# Two New Yorkers who moved to my area saw explosions bring down World Trade Centers



## creativedreams (Jun 22, 2010)

I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close. 

They moved to a new area because of what they saw.

They say what they saw was definately explosives that brought down the World Trade Center buildings. 

They seen and heard the explosives as far down as 30 floors below from where the top floors coming down.


----------



## Modbert (Jun 22, 2010)

Talk about a fitting screen name.


----------



## 2Parties (Jun 22, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close.
> 
> They moved to a new area because of what they saw.
> 
> ...



You know how I know they are lying?  The government said so.

Case closed.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 22, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close.
> 
> They moved to a new area because of what they saw.
> 
> ...



What in the world are you driving at, creative dreams?  That the US itself blew up the Towers but blamed hapless Saudis for it?  What the hell would have been the motive?


----------



## creativedreams (Jun 23, 2010)

Madeline said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close.
> ...



Many motives available to do what was done from the U.S. perspective...


----------



## Douger (Jun 23, 2010)

Madeline said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close.
> ...


Operation
Iraqi
Liberation

.........and enough US protected Opium to fund a*lCIA* duh for decades.


----------



## gslack (Jun 23, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close.
> 
> They moved to a new area because of what they saw.
> 
> ...



And I know a guy who played major league baseball who swears we faked the moon landing.. And he is not kidding.... But really, doesn't that sound similar in concept? yeah it does LOL....


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 23, 2010)

gslack said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close.
> ...


hey, look on the bright side of this
2 delusional nutcases moved closer to another delusional nutcase


----------



## Tom Clancy (Jun 23, 2010)

..And the earth is flat.


----------



## fyrenza (Jun 23, 2010)

You know what?

We're so far and away BEYOND

even EYEWITNESS reports...

They might have taken LSD, back in the day,

and totally HALLUCINATED the entire THANG.

THIS is what this schism in MSM has brought us.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jun 23, 2010)

They may be right... I lived in New York when 9/11 happened, just a week off the plane when it happened, and I'm telling you people: I SAW NO PLANES!! NOT A SINGLE ONE!!


*Then again, I was 50 blocks uptown...


----------



## candycorn (Jun 23, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > creativedreams said:
> ...



It will make it easier to round up all 3 when the time comes.


----------



## sitarro (Jun 23, 2010)

What is funny is the thought that explosions below the surface of the buildings would have made them come down in the way we all saw them come down. The conspiracy clowns conveniently overlook the very different structure of the 2 buildings. They also ignore the idea that aircraft the size of 767s flying at over 500 knots hit those buildings......... not exactly the same as a 707 hitting them at landing approach speed. Or the massive amounts of explosive material that would have been needed to do the job not to mention the extraordinary amount of man hours and people themselves needed to do the work. Oh and all of those people, the people that planned it and the leaders that okayed it.......... none have talked?


----------



## masquerade (Jun 23, 2010)

You and your new friends need to step away from the bong.  Just put that shit down and go out and get some exercise or an ice cream or something.

I believe your ( new friends ) story as much as I believe Barack Obama caused the oil leak in the Gulf.

Next!


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jun 23, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> They say what they saw was definately explosives that brought down the World Trade Center buildings.


Case closed.


----------



## editec (Jun 23, 2010)

I'm dubious.


----------



## martybegan (Jun 23, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close.
> 
> They moved to a new area because of what they saw.
> 
> ...



No names and no sources. 
I think my friends here have something to say about this.


----------



## jillian (Jun 23, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close.
> 
> They moved to a new area because of what they saw.
> 
> ...



you're delusional as are they. or you're out and out lying.  i live here and EVERYONE I know saw the planes.

i hear they have meds for what ails you.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 23, 2010)

I'm completely confused.  What motive would the US have had again now?  And even if that could be true, how did they fake the 1,001 videos I saw on tv?


----------



## Fizz (Jun 23, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close.
> 
> They moved to a new area because of what they saw.
> 
> ...



yeah, their story is much more reliable than all the hundreds of cameras that actually caught the whole thing as it happened.

WELL I KNOW 5 GUYS FROM NEW YORK AND THEY ALL SAY IT DEFINITELY WASNT EXPLOSIONS. SO THERE!!!


----------



## Gamolon (Jun 23, 2010)

jillian said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close.
> ...



jillian, were you ever in the towers before they came down?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 23, 2010)

Modbert said:


> Talk about a fitting screen name.



yeah thats the title of what the fairy tale 9/11 commission report should have been called.



back to the topic at hand,could you talk to them and ask them if it would be okay if i contact them by email C.D.?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 23, 2010)

2Parties said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close.
> ...



thats hysterical logic if your being serious.thats the moronic mindset most people around here has,because the government says it happened that way,that makes it automatically true. forget the fact that architects,engineers,demolition experts,first reponders and firemen there say. rolls on floor laughing over that logic.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 23, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > Talk about a fitting screen name.
> ...


still as delusional as ever


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 23, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> 2Parties said:
> 
> 
> > creativedreams said:
> ...


you are too stupid to even begin to understand the sarcasm
LOL


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 23, 2010)

jillian said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close.
> ...



Good god,he has never said planes never hit the towers.The only thing people like him,me,CD,Eots,Terral,Shorebreak,Douger and others have said is that the planes did not cause the collapse,that explosives that were planted in the towers in the months beforehand did. so you all want to keep the logic because the corporate controlled media and government said thats how it happened,they are telling the truth then,and all those high quality experts I mentioned earlier are delusional? okay,got ya,great logic there.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 23, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > creativedreams said:
> ...


yes, everyone that thinks it was a controlled demolition is fucking NUTS


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 23, 2010)

Hey Ditzcon with the horrible memory who cant remember your on my ignore list,I already know thats YOUR logic,no need to post what you have posted a hundred times before,that was for newbie Bush dupes who have their head burined in the sand with ostrichs to answer.NOT you.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 23, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> Hey Ditzcon with the horrible memory who cant remember your on my ignore list,I already know thats YOUR logic,no need to post what you have posted a hundred times before,that was for newbie Bush dupes who have their head burined in the sand with ostrichs to answer.NOT you.


i know i'm on your list, you fucking COWARD


----------



## Fizz (Jun 23, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> Hey Ditzcon with the horrible memory who cant remember your on my ignore list,I already know thats YOUR logic,no need to post what you have posted a hundred times before,that was for newbie Bush dupes who have their head *burined *in the sand with *ostrichs *to answer.NOT you.



i noticed that you asked for the emails of people that did claim to hear explosives but you didnt ask for the emails of people that didnt hear explosions.

just goes to show that you are NOT after the truth. you only will look at evidence that supports your preconceived conclusions instead of trying to learn what really happened.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 23, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Ditzcon with the horrible memory who cant remember your on my ignore list,I already know thats YOUR logic,no need to post what you have posted a hundred times before,that was for newbie Bush dupes who have their head burined in the sand with ostrichs to answer.NOT you.
> ...



Oh come on, he's not a fucking coward, that would mean he would be having sex.  Hell, he won't tell anybody where he lives he so ashamed of his house.  

In a word, rimjob is just plain old garbage.


----------



## martybegan (Jun 23, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > creativedreams said:
> ...



Thats even dumber than the missile/remote control plane theories. Why go through the risk of being caught planting the hundreds of explosives required to pull it off just to make sure the towers fell? wouldnt slamming two planes into them achive the same thing?


----------



## Fizz (Jun 23, 2010)

martybegan said:


> Thats even dumber than the missile/remote control plane theories. Why go through the risk of being caught planting the hundreds of explosives required to pull it off just to make sure the towers fell? wouldnt slamming two planes into them achive the same thing?



i'm with you. the whole thing doesnt make any sense. if the goal was to bring the towers down why not just claim they were structurally unsafe and demolish them later? no need to take the chance of getting caught with explosives. just do it. or fill the planes themselves with explosives. adjust your time depending on how many people you want to kill.... 7am isnt going to kill many and 11am will kill a bunch more.

if the goal was to kill people then why wait so long after the planes hit? just push the button right after the plane hits.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 23, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close.
> 
> They moved to a new area because of what they saw.
> 
> ...



How do we know they didn't do it?
They look suspicious


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 23, 2010)

candycorn said:


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


granted
a moronic coward then


----------



## Madeline (Jun 23, 2010)

I wonder what the pay off could possibly be for believing gobbledty gook like this?


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 23, 2010)

Madeline said:


> I wonder what the pay off could possibly be for believing gobbledty gook like this?


these people are totally delusional
notice that MOST of them believe in almost EVERY conspiracy there is
be it the JFK assassination, to the moon landings being a hoax


----------



## Madeline (Jun 23, 2010)

Well, first I think they must not actually know any government workers or pols in real life; these people couldn't organize a bake sale and keep their mouths shut.  But nevermind that; what is the emotional thingie they get from believing nonsense?  Some weird sort of pride that they have the inside dope?


----------



## martybegan (Jun 24, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Well, first I think they must not actually know any government workers or pols in real life; these people couldn't organize a bake sale and keep their mouths shut.  But nevermind that; what is the emotional thingie they get from believing nonsense?  Some weird sort of pride that they have the inside dope?



Some of it may have to do with that. For others it may be a coping mechanism. By creating a fake threat they can freely ignore real ones, be it mundane ones in life, or larger ones. Subconciously they probably know thier theories are bullshit.  

And some may just be nuts.


----------



## 420 (Jun 25, 2010)

It's unbelievable that there's actually still people who actually believe the towers were brought down by explosives.  This has been scientifically debunked hundreds of times.  Popular Mechanics did an excellent piece debunking all of the alleged conspiracy theories.  You can access it online.

This is actually quite common.  Every major event has conspiracy theories attached to them.  Hell, there's people that think we never landed on the moon, Pearl Harbor was known about in advance, etc...

There's a lot of drooling fucktards out there.


----------



## Fizz (Jun 25, 2010)

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's happened before.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.


----------



## Gamolon (Jun 25, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > creativedreams said:
> ...



Who said the planes caused the collapse?


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 25, 2010)

Gamolon said:


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


well, to most people with common sense, the chain of events that caused the towers to collapse was begun by the planes crashing into the towers
but of course, the totally delusional troofer morons cant grasp that concept that things happen in a sequence of events


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 25, 2010)

420 said:


> It's unbelievable that there's actually still people who actually believe the towers were brought down by explosives.  This has been scientifically debunked hundreds of times.  Popular Mechanics did an excellent piece debunking all of the alleged conspiracy theories.  You can access it online.
> 
> This is actually quite common.  Every major event has conspiracy theories attached to them.  Hell, there's people that think we never landed on the moon, Pearl Harbor was known about in advance, etc...
> 
> There's a lot of drooling fucktards out there.



its only unbelieveable to Bush dupes like yourself who cover their ears and eyes when evidence is presented to them that proves they were brought down by explosives because you only see what you want to see.read my second post on page two of this thread.


----------



## Fizz (Jun 25, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> its only unbelieveable to Bush dupes like yourself who cover their ears and eyes when evidence is presented to them that proves they were brought down by explosives because you only see what you want to see.read my second post on page two of this thread.



you have physical evidence of explosives?

didnt think so.

next asshole please stand up.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 25, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> 420 said:
> 
> 
> > It's unbelievable that there's actually still people who actually believe the towers were brought down by explosives.  This has been scientifically debunked hundreds of times.  Popular Mechanics did an excellent piece debunking all of the alleged conspiracy theories.  You can access it online.
> ...


you are such a fucking moron
LOL

there are no "bush dupes"
bush wasn't that good to have duped ANYONE
but, whats funny are YOU moronic Alex Jones dupes


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 25, 2010)

Fizz said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > its only unbelieveable to Bush dupes like yourself who cover their ears and eyes when evidence is presented to them that proves they were brought down by explosives because you only see what you want to see.read my second post on page two of this thread.
> ...


you'd think after all these years, just one of them would actually have SOME evidence to back their story up


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close.
> 
> They moved to a new area because of what they saw.
> 
> ...



I met two wild and crazy guys who said they are sure the towers came down from too many people having sex with girls with big American breasts


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 26, 2010)

martybegan said:


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



see that just proves you havent done any research into this case like none of the 9/11 apologists here have because uh no,slamming the two planes into the towers would not achive the same thing.In the reason being is because they OVERDESIGNED to take a hit from an airliner slamming into them.Obviously you have not heard the video of Frank Demartini who was the construction manager for the towers in his interview done in jan 2001 saying the towers were designed so sturdy that they could take hits from MULTIPLE airliners and they would still reamin standing.thanks for blatantly ignoring that post the saem way disinformation agent trolls Ditzcon,,Right Winger,and Fizlzle do which is why I have them on ignore. Oh and when you Have Bush's brother and his cousin in charge of the security of the towers,you dont have to worry about being caught planting the explosives.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 26, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


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


there are NO 9/11 apologist you fucking idiot


----------



## martybegan (Jun 26, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


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



The titanic was designed not to sink. Lots of good that did it. The mechanism of burning fuel weaking stuctural links between the supporting columns and the floor structures is plausible, beliveable and is supported by the evidence I have seen. Once you had one fail and it slammed into more weakened ones a cascade failure of the internal structure was inevitable. The towers DID survive the initial result of the plane hit, it was the combination of weakened external load bearing structures coupled with severe fire damage to other structural members that brought them down. The fact they survived the inital hit was a testement to the designers. 

I'm sorry i dont have the same amout of time an obsessive compulsive whacko such as yourself has to create theories and phantom science to explain what sane people already know as truth. 

The fact you need to put people on ignore means you cant counter thier arguments, and have resorted to hiding. Poor form on your part. 

And even if Bush's cousins brother's former roomate was in charge of secuirty (I havent see this one yet, you guys keep coming up with new crap all the time) people would notice the patch jobs, moved items and other remains of planting hundreds of charges.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 26, 2010)

martybegan said:


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


this is another one of the MANY lies these guys rely on
no matter how many times it has been proven to BE a lie, they just keep repeating it as if it hasn't


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 27, 2010)

Madeline said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close.
> ...


Possibly the Patriot Act and billions of dollars in War on Terror profits?

War is a Racket, after all.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 27, 2010)

martybegan said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Well, first I think they must not actually know any government workers or pols in real life; these people couldn't organize a bake sale and keep their mouths shut.  But nevermind that; what is the emotional thingie they get from believing nonsense?  Some weird sort of pride that they have the inside dope?
> ...


There's another explanation for those who can't consciously consider the possibility that their government allowed the 9E attacks to occur.

F-E-A-R of betrayal.

"These people are weak minded because they are so dependent on the US government for their self identity and security they will not take the chance of being faced with betrayal.

"It's much easier to simply call others crazy" 

Thanks to CurveLight.
From the USMB thread "Never Forget Rachel Corrie"
Page 31 Post # 460


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 27, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...


ROFLMAO

you are just another paranoid NUT
your use of that fucking moron that thinks he can outrun his cell phone signal is proof you are another fucking IDIOT


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 27, 2010)

How many steel framed skyscrapers collapsed in New York on 9/11/2001?


----------



## daveman (Jun 27, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close.
> 
> They moved to a new area because of what they saw.
> 
> ...


No, they didn't.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 27, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> How many steel framed skyscrapers collapsed in New York on 9/11/2001?


3
how many do you think?


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 27, 2010)

Madeline said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close.
> ...



Good question, considering the government pulled our troops out of Saudi Arabia and went to war with Iraq.  None of the 9/11 hijackers were from Iraq.


----------



## Fizz (Jun 27, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> There's another explanation for those who can't consciously consider the possibility that their government allowed the 9E attacks to occur.
> 
> F-E-A-R of betrayal.
> 
> ...



in my case you are wrong for two reasons.......

first, i did consider the possibility that the government was behind the attacks. i looked for evidence. i didnt find any. if you have evidence then please present it. otherwise, you are jsut a crazy nutjob that believes the government was behind the 9/11 attacks without any evidence to back that up. 

second, i dont depend on the US for my security. i dont even live in the USA the majority of the time. for instance in 2007 i was in the USA for exactly 4 days. so please tell me how denying a government conspiracy is supposed to make me feel safer somehow.


----------



## Fizz (Jun 27, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > creativedreams said:
> ...



how's that profit stuff working out for ya?


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 27, 2010)

Againsheila said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > creativedreams said:
> ...


exactly, if you were going to pull a false flag opp, it would not make sensae to place the blame for it on someone other than your target(AKA Saddam)


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > How many steel framed skyscrapers collapsed in New York on 9/11/2001?
> ...


How did two planes pulverize three skyscrapers?


----------



## Fizz (Jun 27, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> How did two planes pulverize three skyscrapers?



wow, have you been given bad info!!!!!

you think 3 skyscrapers were PULVERIZED!!?


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 27, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


only a complete fucking moron would even ask that question


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 27, 2010)

Fizz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > How did two planes pulverize three skyscrapers?
> ...


yeah, exactly
you can not have a serious discussion of the issues surrounding 9/11 with total morons that think like that


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 27, 2010)

Fizz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > There's another explanation for those who can't consciously consider the possibility that their government allowed the 9E attacks to occur.
> ...


1213 Architectural and Engineering professionals and thousands of others including NYPD and NYFD first responders have signed a petition calling for a truly independent investigation.

There's no shortage of evidence for those unafraid to look.

Wherever they live.


----------



## Fizz (Jun 27, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



so where is it?


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 27, 2010)

Follow the link.


----------



## Fizz (Jun 27, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Follow the link.



 Evidence & Resources
9/11: Blueprint for Truth &#8212; The Architecture of Destruction:

*Buy the High-Resolution DVD* (See Trailer)

You can also Watch The Entire Two Hour 2008 Edition Online




same old bullshit....

your 1200 number less than one half of one tenth of one percent of the total number of WORKING architects and engineers in the USA. your list is worldwide and includes people who arent architects or engineers, people who are retired and people that arent in the USA.

i would personally be embarrassed to try to present that as any type of evidence. it actually does much more to refute your claims than it does back them up!!!


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


From the "morons"at AE 911 Truth.org

Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes.
Multi ton steel sections ejected laterally.
Mid air *pulverization* of 90,000 tons of concrete and metal decking.

Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds.
1200 foot diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found.
Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high rises.

Evidences of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 27, 2010)

Fizz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Follow the link.
> ...


What percentage of working architects and engineers in the US have signed a petition supporting the government's Official Conspiracy Theory?


----------



## Fizz (Jun 27, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> What percentage of working architects and engineers in the US have signed a petition supporting the government's Official Conspiracy Theory?



HAHAHAHahahaha!! you are a complete moron. you don't even know what the fucking meaning of the word "petition" is!! 

_Main Entry: 1pe·ti·tion
Pronunciation: \p&#601;-&#712;ti-sh&#601;n\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin petition-, petitio, from petere to seek, request &#8212; more at feather
Date: 14th century

1 : an earnest request : entreaty
2 a : a formal written request made to an official person or organized body (as a court) b : a document embodying such a formal written request
3 : something asked or requested_

tell me please..... what exactly would someone that agrees with the official version of events sign a petition requesting!!!!


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 28, 2010)

Possibly an entreaty for an official explanation for the tons of molten steel found at the base of all three towers?

Maybe an earnest request detailing how traces of thermite were found by FEMA in steel samples?

A formal written request for enlightenment concerning the mid-air *pulverization* of 90,000 tons of concrete...??


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 28, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Possibly an entreaty for an official explanation for the tons of molten steel found at the base of all three towers?
> 
> Maybe an earnest request detailing how traces of thermite were found by FEMA in steel samples?
> 
> A formal written request for enlightenment concerning the mid-air *pulverization* of 90,000 tons of concrete...??


what "molten steel"?
i have asked MULTIPLE times for PROOF of "molten steel" but NONE of you fucking troofer morons can produce any


----------



## Gamolon (Jun 28, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


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



They did take a hit stupid. Did the towers fall right when the jets slammed into them? No they didn't. If you did your "research" you would see that they didn't do any studies or analysis as to what the affects of a massive fire would be.

Scenario:
A car slams into another car and both drivers survive the impact to call 9/11. Both cars then burst into flames killing both drivers. Was it the impact that was the cause of death or was it the something that was the result of the impact (gas tank leak) that caused the explosion?


----------



## Toro (Jun 28, 2010)

I know two New Yorkers who said that they saw planes take down the WTC.

Next.


----------



## Toro (Jun 28, 2010)

Gamolon said:


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



9/11 inside nutjob is a moron.  One comes to this conclusion based on deduction.  A moron believes that simply because a building was designed a certain way, _there is no possible chance that the conclusions from the design could be wrong._  A moron takes it as a complete certainty that design cannot possibly be flawed.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 28, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Possibly an entreaty for an official explanation for the tons of molten steel found at the base of all three towers?
> ...


Here's a good place to start your search


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 28, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


no, dipshit
dont give fucking search results
i want a direct link


----------



## Fizz (Jun 28, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Here's a good place to start your search



how embarrassing. more people signing a petition to keep the name "Sears Tower" than your insignificant amount of Architects and Engineers petition......

It&#39;s the SEARS Tower. Petition To Save the Name!


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 28, 2010)

Toro:

Kindly point out all morons among the more that 300 9/11 survivors, victims, and family members that contradict or are critical of the 9/11 Commission Report found here.

Start with William Rodriguez the last person to leave the building on September 11, 2001 and who's been credited with saving many lives.

Prior to any airplane impact William and 14 others were in sub-basement B1 of the North Tower, approximately 1100 feet below the airplane's impact point when they heard the sound of an explosion beneath their feet. "...the walls started cracking and everything started shaking," said Mr. Rodriguez.

Have you deduced William a nutjob or moron?

How would you characterize the critical thinking skills of those who believe two planes toppled three steel framed skyscrapers at nearly free-fall speeds?


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 28, 2010)

Fizz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a good place to start your search
> ...


Amateur Night.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 28, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


What makes you think you're worth a direct link?


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 28, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


because you dont have one
that search was nothing but shit links
dipshit


----------



## Toro (Jun 28, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> How would you characterize the critical thinking skills of those who believe two planes toppled three steel framed skyscrapers at nearly free-fall speeds?



George

First this has nothing to do with you.

Second I would describe someone's critical thinking skills who believes that a building could not fall because "that is not how it was designed" as moronic.


----------



## martybegan (Jun 28, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Toro:
> 
> Kindly point out all morons among the more that 300 9/11 survivors, victims, and family members that contradict or are critical of the 9/11 Commission Report found here.
> 
> ...



When a plane slams into a building it creates a lateral force. This force is resisted by frame of the building, which transfers said force to the foundation, which then has to resist said lateral force. Not resisting said force would cause the building to "snap" at some point below the impact point as the lateral force exceeds the integrity of the building. Even if the force is resisted, one would think that such a force would impact the foundation, more than likey causing the effects you are talking about.

This of course is assuming what you are saying is true, as you link no verifiable source.


