gesturing explosions. The second fireman making similar hand gestures while describing, _"boom, boom, boom, boom, boom."_ They were explaining the way the building came down, floor by floor, "booming" with each floor that pancaked ... which they described *"as if"* it had been detonated, not that it was.



See if you recognize the man at the very end of this clip:


The name and rank of the guy we're talking about is Captain Dennis Tardio. On page 18 of Dennis Smith's book, _Report from Ground Zero: The Story of the Rescue Efforts at the World Trade Center_, he (Tardio) gave an account that was remarkably similar to the one in the Naudet documentary, as follows: *"I hear an explosion and I look up. It is as if the building is being imploded, from the top floor down, one after another, boom, boom, boom."* This quote unambiguously ties his perception of an audible "explosion" to the apparent top-down "implosion" of the building. So, even if we interpret the multiple subsequent "booms" as the sounds of falling debris, there's no question, that at the very least, his testimony involved the direct audible perception of "an explosion" which prompted him to "look up" ahead of the multiple "booms" that followed the sound that intially caught his attention.

Your disingenuous appeal to those two little words ("as if") fails to account for the fact that Cpt. Tardio had been acquainted with the official narrative by the time he'd given his testimonies to Dennis Smith and the Naudet brothers. *Of course* he felt compelled to qualify his testimony as he did, because he knew the bulk of the nation was operating on the premise that no explosives had been used in the attacks.

The same holds true for many of the eyewitness accounts from the FDNY oral histories (I could cite scores of testimonies that corroborate Cpt. Tardio's). It's abundantly clear that many of those guys were trying to come to grips with the fact that much of what they experienced didn't jibe with what the rest of the country had been told.


----------



## Capstone (Feb 27, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> ...Any chance I can entice you to try to move your feet fast enough to wiggle out of your latest mess?



_You_...couldn't entice me with a frosty glass of ice water in the middle of the Mojave Desert after three solid days without a drop to drink. I'd sooner drink the sand.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 27, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Now you're showing the forum you're either lying or delusional or a combination thereof.The firefighter did not employ the word "boom" to describe explosions as you falsely assert. They were describing the manner in which the building came down in that it came down floor by floor, not that explosives were used. The first fireman describes, _"floor by floor, it started popping out,"_ while gesturing that with his hand. You'll note, he's not gesturing explosions. The second fireman making similar hand gestures while describing, _"boom, boom, boom, boom, boom."_ They were explaining the way the building came down, floor by floor, "booming" with each floor that pancaked ... which they described *"as if"* it had been detonated, not that it was.
> ...


intentional misrepresentation,,,,


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 27, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> What we have here is a propaganda war.
> 
> "Let us not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories"
> ( remember that bit?)
> ...



You don't question the "official version of events" ... you reject small facts like the existence of the two passenger jets that crashed into the towers on 9/11. Flaming loons are justifiably "ridiculed and marginalized." No big surprise there.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 27, 2015)

Capstone said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Wow. Has it really been 3 years of reading the silliness you author? Your claim that you have "_from the very beginning_" referred to the noises as "_possible_ explosions" does not square with your adamant claims that the buildings were felled by some combination of thermite and standard CD charges which, unless you refer to some sort of heretofore unknown _silent_ technology, would have made loud, sequential EXPLOSIONS. That also would have _required those charges to survive the chaotic fires which engulfed those buildings_ but if one is going to believe and promote silly 9/11 CT lunacy, one might as well go all in, eh? Any chance I can entice you to try to move your feet fast enough to wiggle out of your latest mess?
> ...



I'll take that as an admission that you can't explain away the conflicting silliness you post. That's a big step forward for you, Cappy. Congrats.


----------



## Capstone (Feb 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> You can rest assured I do not rest assured when a person who truly impresses me as batshit insane claims something they can't prove (and have failed to prove after years of trying) is based on "irrefutable facts." ...



*Irrefutable Fact #1:* In order for the upper portion of Building 7's 'facade' to have descended in freefall for the time and distance admitted by NIST, there could have been no physical materials in its path of descent (meaning a 105 sq.ft. chunk of the building had been completely removed from the equation).

*Irrefutable Fact #2:* The symmetrical drop of that upper portion required a highly unnatural uniformity of damage that cannot be plausibly explained by the fire-induced progressive collpase model (which probably _does_ at least explain why the NIST group offered no explanation for it).

*Irrefutable Fact #3:* In light of the foregoing irrefutable facts, the official explanation for Building 7's "collapse" implicitly calls for the suspension of faith in the laws of physics...and is therefore a pile of crap.



			
				faun said:
			
		

> ...Of course .... ignore the fact that no evidence of explosives exists and you can *infer* anything, doesn't make it reality. Hell, you can *infer* G-d smote the building. ...



Well, one notable thing that _can't_ be logically inferred from the highly symmetrical 105 ft. freefall...is the official (non)explanation for it.



			
				faun said:
			
		

> ...But let's examine your bizarre claim ... hopefully, I get this right ... if I'm not mistaken, your claim is that some group of people wired buildings 1 & 2 from top to bottom, and building 7 at least from the bottom, ...



Remote detonation technology would have enabled the inhuman(e) scumbags to adjust the det. sequences on the fly (from top-down to bottom-up), in the event that any of the RC drones failed to reach their intended targets (as may have been the case with Building 7).



			
				faun said:
			
		

> ...with a blend of explosives and thermite in order to bring the three buildings down with the intent and purpose of *completely concealing* the fact that they demolished the buildings. ...