----------



## martybegan (Jun 28, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



From what I have read this "pulverization" concept comes from is the result of most of the dust samples being taken further away from the collapse zone. This skews the results towards finer particles, as they can travel the farthest. Most of the concrete debris was macroscopic in nature, and fell into the collapse area. When you slam two 600 ton concrete blocks into each other as the offical collapse mechanism explains you have more than enough kinetic energy to crush the concrete and expel a portion of it sideways. 

This is a good paper on the issue

http://www.911myths.com/WTCONC1.pdf

And what is "evidence" of thermite in steel samples?


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 28, 2010)

martybegan said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Toro:
> ...


*Prior to any airplane impact* William and 14 others were in sub-basement B1 of the North Tower...

Define "verifiable source"


----------



## JWBooth (Jun 28, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close.
> 
> They moved to a new area because of what they saw.
> 
> ...




Geeze, you start believing the stories that a couple of shittin new yawkers lay on you and the next thing you know you will be holding onto the title to the brooklyn bridge.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 28, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


WIlliams story changed at least twice
how is that credible?


----------



## Godboy (Jun 28, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close.
> 
> They moved to a new area because of what they saw.
> 
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31g0YE61PLQ]YouTube - The Office- Michael Scott No God No[/ame]


----------



## slackjawed (Jun 28, 2010)




----------



## martybegan (Jun 29, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Seismic Proof?

Seismology data showing single explosion. 

Also according to his testimony the "explosions" were seconds apart. Could that have anything to do with the transfer of the force through the structure being faster than the speed of sound through air?


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 29, 2010)

martybegan said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


An abstract with links for Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 29, 2010)

Toro said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > How would you characterize the critical thinking skills of those who believe two planes toppled three steel framed skyscrapers at nearly free-fall speeds?
> ...


While I'm not exactly clear on what "that is not how it was designed" applies to, would you agree with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth that WTC 7 a 47 story high rise that was not struck by an airplane exhibited "all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives?"

Including:

"Rapid onset of 'collapse'"?
"Sounds of explosions at ground floor a second before the building's destruction"?
"Symmetrical 'structural failure' through the path of greatest resistance -- at free fall acceleration"?


----------



## martybegan (Jun 29, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Havent digested the whole thing. A few immidiate issues with it however:

1. Bentham?  This is a site that is the "wiki" of scientific papers. Anyone can get published in it for the right amount of $$. This is not a true peer reviewed journal, such as one from the AiChE or ACS.

2. Right off the bat the method of sample collection basically rules out true determination of the samples sources. That and the small  number of samples collected. Four samples? 

I tried to look up a critique paper but have not had sucess as I dont want to just quote some message board response. Search is hampered by 2000 copies of the same original report popping up on the search. Also since the paper is only from 2009 a true crituque may not be availible yet.


----------



## Gamolon (Jun 29, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Toro:
> 
> Kindly point out all morons among the more that 300 9/11 survivors, victims, and family members that contradict or are critical of the 9/11 Commission Report found here.



And you show me where they disagree with the fact that the towers came down due to plane impacts and resultant fires. Also show me where they suggest that the towers or other buildings were brought down using explosives or other types of demolition. Here's a link to all their questions. Please do a search for keywords and show me what you come up with. I did a search of "bombs", "explosives", "thermite", "explosives", "explosions", and "demolition". Guess what? NOTHING...
Questions



georgephillip said:


> Start with William Rodriguez the last person to leave the building on September 11, 2001 and who's been credited with saving many lives.
> 
> Prior to any airplane impact William and 14 others were in sub-basement B1 of the North Tower, approximately 1100 feet below the airplane's impact point when they heard the sound of an explosion beneath their feet. "...the walls started cracking and everything started shaking," said Mr. Rodriguez.



Tell you what. Provide me proof on how William knew when exactly the planes hit and when the explosion he felt happened. Let's start there.

So we are clear, you are saying that William heard/felt the explosions in the basement and THEN the planes hit. How did he know the planes hit after the basement explosion? Should be easy.


----------



## Gamolon (Jun 29, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> How would you characterize the critical thinking skills of those who believe two planes toppled



For the 500 millionth time. Planes did not topple the towers. The towers withstood the initial impact. An impact is at a single moment, not spanned over time. If I punched someone in the head and they didn't fall over, but being dazed, turned around walk about 10 steps and tripped over a bicycle and fell down, did the impact of my punch knock them over or did they trip over the bike and fall down?





georgephillip said:


> three steel framed skyscrapers at nearly free-fall speeds?



Nearly free fall speeds? Can you tell me what those speeds are please?


----------



## Gamolon (Jun 29, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> "Sounds of explosions at ground floor a second before the building's destruction"?



I've heard people describe tornadoes as sounding like "freight trains". Does that mean that there were trains barreling through along with the tornado?



georgephillip said:


> "Symmetrical 'structural failure' through the path of greatest resistance -- at free fall acceleration"?



Symmetrical structural failure? Really? How does the mechanical penthouse collapsing into the building proper FIRST, followed be the collapse of the rest of the building equal a "symmetrical collapse"? Here's the video:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bjrAJVp4ds]YouTube - 9/11 - WTC 7 Collapse (penthouse)[/ame]

Watch the penthouse collapse in the beginning and then about 8 seconds later the rest of the building comes down.


----------



## martybegan (Jun 29, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Most of these can be explained by the building failing normally, i.e. a loss of structural integrity. "Explosions" can be beams or columns failing.  

I think the big problem is most people have never seen a non controlled collapse of a building before. The only difference between a controlled collapse and a non controlled collapse is the initiation. In controlled demo you use explosives to weaken structural members to cause collapse. In a normal failure a structural member or members can fail leading to collapse. The explosives dont add anything to the speed of failure or collapse in any way.

So if both failures can be silimiar in order to prove controlled demo you need other verifiable evidence. Occams razor applies.


----------



## Gamolon (Jun 29, 2010)

Here is one of the first accounts from William taken from this CNN site:
CNN.com - Transcripts



			
				CNN said:
			
		

> RODRIGUEZ: I was in the basement, which is the support floor for the maintenance company, and we hear like a big rumble. Not like an impact, like a rumble, like moving furniture in a massive way. And all of sudden we hear another rumble, and a guy comes running, running into our office, and all of skin was off his body. All of the skin.



So tell us again how he knew the explosion was first and THEN the planes hit? Sounds to me like the first "rumble" was the plane impact and the second "rumble" was the fuel exploding which burned the man's skin. Another thing. Explosives don't cause burns and make people's skin fall of.


----------



## Gamolon (Jun 29, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Multi ton steel sections ejected laterally.



Are you taking their word for this or do have a photo or video showing this "ejected steel sections"? Link please.




georgephillip said:


> Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds.



You mean there were temperatures of 1000C in those dust clouds?



georgephillip said:


> Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high rises.



Hmmm. There were many types of "metals" present in the towers. Which meltal are you speaking of? Aluminum? Steel?




georgephillip said:


> Evidences of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples.



Link that shows FEMA found thermite incendiaries.


----------



## GHook93 (Jun 29, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close.
> 
> They moved to a new area because of what they saw.
> 
> ...



2 randomn people from an internet troll! Now I heard enough, I convinced, I'm a truther now!


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 29, 2010)

martybegan said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...


Along with Newton's third law..."Mass always follows the path of least resistance." Wouldn't this mean the two towers struck by aircraft should have fallen to the sides damaged by the impacts of the planes?

Architect Richard Gage of AE 9/11Truth has a pretty simple question: "Why didn't the structure beneath the impact area offer any resistance at all to the much smaller structure above it?"

"The towers came down without interruption in free fall speed, smoothly and symmetrically, as if the lower 90 floors didn't even exist.

"The only way to accomplish that is by controlled demolition."

According to this source the government agency NIST, who did the inquiry into the collapses, didn't even consider the possibility of a controlled demolition.

"The curious justification: controlled demolitions usually start at the basement of a building."

Which brings us back to William Rodriguez.


----------



## martybegan (Jun 29, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Bullshit. Once you get 2-3 of the floors falling as a single mass (less ejected materials) the studs holding the floors to the structure would fail instantanously. The result was the free standing, momentarily outer columns.  which then failed as they no longer had lateral bracing. This whole free fall concept is quite idiotic. 

and referencing an architect on a structural matter loses you points to start with.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 29, 2010)

martybegan said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Isaac Newton was not an architect.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 29, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


Gage is


----------



## martybegan (Jun 29, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Yes, he was a physicist, which is the basis of structural engineering.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 30, 2010)

So why didn't the two towers struck by aircraft fall to the sides damaged by the impacts of the planes?


----------



## Gamolon (Jun 30, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> So why didn't the two towers struck by aircraft fall to the sides damaged by the impacts of the planes?



You mean fall over sideways like trees being cut down?


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 30, 2010)

Yes.


----------



## martybegan (Jun 30, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> So why didn't the two towers struck by aircraft fall to the sides damaged by the impacts of the planes?



Why do I have the feeling I am getting trolled here?

I am going to explain this very slowly, one last time, then I am probably getting out of this thread because I am not debating, I am responding to one liners and basically bad information.

The hole created in the outer structural columns was part of, but not the prime cause of the subsequent failure. The prime cause was the shock and fire damage to the connecting components of the floors to both the central core, and the outer columns. Once the initiating floors connections were sufficently weakened, they fell DOWN, the holes in the buildings not being large enough to impact the direction of failure. The initiating floor more than likely hit an already weakened floor, causing it to fail, adding to the mass and momentum of the failing body. Once a sufficient mass was achieved, even the unaffected supports could not stop the failure. Since gravity prefers things to go straight down, and the failure was in the floors, and not the outer columns or inner core at the start, the floors were directed to fall DOWN, with the now free standing and unbraced inner core and outer columns following them. 

For your scenario to be effective the inital hit would have had to force less than the amount required to snap the towers in the direction of the hit, but sufficient force and surface area to damage the columns on the struck face in a way that those columns would be the primary source of failure. Some of the floor mass would than have likely "spilled" towards the lacking structural support, but in that case I am not sure all of the towers would have collapsed, or if the top section would have "slid" off the remaining structure.

I am going to deliver the "pepsi challenge" to you like have done to others. Give a plausible chain of events other than what actually happned (or the offical conspiracy to you truther nuts) that results in what we saw that day.


----------



## Gamolon (Jun 30, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> So why didn't the two towers struck by aircraft fall to the sides damaged by the impacts of the planes?



Let's think about this. 

You seem to agree that by totally removing the structural steel via explosive demolition, you can achieve the "straight down collapse" that the towers experienced.

Is that the only way you can "remove structural supports" from a steel structure? What you fail to grasp is the fact that a steel structure is designed so that all members share the load. When you start removing members, then other members need to pick up the slack. 

The other way to "remove structural support members" is to remove their strength by fire. Why do you think they fireproof steel? For looks? 

Let's use an example. Let's say we have a cube of concrete weighing 1000 lbs. We'll put 5 people beneath it, one in the middle and one at each corner. Each person is standing, with their arms stretched out over their heads, holding up the block. All 5 people are helping to hold up that 1000 lb. load and the 1000 lbs is distributed between them. After 2 hours, the middle person's legs start to give out. the more they weaken, the more less weight the person can hold. That weight then has to be distributed somewhere else, which is the other four people. Then the middle person drops out all together. Now all 1000 lbs. are on the four people. At some point, another person will drop out leaving three people. There will come a point where the folks left cannot support that block. 

Which way do you think the block will fall? It may tilt a bit depending where the remaining people are, but the block will still fall DOWNWARD due to gravity.

Now, replace the people with the structural columns of the towers. Remember that the structure is a latticework of beams all helping to support the weight. Now fires break out and start to weaken columns (I have yet to find that Robertson and his people did ANY study or analysis about the effects of fire on the structure after a plane crash, only the impact). The weight of the load above the fires DOES NOT change, yet you are weakening the columns below, just like the people's legs starting to weaken then eventually give out all together. Eventually the columns are going to reach a point that they cannot hold up the weight and the upper block will fall DOWN due to gravity.

The towers SURVIVED the initial impact on the planes. It was the damage the impact caused coupled with the fires that brought them down.

If I am wrong, someone please correct me.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 30, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Richard Gage is an architect just like David Weiss of Rescue One, Midtown Manhattan was a firefighter.

I say was in David's case because along with 342 other FDNY heroes and thousands of other human beings he was MURDERED on 9/11/2001.

Richard "the Architect" Gage and David's sister Michele want David's killers held accountable.

Do you?


----------



## Gamolon (Jun 30, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Yes.



Ok. Can you explain why you think this? The towers were not top heavy like a tree nor did they have a "solid trunk" like a tree.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 30, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


yes, but clearly YOU dont
because you want to accuse someone that wasnt involved, yet you dont even name WHO
we already know WHO, it was 19 Al Qaeda terrorists

this is why so many people see you fucking moronic dipshits AS fucking moronic dipshits


----------



## Nonelitist (Jun 30, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close.
> 
> They moved to a new area because of what they saw.
> 
> ...




I have a cousin that saw a warning in her ham sandwich about 9/11.  She snuck into the world trade centers the night before they came down and searched every inch of the building and didn't find any explosives.

How do we reconcile this?


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 30, 2010)

Waterboard your cousin until she confesses?


----------



## The Infidel (Jun 30, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close.
> 
> They moved to a new area because of what they saw.
> 
> ...





I once talked to a guy who swore martians probed his ass.... he moved to San Fransicko b/c of what happened. 



When are you idiots going to give up on this stupid "the gov't did it shit"? 
Jet fuel + fire + metal girders + time = collapse


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 30, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


If I knew WHO to blame for 9/11 I wouldn't need to involve myself with survivors and family members calling for a legitimate investigation into the crimes, would I?

As for the 19 terrorists you mention, which one planted the bomb that went off under William Rodriguez and 14 others one story below ground level seconds before the first plane hit the North Tower?

How did those terrible 19 manage to bring down WTC7 without using an airplane? Prayer?

Can you see how timid slaves like yourself project a yellow tinge on all Americans?


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 30, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


there were NO BOMBS PLANTED dipshit
WTC7 fell because of the fact that a HUGE chuck of one of the tower landed on it and took out some structural support and started fires that were unfightable because it also took out the water inn the building


----------



## Gamolon (Jun 30, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> As for the 19 terrorists you mention, which one planted the bomb that went off under William Rodriguez and 14 others one story below ground level seconds before the first plane hit the North Tower?



Bomb?

I posted a link to his initial quote from CNN in which he described it as a "rumble" like someone moving furniture! How does he go from that to an explosion that lifted the floor and cracked the ceiling?

Also, if it was a bomb, home come the guy that ran screaming from the freight elevator has his skin hanging off him? Bombs don't do that. There was jet fuel that spilled down the elevator shaft and ignited. There is proof of people all throughout the different floors that smelled it.

I asked you these questions before and you either didn't see them or ignored them.

Another question. how did William know that the plane impact came AFTER the explosion that burned the gentleman by the freight elevator?


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 30, 2010)

Was the chunk of (which?) tower HUGE enough to account for the 2.25 second period in which WTC7's center roofline exhibited a "freefall drop for approximately 8 stories"?

NIST eventually provided the above quote without explaining its significance. "The significance is that during that period of freefall, all of the gravitational energy (aka potential energy) is converted into energy of motion (...kinetic energy).

"There is no energy available for doing other work, such as breaking up structural columns or hurling structural pieces out of the way."

As far as NO BOMBS PLANTED dipshit...you might want to run that one by Felipe David, one of William Rodriguez' co-workers whose skin was burned from his face and arms within seconds of the North Tower impact.

William was about 1100 feet below that impact, and Felipe was about four hundred feet away in front of an open freight elevator.

Mr David's testimony went unreported for one year in this country. His story was first revealed in an interview in Colombia on the first anniversary of 9/11/2001.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 30, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Was the chunk of (which?) tower HUGE enough to account for the 2.25 second period in which WTC7's center roofline exhibited a "freefall drop for approximately 8 stories"?
> 
> NIST eventually provided the above quote without explaining its significance. "The significance is that during that period of freefall, all of the gravitational energy (aka potential energy) is converted into energy of motion (...kinetic energy).
> 
> ...


bombs dont do that, dipshit
FIRE does


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 30, 2010)

Bombs start fires.
Chickenshit.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 30, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Bombs start fires.
> Chickenshit.


dumbfuck, jet fuel does too


----------



## Ringel05 (Jun 30, 2010)

Douger said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > creativedreams said:
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnzHtm1jhL4]YouTube - Napoleon XIV: 'They're coming to take me away'[/ame]


----------



## Ringel05 (Jun 30, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close.
> 
> They moved to a new area because of what they saw.
> 
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnzHtm1jhL4]YouTube - Napoleon XIV: 'They're coming to take me away'[/ame]


----------



## Ringel05 (Jun 30, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnzHtm1jhL4]YouTube - Napoleon XIV: 'They're coming to take me away'[/ame]


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 30, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > As for the 19 terrorists you mention, which one planted the bomb that went off under William Rodriguez and 14 others one story below ground level seconds before the first plane hit the North Tower?
> ...


"Seconds after the *first massive explosion* below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear *another explosion* from way above," said Rodriguez. "Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the *first explosion*."

"But before Rodriguez had time to think, co-worker Felipe David stormed into the basement office with severe burns on his face and arms, screaming for help and yelling *'explosion! explosion! explosion!'"*

Patriots Question 9/11


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 30, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Bombs start fires.
> ...


So which came first...

The Chicken (jet fuel)?

Or the Bomb (egg)?


----------



## Richard-H (Jun 30, 2010)

What's so hard to understand about this?

Dick Cheney passed a load of Anthrax to Mohammud Ada thru Pakistani intelligence in order to have an excuse to invade Afganistan.

Mohammud Ada accidentally poisoned himself, then passed the remaining anthrax to lower level people and ordered them to mail it to the "American Media".

Mohaummud Ada, on his own - because he knew that he was dying,  then decided to launch the plan to destroy the World Trade Center,  the Pentagon & White House, which was concieved of, but not yet ordered, by Bin Laden.

Cheney & Bush rounded up all of Mohammud Ada's surviving subordinates and held them in Guantanamo bay so that no one would ever find out the truth. They've all long since perished.

And the rest is history.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 30, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


there was no bomb, dipshit


----------



## martybegan (Jun 30, 2010)

Not a o





georgephillip said:


> Bombs start fires.
> Chickenshit.



Not a bomb could do what you described.  Bombs create a shockwave, that would blow clothes off, not char skin, unless you were close enough but then THE SHOCKWAVE WOULD KILL YOU Burning jet fuel however could do what was described.


----------



## martybegan (Jun 30, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



So he changed his first statement to the one the truthers like, AFTER he had contact with said truthers. 

Nice job by the whackos taking advantage of this simple heroic man.


----------



## martybegan (Jun 30, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



The perpetrators: PISSED OFF MUSLIMS.

I also notice you havent answered my challenge of giving me a logical chain of events other than the one provided in the commission report.


----------



## xotoxi (Jun 30, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> *Two New Yorkers who moved to my area saw explosions bring down  World Trade Centers*



Correct.

And those explosions were called  American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 30, 2010)

martybegan said:


> Not a o
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thousands of cutter charges going off throughout the building could also ignite the jet fuel.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 30, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Not a o
> ...


yet there was ZERO evidence found of "cutter charges"


----------



## MikeK (Jul 1, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close.
> 
> They moved to a new area because of what they saw.
> 
> ...


Eyewitnesses to exceptionally startling events are notoriously unreliable.  This is because witnessing an event which is exceptionally startling because of its magnitude causes the mind to replace certain unique components of the event with _imagined_ components of a more readily comprehensible nature.  

There is no question that a gigantic passenger aircraft striking a massive stone and steel structure will produce an explosive noise, which occurred as a very real component of your friends' recollection.   They definitely heard an explosion but the surrounding circumstances became rearranged in their minds in a sequence which is more acceptable to their imaginations.  

The raging fires that melted the steel supports and initiated the progressive collapse also caused various explosions which were audible at street level.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 1, 2010)

MikeK said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close.
> ...


um, where do you get the "stone" in the "stone and steel"?

"Steel and Glass" would fit the WTC more


----------



## martybegan (Jul 1, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Not a o
> ...



You keep changing your story. Again give me a clear chain of events just like in the commission report, except one that validates your explosive theory.

and the jet fuel was on fire already. I think the large expanding red ball on the plane impact gives that away.


----------



## martybegan (Jul 1, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Just realized something when reading your response to Georgie. Sorry for piggybacking but I hate editing.

You now claim that the jet fuel could have been ignited by cutter charges. This would have happened moments after plane impact (would have to be after to ignite the fuel.) This however is temporally impossible, as the cutter charges are claimed to have brought down the building, the man was burned by the jet fuel more than an hour before the towers collapse.

This leads me to two conclusions about george. Either he is a complete idiot, or we have been trolled, he really isnt a truther, but he is just stringing us along and getting some odd sense of satisfaction from it.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 1, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > *Two New Yorkers who moved to my area saw explosions bring down  World Trade Centers*
> ...


Neither Flight hit WTC 7 and yet eye-witness Barry Jennings, Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Dept for NYC Housing Authority, was inside WTC7 before either neighboring tower collapsed while explosions were going off around him.

Barry was inside a stairwell on the 6th floor landing trying to escape WTC7 when an explosion destroyed the stairs below him. He was forced to return to the 8th floor and wait for the FDNY cavalry to get him out of the building. 

After reaching the lobby littered with dead bodies, Barry exited WTC 7 through a hole in one wall created by the FDNY.

Both Twin Towers were still standing at this point!

Barry's story can be found in a 10 minute video. He's introduced around the 3:55 mark and takes center stage between 5:15 - 9:05. 

WTC7 The Smoking Gun of 9/11.


----------



## martybegan (Jul 1, 2010)

MikeK said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close.
> ...



Be careful with the whole melted steel thing. I get your point, but remember metals do not need to melt to lose structural strength. Even heating the metal sufficently while it is still solid would decrease its load bearing ability substantially and lend to warping or bending.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 1, 2010)

MikeK said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close.
> ...


Please watch these two short videos (36 and 9 seconds) of WTC7's 6.5 second vertical collapse without the words "controlled demolition" going through your mind.

WTC7.net


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 1, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > creativedreams said:
> ...


ah, more videos that exclude the mechanical penthouse collapse

then troofers wonder why they are known as fucking moronic LIARS


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 1, 2010)

What is the significance of the "mechanical penthouse" to a 6.5 second vertical fall of all 47 stories?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 1, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> What is the significance of the "mechanical penthouse" to a 6.5 second vertical fall of all 47 stories?


it was the beginning of the collapse, you dipshits want to ignore that as it doesn't fit with your moronic bullshit conspiracy


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 1, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> What is the significance of the "mechanical penthouse" to a 6.5 second vertical fall of all 47 stories?