The sulfidation observed on some of the precious few pieces of WTC steel that were recovered and preserved, as independently documented by an Italian metalurgist (can't think of the guy's name), indicated a level far beyond the capacities of known possible sources of sulfur inside the buildings -- a finding that suggested the presence of miltary-grade ther_mate_ (as opposed to commercially available ther_mite_). This is consistent with the findings of the Harrit group, which confirmed the low atomic weight of the red layers of unreacted chips and further documented the highly-ordered placement of nano-aluminum particles within their plastic matrices. So, I suggest (not "claim") it's likely that the military-grade incendiary, thermate, was one of at least two types of demolition materials used in the operation.



			
				faun said:
			
		

> ...That's quite a monumental task and would go without saying, require a monumental effort and planning. Never been done before and would have to fool everyone. ...



Obviously, the less than human low-lives who were 'in the know', ranging from those who planned and funded the clandestine effort to the highly trained teams and solo operators who carried-out the 'hands on' aspects of the operation, were individuals with intelligence, influence, means, and/or various abilities (about the only things they were short on, in my humble opinion, were enough science-minded planners...and a single ounce of _humanity among_ them). True, it would have probably required a handful of strategically placed individuals in government, most pressingly to ensure the effective stand-down of US air defense systems, but also to guarantee the spoilation of the crime scenes and to hamper any legitimate investigation into the "attacks" that failed to fool a good number of people from the get-go.



			
				faun said:
			
		

> ...So they fly planes into the Twin Towers as a diversion and explanation. Again, pristine and immaculate planning required. ...



I believe the "planes" that hit the towers were remotely-flown 767 drones. A number of videos suggest they may have further been aided by laser guidance systems. Not really all that much going on there, at least not in terms of logistics or witting personnel.



			
				faun said:
			
		

> ...After flying 2 large jets into buildings 1 & 2, they would presumably have ignited the fires in building seven as part of their plan but somehow know the fire department would abandon putting out those fires. ...



The unwavering testimony of Barry Jennings indicated that pre-planted explosives went off inside of Building 7 prior to the "collapses" of either of the Twins. The man who was with him, Mike Hess, originally corroborated Jenning's account, and then strangely changed his story much later. I believe the individual(s) who detonated the early explosives most likely did so to pre-weaken the building in expectation of the drone that was slated to fly into building 7 after the way had been cleared (via the removal of Buildings 1 and 2). Accordingly, it wasn't until the FDNY's full resources had been concentrated on the burning Twins that the pre-weakening charges were detonated in WTC7, and the decision to "pull it" (any effort to put out the fires, that is  ) would have come only after the "collapses" of the larger towers and the consequent deaths of 343 of the FDNY's finest firefighters.



			
				faun said:
			
		

> ...But here's the key ..... they go to such Herculean effort to hide the explosives and thermite *so no one would know it was a controlled demolition* ... according to you, they simulate hijacking 4 commercial jets *so no one will know it was a controlled demolition* ... they even fly jets into the Twin Towers *so no one would know it was a controlled demolition* ... they go to all that planning and execution *so no one will know it was a controlled demolition* ....... but after all that ........ *they intentionally bring all three buildings straight down so they resemble a controlled demolition*.



I don't believe the hijackings of flights 11, 175, and 93 were "simulated", at least not as I think you meant that word. The strangely small passenger lists of all three flights (but particularly the coast-to-coast flights) would have served the consolidation of the passengers and _unwitting_ crew members during an unscheduled stop-over. This would have occurred after the mid-air swap-outs for RC drones, following the losses of the transponder signals, as corroborated by the radar data provided by RADES (which documented radar blips that converged with and then separated from those of the reported 9/11 airliners).

Regarding the failure of the demolition team(s) to make the "collapses" look natural, I think it's a clear indication of the deficiency of scientific knowledge on the part of the planners.

Now, withstanding the 3 irrefutable facts I listed at the outset of this post, my suggestions should be seen as speculation based on my personal interpretations of the available evidence, but _here's_ the key: no well-established laws of physics were violated during their formative stages.

Since the same can't be said of the NEOCT, is it any wonder that a growing number of sane people think you debwunkers are nuts?


----------



## Capstone (Feb 27, 2015)

Just to make sure you got one of the more important points of my most recent foregoing post, Faun, the individuals who planned, intentionally worked to carry out, or were otherwise knowingly involved in the 9/11 false flag operation...were *"less than human"*, no matter how "monumental" their efforts may have been in your eyes.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 28, 2015)

Faun said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > I'm really sorry for AMERICA, there is evidence and lots of it to show that 9/11/2001 was a false flag operation.  However all I see on this forum are a bunch of closed minds.
> ...



You claim "no evidence of explosions" however when anyone points to evidence, that is people reporting sounds of explosions or sound recordings, you seek to discredit, down-play, negate any effort to attach the definition of explosion.
So in YOUR world, there isn't any evidence of explosions, however, in the court of public opinion, there has been a lot of evidence presented, some of it really spot-on and some of it not so good, so indeed there is an abundance of evidence for all sorts of scenarios.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 28, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


false!
the court of public opinion is without fail all ways wrong....as are you .


----------



## deep_space (Mar 1, 2015)

> the court of public opinion is without fail all ways wrong.



is this not rather heavy handed & judgmental?


----------



## Capstone (Mar 2, 2015)

deep_space said:


> is this not rather heavy handed & judgmental?



More like ham-handed & just plain mental;...but that's Daws in a nutshell for you.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 2, 2015)

Cap,no spam,WHY do you waste all your valuable time with all these paid trolls  on this forum like faun and dawgshit for?