Because you're implying that the WHOLE STRUCTURE fell simultaneously at free fall speeds.  You are implying that ALL SUPPORT members had to have been cut at the same time to achieve this TOTAL STRUCTURE SIMULTANEOUS FREE FALL COLLAPSE.

That is not the case.

The mechanical penthouse (and supports beneath) collapsed first INTO the building itself. You can actually see the damage it caused from the windows of the building being smashed as it fell inside the building. You now have a part of the TOTAL structure that has collapsed making all the other structural members have to pick up the slack for those members that collapsed. In addition, that penthouse collapsing inward caused damage to the OTHER structural members as it fell. 

What is so hard to understand? Why is it that anyone trying to prove demolition leaves out the penthouse collapse? It's part of the building is it not? It collapsed into the building proper and damaged other parts of the support structure correct? Why would it not be discussed then?


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 1, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> "Seconds after the *first massive explosion* below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear *another explosion* from way above," said Rodriguez. "Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the *first explosion*."
> 
> "But before Rodriguez had time to think, co-worker Felipe David stormed into the basement office with severe burns on his face and arms, screaming for help and yelling *'explosion! explosion! explosion!'"*
> 
> Patriots Question 9/11



Here is William's first quotes from a CNN interview right after it happened:



			
				William Rodriguez said:
			
		

> RODRIGUEZ: I was in the basement, which is the support floor for the maintenance company, and we hear like a big rumble. Not like an impact, like a rumble, like moving furniture in a massive way. And all of sudden we hear another rumble, and a guy comes running, running into our office, and all of skin was off his body. All of the skin.



How did it get from a "Big rumble" like "moving furniture" in his CNN quote to a "massive explosion" later?

Answer me this. In his CNN quote, he says he heard two rumbles. After the second rumble the guy comes running screaming with his skin hanging off. If it was the first rumble that was the explosion, why didn't the guy come running and screaming when the first rumble happened? Why did he come running in after the second rumble, which according to you and William, was the plane impact?


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 1, 2010)

martybegan said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Nice catch marty!

Hey George. Care to comment on this little mistake?


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 1, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > What is the significance of the "mechanical penthouse" to a 6.5 second vertical fall of all 47 stories?
> ...


I'm implying WTC7 including the mechanical penthouse descended at free fall acceleration over two seconds for a distance of over 1000 feet or approximately 8 stories.

I'm not implying "ALL SUPPORT members" had been cut at the same time.

I am implying along with Richard Gage, Gregg Roberts, and David Chandler, that "24 core columns (were) removed within a fraction of a second" to accomplish this demolition.

Now, you tell me why the mechanical penthouse collapse is any more significant than the sixth floor stairwell in WTC7 that blew up beneath Barry Jenning's feet?


----------



## Fizz (Jul 1, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Now, you tell me why the mechanical penthouse collapse is any more significant than the sixth floor stairwell in WTC7 that *blew up beneath Barry Jenning's feet*?



source please.


----------



## martybegan (Jul 1, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Um 8 stories is at most, 100 feet or so. figuring each floor at 12-15 feet. But I will be chariatble and give the building large floors, 20 ft. THATS STILL ONLY 160 ft. 

And the NIST report gave a collapse scenario of 1 main column going first, the one under the mechanical penthouse, which due to a design issue lead to the rest of the collapse. 

And a mechanical penthouse by the way isnt some recreational place. Its where you store your HVAC items, which tend to be heavy. A failure of a column under that is very very bad.


----------



## martybegan (Jul 1, 2010)

Fizz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Now, you tell me why the mechanical penthouse collapse is any more significant than the sixth floor stairwell in WTC7 that *blew up beneath Barry Jenning's feet*?
> ...



I've read the jennings account. If, we are to assume his eye witness testimony is truthful as he sees it, my guess is that his tracking of time was off. The damage he experienced was probably from the tower collapse, as he did not exit the building until both towers were down. As strated above by someone, eyewitness testimonies of people in the middle of all the events can be unreilable, this is particularly true with time, as few people will be looking at thier watches while hell is unfolding around them. That is why eyewitness accounts need to be in multiples, to get a sense of what happeneed from multiple sources, not 2-3. 

You notice people who push the jennings thing have few other eyewitness testimonies to back the story up. Another example of cherry picking.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 1, 2010)

martybegan said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


My mistake:

"WTC7 descended at free-fall acceleration over 2 seconds for a distance of over *100 feet*..." AND I suspect my theory of cutter charges igniting jet fuel is also in error.

Nobody's perfect....(least of all me)


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 1, 2010)

Fizz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Now, you tell me why the mechanical penthouse collapse is any more significant than the sixth floor stairwell in WTC7 that *blew up beneath Barry Jenning's feet*?
> ...


WTC7 The Smoking Gun of 9/11.

Barry's story can be found within this ten minute video.
He's introduced around the 4 minute mark and his full statement occurs between 5-9 minutes.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 1, 2010)

martybegan said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


How many firemen were in WTC7 during or after the Twin Towers collapsed? 

Prove to me that "...he (Jennings) did not leave WTC7 until both towers were down."

Jennings reiterates several times the Twin Towers were still standing when the explosion in the 6th floor stairwell drove him back to the 8th floor.

It's my "guess" they were both still standing when Barry and FDNY personnel left WTC7 through a hole in the wall after traversing a lobby containing numerous dead bodies.

(Do you also believe there was no loss of life in WTC7?)

Finally, the people I notice are the ones too fearful to contemplate the possibility that their government allowed a crime like 9/11 to happen.

WTC7 The Smoking Gun of 9/11


----------



## xotoxi (Jul 1, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > creativedreams said:
> ...



If what Barry Jennings says is as credible as what you say...then I don't believe him.


----------



## martybegan (Jul 1, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



From metapedia. best place i can find a direct quote

I was trapped in there for several hours, I was trapped in there when both buildings came down - all this time Im hearing all kinds of explosions, all this time Im hearing explosions, said Jennings, adding that when firefighters took them down to the lobby it was in total ruins. 

He was STILL IN THE BUILDING when the towers fell. I still am not sure how he knew the towers were still standing when he was in a stairwell that got damaged.

When he was lead out through the lobby the towers were down. Could the bodies he saw been blown in during the collapse?

You keep quoting things wrong. So far all the events I have alluded to have been backed up by fact. My only real speculation is the jennings thing, and I am pretty confident in my analysis.


----------



## MikeK (Jul 2, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Please watch these two short videos (36 and 9 seconds) of WTC7's 6.5 second vertical collapse without the words "controlled demolition" going through your mind.


George,

The reason why so many people believe the Towers were brought down by controlled demolition is they have seen controlled demolitions on television and the similarity in the way the Towers fell have them convinced that nothing else could produce the perfect "pancaking" effect they saw.  The explanation offered by a group of architects and structural engineers on a Discovery Channel program disputes that belief with the logical argument that key structural members were melted by intense fire, gave way and initiated the progressive vertical collapse.  But even that perfectly credible and logical explanation is the least convincing reason why I reject the controlled demolition theory.

Start with the fact that there are perhaps three or four demolition contractors in the U.S.  with the kind of expertise and experience it would take to accomplish such an elaborate task.  Even if it were possible to somehow induce one of those crews to undertake what clearly would be the most egregious crime in American history, consider the fact that the World Trade Center employed a highly efficient, armed security force which was supervised by an exceptionally conscientious manager.  Do you believe it would be possible for a crew of sappers to get past them with case after case of explosives and related equipment and weave a timed network of demolition charges without being noticed?  Do you know how long a job like that would take -- times two?  

And even if all of the above were indeed possible, how many individual sappers would a job like that require?  Six?  Eight?  A dozen?  These people are not criminal mass murderers.  They are extraordinary tradesmen, decent people with families and jobs they are content with.  They aren't cynical Timothy McVeighs who hate everything and everybody.  And even if they were, and if you were one of them, would you risk being involved in something like that with the possibility of even one accomplice being caught and informing?  And how about the instigators who might conceive and fund such an operation.  Would they assume such a risk?  

When you think about all that would be involved in effecting the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center the possibility of it actually being carried out is beyond reason.  It is pure fantasy.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 2, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...


How did two planes bring down three steel-framed skyscrapers?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 2, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


very easy
but you are clearly too fucking stupid to understand it


----------



## martybegan (Jul 2, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Sigh....

its simple when debris from the collapse of 2 of them impacts the 3rd and causes uncontrollable fires.

And you forget 3WTC was destroyed by the collapse as well, and the other 3 buildings were so heavily damaged they needed to be demolished. 

So technically 2 planes took out 4 buildings, with 3 partials. 

That basically means your statement means nothing.


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 2, 2010)

fyrenza said:


> You know what?
> 
> We're so far and away BEYOND
> 
> ...



Actually, there are hundreds of recorded detailed eyewitness reports from first responders that were kept hidden from the public for the first few years following 9E.  To this day I've never seen even a half hearted attempt at explaining why.


----------



## martybegan (Jul 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> fyrenza said:
> 
> 
> > You know what?
> ...



Source plox. kk thnx, bye.


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 2, 2010)

martybegan said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...



Do you know how many years it took to put out a report explaining WTC 7?  I don't know what happened but common sense says when it takes more than seven years to explain a collapse then something fucked up is going on.  The report also stated fire alone caused the collapse.


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 2, 2010)

martybegan said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > fyrenza said:
> ...



http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/nyregion/12records.html


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 2, 2010)

Madeline said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close.
> ...



There is no question adequate motivation was present but I've not seen any conclusive evidence it was all a false flag.

But, you should know our top military leaders drew up plans to blame castro for attacks on Americans to justify invading Cuba.  The kennedy admin shot the plan down but the point is, when the highest levels of our military offices make plans to attack our own citizens.....you aren't in Kansas anymore.

One thing that is interesting is just a few months before 9E happened there were two military exercises of extreme coincidence.  One was a hijacked plane getting shot down in Pennsylvania.  The other was a hijacked plane getting flown into the Pentagon.


Eta:  one amazing coincidence about Operation Northwoods is the Generals were trying to figure out how they could sell it that a hijacked plane was crashed into either Florida or Cuba and the solution was to have an unsuspecting military pilot get diverted from his normal flight path to do a visual on the hijacked plane.  So they were planning to incorporate innocent people into their plot.  For the Pentagon, there was a C-130 pilot who got diverted from his flight path to do a visual on a commercial plane.  Those are pure facts.  The coincidences are rather amazing.


----------



## martybegan (Jul 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Part of the reason is they were working on the towers 1 and 2 report. The other reason is this is not a movie and we did not have a camera inside the building in slo mo recording what exactly happened. Engineering analysis is not instant. Look at how long they take to figure out airplane accidents. 

And unlike the conspirancy theories, the technical portion of these reports is peer reviewed like hell before publishing. 

Is this the NIST report you are talking about that had the various column failure scenarios? I have to re-read but I recall some of the failure paths included structure damage from debris.


----------



## martybegan (Jul 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Actually the reasons for not releasing are in the article, it is a matter of opinion if they are good ones or not. 

When does ANY government agency in ANY event give out information willingly?


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 2, 2010)

Madeline said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close.
> ...





martybegan said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



I've seen that lame excuse before.  If it was a matter of authenticity what was being done to verify them while being kept from the public?


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 2, 2010)

martybegan said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



That doesn't make any sense at all and it shows you don't know why it took as long as it did.  You're really trying to claim there was a shortage of personnel to examine the collapses? One reason is because it kept getting kicked around different agencies because they knew it was problematic.  Nobody wanted to be forced to explain it with limited options. They settled on claiming fire alone brought down WTC 7. The new WTC 7 had been built and occupied before explaining the collapse.


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 2, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



HOW IS THAT BOLDED PART OF YOUR QUOTE ABOVE EVEN POSSIBLE???

The mechanical penthouse fell INTO the building itself BEFORE the roof line started it's fall. Here is the video again. Please watch it.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bjrAJVp4ds]YouTube - 9/11 - WTC 7 Collapse (penthouse)[/ame]

The left half of the penthouse falls into the building a full 6 or 7 seconds BEFORE the rest of the building starts to collapse. How can you honestly tell me that the ENTIRE WTC7 building fell at the same time at free fall speed when the video above shows you to be completely incorrect?


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 2, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "Seconds after the *first massive explosion* below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear *another explosion* from way above," said Rodriguez. "Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the *first explosion*."
> ...



George, care to discuss the above?


----------



## martybegan (Jul 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > creativedreams said:
> ...



But it was still in the article. That was my point. Its your opionion that the reasons suck.


----------



## martybegan (Jul 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



it makes perfect sense. yes, they had difficulty getting the exact failure mechanism. And I may have been wrong about the debris. I read the report a while ago. I dont have the OCD obession or the time to re read it every time I post. I will this weekend. 

Problematic does not mean ZOMG THEY BLEWS UP TEH BUILDINZG! The main issues revolve around the greater detail and forensics availible for tower 1 and 2. The collapse scenario they gave made sense to me when I read it (to be fair I am a ChemE not a civil, but I took basic courses in statics, and work with alot of civil engineers. The knowledge does spread among us when we discuss this stuff over lunch).  

Again, Engineering isnt like the movies. You have to base your theories on what you have availible. But having 100% proof is almost impossible in these cases. My issue is that this is seen by truthers as a window into throwing every type of assinine theory onto the wall to see if it sticks. They peg slight doubt onto the offical version, then push thier version which usually is so implausible that it makes me sad to think people can be that stupid.


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 2, 2010)

martybegan said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



If it was a matter of authenticity what was being done to verify them while being kept from the public?


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 2, 2010)

MikeK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Please watch these two short videos (36 and 9 seconds) of WTC7's 6.5 second vertical collapse without the words "controlled demolition" going through your mind.
> ...


Mike:

There are at least four good questions to ask when evaluating the Bush/Cheney explanation for the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings. 

First, WTC7 collapsed in roughly the same way as the Twin Towers, yet was not struck by an aircraft.

"Second, the fires in these buildings were not as big, hot (they never came close to temperatures required to melt steel), or long lasting as fires in steel-framed high-rises that have not induced collapses.

"In 1991, a fire in Philadelphia burned for 18 hours, in 2004, a fire in Caracas burned for 17 hours. But neither fire produced even a partial collapse.

"The World Trade Center's north and south towers burned only 102 and 56 minutes, respectively, before they collapsed. WTC7, moreover, had fires on only a few floors, according to several witnesses and all the photographic evidence.

"Third, total collapse of steel-framed high-rise buildings have never been brought about by fire and externally caused structural damage. All such collapses have been caused by explosives in the procedure known as 'controlled demolition.'

"Fourth, the collapse of these three buildings all manifested many standard features of the kind of controlled demolition know as 'implosion' such as: sudden onset (whereas steel, if weakened by fire, would gradually begin to sag); straight-down collapse (as opposed to falling over); collapse at virtual free-fall speed (indicating the massive steel columns in the core of each building had been broken into many pieces--which is what explosives do in controlled demolitions); the production of molten metal; and the occurrence of multiple explosions." 

I don't know the truth about what happened on 9/11/2001.
I do know I can't rely on Bush/Cheney for anything except fantasy.

The American Empire pp.7-8


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 2, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Thass some silly shit.  Rodriguez didn't see the guy coming till after the second rumble/explosion because he (the skinless guy) was in an elevator.  Maybe next we can analyze the length of Rodriguez's shoe laces before and after initial impact.

So the question is what explosion occurred to make the guy's skin come off?  It must have happened before he got in the elevator.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


JET FUEL 

you dumbfuck


----------



## theHawk (Jul 2, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close.
> 
> They moved to a new area because of what they saw.
> 
> ...



Thank God for your two friends who saw this, since every camera in the city seemed to miss it.


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 2, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...




Since you will not back up that claim I won't even ask.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


it doesn't really NEED backup to anyone that has a fully functional braion
so that leaves YOU out you fucking moron


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 2, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...





DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



The typical diveydick move.  When you can't support your claims you call people morons.  You're just another fat ass joke.


----------



## Fizz (Jul 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> So the question is what explosion occurred to make the guy's skin come off?  It must have happened before he got in the elevator.


back that up please.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


who said i couldnt?
i just said i didnt need to
and to do so for a dumbfuck like you would be a waste of time


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 2, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Do you really need to keep proving my point about how you hide behind ad homs when you can't support a claim?


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 2, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > So the question is what explosion occurred to make the guy's skin come off?  It must have happened before he got in the elevator.
> ...




 "We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off."
CNN.com - Collapsed Trade Center towers still dangerous - September 12, 2001


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


that doesn't prove an explosive
it does prove the jet fuel if you had a functioning brain


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


you are a fucking delusional dipshit
just like the rest of you troofer morons


----------



## MikeK (Jul 2, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> [...]
> 
> First, WTC7 collapsed in roughly the same way as the Twin Towers, yet was not struck by an aircraft.
> 
> [...]


The question of Building 7 did give me much pause until I watched the animated explanation by those architects, structural engineers (including those who designed the Towers), and other experts on a Discovery Channel documentary.  They answered all of the questions quite satisfactorily.  Especially the most prominent question re: Building 7.

What is not widely known is then Mayor Rudy Giuliani, in his infinite wisdom, years before 9/11/01 had ordered that an emergency command center be established in preparation for a disaster -- such as a terrorist attack on the City.  The site he chose was Building 7.  Against Fire Department regulations he ordered that an electrical power generator be installed on the command center floor and that a large storage tank of diesel fuel be situated in the basement with a feed line to that generator.  The idle generator contained fifty gallons of diesel.  

When the main Towers fell the force of the collapse blew in the windows of Building 7 driving huge chunks of debris inside, including burning fireballs, which ignited the diesel -- along with the propane tanks for an emergency cooking stove on the Command Center floor.


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 2, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Do you really need to keep proving my point about how you hide behind ad homs when you can't support a claim?


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 2, 2010)

MikeK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > [...]
> ...



It took them seven years to figure that out?


----------



## Fizz (Jul 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



thats your proof that it happened BEFORE HE GOT IN THE ELEVATOR?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


its not hiding, dipshit
\it's giving you the only thing you deserve


----------



## MikeK (Jul 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> It took them seven years to figure that out?


I'm sure that was known at the highest levels but not released as general information for obvious reasons.  The documentary I've referred to was broadcast several years ago and once (that I'm aware of) more recently.  

There is a lot more detailed information available about Building 7 via Google.


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 2, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Do you really need to keep proving my point about how you hide behind ad homs when you can't support a claim?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


^^^ more proof that he is totally fucking INSANE


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 2, 2010)

MikeK said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > It took them seven years to figure that out?
> ...



You misunderstood what I meant.  The Command Center existed since 1998 and that has never been a secret.  What I meant is it took them seven years to figure out diesel fuel brought down wtc 7?  I'm sorry, but seven years is a fucking joke.  This thing got batted around several agencies because nobody wanted that tar baby to clean up.


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 2, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Do you really need to keep proving my point about how you hide behind ad homs when you can't support a claim?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


keep proving me right
LOL
dumbfuck

oh, regale us all with your stories of how you can go faster than your cell phone signal again


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 2, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




The elevator was still in operation mode so what are the chances the explosion happened inside the elevator yet it remained in use?  Based on simple reasoning it appears the victim was burned prior to the elevator doors closing from his starting point.  By the time the doors opened in the basement his skin was off.  The elevators didn't run from the basement all the way to the top floor.


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 2, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




Do you really need to keep proving my point about how you hide behind ad homs and lie about what others say when you can't support a claim?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


more delusional bullshit

and i dont lie you delusional piece of shit
others were in that thread and can confirm what you claimed and that i did not misrepresent what you said


----------



## daveman (Jul 2, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> "Second, the fires in these buildings were not as big, hot (they never came close to temperatures required to melt steel), or long lasting as fires in steel-framed high-rises that have not induced collapses.



The steel didn't get hot enough to melt.  It did, however, get hot enough to be seriously weakened.  

Do you honestly believe that at one degree below its melting point, it's just as strong as it is at room temperature?


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 2, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...





DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...





Do you really need to keep proving my point about how you hide behind ad homs and lie about what others say when you can't support a claim?

(Someone....I believe Gamolon....has what I said in his sig.  I pointed out speed increases chances of hitting dead spots for cell signals but does not cause them.  It's pretty simple.  If there are ten dead spots on a stretch of road and one guy is walking while another is driving at 60 mph, which one has a better chance of hitting dead spots due to speed?)

Do you really need to keep proving my point about how you hide behind ad homs and lie about what others say when you can't support a claim?


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 2, 2010)

daveman said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "Second, the fires in these buildings were not as big, hot (they never came close to temperatures required to melt steel), or long lasting as fires in steel-framed high-rises that have not induced collapses.
> ...



From my pov it's a matter of source and time.  The jet fuel was consumed on impact.  I'm well aware heat reduces the strength of steel but what I have trouble accepting is it took less than two hours of fires to weaken the steel enough on an equal plane to cause such a neat vertical collapse.  The planes crashing do not explain that but only further exacerbate the problem because the damage caused by impact is sporadic and operates on no horizontal or vertical plane.


----------



## daveman (Jul 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


The principles of physics, engineering, and thermodynamics do not require your permission or understanding to operate.  

Every troofer claim has been debunked with facts, logic, and science.  Reality does not change simply because you refuse to accept it.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


you changed what you said AFTER it was explained to you how fucking STUPID and MORONIC your claim was

so you lie about it again


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 2, 2010)

MikeK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > [...]
> ...


Barry Jennings, Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Dept. NYC Housing Authority, was trying to escape WTC7 via stairwell when a 6th floor landing he was navigating was ripped by explosion.

Barry claims both Towers were still standing when this occurred.

When he got out, Barry also was told about the diesel tank hypothesis. A self-described "old boiler guy" Barry countered:"If it was a fuel oil tank it would have been one side of the building."

Concluding remarks in the FEMA report on the WTC7 collapse also state, "Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis (fire/debris-damage-caused collapse) has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analysis are needed to resolve this issue." (FEMA 2002, Chapter 5)

Serious consideration of the controlled demolition hypothesis has been neglected in all government reports. (FEMA, NIST, and 9/11 Commission)

The latter report didn't even mention the collapse of WTC7 on 9/11/01.

Perhaps that's all we could have expected from Bush/Cheney. 

Why  Indeed Did the World...P.22


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 2, 2010)

daveman said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "Second, the fires in these buildings were not as big, hot (they never came close to temperatures required to melt steel), or long lasting as fires in steel-framed high-rises that have not induced collapses.
> ...


What if it's at least 600 degrees below its melting point?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 2, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


and what do you agree is the actual melting point?


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 2, 2010)

daveman said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


If Newton's Third Law still operates why didn't the Twin Towers fall to their side damaged by impact?