9/11 is the LEAST of our problems that we have to worry about from the government right now.9/11 is just a distraction they want you to engage in with these trolls.

the establishment wants you to waste your time arguing with these trolls here while they plot other things against us.

you can choose to ignore this advise if you want but to do so is being ignorant.this is the advise I have to give-



I really hope you don't ignore it and I have to come back and say it again but seeing as  I have give that advise to no spam before and he is still doing it,i have a feeling it will get ignored.

I was guilty of this myself,i used to spend hours wasting my time arguing with all these paid shills also but I finally wised up knowing their handlers send them here in hopes that we feed the trolls so they can occupy our time while the CIA and mossad plat other sinister events against us.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 2, 2015)

Capstone said:


> deep_space said:
> 
> 
> > is this not rather heavy handed & judgmental?
> ...


at LEAST get it right that its dawgshit.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 2, 2015)

deep_space said:


> > the court of public opinion is without fail all ways wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> is this not rather heavy handed & judgmental?


nope. just a statement of fact...


----------



## daws101 (Mar 2, 2015)

is it handjob's bi weekly nonsense spewing day already ?!
damn I was gonna get him a card!  

this will have to do.


----------



## Capstone (Mar 2, 2015)

In case you haven't noticed, 9/11ij, I don't _feed_ the trolls; I send them packing. True, they usually return after convalescing for a few days, weeks, or in some cases...months, but it's always a pleasure to show them to the door time after time.

Regarding your concern that these 9/11 discussions are intended to distract people like me from more recent goings-on, I can assure you that I do my due diligence to keep abreast of current events from both independent and mainstream sources, and my activity in the ongoing 9/11 debate is in no way distorting my perspective on the more current activities of some of the same groups that were involved in the 9/11 operation.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 2, 2015)

Public opinion is no more than this: what people think that other people think.

 Alfred Austin


----------



## daws101 (Mar 2, 2015)

Capstone said:


> In case you haven't noticed, 9/11ij, I don't _feed_ the trolls; I send them packing. True, they usually return after convalescing for a few days, weeks, or in some cases...months, but it's always a pleasure to show them to the door time after time.
> 
> Regarding your concern that these 9/11 discussions are intended to distract people like me from more recent goings-on, I can assure you that I do my due diligence to keep abreast of current events from both independent and mainstream sources, and my activity in the ongoing 9/11 debate is in no way distorting my perspective on the more current activities of some of the same groups that were involved in the 9/11 operation.


now I have to give you points for the most delusional, pretentious completely false but humorous post of the day...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 2, 2015)

someone farted in here.^


----------



## daws101 (Mar 2, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> someone farted in here.^


typical !


----------



## Capstone (Mar 2, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> someone farted in here.^



Yeah, but I caught a whiff of validation among the carrots and throw-up.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 2, 2015)

Capstone said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > someone farted in here.^
> ...


Olfactory hallucinations are a type of hallucination which involves the olfactory system. Patients who experience olfactory hallucinations think that they are smelling something when there is nothing in the environment producing the odor being experienced. They may be able to describe the smell in detail, and they can have reactions to the smell, such as gagging at the smell of feces or increased saliva production at the smell of chocolate chip cookies. Although phantosmia, as it is known to the medical community, may seem primarily like an interesting curiosity, it can actually be a sign that a patient has a severe medical problem, and people who smell things which don't exist definitely need to see a doctor.

One of the most common causes for these hallucinations is brain damage. The olfactory system is a physical sensory system, just like the systems used to allow people to perceive touch and vision, and damage to that system can interfere with its function. People with tumors or severe head injuries can start to smell phantom odors as a result of confused neurons along the sensory system's pathways.


----------



## Capstone (Mar 2, 2015)

Here you go, Daws. That's a peer-reviewed study on the dissociations between the capacities of atypical brains to comprehend figurative expressions as distinct from literal ones. It may be of use to your wife and others close to you.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 2, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Here you go, Daws. That's a peer-reviewed study on the dissociations between the capacities of atypical brains to comprehend figurative expressions as distinct from literal ones. It may be of use to your wife and others close to you.


not necessary.
I'm in the figurative expression biz ( show biz)
I realize you were attempting to be clever but then again there's always some truth in even the most fanciful musings..


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 2, 2015)

cant believe you go out of your way to be nice to resident troll.that you wont use the deserving name dawgshit for him.


----------



## Capstone (Mar 2, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> cant believe you go out of your way to be nice to resident troll.that you wont use the deserving name dawgshit for him.



Nice to Daws?! I don't know whose posts you've been reading, but apparently they haven't been mine!

I've never been big on name-calling as a means of _getting my digs in_, if you know what I mean. I don't know, calling someone a poopy-head just seems too obvious and easy to me. Subtlety is much more satisfying. You should try it sometime.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 3, 2015)

Capstone said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > cant believe you go out of your way to be nice to resident troll.that you wont use the deserving name dawgshit for him.
> ...


right! you are as subtle as a chainsaw.. 
handjob could never be taught subtly the concept is too far evolved for him to grasp it..


----------



## Capstone (Mar 3, 2015)

Carving and Sculpting with a Chainsaw - Chainsaw Carving Chain Saw Sculpture

The right tool for the desired outcome. That's my motto.


----------



## deep_space (Mar 9, 2015)

Is anyone else interested in the on-going lawsuit by _Dr_. _Harriet_ ?


----------



## eots (Mar 9, 2015)

the NIST collapse scenario is not possible that is why it has never happened before and will never happen again


----------



## eots (Mar 9, 2015)

awesome video


----------



## Capstone (Mar 9, 2015)

deep_space said:


> Is anyone else interested in the on-going lawsuit by _Dr_. _Harriet_ ?



I'll be surprised if the higher court rules differently than the lower one. Stranger things have happened, though.

Good exposure either way.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 9, 2015)

Capstone said:


> deep_space said:
> 
> 
> > Is anyone else interested in the on-going lawsuit by _Dr_. _Harriet_ ?
> ...


 
And after all that has always been the "Truther" Movement agenda. More exposure sells more T-shirts and DVDs.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 9, 2015)

eots said:


> the NIST collapse scenario is not possible that is why it has never happened before and will never happen again


 
Normal people know that those who pretend to know the future are frauds and we all know for sure that the Towers and WTC7 did indeed fall as described by the NIST findings.


----------



## deep_space (Mar 9, 2015)

> those who pretend to know the future are frauds



There is a video with somebody saying "keep your eye on that building,  its coming down"
and there are all sorts of claims that the firefighters, and others knew that WTC7 was going to fall, before it fell.
Chrystal ball?


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 9, 2015)

deep_space said:


> > those who pretend to know the future are frauds
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Apples and oranges but you make an important point. Those at ground zero on 9/11 could see the damage done to WTC7 by large falling chunks of the Towers and knew what came next. Neither Eots nor anyone else can predict "that will never happen again."


----------



## eots (Mar 9, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> deep_space said:
> 
> 
> > > those who pretend to know the future are frauds
> ...


according to your NIST report damage was not  factor in the collapse of wtc 7..you have read the NIST report right ?


----------



## Capstone (Mar 9, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> ...Those at ground zero on 9/11 could see the damage done to WTC7 by large falling chunks of the Towers *and knew what came next.* ... [emphasis Capstone's]



That "the building [was] about to *blow up*"? 




			
				sayit said:
			
		

> ...Neither Eots nor anyone else can predict "that will never happen again."



Eots' _prediction_ was based on the impossibility of the "collapse  scenario" provided by NIST, in which a 105 ft. freefall was admitted, and here's the key, even though the admission was completely inexplicable under the fire-induced progressive collapse hypothesis. So, Eots was right. The third law of motion had never been violated before, it certainly wasn't violated on 9/11/01 (meaning NIST's explanation was garbage from the word go), and it will never be so violated in the future.


----------



## deep_space (Mar 9, 2015)

I invite the curious to do a YOUTUBE search on "Why The NIST Report on WTC 7 is Unscientific and False"
check it out.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 9, 2015)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > deep_space said:
> ...



WTC7 was not severely damaged by falling chunks of the Towers and damage was not a factor in the collapse? Really dude ... "Truthers" say the silliest things.


----------



## Capstone (Mar 9, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> WTC7 was not severely damaged by falling chunks of the Towers and damage was not a factor in the collapse? Really dude ... "Truthers" say the silliest things.



...except he didn't say that. 

How's about responding in reference to what he did say?


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 9, 2015)

Capstone said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > WTC7 was not severely damaged by falling chunks of the Towers and damage was not a factor in the collapse? Really dude ... "Truthers" say the silliest things.
> ...


 
I don't play by your 9/11 "Truther" rule book and I have no interest in buying your DVDs or T-shirts, Princess. If you or Eots actually wanted to know what brought down WTC7, you would have looked it up by now.


----------



## deep_space (Mar 9, 2015)

At least to this "truther" suffice to say that the NIST report(s) on the subject fall very far short of actually explaining anything.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 9, 2015)

deep_space said:


> At least to this "truther" suffice to say that the NIST report(s) on the subject fall very far short of actually explaining anything.


 
Sooo, are you a "no-planer" or a "silent explosives" type foil-hater? Spiders from Mars perhaps?


----------



## deep_space (Mar 9, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> deep_space said:
> 
> 
> > At least to this "truther" suffice to say that the NIST report(s) on the subject fall very far short of actually explaining anything.
> ...



Your incredulity does not change the facts of what happened that day.  I say that I do not believe the official story, and then the wild accusations of "tin-foil-hat" + hyperbole to demonstrate your lack of though on the subject.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 9, 2015)

deep_space said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > deep_space said:
> ...


 
As expected. A typical non-answer to the obvious question. You're dismissed.


----------



## eots (Mar 9, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> deep_space said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



the obvious question is if you read and understood the NIST report
why do you contradict the report..or is it you find the NIST report inaccurate ?


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 9, 2015)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > deep_space said:
> ...



No ... the question is: why must all "Truthers" lie?


----------



## Capstone (Mar 9, 2015)

sayit said:
			
		

> I don't play by your 9/11 "Truther" rule book and I have no interest in buying your DVDs or T-shirts, Princess. If you or Eots actually wanted to know what brought down WTC7, you would have looked it upby now.



The rules you don't play by are those of honest discussion. It's what makes you and your kind so transparent.

Here's what Eots actually said:



			
				eots said:
			
		

> according to your NIST report damage was not factor in the collapse of wtc 7..you have read the NIST report right ?



Now *here's* what NIST said:

"..._The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building._..."

"..._NIST carefully considered the condition of the SFRM installation in WTC 7, including the applied thickness and evidence of gaps or damage in the SFRM. The SFRM in WTC 7 was modeled as undamaged except in the southwest region of the building where there was debris impact damage.4 A uniform thickness equal to the specified SFRM thickness was used for the finite element thermal analyses of WTC 7 because: 1) the variability in the SFRM thickness was small, *2) no evidence of significant damage to the SFRM was found, and 3) small areas of SFRM damage would not have affected the thermal or structural response of the structural framing system.*_"

"..._The debris from WTC 1 caused structural damage to the southwest region of WTC 7—severing seven exterior columns—*but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse. The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse* after the fires grew and spread to the northeast region after several hours. *The debris impact caused no damage to the spray-applied fire-resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams except in the immediate vicinity of the severed columns.*_..."