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 2, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


2400 degrees F


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 2, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


so, you agree it got to 1800° which would be 75% of the tempt to get to the melting point
can you admit that at that temp it would lose OVER half its structural integrity?


going on you actually having the correct melting point


----------



## daveman (Jul 2, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


It's significantly weakened.  


> 1. About 60% of the 60 columns of the impacted face of framed-tube (and about 13% of the total of 287 columns) were severed, and many more were significantly deflected. This caused stress redistribution, which significantly increased the load of some columns, near the load capacity for some of them.
> 
> 2. Fire insulation was stripped during aircraft impact by flying debris (without that, the towers would likely have survived). In consequence, many structural steel members heated up to 600±C (NIST 2005) (the structural steel used loses about 20% of its yield strength already at 300±C, NIST 2005, and exhibits significant visco-plasticity, or creep, above 450±, especially at high stresses that developed; see e.g. Cottrell 1964, p. 299; the press reports right after 9/11, indicating temperature in excess of 800±C, turned out to be groundless, but Bazant and Zhou's analysis did not depend on that).
> 
> ...


----------



## daveman (Jul 2, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


Why would they?  The path of least resistance was straight down.  You know, the way gravity pulls.

Towers Collapse - Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and controlled demolition


> The mechanics of the collapse are really much more simple than conspiracy theorists would like you to believe. The heat expanded the steel in the truss in all directions. As a result they also expanded into the columns. The trusses/floor system, sagged in the middle because the columns were preventing the trusses from expanding in their direction. That led to the bowing of the exterior columns.
> 
> In terms of mass, the floors were comparable to tree trunks and the columns were like branches. The floor connections of the long span floors could support a load of a couple story masses and had an energy absorbing ability of a couple hundredths of a GJ per story. The floor connections were like crepe connecting the floors to the columns. The crepe was sufficient for the structure in its static organized state but was a weak link during collapse when the structure in the region of the collapse front no longer resembled the static organized state.
> 
> After the columns bowed, the weight was no longer going straight down. Like taking a straw and bowing it in the middle, it no longer can hold the same weight as it did when it was straight. The building tried to transfer the load to the core columns and massive hat truss on the roof. The weakened core, weakened by fire and impact, couldn't hold the massive weight from tilting. As with the perimeter column, the massive load on the deformed core columns gave way.


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 3, 2010)

daveman said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Lol.......it's amazing how sheep like yourself are guilty of what you accuse others of but are too damn blind to see it.


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Do you really need to keep proving my point about how you hide behind ad homs and lie about what others say when you can't support a claim?

(Kind of silly to say I changed what I said when it's in Gamolon's sig)

Keep embarrassing yourself.....it's all you know....


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 3, 2010)

daveman said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...




The path of least resistance was the 70 or so floors below the impact and not.......you know.....the empty space around the permiter?  Have you never seen the video of one top portion leaning to the side then getting pulled straight down?  There was nothing but air between that top section and the ground but you're claiming the path of least resistance was 70 floors of steel beams........hahahahah......damn you people are a joke.


----------



## slackjawed (Jul 3, 2010)

Classic!

"*"Official Conspiracy Theory Apologist. It's a neutral term for those who defend the Bush Admin's version of 9E."* _curvelight, USMB 4/3/2010_"


----------



## daveman (Jul 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Lol.......it's amazing how sheep like yourself are guilty of what you accuse others of but are too damn blind to see it.


You fail to make your case...which involves violating scientific principles...and it's MY fault?


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 3, 2010)

daveman said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


You know, your path of least resistance would seem to go through the Towers' 47 steel core central columns that anchored each high-rise directly to bedrock? (Why Indeed...P.34)

Why don't you explain how this doesn't violate the laws of physics?

"It is physically impossible for a building (or anything else) to fall at near free-fall speed and do work (smashing steel and concrete) on the way down.

"An external energy input (like explosives) is absolutely essential. In addition, for the top of one of the towers to tip about 30 degrees and NOT continue tipping and falling off violates the law of conservation of angular momentum.

"The symmetrical collapse of building 7 due to highly asymmetrical damage is also unbelievable. We have not yet been told the truth...

"Why not a new and truly independent investigation?"

You Know?


----------



## daveman (Jul 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


Do you have any idea how much energy it would take to force that big a piece of the building sideways so it could fall to the side of the remainder of the building?

No.  You probably don't.  

The laws of physics don't change just because of your irrational hatred of George Bush.


----------



## daveman (Jul 3, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> You know, your path of least resistance would seem to go through the Towers' 47 steel core central columns that anchored each high-rise directly to bedrock? (Why Indeed...P.34)
> 
> Why don't you explain how this doesn't violate the laws of physics?
> 
> ...


You persist in the free-fall nonsense.

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Free Fall



> When I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let's see,
> d = 1/2at^2
> so
> t = (2d/a)^1/2
> ...


Phyiscs doesn't support your claim.  Mathematics don't support your claim.  Therefore, reality doesn't support your claim.


----------



## slackjawed (Jul 3, 2010)

daveman said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Lol.......it's amazing how sheep like yourself are guilty of what you accuse others of but are too damn blind to see it.
> ...



The clownlite follows the basic rules for twoofers.

Make an outrageous claim and then demand the rest of us disprove it, all the while accusing anyone with logic to be an "apologist" or "bush dupe" or somesuch.

Kinda looks like we have a few new ones since I have been here to torment our resident twoofer brain trust.


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 3, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> Classic!
> 
> "*"Official Conspiracy Theory Apologist. It's a neutral term for those who defend the Bush Admin's version of 9E."* _curvelight, USMB 4/3/2010_"



Damn. You're such a loser you obsess like that?  Thank you for helping me educate others, it is appreciated!


----------



## slackjawed (Jul 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > Classic!
> ...



If by 'educate' you mean molesting little boys I can believe that about you.

If you mean actually engage in meaningful disussion, that is a just another creative dream...........


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 3, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I didn't make any claim you broke dick fat ass whiner but gave my opinion.  I could waste time posting evaluations from engineers and architects who explain why the OCT doesn't fit with physics and facts but there's no point when ***** like you just ignore it.


----------



## daveman (Jul 3, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


What amuses me is the process:  The immediate dismissal of any contrary evidence, no matter how well-founded in science.  "George Bush is soooo evil, he violated the laws of physics!!"


----------



## daveman (Jul 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Oh, well, in that case:  Your opinion is stupid.  Have a nice day!


----------



## slackjawed (Jul 3, 2010)

....and point out your fundamental problem clownlight.




CurveLight said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Such a mouth on this one! Based on the x-ray of your head, i guess you do better than anyone expected!


----------



## slackjawed (Jul 3, 2010)

daveman said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...



Broke dick fat ass whiner is right below 'bush dupe' and right above '911E apologist' on the clownlite scale.
Your stock is rising daveman!


----------



## slackjawed (Jul 3, 2010)

clownlite and 911insidenutjob will show us daveman, the next step is to claim to have us on ignore while they respond to our posts with more insults and obscenities.


----------



## daveman (Jul 3, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...





slackjawed said:


> clownlite and 911insidenutjob will show us daveman, the next step is to claim to have us on ignore while they respond to our posts with more insults and obscenities.


I dunno, man...one more "broke dick fat ass whiner" and I might be convinced.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 3, 2010)

Angular Momentum


----------



## slackjawed (Jul 3, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



We here at USMB have been down this path of logic before and the answer is the same as always.
We the taxpayers are perfectly happy with the investigation we have.
If you twoofers want a new investigation, then pay for it!
Take some of the money that is being made by selling books, pictures, fake building plans and radio shows and pay for a new investigation!


In case you havn't noticed, the country is having tough  times, if you want a new investigation, pay for it.



>sits back and waits for the inevitable excuses as to why this is not possible<


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 3, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


So how did two planes pulverize three steel framed skyscrapers at nearly free fall speed?


----------



## daveman (Jul 3, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Angular Momentum



When you start reading the materials people who disagree with you present, instead of ignoring them and shotgunning out your next talking point, then we can talk.  Until then, you're not interested in debate.

Of course you're not...because you lost it long ago.


----------



## daveman (Jul 3, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> So how did two planes pulverize three steel framed skyscrapers at nearly free fall speed?


They didn't fall at nearly free-fall speed.  That's been thoroughly debunked.


----------



## slackjawed (Jul 3, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Two planes didn't "pulverize" anything dipshit, gravity did that after two planes weakened the structures, just like th eofficial reports say.


You have proven yourself to possess the rational logic skills of a turd........


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 3, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Or we could tax the profits from the "War of Terror" that 9/11 made possible to pay for that new investigation.

PS: How much tax does someone living in a non-existent congressional district pay?


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 3, 2010)

daveman said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Angular Momentum
> ...


When you show something worth reading.


----------



## daveman (Jul 3, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


And of course, your standard for something worth reading is "anything that supports my delusions".  No danger of having to rethink your conclusions if you never examine any contradictory information, is there?

Have a nice life in your little bubble, George.  But I don't think that's possible.


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 3, 2010)

daveman said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Priceless irony.


----------



## daveman (Jul 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


Actually, no, but I'm sure it comforts you to feel that way.  

Physics, engineering, and thermodynamics trump angry anonymous internet retards.  Every time.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 3, 2010)

daveman said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


and isnt it amazing how those that "claim" to be seeking the truth, have you lie and distort things to make it seem like its the truth


----------



## daveman (Jul 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


Indeed.   Hey, Troofers:  If you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making.


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 3, 2010)

daveman said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Your false accusations of lying fit your "internet retards" comment perfectly.  It's amazing how you characterize yourself so clearly in trying to insult others.


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 3, 2010)

The 9E Commission report gives the offical collapse time for the South Tower of ten seconds.  What is the free fall speed on 110 story skyscraper?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> The 9E Commission report gives the offical collapse time for the South Tower of ten seconds.  What is the free fall speed on 110 story skyscraper?


i find it amazing that you cherry pick what you like from the 9/11 commission report and throw away the rest


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 3, 2010)

daveman said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > So how did two planes pulverize three steel framed skyscrapers at nearly free fall speed?
> ...


The South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds.

That's a verifiable truth even Dick Cheney's pals on the 9/11 Commission couldn't lie about.

I'm sure you'll do better.


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The 9E Commission report gives the offical collapse time for the South Tower of ten seconds.  What is the free fall speed on 110 story skyscraper?
> ...



I'm not an engineer but I'm guessing that is not the time of the free fall speed
 of a 110 story skyscraper.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


and you also ignore that it didnt all fall 110 stories
there was a huge pile of debris about 4 stories high
do you morons ever deduct THAT from your calculations?
i highly doubt it


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 3, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



If ten seconds isn't "nearly free fall speed" then what would be?  8 seconds?  7 seconds?  Hell, let's be generous and say the Commission is wrong and it was really 13 seconds.  That would still be within the "nearly free fall" time frame, wouldn't it?  It's amazing that so many ignore how many floors and steel support beams were still fully in tact below the impact points.

I wonder if demo teams have been overcharging on their fees?  I mean if a simple plane crash on each one can bring 2 110 story buildings straight down then why do they charge so much and take so much time to do the same thing?


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



The CR said the collapse was ten seconds.  Are you disputing that offical claim?

Also....are you saying the first four floors were still in tact so it's wrong to say a 110 story building collapsed?  If not then you're agreeing all 110 stories collapsed.....but somehow....you think pointing to the pile of debris changes the collapse time?

(This post is an example of why divey usually posts nothing but ad homs because every single time he tries to debate he gets bitch slapped 8 ways from Sunday)


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


keep proving me right for calling you a fucking moron
LOL

and again, you dispute the 9/11 commission report, yet cite it as fact

LOL too fucking priceless


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



I've never said everything in the Report is false so you throw out a strawman the second you get bitch slapped.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


its your straw-man thrown back at you, moron
you bring up something that i have never claimed and ask me to defend it
i have stated what i think about the 9/11 commission report numerous times and you STILL bring it up
so fuck off dipshit and grow a brain


and you haven't bitch slapped ANYONE on here
you are too fucking stupid to know you've BEEN bitch slapped


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 3, 2010)

Toro said:


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



thats old news Toto that your a moron.Thats too obvious,no need to brag about it.

Oh by the way,Im still waiting for the day for you to learn how to debate.Im still waiting for the day for you to at least TRY and debunk at LEAST one of those 65 videos instead of running away with your tail between your legs and not even talking about even one of them.

got news for you,thats not the way to debate,when someone posts a video for you to watch,you watch it and elaborate on it and talk about whats wrong with what the video say. Until your ready to stop covering your ears and eyes to evidence,facts,and witness testimonys and not afraid to look at those videos and read books that discredit the official fairy tale,then your in no position to be calling someone a moron.

have fun keeping your head up your ass to the truth.They love you up in washington for that.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 3, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


wow, what massive irony for rimjob to say anyone has their head up an ass
LOL


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 3, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...






Exactly.well said.I read through your posts and it was fun watching you take all the 9/11 official conspiracy theory apologists-The Bush dupes to school in all your posts.You gave them a first class education.well done.

It does no good to post that link though.A poster here named named Eots has posted that link you posted of patriots question 9/11 with all the highly qualified experts who dont accept the official version of the collapse many times but they always cover their ears and eyes to to that link and never read it.

I even posted a link of demolition experts that have spoken out and said that only explosives could have caused the towers to fall.they ignored the link.The logic of the Bush/Obama dupes here is it doesnt matter to them that over a thousand architects and engineers dont accept the official version of the collapse of the towers,or neither demolition experts,witnesses who survived such as Willie Rodriguez,credible witnesses such as first responders and firemen,scientists and physicsts and that evidence of military grade thermite explosives were found in the residule by scientists. That logic dosnt register with them that explosives brought the towers down.

They believe in that fairy tale that the fires caused the towers steel to weaken and collapse the towers even though  over a thousand experts of architects and engineers disprove that fairy tale of theirs.


The logic of the Bush/Obama dupes is all those experts and witness testimonys means diddly squat,if the goverments explanation and the corporate controlled media say it happened that way,then its automattically the truth.great logic there isn't it? people around here just dont want to face the truth that we have an evil government on our hands so they cover their ears and eyes whenever you present the facts to them.

this link here with these 65 videos in them prove beyond a doubt it was an inside job and that explosives brought the towers down,it was the link I was referring Toto to.Hundreds of Bush dupes like Toto  have looked at that link  but not even one has ever attemted to even debunk one of them.thats hardly the way to debate.lol.
they never watch any of these videos.
http://candawantsthetruth911videos.blogspot.com

thats why this whole discussion is irrelevent and mute that explosives brought the towers down and was an inside job.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 3, 2010)

Hey Ditzcon troll,hows it going frady cat? same thing I said to Toto applies to you.Oh and Ditzcon,still waiting for you and Toto to make up your mind on about the JFK assassination since you cant agree on it.what did you two ever come up with on that? are you FINALLY ready to admit Toto is right and you been living in a fairy tale land that Oswald was the lone assassian yet? lol. would really like to know which one of you conceded WHO was right between you two on that? lol.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 3, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> Hey Ditzcon troll,hows it going frady cat? same thing I said to Toto applies to you.Oh and Ditzcon,still waiting for you and Toto to make up your mind on about the JFK assassination since you cant agree on it.what did you two ever come up with on that? are you FINALLY ready to admit Toto is right and you been living in a fairy tale land that Oswald was the lone assassian yet? lol. would really like to know which one of you conceded WHO was right between you two on that? lol.


try that again in English
you moron

oh, and i guess you took me off ignore, you pathetic pussy


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 3, 2010)

Gamolon said:


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




agent Gam you REALLY need to try and brainwash people that come here who have their doubts about the official story and are starting to question it but have a hard time believing our government was behind it.Your posts  wont work on me you stupid,you just dont get that though.I figured i would reply to you this one rare time because unlike fellow agent Fizzle,you at least stay away from name calling and childish pictures  most the time.Something he might want to try and learn from you.you might pass that on to him if he wants people to listen to him.

anyways stupid,nice dodge.that doesnt debunk diddly squat and your comparing apples with oranges the same way you always do in your debates. Hate to break the news to you Gammy but the the majority of the fire explosion took place OUTSIDE the towers as we both know and as we both also know,there were no serious fires.

apparently your not aware of suppressed tapes of the firefighters that were released years later when familys had to fight for the release of the tapes, that when the firefighters were putting the fires out,they were recorded saying-We should have them put out soon,its nothing serious. stop comparing apples to oranges and stop ignoring witness testimonys.again you cant brainwash me.I have read too many books on the subject.try someone else.wont work on me in case you havent figured that out yet.

Try Madeline for example.Now SHE is too much afraid of how the government really operates and ignorant to how they really are or how the media is a tool for the government.SHE you could successfully brainwash.Me your propaganda wont work on.you just dont get that though.


----------



## daveman (Jul 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


I don't have to insult you.  You're doing a bang-up job all by yourself.


----------



## daveman (Jul 3, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


Pointing to a Troofer site as proof of a claim is laughable.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 3, 2010)

daveman said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



No pointing to a 9/11myths site which you 9/11 official conspiracy theory apologists do as proof to debunk that it wasnt an inside job as your claim is whats laughable considering there have been so many books written that debunks those laughable and pathetic disinformation sites.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 3, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


and only a moron like you would waste their money on those books


----------



## daveman (Jul 3, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


Answer me this:

If this was all a big conspiracy, why have none of the conspirators, wracked by guilt, come forward?  It would have taken an awful lot of people to pull off.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 3, 2010)

Ditzcons babbling-I  am a troll who has no life and is afraid of government conspiracys and since I am such a loser and so desperate for attention,I love making myself look like a moron addressing the posts of someone who has told me I am on his ignore list many times because I am so desperate for attention around here.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 3, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> Ditzcons babbling-I  am a troll who has no life and is afraid of government conspiracys and since I am such a loser and so desperate for attention,I love making myself look like a moron addressing the posts of someone who has told me I am on his ignore list many times because I am so desperate for attention around here.


i fear NOTHING, you moronic dipshit

you are a delusional CLOWN


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 3, 2010)

daveman said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...




What's even more laughable is you don't know the 9E Commission Report states the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds.

It's pretty obvious all 9E sites, regardless of position have bias.  So, the best thing to do is first, get to know basic facts.  (Step two is a waste of time until step one has been walked.)


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


yeah, sure

you wouldnt know bias if you saw it
what bias would PM, Discovery channel, Nat geo, the history channel, time, the NYT, et al have?????????
maybe in a political story, but in THIS?
where politics took a back seat


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 3, 2010)

daveman said:


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



This is an extremely poor argument but somehow it lives on.

1.  How many people would it take?  (You can't give a ridiculous range or wild guess). If you're claiming a necessary number of conspirators you must have come up with a theory on how they did it, which would give a fairly precise number.

2.  You're assuming they are wracked by guilt.  

3.  There are many legal/illegal organizations with members who committed murder and other crimes yet they survive by people not confessing.

4.  They have nothing to gain and everything to lose.  They would be painted as fringe binge lunatics seeking attention while being subjected to getting whacked for talking.

Your premise is clearly baseless.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


it would have included THOUSANDS, dipshit


----------



## MikeK (Jul 3, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> [...]The logic of the Bush/Obama dupes is all those experts and witness testimonys means diddly squat,if the goverments explanation and the corporate controlled media say it happened that way,then its automattically the truth.great logic there isn't it? people around here just dont want to face the truth that we have an evil government on our hands so they cover their ears and eyes whenever you present the facts to them.
> 
> this link here with these 65 videos in them prove beyond a doubt it was an inside job and that explosives brought the towers down,it was the link I was referring Toto to.Hundreds of Bush dupes like Toto  have looked at that link  but not even one has ever attemted to even debunk one of them.thats hardly the way to debate.lol.
> they never watch any of these videos.
> ...


Thank you for posting the link to sixty-five videos which you are convinced offer proof that the Towers fell as the result of what would have been the most expertly executed controlled demolition in the history of the craft.  While I have the time I simply don't have the mental endurance to scrutinize the assertions of all those self-proclaimed "experts."  So in the interest of approaching this controversy from a common sense perspective, and putting aside the theoretical nuts & bolts of such an undertaking, which undoubtedly would have dwarfed any and all previous examples of controlled demolition, can you refer me to just one "expert" within your impressive portfolio who has supported his claim with a *detailed list of the specific equipment needed to effect such a mammoth task, a listing of how many trained and experienced sappers needed to do it, where and how would such highly specialized and rare expertise be obtained, how long the job would take and, most important, how they would manage to secure the necessary access to the well guarded maintenance corridors of the Towers.*  Because of all the "expert" testimony I've heard about _why_ the Towers had to be brought down by a network of sequential explosions, not one of these "experts" ventured anywhere near the subject of _how_ such a job could have been carried out -- or who might have done it.  

Referring to what we've all seen on television documentaries, just think about what it takes to bring down an unoccupied eight or ten story structure.  After a full week of planning and laying out the job on paper, it takes an eight man crew another week or more to wire in the charges, then another day or two to trouble-shoot the circuitry prior to detonation.  Now transpose that example onto two 110 story buildings, each of which is a full city block square, both of which are occupied and as busy as beehives with a well-trained, well-paid, armed security force whose job it is to keep track of every tradesman and deliveryman who enters and leaves the buildings.  

And keep in mind that the maintenance corridors of those Towers, which afford access to the support columns and beams, are routinely traveled by electricians, plumbers, HVAC mechanics, tinsmiths, painters, etc., all of whom will be passing by a hypothetical crew of sappers who are busily attaching and wiring explosive charges to support beams.  Is it conceivable to you that not one of these tradesman will take note of this most unusual activity and start asking questions?  

Moving past _what_ and _how_ we come to the critically important question of _who._  There aren't more than four or five demolition contractors in the U.S. who are capable of attempting such a challenging task.  They are honest, highly specialized tradesmen and decent citizens who would be on the phone to the FBI immediately after being approached with such a bizarre proposition as the destruction of the Twin Towers and the killing of thousands of innocents people, including some children.  

So the simple question of _*who would do such a thing*_ is the first question that must be answered before going on to the _how_ and _what._


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Those are 9E sites?  I'm pretty sure I've seen a few stories by each of those that had nothing to do with 9E.

Great reading skills.  Dumbass.

It's hilarious you claim politics in the 9E debate takes a backseat.   But thanks for proving your divebomb stoopidity.  Again.


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...




You have no evidence dictating that amount so all you are doing is trying to make it seem impossible based on your dumbass assumptions.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


i guess you havent noticed, but there are people from ALL spectrums of the political world kicking your ass in here


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


it would have taken THOUSANDS just in Shanksville PA to have pulled it off, dipshit


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 3, 2010)

daveman said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


How many Troofers on the 9/11 Commission?

Have you calculated a collapse time for the South Tower?


----------



## daveman (Jul 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


You don't understand physics...so the physics must be wrong.

Is that what you're using instead of an argument?