True, according to NIST, the fires that eventually spread to the northeast portion of the building were ignited by the debris from Tower 1, but the structural damage itself, which was caused to the southwest region of Building 7, played no role in the initiation of the collapse.

Now what do _you_ have to say?


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 9, 2015)

Capstone said:


> sayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Note: "..._The debris from WTC 1 caused structural damage to the southwest region of WTC 7—severing seven exterior columns—but this structural damage did not* initiate *the collapse."_ That does not mean "did not contribute to the collapse." In fact, it was the burning debris from the Towers which set off the fires that did bring down WTC7.
So the only question left is mine: why must you "Truthers" always lie?


----------



## eots (Mar 9, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > sayit said:
> ...




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


----------



## Capstone (Mar 9, 2015)

When and where did I (or Eots) lie, Sayit? 

Eots and I both quoted you talking about the severity of the visible "damage" you claimed was responsible for the apparent foreknowledge of those like the cop who warned on camera that "the building [was] about to blow up".

You're the one who dishonestly mischaracterized Eots' statement. As usual.


----------



## deep_space (Mar 9, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> As expected. A typical non-answer to the obvious question. You're dismissed.





> Sooo, are you a "no-planer" or a "silent explosives" type foil-hater? Spiders from Mars perhaps?



and you have the colossal gall to tell me that I'm "dismissed" 

Your actions make such an effective statement about what you are up to, I need add nothing,

Except to say that the NIST report = FRAUD.


----------



## jillian (Mar 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > now this is hilarious!
> ...



that's never stopped the troofer butters, has it.


----------



## eots (Mar 9, 2015)

jillian said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



wtf are you babbling about ?


----------



## jillian (Mar 10, 2015)

eots said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



no one is babbling but the troofer idiots.

of course, troofer idiots are deranged and don't understand that.

now run along.


----------



## Swagger (Mar 10, 2015)

As I've previously stated on other threads (on several occasions), I am a building/*demolition contactor* and I have personally imploded several steam stacks, chimneys and multi-storey structures. There is no way that the U.S. government (or anyone else, for that matter) could implode the W.T.C onto its footprint without raising the suspicion of its occupants. The building would have to be gutted, walls removed, beams weakened with oxygen lances and RDX charges embedded and wrapped around the superstructure stanchions. Not forgetting the miles of detonator cord. Furthermore, such a conspiracy - which is physically impossible - would require the hundreds of men needed to keep silent about their murderous intentions.


----------



## n0spam4me (Mar 10, 2015)

Speculation about how it may have been done doesn't change the fact that WTC 1, 2 & 7 were destroyed.  Given that controlled demolition is a very precise science in that when controlled demolitions go wrong it results in the incomplete demolition of the structure,  and of course, a successful controlled demolition results in complete destruction of the building, therefore, simply by accident, the conditions for complete destruction of not just one, but three buildings just happened to be present in these skyscrapers.  odds of that really happening?  Without help from somebody planning to demolish said buildings?


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 10, 2015)

Swagger said:


> As I've previously stated on other threads (on several occasions), I am a building/*demolition contactor* and I have personally imploded several steam stacks, chimneys and multi-story structures. There is no way that the U.S. government (or anyone else, for that matter) could implode the W.T.C onto its footprint without raising the suspicion of its occupants. The building would have to be gutted, walls removed, beams weakened with oxygen lances and RDX charges embedded and wrapped around the superstructure stanchions. Not forgetting the miles of detonator cord. Furthermore, such a conspiracy - which is physically impossible - would require the hundreds of men needed to keep silent about their murderous intentions.





n0spam4me said:


> Speculation about how it may have been done doesn't change the fact that WTC 1, 2 & 7 were destroyed.  Given that controlled demolition is a very precise science in that when controlled demolitions go wrong it results in the incomplete demolition of the structure,  and of course, a successful controlled demolition results in complete destruction of the building, therefore, simply by accident, the conditions for complete destruction of not just one, but three buildings just happened to be present in these skyscrapers.  odds of that really happening?  Without help from somebody planning to demolish said buildings?



Except that demo people have repeatedly stated what Swagger just told you ... that prepping the buildings for a CD would have taken a small army of workers weeks or months and necessitated the gutting of the buildings. I would add that the explosions necessary to destroy key structural supports would have been numerous and very loud and would have left clear evidence of CD explosions.
All of that is just one small facet of the planning, perpetration and cover-up of what would have been the largest, most complex conspiracy in the history of man and no one from within that massive alleged conspiracy has whispered a word in over 13 years. No one.
Stop beating that dead horse, Princess ... the "Truther" Movement is O-V-E-R.


----------



## n0spam4me (Mar 10, 2015)

There was an age when the "knowledge" base of humanity included such gems as
Heavy things fall faster than light things, witness the feather & stone drop.
Now, given the scientific method, we know better,  There are features of the events of 9/11/2001
that include things that, if the official explanation is followed, violate the laws of physics.

Just because a lot of people are in denial, in no way modifies the laws of physics.


----------



## eots (Mar 10, 2015)

jillian said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


how about you run along bitch..you have nothing relevant offer you could not debate this subject if your life depended on it


----------



## daws101 (Mar 10, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


 it's eots what did you expect .......


----------



## daws101 (Mar 10, 2015)

eots said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


same old dumbfuck eots...


----------



## n0spam4me (Mar 10, 2015)

Wow...... & I thought we were having a discussion about 9/11


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 10, 2015)

eots said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



How about _you_ run along, BITCH.
You, like the rest of the foil-hat brigade, have never offered anything of value on this subject.


----------



## eots (Mar 10, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> Wow...... & I thought we were having a discussion about 9/11



We are...the rest have nothing but strawmen and ad hominem


----------



## eots (Mar 10, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


why don't you tell us again how NIST determined the collapse wtc 7 was from structural damage...lol


----------



## deep_space (Mar 10, 2015)

> "People, I _just_ want to say, _can_'t _we all get along_?....."


----------



## daws101 (Mar 10, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> Wow...... & I thought we were having a discussion about 9/11


we are, problem is you aren't


----------



## daws101 (Mar 10, 2015)

eots said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Wow...... & I thought we were having a discussion about 9/11
> ...


false you are quoting the same bull shit you were in 2011.and it's still bullshit


----------



## daws101 (Mar 10, 2015)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


 ok
*What is progressive collapse?*
Progressive collapse is defined as the spread of local damage from a single initiating event, from structural element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it. The failure of WTC 7 was an example of a fire-induced progressive collapse.

Progressive collapse did NOT occur in the WTC towers, for two reasons. First, the collapse of each tower was not triggered by a local damage or a single initiating event. Second, the structures were able to redistribute loads from the impact and fire-damaged structural components and subsystems to undamaged components and to keep the building standing until a sudden, global collapse occurred. Had a hat truss that connected the core columns to the exterior frame not been installed to support a TV antenna atop each WTC tower after the structure had been fully designed, it is likely that the core of the WTC towers would have collapsed sooner, triggering a global collapse. Such a collapse would have some features similar to that of a progressive collapse.

*How did the collapse of WTC 7 differ from the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2?*
WTC 7 was unlike the WTC towers in many respects. WTC 7 was a more typical tall building in the design of its structural system. It was not struck by an aircraft. The collapse of WTC 7 was caused by a single initiating event-the failure of a northeast building column brought on by fire-induced damage to the adjacent flooring system and connections-which stands in contrast to the WTC 1 and WTC 2 failures, which were brought on by multiple factors, including structural damage caused by the aircraft impact, extensive dislodgement of the sprayed fire-resistive materials or fireproofing in the impacted region, and a weakening of the steel structures created by the fires.

The fires in WTC 7 were quite different from the fires in the WTC towers. Since WTC 7 was not doused with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, large areas of any floor were not ignited simultaneously as they were in the WTC towers. Instead, separate fires in WTC 7 broke out on different floors, most notably on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13. The WTC 7 fires were similar to building contents fires that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present.

*Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?*
The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system.

Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.

KEY sentence: The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires."  Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

primarily
[ prīˈme(ə)rəlē ]
ADVERB
adverb: *primarily*


for the most part; mainly:


----------



## eots (Mar 10, 2015)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



* NIST admits that their simulation does not match the actual collapse.*

“The results of this scenario were consistent with observations *except* that _the screening wall on the roof fell downward before the west penthouse_.” NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 p. 612

In the NIST computer simulation, the interior columns under the screenwall and west penthouse collapse east to west in about three seconds. (These sections of the building are shown in the top-down diagram below.) However, the actual collapse progression of these columns in the video takes only about 1/2 second. While NIST acknowledged the "almost simultaneous" collapse of the screenwall and west penthouse in the 2004 Progress Report (Appendix L, p. 34 and 44), in their computer simulation, this collapse took nearly three seconds.

This is yet another example of the NIST simulation being completely inconsistent with the actual features of the destruction of this building.


----------



## eots (Mar 10, 2015)

NIST has refused to release the computer model input data in response to FOIA requests, claiming that its release would “jeopardize public safety"

Gross Negligence DeNISTifying the Destruction of the WTC Skyscrapers


----------



## eots (Mar 10, 2015)

. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.
Page 2 of Article Former Chief of NIST s Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation OpEdNews


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 10, 2015)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



How 'bout you put the magnifying glass and tweezers down and leave your pecker alone, Princess.


----------



## eots (Mar 10, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


You clearly have lost the debate...again


----------



## jillian (Mar 11, 2015)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



there is no "debate" with the tinfoil hat types.


----------



## eots (Mar 11, 2015)

jillian said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


more *ad hominem a sure sign of someone who lost a debate
absolutely nothing in regards to the collapse of building 7 as is the case with every single post you have ever posted in regard to 9/11...*


----------



## daws101 (Mar 11, 2015)

eots said:


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


same bullshit different year...
btw the clip is from a twoofer youtube collection .....zero credibility..


----------



## daws101 (Mar 11, 2015)

eots said:


> NIST has refused to release the computer model input data in response to FOIA requests, claiming that its release would “jeopardize public safety"
> 
> Gross Negligence DeNISTifying the Destruction of the WTC Skyscrapers


assholes and  erroneous speculators for truth .is not credible either.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 11, 2015)

eots said:


> . NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.
> Page 2 of Article Former Chief of NIST s Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation OpEdNews


Patriots Question 9 11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9 11 Commission Report and webmaster for Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth Medical Professionals for 9 11 Truth
another shit load of  zero credibility..


----------



## Capstone (Mar 11, 2015)

Regarding means and covert access to the WTC buildings' internal support systems...