----------



## daveman (Jul 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


  In other words:


----------



## daveman (Jul 3, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


No.  But I'm not making a claim I have to back up, either.  You are, so you do, and you haven't.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


There's a corporate bias always in play.
That's why more Americans know Oprah than Noam Chomsky.
(Chomsky is NOT a 9E Truther, by the way)

As far as politics taking a back seat, I don't see how that fits with Bush procrastinating for over a year to name his 9/11 Commission.

If there was one thing Dubya stood for it was all politics all the time.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 3, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


because it wasnt really necessary
one of the few things Bush was actually right on
it turned out being nothing but a political CYA job
which is what you get when you have politicians appointing people that will make sure that no one political gets caught


----------



## daveman (Jul 3, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


Chomsky's stupid enough to be a troofer.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 3, 2010)

daveman said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Are you disputing the 9/11 Commission's observation that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds?

The time of collapse would be as difficult to lie about as the height of the Towers.

Not that some elected Republicans AND Democrats aren't up to the challenge.


----------



## daveman (Jul 3, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



I'm not disputing the time.  I'm disputing your analysis of the cause of that time.  

Insisting it was controlled demolition is simply ludicrous.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


In your opinion should any Bush Administration political appointees been held accountable for the crimes of 9/11/2001?


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 3, 2010)

daveman said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...




Lol.........slime away you stoopid bitch.  You didn't know the CR said the south tower collapsed in ten seconds so instead of being honest you give a classic non-sequitur.


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Cuuuulassic divebomb bitch move.  You fucked up, completely ignored it, and are trying to deflect by making stoopid ass comments.

Maybe one day you'll learn that these organizations:

"PM, Discovery channel, Nat geo, the history channel, time, the NYT"

Are not 9E websites.  Dumbfuck.  Now obey like the **** you are and ignore it again.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 3, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


you mean for the failures that lead to it?


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 3, 2010)

daveman said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...




Why do you keep showing how much of a fat ass coward you are?  Whenever you can't respond to arguments you whine like a little girl.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


typical for you
resort to calling someone a "****"


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


he got you completely, you fucking MORON


----------



## elvis (Jul 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Look out.  He'll call you "fuxxing stoopid"  again.


----------



## daveman (Jul 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


  Wait...do you really think you deserve anything besides derision?


----------



## daveman (Jul 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


In case you haven't figured it out, genius, I'm _laughing_ at you.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 3, 2010)

daveman said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


he'd have to have a functioning brain to figure that out

something he clearly LACKS


----------



## daveman (Jul 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> he'd have to have a functioning brain to figure that out
> 
> something he clearly LACKS


Troofers don't have a lot of synapses in spark-gap range, true.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 3, 2010)

daveman said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


If we're in agreement the Towers fell straight down through their central cores and, according to Wiki, each core was "a combined steel and concrete structure...87 by 135 feet and contained 47 steel columns running from the bedrock to the top of the tower," what moved the tons of steel and concrete out of the way after the initiation of a collapse that traveled 90 floors in only 10 seconds?


----------



## daveman (Jul 3, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


Momentum.  The floors above (still basically one structure weighing hundreds of tons) fell ten feet to the floors below, building up incredible momentum in even that short distance.  More energy than the building was designed to withstand.  So the whole thing collapsed.  

Now you will predictably respond with a "Yeah, but...".


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


Alright. For the failures that lead to the crimes of 9/11.

If yes, where in the chain of command would you begin and where would you end your inquiry?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 3, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


Gorelick would have been a good start
the failures spanned 2 administrations, at the least


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


How about Rummy?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 3, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


what about him?


----------



## elvis (Jul 3, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



what about canasta?


----------



## slackjawed (Jul 3, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



I just moved here for the stimulas money.


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 4, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




Maybe one day you'll learn that these organizations:

"PM, Discovery channel, Nat geo, the history channel, time, the NYT"

Are not 9E websites.  Dumbfuck.  Now obey like the **** you are and ignore it again.


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 4, 2010)

daveman said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...





DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...





daveman said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > he'd have to have a functioning brain to figure that out
> ...




You arent laughing at anyone.  You're sucking divecon's dick because you have no integrity so like him, instead of facing the fact you are constantly getting bitch slapped you hope to close your eyes via ignoring it every time.

You claim the OCT must be true because nobody has confessed to a false flag and when I show why that is so stoopid you simply ignore it.

You did not know the Commission Report said the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds and tried to hide.

You claim ten seconds from "momentum."  Lol......keep embarrassing yourself.  

Do you realize how fucking retawwrded you are for copying divecon?  

Why don't you tell the families and firefighters seeking the Truth how stoopid they are?  You won't do that because you're a fat ass fucking coward.


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 4, 2010)

daveman said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



What is the free fall speed on a 110 story skyscraper?


----------



## daveman (Jul 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> You arent laughing at anyone.


Oh, yes, I am.  I'm laughing at you, your retardery, and your obscenity-laden insistence that everyone else share your delusions.  

Face it, Curvy:  You hate George Bush so deeply and irrationally that you're willing to ignore science, physics, engineering, and reality itself.  By denying that I'm laughing at you, you think you can divine the emotions of others.

Here's what's going to happen:   There will be no perp walk for BUSHCHENEYROVE.  No trial at the Hague.  You're going to go through life enraged, bitter, and terribly disappointed because reality refuses to bend to your will. Your emotional state will take years off your life span.  You will alienate those around you.  You will consider getting a weapon and taking "justice" into your own hands, but you will not.  You will console yourself with the knowledge that you're smarter than other people, you see more clearly, and that you know more than everybody else, but it will be bitter, joyless consolation indeed.  You will continue to visit Troofer websites to feed your delusion, which will only deepen your psychosis.  

Your only hope is to turn off the internet, enjoy the people around you, and forget this nonsense.  

But you will not do that.

That's what's going to happen.  And for the moment, at least, I'm not laughing.  I'm just terribly _sad_ for you.


----------



## daveman (Jul 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


No perp walk for BUSHCHENEYROVE.

Turn off your computer.  Go outside.  Talk to people..._real _people.  You have a chance to save yourself.


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 4, 2010)

daveman said:


> Oh, yes, I am.  I'm laughing at you, your retardery, and your obscenity-laden insistence that everyone else share your delusions.
> 
> Face it, Curvy:  You hate George Bush so deeply and irrationally that you're willing to ignore science, physics, engineering, and reality itself.  By denying that I'm laughing at you, you think you can divine the emotions of others.
> 
> ...



What is the free fall speed on a 110 story skyscraper?


----------



## daveman (Jul 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, yes, I am.  I'm laughing at you, your retardery, and your obscenity-laden insistence that everyone else share your delusions.
> ...


And now I'm laughing again.


----------



## Toro (Jul 4, 2010)

daveman said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You arent laughing at anyone.
> ...



There are basically three types of people who believe that Bush was behind 9/11:

1. People who believe in most conspiracy theories, no matter how bizarre.  Just take a stroll through the conspiracy threads and you'll figure out who they are.
2. People who loathe and hate Bush and/or Republicans (mainly American truthers), and/or loathe and hate America itself and what it represents (mainly foreign truthers).
3. Loony libertarians who generally believe all government is evil and will do anything to take away your rights and freedoms.

Numbers 1 & 2 dominate.

There are a few independent, critical-thinking people who don't fall into these categories, but most do.


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 4, 2010)

Toro said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I don't think bush had anything to do with 9E.

There's basically one kind of person that simply accepts what their government tells them without challenging it:

Sheep.


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 4, 2010)

daveman said:


> And now I'm laughing again.




What is the free fall speed on a 110 story skyscraper?


----------



## daveman (Jul 4, 2010)

Toro said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


Indeed.  But it's very few.


----------



## daveman (Jul 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


That's right.  Science is biased to the right.


----------



## Toro (Jul 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> I don't think bush had anything to do with 9E.
> 
> There's basically one kind of person that simply accepts what their government tells them without challenging it:
> 
> Sheep.



I think you'd have to be a fool to believe that everything was answered in the government's official report.  But I don't think many people here do.  

It was the single greatest attack on civilians by a foreign entity on domestic soil in the history of the union.   Do you really honestly believe that the government is going to create a report fingering blame for that?

But as to the central question about whether or not the government was behind or complicit in 9/11, there is little evidence suggesting that it was.


----------



## daveman (Jul 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > And now I'm laughing again.
> ...


Insanity:  Doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 4, 2010)

daveman said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



That's more arrogant assumption on your part and being too stoopid to see I'm simply proving you are a troll and a sock.  I expected you to keep ignoring such a simple question.  What's next davey?


----------



## daveman (Jul 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


I've provided links to your ridiculous free-fall claim.  You chose to ignore them.  

If you're trying to convince me, you're doing a really_ crappy_ job.  May I suggest a Dale Carnegie course?


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 4, 2010)

Toro said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think bush had anything to do with 9E.
> ...




Little evidence of complicity?  Either you are as dishonest as some others or yoy have failed to research the position before your conclusion.   The sheer number of coincidences are astounding.  Here are four, and they are not the most compelling:

Less than a year before the attack the pentagon does an excercise on a commercial passenger plane being hijacked and crashed into the pentagon.

Three months before the attack there was a military exercise for a terorist attack in Pennsylvania in the county next to where flight 93 crashed.

On 9/11 NORAD had a scheduled military exercise of the US being attacked by planes.

In Operation Northwoods the Generals planned on diverting an actual military plane in-flight from its flight plan to do a visual on a mock commercial plane hijacked and crashed into florida.  You do realize that is exactly what happened on 9E with flight 77?

There is so much more information that are all pure facts as those I've listed but too many people are afraid to actually give a critical eye.


----------



## daveman (Jul 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Little evidence of complicity?  Either you are as dishonest as some others or yoy have failed to research the position before your conclusion.   The sheer number of coincidences are astounding.  Here are four, and they are not the most compelling:
> 
> Less than a year before the attack the pentagon does an excercise on a commercial passenger plane being hijacked and crashed into the pentagon.
> 
> ...


That's "evidence"?  You may as well be pointing to the creation of the USAF, because "they knew someday bad people were going to attack with airplanes!"


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


The velocity of a free falling object dropped from the top of a 110 story building can be determined with the following equation:

V=g x t

Where g is the acceleration due to gravity (~10meters/second squared)  I have no idea how to enter exponents...

And t is measured in seconds.


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 4, 2010)

Toro said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think bush had anything to do with 9E.
> ...





daveman said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Little evidence of complicity?  Either you are as dishonest as some others or yoy have failed to research the position before your conclusion.   The sheer number of coincidences are astounding.  Here are four, and they are not the most compelling:
> ...




I didn't say it was evidence you cocksucking sockpuppet.  I said:

"The sheer number of coincidences are astounding. "

Let us know when you've figure out the free fall speed of a 110 story skyscraper.......


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 4, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Thanks for that but what I'm trying to do is show the time difference between a 110 story skyscraper being professionally razed and the ten second collapse of the South Tower.  As I'm sure you've noticed, not a single OCTA has the balls to make the comparison.

(Official Conspiracy Theory Apologist)


----------



## MikeK (Jul 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> [...]On 9/11 NORAD had a scheduled military exercise of the US being attacked by planes.
> 
> [...]


That single factor is one that I cannot dismiss as coincidence.  While I do not believe the Bush Administration was "behind" the 9/11 attack, i.e., I don't believe any of them had an active role in its planning or execution, I strongly believe that Bush and Cheney, and probably Rice, had high-level intelligence information that a hijack attack was coming on 9/11 and did what they could to let it happen.  

I don't believe they had any specific knowledge, such as the actual targets or the projected extent of the damage, and I certainly don't believe the collapse of the Towers was assisted by controlled demolition, but the diversion of Norad has convinced me that Bush, Cheney, and probably others, knew that attack was coming and just stepped aside and let it happen.  

There should be no question in anyone's mind that the 9/11 attack was the best thing that ever happened for the Bush Administration and their corporate sponsors.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


Here's a more useful site.

When I enter 1100 feet in the starting point box, I get t=8.271...seconds.

I think that's the time Dick Cheney's Silver Star would take to fall from the top of the South Tower prior to 9E.


----------



## Toro (Jul 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Little evidence of complicity?  Either you are as dishonest as some others or yoy have failed to research the position before your conclusion.   The sheer number of coincidences are astounding.  Here are four, and they are not the most compelling:
> 
> Less than a year before the attack the pentagon does an excercise on a commercial passenger plane being hijacked and crashed into the pentagon.
> 
> ...



What?  No PNAC article?

That's not evidence of complicity. That's trying to connect dots in a puzzle that doesn't exist.  That's zero understanding of randomness.  That's seeing linearly in two dimension in a complex world.

I'll take your "coincidences" line a little more seriously when you can reasonably tell me where all the bodies went in the plane that allegedly didn't hit the Pentagon, or how one of the largest complexes on the planet can be wired for demolition in secret with no witnesses whereas it takes every other large building weeks or months working full-time to do so, or how a seismology lab can register a reading inconsistent with explosions, etc., etc., etc.


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 4, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...





georgephillip said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...




That's pretty amazing.  If the 8.2 seconds count is correct I do believe a collapse taking ten seconds means it would be near free fall speed.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 4, 2010)

Curve:

I don't see how that many floors could fall into so small a rubble pile in 10 seconds without having an external input of energy, i.e., controlled explosives. (I'm sure Dave does)


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 4, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Curve:
> 
> I don't see how that many floors could fall into so small a rubble pile in 10 seconds without having an external input of energy, i.e., controlled explosives. (I'm sure Dave does)



I've not seen any definitive explanation for how they collapsed.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 4, 2010)

MikeK said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > [...]On 9/11 NORAD had a scheduled military exercise of the US being attacked by planes.
> ...


There's a concept of Deep State that Professor Peter Dale Scott contrasts with the normal day to day routine of government that gets coverage in the corporate press.

If you're correct about Condi, George, and Dick knowing in advance 9/11 was on the way, that's an example of Deep State in operation.

Professor Scott explains where Deep State got its name. It happened in Turkey in 1996 when a "random?" car accident claimed 4 lives in the same vehicle.

One of the dead was an MP (Minister of Parliament), another was a police chief. The third was a beauty queen, and the fourth victim was her lover, a top Turkish gangster and hit man who was on Interpol's wanted list and carrying a diplomatic passport signed by the Turkish Interior minister, along with a quantity of narcotics when he died.

Scott's article looks closely at the similarities between JFK's assassination and 9/11. However he also notes one important difference:

"The difference between 1963 and 2001 was in the White House. Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson successfully contained the desires of their hawks to defeat and destroy the Soviet Union.

"But Bush and Cheney have maneuvered America into a war on terrorism.

"That war threatens to become a permanent justification for curtailing the US Constitution's elaborate checks and balances, and its guarantees of America's traditional liberties."

That same war also guarantees billions of dollars in war profits for corporations that sponsor tools like Bush and Obama.


----------



## daveman (Jul 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> I didn't say it was evidence you cocksucking sockpuppet.  I said:
> 
> "The sheer number of coincidences are astounding. "
> 
> Let us know when you've figure out the free fall speed of a 110 story skyscraper.......


I'm almost convinced.  A few more mindless obscenities should do it!


----------



## daveman (Jul 4, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Here's a more useful site.
> 
> When I enter 1100 feet in the starting point box, I get t=8.271...seconds.
> 
> I think that's the time Dick Cheney's Silver Star would take to fall from the top of the South Tower prior to 9E.


That's a handy resource.  Allow me to explain why you're using it wrong.  You pay attention too, Curvy.

Both of you are squawking about a 110-story building...but that's not what collapsed.  The collapses started where the planes impacted, where the damage was the greatest, and where the fireproofing for the columns was removed by the passage of plane debris.  WTC 1 was struck primarily on the 96th floor, WTC 2 on the 81st.

Let's look at free-fall times from those heights.  Each story is 12 feet.

WTC1, from the 96th floor, is 1152 feet -- free fall would be 8.46 seconds.
WTC2, from the 81st floor, is 972 feet -- free fall would be 7.75 seconds.

By your own admission, the collapses took longer than that.  So therefore, the Towers did NOT fall at free-fall speeds.  

But guess what?  I've wasted my time.  Neither of you will accept this.  Guaranteed.  You'll continue yapping about "why did the Towers collapse at free-fall speeds?" as if you never read what I just wrote.

See why I say that you two don't have the science on your side?  It's because you don't.


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 4, 2010)

daveman said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a more useful site.
> ...



I guess you'd have a point if you could show where anyone said they fell at free fall speed.  Nobody here did so your little strawman party joins your cocksucking sockpuppet party.  

The south tower fell in ten seconds.  Even using your dumbass backwater redneck logic and agree free fall would be 7.75 seconds that means the south tower fell at nearly free fall speed you dumbfuck.

Even when you are dishonest you can't provide a valid point!


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 4, 2010)

daveman said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't say it was evidence you cocksucking sockpuppet.  I said:
> ...



Yet you continue to ignore stating how long it would take for a professionally razed 110 story tower to fall.  There's no obscenities for you to hide behind so I guess you have two choices:

Keep proving you are trolling 

Or

Give the time on a razed 110 story tower


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 4, 2010)

Toro said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Little evidence of complicity?  Either you are as dishonest as some others or yoy have failed to research the position before your conclusion.   The sheer number of coincidences are astounding.  Here are four, and they are not the most compelling:
> ...



You've got so many strawmen and false assumptions it's not worth responding.

Thank for demonstrating what OCTAs do when faced with facts they don't like.  You run like scared leetle bitches.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


dipshit, you dont post facts, just paranoid bullshit


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 4, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



At a generous guess 85% of your posts are nothing but ad homs and you've been doing this ever since I joined.  So the question is, why haven't you done it?  You obviously hate life and hate yourself yet you continue polluting the world with your brokedick existence.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


thats because 85% of the time you post nothing to actually respond to
you post bullshit paranoid nonsense and expect a serious response?
grow a fucking brain, moron


----------



## MikeK (Jul 4, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> [...]
> 
> "But Bush and Cheney have maneuvered America into a war on terrorism.
> 
> ...



_As September neared, multiple authoritative intelligence warnings surfaced with increasing intensity, warning of a terrorist attack against the U.S. We should recall that in response to ECHELON&#8217;s warnings, U.S. intelligence agencies were already on alert for evidence of a very specific Project Bojinka-style operation, which would target key buildings in Washington and New York. The White House National Coordinator for Counterterrorism, based on CIA confirmation, had alerted all domestic security and intelligence agencies of an impending Al-Qaeda attack, to be implemented in several weeks time, at the beginning of July. According to Chief Investigative Counsel David Schippers, U.S. sources had informed him as early as May that the intelligence community had credible information of an imminent attack targeting the &#8220;financial district of lower Manhattan,&#8221; and that intelligence officers throughout the country were frustrated by high-level blocks on investigations and information. The FBI appears to have had specific information indicating that the World Trade Centre was thus the most probable target. Against this background, the multiple warnings of an impending attack by Osama bin Laden from a variety of credible authorities should have increasingly reinforced the overall intelligence confirmation of the attacks._ Did Bush Know? :: Warning Signs of 9-11 and Intelligence Failures :: (by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed) - Media Monitors Network


_Norman Mineta served in the President's Cabinet as the United States Secretary of Transportation and was present with Vice Present Cheney on the morning of 9/11.  Mineta's testimony contradicts the 9/11 Commission&#8217;s Report by revealing the fact that Cheney knew about the aircraft approaching the Pentagon long before the impact and reveals that Cheney upheld an order to stand down as also confirmed by Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers.  Mineta's testimony was broadcast on C-Span however the governments rigged 9/11 Commission Report ignored the testimony and all the evidence you will find on this site and other 9/11 exposes._ Untitled Document


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 4, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...





DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



You just got done trying to claim PM, Dicovery channel, etc are 9/11 websites.  You're living in fantasy world you suicide coward.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


dipshit, they have ALL answered your bullshit conspiracies and you all claim they are IN ON IT
so shut the fuck up and actually produce something worthy of a reasoned response


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 4, 2010)

MikeK said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > [...]On 9/11 NORAD had a scheduled military exercise of the US being attacked by planes.
> ...




Running exercises by design lends credibility to an active role and not simply complicity.  If you wanted to conceal real aircraft in US airspace you don't do it by letting things running normal.  You do it with exercises.  There are many training programs for Norad and Air traffic controllers involving communications, coordinates, logistical integration, and a zone wide air traffic configurations.

Has anyone ever really questioned why Cheney was the acting CINC on that day?  (I'm hoping nobody here is stoopid enough to say because he was in the white house and bush was not)


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 4, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Lol!

"you all claim they are IN ON IT"

If telling lies paid $.00000001 per 15 lies you would have more money than Gates, Buffet, and Switzerland combined.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


ah, more classic projection

another thing you lying troofer morons do a lot


----------



## elvis (Jul 4, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



you're just fuxxing stoopid.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 4, 2010)

elvis said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



yeah, i guess


----------



## Toro (Jul 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> You've got so many strawmen and false assumptions it's not worth responding.
> 
> Thank for demonstrating what OCTAs do when faced with facts they don't like.  You run like scared leetle bitches.



:yawn:

Come back when you've got something other than coincidences, circumstances and stories.


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 4, 2010)

Toro said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You've got so many strawmen and false assumptions it's not worth responding.
> ...



Those are all facts.  Keep ignoring them.......

Then explain why Cheney was the acting CINC and took direct military control?


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 4, 2010)

elvis said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




You sucking gunny's dick on overtime this week?

I don't know how you ***** keep fooling yourselves in your fantasy world.  Is it prescription drugs, illegal drugs, straight fear, or a combination?

What I do know is none of you have ever seriously investigated 9E.  You fucking rejects are drawn to this for one simple reason:  you get to hold hands and call people names and are never accountable for anything you say.


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 4, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Why don't you just end it?  Aren't you tired of people changing your diapers yet?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


^^^ more projection


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


another fucking moronic troofer LIE


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


why dont you?
you're the dipshit that thinks there is some huge conspiracy trying to kiill innocent Americans


hey dipshit, tell me again how my phone has a mode it doesn't actually have, and then prove it doesn't have it but keep on claiming that you proved it does


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 4, 2010)

how fucking PATHETIC do you have to be to be a pathetic fucking troofer moron


----------



## CurveLight (Jul 4, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...





DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



I hit a button there eh?  Don't worry.  Your worst fears will come true while you're crying your last tears wishing you'd done what you know you should have done but never had the courage to do.  You're living out you're final hours doing nothing but hoping the hate you share will somehow assuage the hate you are drowning in.

Do Depends come with self-cleaning wipers or do you have to have that done for you as well you brokedick crybaby ****?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


more classic projections
tell the orderly you need more meds


what a pathetic little whiny dipshit you are
i feel sorry for ANYONE that actually has to be any where near you


----------



## daveman (Jul 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> I guess you'd have a point if you could show where anyone said they fell at free fall speed.  Nobody here did so your little strawman party joins your cocksucking sockpuppet party.
> 
> The south tower fell in ten seconds.  Even using your dumbass backwater redneck logic and agree free fall would be 7.75 seconds that means the south tower fell at nearly free fall speed you dumbfuck.
> 
> Even when you are dishonest you can't provide a valid point!


Your closed little mind is made up.  Stop pretending you're here for debate.


----------



## daveman (Jul 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


How would I know that?  Do you know of such a building?  

Not that it matters.  The time is immaterial.  The towers collapsed due to the fires weakening the structural steel.  No other explanation is plausible given the facts in evidence.

Not to rational people, that is.  People like you will believe any old stupid shit.


----------



## daveman (Jul 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Don't worry.  Your worst fears will come true while you're crying your last tears wishing you'd done what you know you should have done but never had the courage to do.  You're living out you're final hours doing nothing but hoping the hate you share will somehow assuage the hate you are drowning in.


Wow.  That could be autobiographical.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 4, 2010)

daveman said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Don't worry.  Your worst fears will come true while you're crying your last tears wishing you'd done what you know you should have done but never had the courage to do.  You're living out you're final hours doing nothing but hoping the hate you share will somehow assuage the hate you are drowning in.
> ...


troofers love to do projection


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 4, 2010)

daveman said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


actually, dipshit curvy wont make an actual stand on what he actually believes happened
he just says he doesnt believe the "official story"
then asks people to defend shit they never said


----------



## daveman (Jul 4, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


Indeed.  Don't look directly at him...you'll get retina damage.


----------



## daveman (Jul 4, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




Really?

Hey, Curvy!  Man up and entertain us with your "theory"!


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 4, 2010)

daveman said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


not only that, but he finds it necessary to abbreviate 9/11 to 9E, and the commission report to CR
 as if saving 2 characters of typing is really that much of a savings

and anyone that doesn't buy into the conspiracy nonsense is an OCTA
i think thats supposed to mean Official Conspiracy Theory Apologist or something similar


----------



## daveman (Jul 4, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


I was wondering what the "E" stood for.  Apparently, it stands for "Erratic".


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 4, 2010)

MikeK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > [...]
> ...


For the last 5000 years myths have helped all governments socialize cost and privatize profit. No myth is currently more useful to the rich in this country than the Official Conspiracy Theory of 9/11/2001.

From the opening days of Cheney/Bush in January 2001 it was clear Afghanistan and Iraq were in their cross-hairs. And it had nothing to do with "terrorists."

The goal in Afghanistan was a pipeline deal with the Taliban who, by early August, were proving so vexing that State Department negotiator, Christine Rocca, clarified their options:

"Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold or we bury you under a carpet of bombs."

When Bush received word of the Taliban's refusal he allegedly "...informed Pakistan and India that the US would launch a military mission into Afghanistan before the end of October."

Five weeks before 9/11.

At the very least skeptics in this country should demand the answers to five questions about our latest "Day of Infamy":

Why did Cheney/Bush initially oppose any investigation at all?

Why did a full year elapse before any inquiry was undertaken?

Why did Bush insist on appointing the 9/11 Commissioners himself?

Why did Cheney and Bush refuse to testify under oath?

Another question I'd like an answer to...how much money have each of you draft dodgers made from the War on Terror? 

The So-Called War on Terror


----------



## Toro (Jul 4, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> The goal in Afghanistan was a pipeline deal with the Taliban who, by early August, were proving so vexing that State Department negotiator, Christine Rocca, clarified their options:
> 
> "Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold or we bury you under a carpet of bombs."
> 
> ...



ROFL!

Hilarious!

Yeah, that's right, it was over a pipeline.

Twoofer questioning: "Is energy in anyway connected to this random series of events?" Answer, "Yes.  There is a $3 billion pipeline proposed by Chevron."  Twoofer logic, "A-HA!  That proves it!  The Bush/Cheney/Republican/Fed/Bilderbergs are behind it and evil!"

Twoofers will believe anything.


----------



## elvis (Jul 4, 2010)

Toro said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > The goal in Afghanistan was a pipeline deal with the Taliban who, by early August, were proving so vexing that State Department negotiator, Christine Rocca, clarified their options:
> ...


but, but, Bush's brother was two blocks away...


----------



## daveman (Jul 4, 2010)

Toro said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > The goal in Afghanistan was a pipeline deal with the Taliban who, by early August, were proving so vexing that State Department negotiator, Christine Rocca, clarified their options:
> ...


Except physics, engineering, and thermodynamics.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 4, 2010)

daveman said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


but then they would have to actually admit they are wrong


----------



## Toro (Jul 4, 2010)

daveman said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



  I owe you rep for that!


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 4, 2010)

It's only funny until the bombs start killing your family.


----------



## Toro (Jul 4, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> It's only funny until the bombs start killing your family.



Well, I had friends die in the WTC and I nearly went to work for a firm there nine months prior to 9/11, so I think I can say that its not 9/11 we are laughing at - its the silly theories.


----------



## elvis (Jul 4, 2010)

Toro said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > It's only funny until the bombs start killing your family.
> ...



sorry to hear that.  
which floor would you have worked in?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 4, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> It's only funny until the bombs start killing your family.


you want to be taken seriously?
stop supporting terrorists


----------



## Toro (Jul 4, 2010)

elvis said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



31st

Everyone in the firm got out alive, but I didn't know that until the day after.  I just assumed they all perished.  For a day, I thought I'd cheated death.

I knew people further up who didn't make it out.  

Someone called and left a voicemail as they were fleeing.  He did make it out.  It was chilling.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 4, 2010)

daveman said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Speaking of stupid old shit...If "the towers collapsed due to the fires weakening of the structural steel," then 9/11/2001 is even more historic than even Dick Cheney imagined.

Since never before in recorded history has a single steel-framed skyscraper completely collapsed due to fire, imagine Dick's delight when three skyscrapers fell to the flames on his watch.

Maybe stupid old shits like you and Dick could now tell us how the fires CUT the 47 steel columns running up the center of all towers?

I won't even ask you and Dick for an explanation for the "partly evaporated" steel members in the debris pile or multiple eyewitness accounts of flashes and loud explosions.

Dick might have a heart attack...


----------



## daveman (Jul 4, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...


In case of a disagreement between reality and a Troofer, reality is wrong.


----------



## daveman (Jul 4, 2010)

Toro said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Except physics, engineering, and thermodynamics.
> ...


Thanks!


----------



## daveman (Jul 4, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> It's only funny until the bombs start killing your family.


Then perhaps you should consider combating the enemy who actually committed the act of war instead of making up stupid shit about people who didn't.


----------



## daveman (Jul 4, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


I'm under no obligation to defend your insanity.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 4, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


never????
really?
what about the troofers lie about the madrid building?
the one that had a concrete core as well as steel structure, and the steel only part totally collapsed
leaving only the part clad in concrete


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 4, 2010)

daveman said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


not to mention that most of what he said was a LIE


----------



## daveman (Jul 4, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


But he be_leeeeeeeves_ it...so that means it's true.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 4, 2010)

Toro said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > It's only funny until the bombs start killing your family.
> ...


"Silly theories" like the one provided by Bush/Cheney's commerce department (NIST) when it admits that their report "does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached."
(NIST, 2005, p.80, fn. 12)

Some find that "silly" since much of the external evidence for explosive demolition typically comes after collapse initiation.


----------



## elvis (Jul 4, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Hint:  David Ray Griffin has not provided evidence that comes anywhere close to challenging the official story.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 4, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


You mean this one?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 4, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


yup, thats the one you guys lie about


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 4, 2010)

elvis said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...


Got proof?


----------



## uscitizen (Jul 4, 2010)

Exploding saws brought the world trade centers?


----------



## elvis (Jul 4, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



First of all, the Burden of Proof is on people like you, fuckstain.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 4, 2010)

elvis said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...


loved that NatGeo special that had him on
when they proved that jet fuel did, in fact, get hot enough to make structural steel lose its integrity and that termite would not cut through vertical steel he suddenly changed his story


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 4, 2010)

elvis said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...


Prove this, Bitch.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 4, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


Was that before the Madrid high-rise collapsed?


----------



## elvis (Jul 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Oh, that's interesting.  I haven't seen that.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 5, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...


no
after


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 5, 2010)

elvis said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...


it was hilarious


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 5, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


you(aka troofers) have made the claims of controlled demolition, there for the burden of proof is you YOU to prove it


----------



## elvis (Jul 5, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Had it been a controlled demolition, there would have been a tall mound of debris afterwords. It wouldn't have travelled God knows how many blocks down the street.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 5, 2010)

elvis said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...


exactly, detcord, tell tale signs of shape charges, something to prove it
and yet, there was NONE


----------



## Toro (Jul 5, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Absence of information is not evidence of truth.

Protec, one of the world's most respected demolition firms, came to the conclusion that it was not a demolition.


----------



## daveman (Jul 5, 2010)

Toro said:


> Absence of information is not evidence of truth.
> 
> Protec, one of the world's most respected demolition firms, came to the conclusion that it was not a demolition.



That's because they were in on it!  

Right, George?


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 5, 2010)

Toro said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...


Deliberate withholding of information often is evidence for a cover up.

WTC7 was 610 feet tall, at 47 stories it would have been the tallest building in 33 states. It was not hit by an aircraft, yet it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than seven seconds...seven hours after the Twin Towers fell.

"However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's '_full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks_.'"

Here's a 4-5 second video of its collapse.

Watch it without the words "vertical drop" going through your mind.


----------



## daveman (Jul 5, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Deliberate withholding of information often is evidence for a cover up.
> 
> WTC7 was 610 feet tall, at 47 stories it would have been the tallest building in 33 states. It was not hit by an aircraft, yet it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than seven seconds...seven hours after the Twin Towers fell.
> 
> ...


The reasons for the collapse of WTC have been repeatedly explained to you.  You don't seek answers; you want validation of your insane theory.


----------



## Toro (Jul 5, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Deliberate withholding of information often is evidence for a cover up.



Or

- it is not evidence of a cover-up

Or 

- it is evidence of incompetence

Or 

- it is because they don't know definitively


You are making an a priori assumption that the government is deliberately withholding evidence on the structural integrity of the tower for nefarious reasons.  Since you made the accusation, please show evidence of it.


----------



## daveman (Jul 5, 2010)

Toro said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Deliberate withholding of information often is evidence for a cover up.
> ...


Let me help.  His evidence:
















There.  That proves his claim conclusively.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 5, 2010)

elvis said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...


According to USA Today the rubble pile at ground zero stood twelve stories tall. WTC 1&2 each stood 110 floors. The pyroclastic-like clouds that we all saw surging through the surrounding streets at about 35 mph are only formed under conditions of extreme heat and pressure.

Like from multiple explosions.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 5, 2010)

Toro said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Deliberate withholding of information often is evidence for a cover up.
> ...


Would you consider this evidence of a competent explosion?

Or incompetent cover-up?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 5, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


sheeeesh, more unreliable links
LOL
this is why you guys are the clowns of the internet


----------



## elvis (Jul 5, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Are you familiar with the gas-volume-temperature relationship?   I think not.
Had it been a controlled demolition, the mound would have been far more than 12 feet high and the debris wouldn't have traveled all those blocks down the street, you stupid fuck.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 5, 2010)

elvis said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...


dont you LOVE how they use "pyroclastic-LIKE clouds"
without knowing that to be "pyroclastic" they would need to be of temps that would have killed anyone on contact


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 5, 2010)

elvis said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...


"You stupid Fuck"

Twelve *stories*


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



Incorrect as usual.


> David had been in front of a nearby freight elevator on sub-level 1 about 400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his injuries.





CurveLight said:


> Maybe next we can analyze the length of Rodriguez's shoe laces before and after initial impact.



You didn't answer the question. Why did William first describe the noises he heard as "rumbles, like someone moving large furniture" right after the event when it was still very fresh in his mind and then change the description to "a massive explosion the shook the basement floor?



CurveLight said:


> So the question is what explosion occurred to make the guy's skin come off?  It must have happened before he got in the elevator.



Here is William's quote from a CNN transcript:


			
				William Rodriguez said:
			
		

> RODRIGUEZ: I was in the basement, which is the support floor for the maintenance company, and we hear like a big rumble. Not like an impact, like a rumble, like moving furniture in a massive way. And all of sudden we hear another rumble, and a guy comes running, running into our office, and all of skin was off his body. All of the skin.



Why wasn't the guy, who was standing in FRONT of the elevator, screaming after the first explosion if it was that one that hit him? Why does William make the distinction that AFTER the second "rumble" is when the guy came in screaming with skin hanging off of him?

Here is a video of Anthony Saltalamacchia talking about that day:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNfM-le7t6g]YouTube - Fabled Enemies Extras: 9/11 Survivor Anthony Saltalamacchia On WTC Bombs (part 1/3)[/ame]

Explain something to me. At about 4:11, Anthony says there was a massive explosion that knocked them off their feet". Can you explain why William, in his CNN transcript, said that the noises were "like a rumble, NOT like an impact"? Why the two very different descriptions? Why does William change his story at later times to be "massive explosions"?


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



How the hell did William see the elevator open and the man come out when he was IN THE OFFICE with Anthony Saltalamacchia, his boss? There are numerous quotes by William that says the man came running INTO the office screaming "explosion! explosion!"


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 6, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Did they collapse in 10 seconds? Yes or no?


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Thanks for that but what I'm trying to do is show the time difference between a 110 story skyscraper being professionally razed and the ten second collapse of the South Tower.  As I'm sure you've noticed, not a single OCTA has the balls to make the comparison.
> 
> (Official Conspiracy Theory Apologist)



Nevermind. I got my answer. So you DO believe the towers collapsed in 10 seconds?

Interesting.


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 6, 2010)

So 10 seconds huh?

Here's a video to watch and then explain something to me 9/11.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SSS0DDqfm0&feature=related]YouTube - WTC 2 collapse close up[/ame]

The collapse starts at :04. The tower is STILL collapsing at :14 when the video stops. Then there is the center part of WTC2 that is seen here in this photo that remained for a few seconds after the the floors fell away.





10 seconds for a total collapse?


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 6, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> WTC7 was 610 feet tall, at 47 stories it would have been the tallest building in 33 states. It was not hit by an aircraft, yet it *completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than seven seconds*...



The bolded part is incorrect and you've been shown this numerous times. Why do you keep saying it completely collapsed in less than 7 seconds? Is the mechanical penthouse not part of the building for some reason or do you just not include it because it helps your story out?


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 6, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> The pyroclastic-like clouds that we all saw surging through the surrounding streets at about 35 mph are only formed under conditions of *extreme heat *and pressure.
> 
> Like from multiple explosions.



Extreme heat? Are you serious? If there was "extreme heat", please point us in the direction that speaks of all the serious burns and deaths from this extreme heat. 

Can you explain how the tree and paper in this photo survived the "extreme heat"?


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 6, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> So 10 seconds huh?
> 
> Here's a video to watch and then explain something to me 9/11.
> YouTube - WTC 2 collapse close up
> ...


Did you notice an EXPLOSION in your 14 second video?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 6, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > So 10 seconds huh?
> ...


no, because there wasnt one


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 6, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > The pyroclastic-like clouds that we all saw surging through the surrounding streets at about 35 mph are only formed under conditions of *extreme heat *and pressure.
> ...


When you tell me how far the tree and paper are from the source of the EXPLOSIONS and how much time has elapsed from instigation of said EXPLOSIONS.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 6, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


there were NO explosions
not other than the fireballs of the jet impacts


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 6, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > WTC7 was 610 feet tall, at 47 stories it would have been the tallest building in 33 states. It was not hit by an aircraft, yet it *completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than seven seconds*...
> ...


What's your best guess for the collapse time of WTC 7?

Here's my source....Where is yours?

What are your thoughts on why there's no mention of its collapse in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks?"

Phillip Zelikow?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 6, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


of course, a 9/11 troofer nutball site
LOL


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 7, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > So 10 seconds huh?
> ...



Did you notice that you didn't address the fact that what you have said was 10 seconds for a total collapse time was incorrect?


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 7, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > So 10 seconds huh?
> ...



Please give me a timestamp in that video where you see thjis "explosion".


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 7, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Nice try.

Do you know what a "pyroclastic" cloud is? the cloud itself contains high temperatures. 

Here is the definition:


			
				Defitinion said:
			
		

> A pyroclastic flow is a fluidized mixture of solid to semi-solid fragments and hot, expanding gases that flows down the flank of a volcanic edifice. These awesome features are heavier-than-air emulsions that move much like a snow avalanche, except that they are fiercely hot, contain toxic gases, and move at phenomenal, hurricane-force speeds, often over 100 km/hour



So you tell me what characteristics that WTC cloud had that matches any of the characteristics in the above definition that leads you to say there was a "pyroclastic-like cloud".


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 7, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



My best guess and source for the COMPLETE collapse time? How about video evidence? Like this one. This shows at least 13 seconds from the start of the penthouse initiation. That's double what you guys claim. Why do you leave out the penthouse portion?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6GMddY-lQ]YouTube - Collapse of WTC7[/ame]

or

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNlqk_c-yOo&feature=PlayList&p=358CE055A9B86F09&playnext_from=PL&index=0&playnext=1]YouTube - WTC7 collapse, BBC News 24, 17:34, 9/11[/ame]

Can you tell me why the truthers leave out the penthouse?


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 7, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> What are your thoughts on why there's no mention of its collapse in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks?"



Because it was addressed in a separate report? Why do there have to be any "thoughts" on why the Commission Report didn't contain an account of the collapses when there were separate reports/studies done on these?


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 7, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



George? 9/11? Anyone?


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 7, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> 87 by 135 feet and contained 47 steel columns running from the bedrock to the top of the tower," what moved the tons of steel and concrete out of the way after the initiation of



Moved it away? Can you then explain your claim that it was all "moved away" when i have a picture that shows part of the core still standing AFTER the floors around the core have collapsed away?








georgephillip said:


> a collapse that traveled 90 floors in only 10 seconds?



You have been shown that 10 seconds is incorrect. Why do you keep using that number?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 7, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


because it shows what a bunch of LIARS they are


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 7, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


How conclusive is video evidence that doesn't reveal ground level?

In your first video I see partial collapse of the penthouse begin between 6-8  seconds. I see the entire 47 story building begin its vertical collapse at about 13 seconds and it disappears from view between 18-19 seconds.

If you had tossed Phil Zelikow from the roof of the mechanical penthouse on WTC7 at sunrise on 9/11/2001 he would have required about 6.34 seconds to reach ground level.

The entire 47-story tower was supported by 24 core columns and 57 perimeter columns. Believing random fires caused the entire building to collapse straight downward means you believe the fires caused all 81 steel columns to fail at exactly the same instant.

Do you believe that?
Do you think it's likely Phil does?
How about Larry Silverstein?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 7, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


WOW, more of the delusional bullshit from a troofer
it wouldnt require ALL columns to fail at the same time, just enough to begin the collapse gravity would have over come the remaining columns by putting more stress on them than they were capable of holding


----------



## slackjawed (Jul 7, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



I don't believe that one can accurately time this event from a youtube video. There were likely a lot of things that happened inside out of the view of the the video prior to what could be seen outside. 

More assumptions based on the old "I want to believe the conspiracy theory" syndrome.

Your profile says your from LA, just like agent chri$$y.
Is there something being put in the water there to cause brain damage?

It sure seems like it........


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 7, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


well, christophera is from Santa Barbara


----------



## slackjawed (Jul 7, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



close enough.


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 7, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Look at what you write below.



georgephillip said:


> In your first video I see partial collapse of the penthouse begin between 6-8  seconds. I see the entire 47 story building begin its vertical collapse at about 13 seconds and it disappears from view between 18-19 seconds.



The collapse initiates with the penthouse at 6 seconds. Then you say the ENTIRE 47 story building started at 13 seconds. Do you see the pieces of the penthouse falling inside the building AFTER the penthouse started it's collapse? It didn't just fall into the building at 6 seconds and stop there. In this next video, in the very beginning. do you see the broken windows up the face of the building?
YouTube - wtc7 collapse

Do you know what caused those broken windows? Here's a better video that shows the windows shatter as the penthouse structure in side collapses.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkOGkdNq13k]YouTube - WTC7 NIST Clip with east penthouse[/ame]

So during the penthouse collapse initiation and the time the rest of the building begins to fall, the penthouse structure is damaging the rest of the structure as it falls inside the building. So in the first video the penthouse starts to collapse at :06 and continues until :13 seconds when the roof line starts to drop. That's 7 seconds in itself. Then from 13 to 18 is another 5 seconds and we don't even see the ground level!!! That would add even more time. So you now have 12 seconds. DOUBLE of what you guys claim as 6 seconds.



georgephillip said:


> If you had tossed Phil Zelikow from the roof of the mechanical penthouse on WTC7 at sunrise on 9/11/2001 he would have required about 6.34 seconds to reach ground level.





Sorry but Phil would be considered ONE ENTITY falling. He wouldn't have fallen in sections would he? What you fail to grasp is that the penthouse was part of the ENTIRE structure that fell separately which is why you claiming that the ENTIRE building fell in 6 seconds is incorrect. Let's use your analogy above with Phil. What if Phil's leg fell off and fell to the ground. Then his other leg. Then his right arm. Then his left arm. Then the rest of him. What part of that sequence would you use to show someone how long it took for Phil to reach the ground from the top of that 47 story building?



georgephillip said:


> IThe entire 47-story tower was supported by 24 core columns and 57 perimeter columns. Believing random fires caused the entire building to collapse straight downward *means you believe the fires caused all 81 steel columns to fail at exactly the same instant.*



I bolded the important part of your quote. After seeing the numerous videos that show the penthouse collapsing first, how can you continue to say that all 81 steel columns failed at the exact same time? Let me ask you this. Watch this next video.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-WvQbFMIWU]YouTube - Tencza apartments controlled demolition[/ame]

Did they cut the columns all at the same time?


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 7, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


Regarding your NIST clip with east penthouse:

I see the penthouse collapse starting at about 2 seconds.
At 10 seconds the roofline begins its symmetrical, steady collapse straight downward.
The roofline disappears from view around second 14.

The fact that some tools inside a mechanical penthouse were bouncing around and breaking windows inside the falling 47 story tower is a red herring at best and deliberate deception at worst.

Dr. Steven Jones and his students have measured the fall speed of the SW corner of WTC7 at 6.5+-0.2 seconds. (Why Indeed P.4.)

These CBS video frames at one second intervals seem to back up the physicist and his students.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 7, 2010)

jones is a crackpot


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 7, 2010)

With a PhD in Physics.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 7, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> With a PhD in Physics.


so, no people with PhD's ever go totally batshit insane?


----------



## martybegan (Jul 7, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Do you actually know what is kept inside a mechanical penthouse?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 7, 2010)

martybegan said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


dont you think he has made it quite clear he has no clue?