For those who aren't aware of Kevin Ryan and the manner in which he became involved in the 9/11 truth movement, he worked for a company that was contracted by the NIST group to conduct heat-testing on structural steel. In the course of his work on the project he became aware that NIST was apparently out to manipulate the findings and to spin them in a dishonest manner in order to support their predetermined conclusions. Concerned primarily for his company's reputation, he took his concerns to his superiors and ended up unemployed shortly thereafter.

People in various industries related to building design, construction, and even demolition have given voice to their doubts about the official 9/11 narrative and have paid the price for doing so. Danny Jowenko, a foreign "expert" in the logistics of controlled demolitions, ran into a tree _Michael Hastings style_ after stating and reaffirming his assessment of Building 7's "collapse". For others, character assassination has been the preferred MO. Tom Sullivan, a retired formerly licensed 'loader' for CDI (one of the largest demolition companies in the industry worldwide), has been mercilessly demonized by NEOCT apologists following his appearance in a AE911Truth documentary (summarized in the following clip)...


One of the few legitimate criticisms of his testimony involves an alleged 1984 patent for "self-consuming thermite cutter charges". It turned out that the 1984 patent was for a self-consuming thermite-coated igniter, and that thermite "cutter charges" weren't explicitly patented until 1999 (with the latter patent making no mention of a "self-consuming" aspect). Despite this innocent mistake, it's easy to see how such devices could have been fasioned from the combined technologies of those two patents.

It's also been pointed out that explosives "loaders" aren't "experts" in the planning and logistics of controlled demolitions; they're relatively low-level workers in the actual hands-on aspects of the demo projects. This criticism, however, fails to account for the fact that low-level worker types are routinely used and cited as "expert witnesses" in courts of law all over the country. If you want to know about the real-world obstacles in home delivery, ask a delivery man! The facts remain: Sullivan was in a position to be intimately acquainted with the necessary steps involved in bringing down a building in the manner observed on 9/11/01 (particularly in the case of Building 7), so given a wildly high number of precendents, his testimony as an 'expert' witness would stand up in a court of law.

Going back to access, on top of the questions surrounding the company responsible for security at the WTC complex, a major "elevator modernization" project for buildings 1 & 2 was documented by local media sources and in _Elevator World_ magazine. Eyewitnesses confirmed that elevator access had been restricted to the point of guards standing watch over the doors. This enormous project would have provided the perfect cover for the demoltion teams to get their materials and equipment into the buildings on pallets without raising suspicion from anyone outside of the loop. This, combined with a handful of stragically placed security shills and the tactic of conducting the bulk of the work outside of normal business hours, could easily explain how "they" pulled-off rigging the buildings in advance of the "attacks".


----------



## daws101 (Mar 11, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Regarding means and covert access to the WTC buildings' internal support systems...
> 
> 
> For those who aren't aware of Kevin Ryan and the manner in which he became involved in the 9/11 truth movement, he worked for a company that was contracted by the NIST group to conduct heat-testing on structural steel. In the course of his work on the project he became aware that NIST was apparently out to manipulate the findings and to spin them in a dishonest manner in order to support their predetermined conclusions. Concerned primarily for his company's reputation, he took his concerns to his superiors and ended up unemployed shortly thereafter.
> ...


 the zero credibility factor in this thread has skyrocketed....


----------



## Capstone (Mar 11, 2015)

daws101 said:


> the zero credibility factor in this thread has skyrocketed....



Yeah, funny how it corresponded to the sudden rise of baseless ad hominem.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 11, 2015)

Capstone said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > the zero credibility factor in this thread has skyrocketed....
> ...


false! none of you twoofers were forced to pull that nonsense out of your collective asses.


----------



## Capstone (Mar 11, 2015)

daws101 said:


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



Unlike you debwunker types, who have little recourse or choices beyond adolescent name-calling and the ad hominem fallacy.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 11, 2015)

Capstone said:


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


false! wishful thinking.
to the ignorant and unstable your shit looks solid ..in reality it's the worst of facades.....


----------



## Capstone (Mar 11, 2015)

daws101 said:


> ...to the ignorant and unstable your shit looks solid ..in reality it's the worst of facades.....



Meanwhile, to anyone with two IQ points to rub together, _your_ shit looks about as solid as diarrhea.

There's a reason my stuff "looks solid" to you, Daws (as the "ignorant and unstable" person you are), ...and that's because it _is_ *rock-solid*.

Now, unless you have something specific to say about my arguments or the evidence I've cited, I'm through with responding to your primary school level nonsense.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 5, 2015)

I see that the truthers still leave out the east penthouse, nice to know they still have nothing..... I'll stop in again in 6 months or so.....


----------



## deep_space (Apr 5, 2015)

why is it called "FREE FALL", because its freely falling, that is NO resistance at all under the falling mass.  So do tell, how is it that ALL resistance was removed, and all at the same time in order for WTC7 to drop at free fall acceleration for 2.25 sec?


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 5, 2015)

deep_space said:


> why is it called "FREE FALL", because its freely falling, that is NO resistance at all under the falling mass.  So do tell, how is it that ALL resistance was removed, and all at the same time in order for WTC7 to drop at free fall acceleration for 2.25 sec?


 
Once more for the monumentally dense:
Your 9/11 CT requires a controlled demo, preparation for which would have required a small army of workers and weeks or months and necessitated the gutting of the buildings. I would add that the explosions necessary to destroy key structural supports would have been numerous and very loud and would have left clear evidence of CD explosions.
All of that is just one small facet of the planning, perpetration and cover-up of what would have been the largest, most complex conspiracy in the history of man and no one from within that massive alleged conspiracy has whispered a word in over 13 years. No one.
Stop beating that dead horse, Princess ... the "Truther" Movement is O-V-E-R.