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 7, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > With a PhD in Physics.
> ...


The first of Dr. Jones Thirteen Reasons to Challenge Government-sponsored Reports into 9/11 mentions multiple reports of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings.

"For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher.

"In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel..."

"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.

"'Nobody's going to be alive,'" was Sarah's first thought.

"Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."

See if you can refute Jones's content instead of making a punk of yourself with words like "batshit" and "insane."


----------



## elvis (Jul 7, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > With a PhD in Physics.
> ...


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 7, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


its up to you to prove they are true, dipshit


----------



## elvis (Jul 7, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > With a PhD in Physics.
> ...



oh maybe he meant Americans....


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 7, 2010)

elvis said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


Is that one of your relatives?


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 7, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


Not to punks.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 7, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


damn, you are a moron


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 7, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


LOL
you prove again what a fucking MORON you are


----------



## elvis (Jul 7, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



No, fuckstain.  What's the matter? 
can't handle it that you had the "But he has a PhD" argument shoved back up your ass?


----------



## Dante (Jul 7, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close.
> 
> They moved to a new area because of what they saw.
> 
> ...



yeah? I know more than a few people who were there when the towers fell. they all think your friends are full of shit.

check mate


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 8, 2010)

The second of Dr. Steven Jones's, Ph.D, Thirteen Reasons to Challenge Government-sponsored Reports into 9/11: Observed Temperatures around 1000 degrees C and Sulfidation in WTC7 Steel.

Analysis of one steel beam taken from WTC7 debris revealed unexpected erosion warranting a study of the microstructural changes that occurred in this steel.

Analysis revealed the "(r)apid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur...

"This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1000 degrees C..."

If it's true that temperatures above 650 degrees C are difficult to achieve in hydrocarbon fires like those in WTC7, "let alone in the steel columns where heat is transported away by the enormous heat sink of the steel structure, what explains the 1000 degree C temperatures?

Possibly the mysterious presence of sulfur for which no solid answer is provided in any official report.

"Of course, there is a straightforward way to achieve 1000 degree C temperatures (and well above) in the presence of sulfur, and that is to use Thermate...

"Thermate is a high-level thermite analog containing sulfur developed by the military...(it)combines aluminum/iron oxide (thermite) with barium nitrate...and sulfur...

"The Thermate reaction proceeds rapidly and is much faster than thermite in degrading steel leading to structural failure."

And it explains both the unusually high temperatures and the observation of steel-sulfidation.   

Maybe that's why the government ignored it?


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 8, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> The fact that some tools inside a mechanical penthouse were bouncing around and breaking windows inside the falling 47 story tower is a red herring at best and deliberate deception at worst.





This is the funniest shit yet. You're telling me that the mechanical penthouse collapses into the building itself, meaning the supports that held it up failed including damaging any other vertical or floor supports as it collapsed, and all you're willing to conceded is that it was "tools" bouncing around that broke the windows?

That's gotta be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 8, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Dr. Steven Jones and his students have measured the fall speed of the SW corner of WTC7 at 6.5+-0.2 seconds.



Was it you who made this statement below? I think it was.


georgephillip said:


> WTC7 was 610 feet tall, at 47 stories it would have been the tallest building in 33 states. It was not hit by an aircraft, yet it *completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than seven seconds*...



Take note of the bolded, enlarged text as you seem to keep missing this part for some reason. The *ENTIRE* WTC7 building did not collapse in less than 7 seconds. 

Do you understand that? Maybe you don't know the meaning of "entire". what you folks try to do is mislead people with words. You shouldn't mislead people by saying that the entire building collapsed in 6.5 seconds. What you SHOULD be saying is that what remained standing of WTC7 after the internal collapse of the penthouse fell at 6.5 seconds. 

Why do you people continue to try and exaggerate the story? Is this why two of the three videos from Jones' paper do not show the penthouse?


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 8, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> The second of Dr. Steven Jones's, Ph.D, Thirteen Reasons to Challenge Government-sponsored Reports into 9/11: Observed Temperatures around 1000 degrees C and Sulfidation in WTC7 Steel.
> 
> Analysis of one steel beam taken from WTC7 debris revealed unexpected erosion warranting a study of the microstructural changes that occurred in this steel.
> 
> ...



Wow. You and Jones' keep debunking your own claims. Answer this for me. Why does Steven Jones Ph.D, say that there were SQUIBS that blew out the sides of the buildings? Thermate doesn't EXPLODE. It BURNS.

So please, buy all means, explain how thermate creates squibs?


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 8, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> "let alone in the steel columns where heat is transported away by the enormous heat sink of the steel structure,



If that's the case, why do they fireproof steel columns and beams?


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 8, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> If it's true that temperatures above 650 degrees C are difficult to achieve in hydrocarbon fires like those in WTC7



Where are you getting this information from?
Temperatures in flames and fires
SUPERIOR FIRE RESISTANCE

This link particularly. It shows that you have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to structural failure and steel frame buildings.
Building regs, fire legislation, Document B


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 8, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > If it's true that temperatures above 650 degrees C are difficult to achieve in hydrocarbon fires like those in WTC7
> ...


it doesnt matter, he will continue to post the same debunked bullshit as if it was never debunked
its pathological for the troofer morons


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 8, 2010)

How in the hell did this happen?!?!?!? No fire, explosives, or thermite... 

Extreme heat causes tracks to buckle


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 8, 2010)

Planes full of fuel tend to explode when they crash into buildings.

Not much of a revelation there.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 8, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> How in the hell did this happen?!?!?!? No fire, explosives, or thermite...
> 
> Extreme heat causes tracks to buckle


Now find a picture that shows where extreme heat cut the railroad tracks on a 45 degree angle


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 8, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > How in the hell did this happen?!?!?!? No fire, explosives, or thermite...
> ...


that didnt link to a photo

but the only photo i have ever seen of the WTC site that showed such a thing, it was clearly done as part of the cleanup
and you fucking morons cant understand basic logic so you think it was done before


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 8, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > If it's true that temperatures above 650 degrees C are difficult to achieve in hydrocarbon fires like those in WTC7
> ...


You've raised a valid point regarding temperatures.

If your source is as credible as it appears there's a genuine difference of opinion with Dr. Jones's belief that temps above 650 degrees C are difficult to achieve in fires like those in WTC7.

This looks like a point of dispute whose resolution we could both agree on.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 8, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


Please prove the basic logic that it was done as part of the cleanup.

I'm also unable to link directly to the photo on page 32 of the document every time I try.
It could be related to router issues I'm currently experiencing.

From page 32: "For comparison (to the previous photo) observe some of the angle-cut columns seen at Ground Zero after 9/11/2001... (Notice especially the uneven cut at the back of the column, left photo, suggesting this was NOT cut using an oxy-acetylene torch, but rather that a highly exothermic chemical reaction was involved in cutting through this steel column.)"

Why Indeed Did the World...P.32


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 8, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


simple
it has SLAG from the cut
i told you Jones was a crackpot

btw, it has been PROVEN that thermite will NOT cut a vertical beam
and that has no indicators of a shape charge cut


----------



## Fizz (Jul 9, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> [
> Please prove the basic logic that it was done as part of the cleanup.



no. thats not how things work in the real world. if you are going to look at a picture taken during the clean up and then claim some stupid shit like thermite made a vertical cut before the clean up started then its on YOU to prove it.


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 9, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Because that picture of the cut column you linked in the document:






...looks exactly like the torch cut in this picture:





...even down to the slag that is produced on the opposite side:





Not to mention this photo of one of the columns being cut with a torch:


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 9, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


SHOW the PROOF!


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 9, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > How in the hell did this happen?!?!?!? No fire, explosives, or thermite...
> ...



Do you understand the concept of heat causing expansion in steel and what happens when certain points of the steel are anchored down? Think of this. What happens to a floor beam that is anchored between to columns and that floor beam is heated. It expands. As it expands,  what's going to give first? Is the beam going to buckle or will one or both of the anchor points get sheared? If one or more of the anchor points gets sheared, that starts to compromise the structural as a whole.


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 9, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Look at the post above with the photos I posted in it.


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 9, 2010)

Another logical question George.

If thermite charges are supposed to burn STRAIGHT through the metal being cut, why are there 45 degree "groves" through the metal plate that the column in this photo was made of? Look at the red lines in the red oval. The "grooves" are 45 degrees from the face of that plate.

How did a thermite charge create 45 degree "grooves"? They should be perpendicular to the face, not at a 45 degree angle.


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 9, 2010)

Another inconsistency against a thermite cut in this photo:





Why is there slag on the INSIDE of the left, top, and right plates of the column (inside the column), with no slag on the outsides? The supposedly burning thermite "pushed the slag into the interior of the column as it supposedly cut from the outside in correct?

If that's the case, why is there slag on the OUTSIDE of the bottom plate of that column in the photo? Did they magically create a thermite charge on the INSIDE of that box column to cut from the inside out, thus creating the slag we see there? 

Or is it more obvious that someone with a torch cut those three side from the outside while the column section above was held in place? Then bent forward so they could make the last cut from the inside on that last bottom plate. The last cut made from the INSIDE out so the person using the torch was not putting himself in danger by cutting from BENEATH the columns as that's where it's weight would carry it once completely cut.


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 9, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Another logical question George. It seems to me that there are two types of thermite cuts. One is a thermite charge that "explodes" and creates a cut. The other is a "burn through". A "burn through" would not be able to go horizontally as you need gravity for it's use. 

So based on that, which type of cut was supposedly made George? A "burn through" or a "charge" cut?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 9, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


Gamolon showed you
i TOLD you Jones is a crackpot


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 9, 2010)

Check this video out George. At the end, the guy actually points at the cut columns where he explains the cuts. He points right at a column that has a 90 degree cut.

Interesting...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySHgiUxnLC0&feature=related]YouTube - 9/11 Debunked: Columns Cut not by Thermite[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 9, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Check this video out George. At the end, the guy actually points at the cut columns where he explains the cuts. He points right at a column that has a 90 degree cut.
> 
> Interesting...
> 
> YouTube - 9/11 Debunked: Columns Cut not by Thermite


more proof that Steven Jones is nothing but a lunatic crackpot


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 10, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


If you mean "looks exactly alike" to the naked eye, I agree.

Any empirical evaluation would have to include a study of microstructural changes in the steel that occurred during the cut as well as a determination of any intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 10, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


see the bottom photo??????

sheeesh, this is why most SANE people think you troofers are fucking MORONS


----------



## Kat (Jul 10, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



I don't think you even have to be a sane person to think that.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 10, 2010)

Kat said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


true
but does anyone really care what an insane person thinks?


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 10, 2010)

Not me.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 10, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Not me.


thats why we dont really care what YOU think


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 10, 2010)

Number 3 of Dr. Steven Jones, Ph.d, list of top 13 questions needing more investigation is how random fires and damage in the 47 story building produced a rapid, symmetrical, and nearly straight down collapse.

"There were 24 huge steel support columns inside WTC7, as well as huge trusses arranged non-symmetrically, along with some 57peimeter columns..."

Some of those perimeter columns were probably damaged by debris from WTC1 making any damage clearly non-symmetrical. "(E)vidently, none of the core columns was severed by falling debris."

"If one or a few columns had failed, one might expect a portion of the building to crumble while leaving much of the building standing. For example, major portions of WTC5 remained standing on 9/11 despite very significant impact damage and severe fires."

The point being that since none of the government reports seriously considered controlled demolition, the time is long past to publicly pose the questions under oath that millions of Americans want answered.

Why Indeed...P.20


----------



## Fizz (Jul 10, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Number 3 of Dr. Steven Jones, Ph.d, list of top 13 questions needing more investigation.....



so go investigate.


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 12, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



George, please comment.


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 12, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Another logical question George.
> 
> If thermite charges are supposed to burn STRAIGHT through the metal being cut, why are there 45 degree "groves" through the metal plate that the column in this photo was made of? Look at the red lines in the red oval. The "grooves" are 45 degrees from the face of that plate.
> 
> How did a thermite charge create 45 degree "grooves"? They should be perpendicular to the face, not at a 45 degree angle.



And this George?


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 12, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Another inconsistency against a thermite cut in this photo:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And this George?

You seem to believe that thermite was used on that column. So tell me how thermite created the above scenario?


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 12, 2010)

I'm not claiming to know all the answers.
Anyone who does is a liar or shill.

I'm saying there is sufficient doubt among millions of people to warrant an independent investigation with testimonies taken under oath into the events of 9/11/01.

Start with Dick Cheney.


----------



## martybegan (Jul 12, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> I'm not claiming to know all the answers.
> Anyone who does is a liar or shill.
> 
> I'm saying there is sufficient doubt among millions of people to warrant an independent investigation with testimonies taken under oath into the events of 9/11/01.
> ...



Argumentum Ad populum. Just because X number of people have doubt doesnt mean its true. By the other end of the spectrum hundreds of millions of people dont see the need for further investigation. 

People really need to brush up on thier logical fallacies.


----------



## daveman (Jul 12, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> I'm not claiming to know all the answers.


And the ones you do claim to know are all wrong.


georgephillip said:


> Anyone who does is a liar or shill.


I think we know where you fall.


georgephillip said:


> I'm saying there is sufficient doubt among millions of people...


Millions of people used to believe the world was flat.  Did that make it so?


georgephillip said:


> ...to warrant an independent investigation with testimonies taken under oath into the events of 9/11/01.


You wouldn't like the answers that one would come up with, either.  

You don't want truth.  You want validation of your crackpot ideas.


georgephillip said:


> Start with Dick Cheney.


Dick Cheney!  BOOGA BOOGA!!


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 12, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> I'm not claiming to know all the answers.
> Anyone who does is a liar or shill.
> 
> I'm saying there is sufficient doubt among millions of people to warrant an independent investigation with testimonies taken under oath into the events of 9/11/01.
> ...



Well, you keep throwing quotes from Jones' paper out there it's proof of demolition. 

So please comment on my two posts above. You seem to agree with Jones that the cut column is proof of a thermite cut.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 12, 2010)

Kat said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



the sane people are the ones that dont have the logic that because the corporate controlled media and government agencys say it,that makes it automatically true. the sane people do not close their eyes and cover their ears and sing out loud to themselves when evidence,facts,and witness testimony is presented to them and they dont ignore the laws of of physics that scientists have gone by for thousands of years or what architects,engineers,firemen,first reponders and demolition experts say.gotcha. great logic there. "rolls on floor laughing."


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 12, 2010)

Kat said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



the sane people are the ones that dont have the logic that because the corporate controlled media and government agencys say it,that makes it automatically true. the sane people do not close their eyes and cover their ears and sing out loud to themselves when evidence,facts,and witness testimony is presented to them and they dont ignore the laws of of physics that scientists have gone by for thousands of years or what architects,engineers,firemen,first reponders and demolition experts say.gotcha. "rolls on floor laughing." 

only the 9/11 official conspiracy theory apologists are morons.lol.


----------



## Fizz (Jul 12, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> I'm not claiming to know all the answers.
> Anyone who does is a liar or shill.
> 
> I'm saying there is sufficient doubt among millions of people to warrant an independent investigation with testimonies taken under oath into the events of 9/11/01.
> ...


so go investigate. nobody is stopping you.


----------



## daveman (Jul 12, 2010)

Fizz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not claiming to know all the answers.
> ...


Typical leftist -- he wants somebody else to do all the work for him.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 12, 2010)

daveman said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not claiming to know all the answers.
> ...


DaveSlave:

How many children did the USAF kill today?

How much money did those murders add to Rhymes-With-Rich Dick's net worth?

BOOGA?


----------



## Toro (Jul 12, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> the sane people are the ones that dont have the logic that because the corporate controlled media and government agencys say it,that makes it automatically true. the sane people do not close their eyes and cover their ears and sing out loud to themselves when evidence,facts,and witness testimony is presented to them and they dont ignore the laws of of physics that scientists have gone by for thousands of years or what architects,engineers,firemen,first reponders and demolition experts say.gotcha. "rolls on floor laughing."
> 
> only the 9/11 official conspiracy theory apologists are morons.lol.



Yeah, the sane people don't worry about the little things in life, like "their children," when Bush, Cheney and the other murderers roam free!


----------



## daveman (Jul 12, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> DaveSlave:
> 
> How many children did the USAF kill today?
> 
> ...


Have you had a CAT scan recently?  I'm pretty sure there's something in your head that doesn't belong there.


Oh, and the Sixties called...they want their mindless "babykiller!!" meme back.


----------



## Fizz (Jul 12, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> How many children did the USAF kill today?


you tell me.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 12, 2010)

daveman said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > DaveSlave:
> ...


more likely that something that SHOULD be there, isn't


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 13, 2010)

daveman said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > DaveSlave:
> ...


So...how many Cambodian babies did the USAF kill in the 60s?


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 13, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Another inconsistency against a thermite cut in this photo:
> ...


Are you saying the interior surface of the left plate along with the exterior surfaces of the top and right plates are visible in this photo?

This is the second time I've asked you this simple question.


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 13, 2010)

georgephillip said:


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



Can you quote me the first time you asked this? I seem to have missed it.

Now follow closely and please answer the questions pertaining to what you believe the photo shows.

1. What type of thermite cutting was used based on the photo above? Was it a cutting charge or did it "burn through" the steel?

2. If it was a cutting charge, there would not be grooves oriented 45 degrees to the face of the plate as shown in this marked up photo here using red lines. The force of the charge would have made lines PERPENDICULAR lines (if any) to the face as that would have been the direction the force of the charge would have gone.





3. If you claim a thermite "burn through" process was employed then why is there no slag on the outside face on the left plate, but there is slag on the outside face of the bottom plate? If you are trying to tell me that the slag appears on the opposite face of where the thermite "burn through" process was started, then how did the slag get on the outside face of the bottom plate? You're not being consistent.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 13, 2010)

Toro said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > the sane people are the ones that dont have the logic that because the corporate controlled media and government agencys say it,that makes it automatically true. the sane people do not close their eyes and cover their ears and sing out loud to themselves when evidence,facts,and witness testimony is presented to them and they dont ignore the laws of of physics that scientists have gone by for thousands of years or what architects,engineers,firemen,first reponders and demolition experts say.gotcha. "rolls on floor laughing."
> ...



you are just too ignorant and dont get it that as long as americans only care about that and ignore whats going on around them like so many do and thats their ONLY concern which is what is for many of them,were going to be in nazi germany sometime in the next decade or two because they ignored it and took no steps to try and stop it.

Hey Toto,thanks for proving again that your afraid if the truth .still waiting for the day for you to not run off with your tail between your legs and at least TRY and prove ONE of those 65 canada wants the truth videos is wrong. but as we both know,just like you proved here,when those videos are shown to you,you close your eyes and cover your ears and sing out loud to yourself since the truth scares you so much.

so between you and Ditzcon,which one of you decided the other was wrong on the kennedy assassination and who was right? still waiting for an anwer on that. since the truth scares both of you and you are both too arrogant to admit your wrong,although in THIS case you wouldnt be arrogant cause there is far too much evidence there was more than one shooter.please just once,let me see you two dook it out on which one of you is able to admit the other is wrong.would LOVE to see a discussion on that between two frady cat Bush dupes. here,this is as good of a thread as any to have that discussion.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...es-one-explain-these-actions-on-his-part.html

pm him and get him on over there.oh and get agent fizz over there as well and pm also since he also supports the other fairy tale commission of the governments,the warren commission also.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 13, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


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


wtf are you babbling about now, rimjob?


----------



## Fizz (Jul 13, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> [
> you are just too ignorant and dont get it that as long as americans only care about that and ignore whats going on around them like so many do and thats their ONLY concern which is what is for many of them,were going to be in nazi germany sometime in the next decade or two because they ignored it and took no steps to try and stop it.
> 
> Hey Toto,thanks for proving again that your afraid if the truth .still waiting for the day for you to not run off with your tail between your legs and at least TRY and prove ONE of those 65 canada wants the truth videos is wrong. but as we both know,just like you proved here,when those videos are shown to you,you close your eyes and cover your ears and sing out loud to yourself since the truth scares you so much.
> ...


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 14, 2010)

According to NIST WTC7 collapsed due to "normal office fires" which created a "new phenomenon" in high rise catastrophes: destruction due to the thermal expansion of the beams leading to progressive collapse of nine floors.

"This ultimately caused the failure of column #79--the first one to fail--followed by all the rest."

Physics instructor David Chandler has used network TV video to prove WTC7 descended at free fall acceleration for two seconds over a distance of at least 8 stories.

In its final report NIST reversed its initial denial of free fall but still failed to address how free fall could be compatible with its fire induced progressive collapse analysis.

"For the observed straight down collapse, a thick network of heavy steel columns and beams, had to be forcibly removed and more that 400 structural steel connections had to fail per second, evenly across all of the eight floors involved.

"These failures had to occur _ahead_ of the collapsing section--NOT caused by it--because a freely falling object can not exert force on anything in its path without slowing its own fall."

All 47 stories (plus the mechanical penthouse) fell uniformly at nearly free-fall speed through the path of greatest resistance, i.e., 40,000 tons of structural steel.

Republic Magazine  P.22


----------



## Fizz (Jul 14, 2010)

monkeys can cut and paste....


----------



## candycorn (Jul 15, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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



Nobody knows.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 15, 2010)

Pollsters like Zogby, Scripps Howard, Reuters, and Angus Reid along with cable news outlets like CNN and MSNBC continue to reveal wide swaths of the American public with a devout distrust of the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory.

In August of 2004 a Zogby International poll found that "half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say 'some of our leaders knew in advance attacks were planned on or around 9/11/2001, and that they consciously failed to act."

In May of 2006 the same pollsters concluded 45% of voting Americans believe "Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success."

In August 2006 Scripps Howard/Ohio University conducted a poll that concluded "more than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the US could go to war in the Middle East."

In October 2006, a CBS News/New York Times poll revealed "only 16% of respondents say the government headed by US president George W. Bush is telling the truth on what it knew prior to the terrorist attacks."

There are more than enough voters with legitimate doubts concerning the events of 9/11 to warrant an investigation that demands testimony under oath.

Start with Dick and Dubya.


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 15, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> All 47 stories (plus the mechanical penthouse) fell uniformly at nearly free-fall speed through the path of greatest resistance, i.e., 40,000 tons of structural steel.



George. It has been REPEATEDLY pointed out to you that this is NOT the case. 

ALL 47 STORIES DID NOT FALL UNIFORMLY AND AT FREEFALL SPEEDS. 

You have even admitted that the mechanical penthouse fell first into the building. 

Please explain why you STILL post this stuff even though you know it's incorrect.