----------



## eots (Apr 5, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> deep_space said:
> 
> 
> > why is it called "FREE FALL", because its freely falling, that is NO resistance at all under the falling mass.  So do tell, how is it that ALL resistance was removed, and all at the same time in order for WTC7 to drop at free fall acceleration for 2.25 sec?
> ...


you became a demolition expert when exactly..there are experts in both intelligence and demolition that do not have estimates much much lower than that..and it is a myth that secrets can not be kept


----------



## deep_space (Apr 5, 2015)

No matter what bits of the event can be debated as to this or that is NOT just like a controlled demolition, the one feature that stands out is the fact that the building was totally demolished.  When ever in history was a building totally demolished by actions that were NOT specifically engineered to cause total destruction?


----------



## eots (Apr 5, 2015)

SFC Ollie said:


> I see that the truthers still leave out the east penthouse, nice to know they still have nothing..... I'll stop in again in 6 months or so.....




 

ollie thinks this happened by the failure of a single column due to fire..lol..silly ollie


----------



## eots (Apr 5, 2015)

deep_space said:


> No matter what bits of the event can be debated as to this or that is NOT just like a controlled demolition, the one feature that stands out is the fact that the building was totally demolished.  When ever in history was a building totally demolished by actions that were NOT specifically engineered to cause total destruction?


Never...


----------



## eots (Apr 5, 2015)

jillian said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


you are completely far to uniformed to have an actual debate on the topic..that's why you never even try to directly address any of the evidence and use nothing but strawmen and ad hominem


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 5, 2015)

deep_space said:


> ...  When ever in history was a building totally demolished by actions that were NOT specifically engineered to cause total destruction?



Historically every 100+ story building which has been hit by a Boeing 767 loaded with tons of jet fuel and doing hundreds of miles per hour has been totally destroyed.


----------



## eots (Apr 5, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> deep_space said:
> 
> 
> > ...  When ever in history was a building totally demolished by actions that were NOT specifically engineered to cause total destruction?
> ...



the towers were designed to take multiple air craft strikes..the fuel all burned off on impact...and no plane hit wtc 7 and NIST said fire alone brought down wrc7


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 5, 2015)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > deep_space said:
> ...



One need not be a demo expert to understand the massive effort involved in a controlled demo of not 1 but 3 100+ story buildings on the same day two Boeing 767s slammed into them. You too could learn the facts if you were truly interested. Clearly you are far too interested in your "If It's Bad ... Jews Did It" agenda to be bothered.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 5, 2015)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > deep_space said:
> ...


 
The jet fuel burned long enough (10 minutes) to ignite chaotic fires and no building has ever been built to withstand a direct hit from a Boeing 767 doing hundreds of mph and I believe you knew that when you posted your latest lies.


----------



## deep_space (Apr 6, 2015)

"3 100+ story buildings on the same day two Boeing 767s slammed into them."   Really "3 100+ story buildings"  WTC7 was only 47 stories
& the bit about airliners slamming into the towers is pure speculation, what really hit the towers ( if anything ) is speculation at best.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 6, 2015)

deep_space said:


> ...& the bit about airliners slamming into the towers is pure speculation, what really hit the towers ( if anything ) is speculation at best.


----------



## deep_space (Apr 6, 2015)

Laf while you can
MONKEY BOY .......


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 7, 2015)

deep_space said:


> "3 100+ story buildings on the same day two Boeing 767s slammed into them."   Really "3 100+ story buildings"  WTC7 was only 47 stories
> & the bit about airliners slamming into the towers is pure speculation, what really hit the towers ( if anything ) is speculation at best.



In the sense that anything witnessed by thousands directly and by millions on live television is speculation.......


----------



## eots (Apr 7, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


why do you keep saying jews did it ?..I present evidence of prior knowledge from mainstream news sources


----------



## eots (Apr 7, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


fire fighters reached the 79 th floor and reported small isolated pockets of fire..victims stood in the impact hole


----------



## deep_space (Apr 7, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> deep_space said:
> 
> 
> > "3 100+ story buildings on the same day two Boeing 767s slammed into them."   Really "3 100+ story buildings"  WTC7 was only 47 stories
> ...



so having an airliner crash into a skyscraper is a guaranteed slam-dunk that the skyscraper will be totally destroyed?


----------



## eots (Apr 16, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 16, 2015)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > The jet fuel burned long enough (10 minutes) to ignite chaotic fires and no building has ever been built to withstand a direct hit from a Boeing 767 doing hundreds of mph and I believe you knew that when you posted your latest lies.



So who the fuck is Les Young and why would anyone care what he believes?


----------



## eots (Apr 16, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


Hi-rise designer..who knows buildings can not fall through themselves at near free-fall speed


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 16, 2015)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Or a nobody who wanted his 15 minutes (or 12mins, 57secs) of YouTube fame and glory. Could you name a few of the skyscrapers he has designed and provide the link?


----------



## eots (Apr 16, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


Is that your conspiracy theory..not very logical..and certainly does not explain 3 near free-fall collapse


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 16, 2015)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


 
Where is the CT in questioning Young's creds and motivations and where is the list of skyscrapers you claim he has designed?


----------



## eots (Apr 16, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


you made a stupid accusation of seeking fame from a youtube video..his credentials make no difference to you,you have proved  that many times


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 16, 2015)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Nah. I stated that is a legit alternative view of his motivation. You _claimed_ he is a "hi-rise designer" for which you have so far failed to provide any substantiation.


----------