----------



## Fizz (Jul 15, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> There are more than enough voters with legitimate doubts concerning the events of 9/11 to warrant an investigation that demands testimony under oath.
> 
> Start with Dick and Dubya.



so go ahead and start demanding. nobody is stopping you. good luck.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 15, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > All 47 stories (plus the mechanical penthouse) fell uniformly at nearly free-fall speed through the path of greatest resistance, i.e., 40,000 tons of structural steel.
> ...


Gamolon:

Are you disputing the fact WTC7 collapsed symmetrically through the path of greatest resistance, i.e., 40,000 TONS of structural steel?

I STILL post this stuff because with only one exception you have FAILED to raise any doubt in my mind.

Possibly you are more impressed with your rhetorical powers than the rest of the world is. 

Personally, I find experiments like the one about The Mysterious Eutectic Steel far more likely to be correct than anything you've provided so far.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 15, 2010)

Hmmm still no word from Toto on WHO decided which of the arrogant posters was right between him and Ditzcon and agent Fizzle about the JFK assassination.and no word from him on taking me up on my challenge to duke it out with those two.hmmmm could it be that he we wont do it because he knows that their all three  too arrogant to concede that one of them is wrong? I think so.lol.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 15, 2010)

George I dont know WHY you bother with Gam and Fizzle.You DO know dont you that they are government disinformation agent trolls paid by their bosses sent here to post lies and propaganda to support the governments version dont you? same as candycorn just so you know.The way you can tell is they devote their lives night and day to coming here all the time.nobody has THAT much time on their hands if they are not paid government plants.They got trolls like them on message boards everywhere to try and brainwash us with their lies and propaganda,thats the ONLY reason they constanlty come back for their constant ass beatings they get here everyday is they are paid well by their bosses.

the way you can tell is how they devote their lives to coming here everyday spending hours on end day and night with most their posts talking about 9/11.If they were just in denial and ignorant to the truth like Toto,Ditzcon and Madeline are,they wouldnt constantly come here everyday night and day posting their disinformation and ignoring the evidence like they do. The ones that are just in denial like the three I just mentioned,when they are presented with evidence and facts,they run off and dont come back.something Toto and Ditzcon have done too many times to remember in the past and Madeline,she REALLY ran off when I debunked what she said early on in case you did not notice.It was one of the first pages on the thread.

also INTERNET people are the worst people in thr world to reason with,they never can be mature enough to admit it when they are proven wrong and never change their minds.so its realy pointless trying to reason with them.ESPECIALLY agents Gam and Fizzle.Fizzle REALLY exposed himself as an agent when I told him its strange how he immediately replys to 9/11 threads when someone like me or you posts and he said-he gets email notifications on it.how pathetic.hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaa

Guess his bosses are really anxious for him to get there and post his propaganda.also ever notice when you try and have a civilized debate with them,when they cant refute the evidence,facts,or witness testimonys,they start in with personal attacks and name calling? Guess it hurts them when they get their asses handed to them on a platter like they have too many times to remember in the past,hense the attacks and name calling.and they wonder why I got them on ignore? sheesh. 

well Fizz anyways.agent Gam usually in the past has been more civilized in his posts and doesnt post childish photos like his fellow agent Fizzle does which is why i dont have HIM on ignore and will actually bother to read his posts once in a great blue moon and reply.But not on this thread since he stopped to childish personal attacks on a post that had NOTHING to do with him.so he blew it then.again Gammy,you REALLY should pass that message on to agent fizzle to try and debate civilized like you have done with me and others in the past IF he wants people to take him serious and wants them to listen to him.Its too late with me for him to get someone to listen to him,but maybe others in the future,that would be advise you should give him if he wants people in the future to take him serious.


----------



## Fizz (Jul 15, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Gamolon:
> 
> Are you disputing the fact WTC7 collapsed symmetrically through the path of greatest resistance, i.e., 40,000 TONS of structural steel?
> 
> ...



find any evidence of any controlled demolitions yet?


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 16, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Yes I am disputing that fact because it's not true. You mislead people. WTC7 did not collapse symmetrically.

Your quote above:


georgephillip said:


> WTC7 collapsed symmetrically through the path of greatest resistance



Should read:


georgephillip said:


> 6 seconds after the mechanical penthouse collapsed into the interior of the building, the rest of WTC7 collapsed symmetrically through the path of greatest resistance



You have repeatedly tried to make it seem like the ENTIRE WTC7 structure collapsed at free fall speed in about 6 seconds. Do you understand what ENTIRE means?

I bet you don't.


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 16, 2010)

BTW Georg, you STILL haven'tt addressed this post:



Gamolon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



I'm also still waiting for you to quote the first time you asked me the "simple question" you mentioned above. Where is that question anyways? I may have missed it.


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 16, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> George I dont know WHY you bother with Gam and Fizzle.You DO know dont you that they are government disinformation agent trolls paid by their bosses sent here to post lies and propaganda to support the governments version dont you? same as candycorn just so you know.The way you can tell is they devote their lives night and day to coming here all the time.nobody has THAT much time on their hands if they are not paid government plants.



Really 9/11? 

I'll tell you what. Here is why I have "so much time on my hands." I work in a law firm as a TelCom engineer and also do computer support. I sit in front of a laptop and remote people's desktop, troubleshoot phone issues, and do project work. It doesn't take long to rip off a bunch of posts when I sit right here to pass the time. Don't flatter yourself thinking you know what you're talking about.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 16, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


What is the relative mass of the mechanical penthouse compared to the 47 story building supporting it?

Do you understand "distinction without a difference?"


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 16, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Hmmm....

What does the relative mass of the penthouse compared to the entire mass of the building supporting it have to do with anything? You clearly don't understand loads and structures do you?

Mechanical penthouses can contain elevator motors, chillers, HVAC units, cooling towers, electrical panels, etc. Do you know how much this stuff weighs George?

What was in the east penthouse?


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 16, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



You never addressed the actual issue either. Why do you still say that the ENTIRE WTC7 building collapsed in 6 seconds at freefall when that is clearly not the case? Do you have an answer or are you going to avoid discussion like you did with the thermite cut issue when asked some questions?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 16, 2010)

Well George,since you somehow have been able to sit through their ramblings-god I dont know how you do, it  gets old watching them make up stuff after a while to support their version of events of the fairy tales of the governments.anyways since you still ARE discussing this with them,point out how the skyscraper in La in 88 burned for three hours and was lit up like a torch far more severe than the twin towers were,yet it did not collapse, or the skyscraper in philly in 99 how it got lit up like a torch as well and burned for 19 hours and did not collapse.It was the worst fire in the history of skyscrapers and they did not collapse either. yet these towers that were oxygen starved as indicated by the black smoke which is hardly a serious fire, collapsed.

Gam and Fizzle cant use the planes caused the towers to collapse because they hit them above.damaging a few columns above cant cause the towers to collapse.Only if you remove all the support columns from below can it cause a complete freefall collapse like they did. Whats really funny is Gam and Fizzle will really get desperate then and say they did not fall at freefall speed.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaha

which is pure B.S cause all you got to do is time the collapse and it happens in 11 seconds which equals free fall speed.you go to the top of those towers and drop a rock,the time it takes to land is around 11 seconds which equals free fall speed.

what I thought was so funny about Gams explanation of the fire exploding is the majority of the fire exploded OUTSIDE the towers so it was hardly serious enough as the oxygen starved fires indicated,to cause the steel columns to weaken. and as i said earlier,the tapes that were released in 2005 from the familys efforts through a freedom of information act,you can hear the voices of the firefighters themselves saying-yeah their nothing serious,we should have them put out soon.right before it collapses.I assume you HAVE heard those tapes? I guarantee you Gammy and Fizzle havent.

That fire wasnt hot enough to roast a marshmellow, let alone hot enough to cause the towers steel to weaken like the 9/11 official conspiracy theory apologists like to claim it did.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahaha

and Like I said before,the designers anticipated this when they designed the towers.John Skilling the lead engineer said-There would be a great loss of life due to the fires but the structure itself would remain standing.and the head construction manager said they could take hits from multiple airliners traveling at 600 mph thats why Toto attacked me earlier cause he knows it is true and he cant refute the experts since the towers remained standing and did not fall after the initial impacts.thats why all he could do was throw personal attacks because he cant refute the experts.Like I said,he always runs off when he cant counter the facts and evidence.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahaa

same as agents Fizzle and Gammy.

It also means nothing to them of course that scientists found evidence of military grade thermite and explosive residue in samples that were collected by bystanders or that there was mid air pulverization of  90,00 tons of concrete thrown upwards in the air inconsistant with the mere collapse of a building or that body parts were found on rooftops several blocks away ,impossible due to a mere collapse of a tower,or that a mere collapse of a tower doesnt throw several tons of steel columns into other buildings found several blocks away or cause steel columns to be melted like Terral has showed pics of many times in the past or that wintesses heard explosions in the basement before the plane struck above.they'll make up the craziest shit to try and save face in their posts and say your a liar that none of those things happened as you'll find out soon enough.but go ahead and ask them about all that and explain it all.your in for some good laughs from them I guarantee you that.


----------



## Fizz (Jul 16, 2010)

planes hit the towers. towers collapsed. you have evidence of anything i missed other than people saying "that can't happen" (because it actually did) then i would love to see it. until then i will stick with the facts. 

same thing with building 7. it was on fire. it collapsed. show me proof of another cause and i will look at it. until then i'm sticking with the evidence at hand.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 16, 2010)

georgephillip said:


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


My mistake.
This was NOT the second time I posted the question.
It WAS the first.

Now tell me if the interior of the left plate along with the exterior surfaces of the top and right plates are visible in this photo?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 16, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


what makes you think they would be different from what you can already see?

that photo shows NO evidence of either thermite nor shape charges


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 16, 2010)

Reply to 9/11 inside job...First off, writing is re-writing. You bury your best points inside reams of less than significant observations.(hahahahaha really hurts your credibility) 

I think we all make a huge mistake by trying to gauge the motives of our opponents.

It would take years of reading and rereading virtually every post to get any accurate insight into why any of us write what we post.

There are two issues I've noticed where the emotions of most who blog regularly come into play immediately: 9E Truth and Israel v. Palestine.

Those who are actively seeking whatever "Truth" exists in either issue have to assume some of those in opposition are just as committed to covering up the same "Truth."

The Internet holds the promise of being able to bridge that gap for the first time in human history. If there's one thing I'm sure of it's that many of us could not have the dialog we have online if it meant being in the same room.

That may mean we have to uncover new ways of thinking about the opinions of those we disagree with the most.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 16, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> BTW Georg, you STILL haven'tt addressed this post:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't know what type of thermite cutting was used. 
Perhaps Dick or Dubya could shed light on that question also?

When you make the statement "If it was a cutting charge, there would not be grooves oriented 45 degrees to the face of the plate...The force of the charge would have made line PERPENDICULAR to the face...you need to supply a credible source for your opinion as you did with Flames and Temps on page 32; post #472.

I'm also waiting for your observations of visible slag on the interior of the left plate and exteriors of the top and right plates in your photo?


----------



## Fizz (Jul 16, 2010)

thermite doesnt leave grooves from a cutting torch.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 16, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Reply to 9/11 inside job...First off, writing is re-writing. You bury your best points inside reams of less than significant observations.(hahahahaha really hurts your credibility)
> 
> I think we all make a huge mistake by trying to gauge the motives of our opponents.
> 
> ...



well unlike you,I have a long history with agents Gam and Fizzle and they always have me rolling on the floor with the absurd crap they make up to support the fairy tales of the governments so I cant help but laugh my ass off.especially with Gammys first post he had to me way back on page four where he made himself look like a total fool but yeah,I guess that kinda clutters up things,if I HAVE to laugh which they always make me do,I should stick with these smileys.I wouldnt have done that with a newbie.

still those are points they cant get around that you should point out to them and you'll see they will make up the most absurd crap since it doesnt go along with their version of events.This really isnt a good thread title.CD shouldnt have bothered making it.I mean he isnt going to convince anyone about explosives with a thread like this.

I mean so many other threads have been made in the past that prove it  they they always ignored so I dont know what he thought he would accomplish with a thread title like this.I guess with all the attacks he got from it,he must have left not expecting that.still though,he should have come up with a better thread title than this.he has made some really good ones in the past but this isnt one of them.so for now,till a better 9/11 thread is made.Im out.again those are points they cant get around that I have been down the road with them before on so maybe they will address those to you and you can have something to talk about with them on that as well.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 16, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Reply to 9/11 inside job...First off, writing is re-writing. You bury your best points inside reams of less than significant observations.(hahahahaha really hurts your credibility)
> ...


YOU are totally fucking INSANE


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 16, 2010)

Fizz said:


> thermite doesnt leave grooves from a cutting torch.


shhhhh, he doesn't seem to understand that


----------



## Fizz (Jul 16, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> agents


that one word should tell you all you need to know about their sanity!!


----------



## daveman (Jul 16, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> well unlike you,I have a long history with agents Gam and Fizzle and they always have me rolling on the floor with the absurd crap they make up to support the fairy tales of the governments so I cant help but laugh my ass off.especially with Gammys first post he had to me way back on page four where he made himself look like a total fool but yeah,I guess that kinda clutters up things,if I HAVE to laugh which they always make me do,I should stick with these smileys.I wouldnt have done that with a newbie.
> 
> still those are points they cant get around that you should point out to them and you'll see they will make up the most absurd crap since it doesnt go along with their version of events.This really isnt a good thread title.CD shouldnt have bothered making it.I mean he isnt going to convince anyone about explosives with a thread like this.
> 
> I mean so many other threads have been made in the past that prove it  they they always ignored so I dont know what he thought he would accomplish with a thread title like this.I guess with all the attacks he got from it,he must have left not expecting that.still though,he should have come up with a better thread title than this.he has made some really good ones in the past but this isnt one of them.so for now,till a better 9/11 thread is made.Im out.again those are points they cant get around that I have been down the road with them before on so maybe they will address those to you and you can have something to talk about with them on that as well.


You can't hide.  The black helicopters are on their way.


----------



## eots (Jul 16, 2010)

black helicopters ..wtf are you rambling about ?


----------



## elvis (Jul 16, 2010)

eots said:


> black helicopters ..wtf are you rambling about ?



He is indicating that you and 9/11inside job are paranoid.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 16, 2010)

elvis said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > black helicopters ..wtf are you rambling about ?
> ...


correction: delusional paranoids


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 17, 2010)

1.  No plane struck WTC7.

2.  No fires in WTC7 for the first 100 minutes....

3.  A free-fall drop of 2.25 seconds officially acknowledged.

4.  No MSM coverage of WTC7 after 1st day of attack.

5.  No mention of WTC7 in 9/11 Commission Report.

6.  NYT characterization of "perhaps the deepest mystery in this investigation" a FEMA revelation of a steel sample from WTC7 reminiscent of Swiss cheese...

7.  No mention in the NIST Building 7 Final Report of the mysterious steel sample.

7 Problems with Building 7


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 17, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> 1.  No plane struck WTC7.
> 
> 2.  No fires in WTC7 for the first 100 minutes....
> 
> ...


why would you use that site when they use that dishonest image
claiming the 6.5 second time frame that even you have admitted is a lie


----------



## Fizz (Jul 17, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> 1.  No plane struck WTC7.
> 
> 2.  No fires in WTC7 for the first 100 minutes....
> 
> ...



let's assume for a second that everything on your list is correct.


so what?!!


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 17, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > 1.  No plane struck WTC7.
> ...


The SW corner of WTC7's roof-line collapsed in 6.5 +- 0.2 seconds according to Dr. Steven Jones and his students.

You've shown the mechanical penthouse collapsing into the building seconds before the roof line begins its 2.25 seconds of free-fall.

Possibly there's a connection between whatever caused the mechanical penthouse supports to implode with the 100 feet of free-fall exhibited by the roof-line?

I'm neither an architect nor engineer, but the originator of the site I've used here is one of the hardest working volunteers in the A & E 9/11 Truth organization.

Maybe the most compelling reason to question the OCT to my mind so far revolves around the Swiss cheese-like steel sample pulled from WTC7's debris pile.

The Mysterious Eutectic Steel Sample Experiment is a 10 minute You-Tube video that appears to show fires like those in WTC7 would NOT be capable of turning steel into Swiss cheese.


----------



## CMike (Jul 17, 2010)

Not this stupidity again


----------



## Fizz (Jul 18, 2010)

find any evidence of controlled demolition yet?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 18, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


Steven Jones is a crackpot


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 18, 2010)

Fizz said:


> find any evidence of controlled demolition yet?


Glad you asked...

1. Testimonies of over 100 first responders who reported seeing and hearing flashes of light and explosions before "collapse" of WTC7.

2.  Continuous acceleration of the building mass straight down through what was the path of greatest resistance.

3.  Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 600 feet at 50mph.

4.  Mid air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete.

5.  1200 foot diameter of improbably equal debris distribution.

6.  Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame.

7.  No stack of floors found at base of tower.

Republic Magazine 16. (pp. 22-25)


----------



## Fizz (Jul 18, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > find any evidence of controlled demolition yet?
> ...


not evidence of controlled demolitions. secondary explosions happen at fires all the time. 



georgephillip said:


> 2.  Continuous acceleration of the building mass straight down through what was the path of greatest resistance.


no "continuous acceleration" due to explosives. its called gravity. 



georgephillip said:


> 3.  Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 600 feet at 50mph.







georgephillip said:


> 4.  Mid air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete.


 you expected the concrete to stay together as the building collapsed? 



georgephillip said:


> 5.  1200 foot diameter of improbably equal debris distribution.






georgephillip said:


> 6.  Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame.


not true.



georgephillip said:


> 7.  No stack of floors found at base of tower.


see number 4 



again i ask.......

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE OF CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS?? explosives leave obvious traces. where are they?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 18, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > find any evidence of controlled demolition yet?
> ...


totally fucking delusional


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 19, 2010)

Fizz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...


Since I'm having problems with "expiring tokens" (wtF?!) I'll try to sneak in a quick post by responding only to gravity's contribution to WTC7's 2.25 seconds of free fall.

"For the observed straight down collapse, a thick network of heavy steel columns and beams, had to be forcibly removed and more than 400 structural steel connections had to fail per second, evenly across each of the eight floors involved."

Ready for the bad news?

"These failures had to occur ahead of the collapsing section--NOT caused by it--because a free-falling object cannot exert force on anything in its path without slowing its own fall."

Gravity by itself can't explain the 2.25 seconds of free fall.

Republic Magazine V.16 (pp. 23-24)


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 19, 2010)

Pretty much everywhere.

Start with the billions of iron-rich microspheres found in dust samples collected both near and far from Ground Zero.

"Their shape indicates they were previously molten fragments that were pulled into spherical form by surface tension into droplets which solidified before hitting the ground.

"They are direct evidence that temperatures exceeding the melting point of iron were present during the buildings' destruction...

"Furthermore, they lack the chromium present in structural steel and contain manganese, an ingredient of potassium permanganate, a common thermite additive."

Republic Magazinehttp://www.republicmagazine.com/magazines/Republic-Magazine16.pdfe Issue 16 P.24


----------



## Fizz (Jul 19, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Since I'm having problems with "expiring tokens" (wtF?!) I'll try to sneak in a quick post by responding only to gravity's contribution to WTC7's 2.25 seconds of free fall.
> 
> "For the observed straight down collapse, a thick network of heavy steel columns and beams, had to be forcibly removed and more than 400 structural steel connections had to fail per second, evenly across each of the eight floors involved."
> 
> ...



since you are having trouble with the tokens let's just skip to the point of all this......

are you claiming that:
a. the building did not collapse.
b. the article is wrong.
c. some other claim that can be backed up by physical evidence.

my guess is C so let's just skip to the next step where you can provide physical evidence.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 19, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Pretty much everywhere.
> 
> Start with the billions of iron-rich microspheres found in dust samples collected both near and far from Ground Zero.
> 
> ...


sorry, but that e-mag has ZERO credibility
and all it is doing is copying that crackpot steven jones bullshit


----------



## Fizz (Jul 19, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Pretty much everywhere.
> 
> Start with the billions of iron-rich microspheres found in dust samples collected both near and far from Ground Zero.



iron-rich microspheres?

the only way to get them is explosive demolitions?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 19, 2010)

Fizz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Pretty much everywhere.
> ...


and these so called "microspheres" are never shown


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 20, 2010)

"Billions of previously molten iron spheres found in all WTC dust samples."


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 20, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Pretty much everywhere.
> ...


"Zero credibility" means even brain-dead trolls should have no trouble refuting the article's content. right?


----------



## hipeter924 (Jul 20, 2010)

PatekPhilippe and eots. I have put you on my ignore list for giving elementary school level reasons for giving negative reputation. If you don't have a sense of humor, that's pretty sad for you.

Plus I think I am intelligent enough considering I graduate from university next year, and its up to academia there and not you to decide my intelligence level. The fact you can only give reasons like "you are an idiot" to give negative reputation shows a lot about you guys. 

What I have learned in life is that unless you have something smart, funny or with some merit don't say it at all. Better to say nothing when giving negative reputation than poor worded comments.

PS: I am not worried about reputation, as far as I am concerned I could be declared the devil with horns on top and still have no qualms still speaking my mind.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 20, 2010)

physical evidence of an explosion?


----------



## hipeter924 (Jul 20, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> physical evidence of an explosion?


Now that would make more sense, a piece of evidence I can read rather than "you are an idiot".


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 20, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


you are the brain dead troll that believes that BULLSHIT


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 20, 2010)

hipeter924 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > physical evidence of an explosion?
> ...


except its from a nutter troofer moron site


----------



## hjmick (Jul 20, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close.
> 
> They moved to a new area because of what they saw.
> 
> ...



NO SHIT! TWO?! 

Well fuck me sideways! I'm convinced!

I don't even care that they are probably not remotely qualified to make any kind of determination as to the cause of the collapse. THEY SAW IT!!







GOD damn thread is a waste of bandwidth...


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 20, 2010)

FEMA found this heavy steel flange in WTC7's rubble pile which displayed "evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including rapid oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting..."


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 20, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> FEMA found this heavy steel flange in WTC7's rubble pile which displayed "evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including rapid oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting..."


link to the actual photo and not a PDF file
or at least give page reference


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jul 20, 2010)

I'm a NYer. I saw the World Trade Center collapse from 2 blocks away, and there were no explosions.

No matter what your "friends" saw.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 20, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > FEMA found this heavy steel flange in WTC7's rubble pile which displayed "evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including rapid oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting..."
> ...


Republic Magazine Vol. 16 P,24


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 20, 2010)

theDoctorisIn said:


> I'm a NYer. I saw the World Trade Center collapse from 2 blocks away, and there were no explosions.
> 
> No matter what your "friends" saw.


Were you closer to the North Tower than William Rodriguez?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 20, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


there are at least 3 or 4 images on that page, if you are referring to the one at the top, it doesn't even say where its from
an d i saw a load of total fucking bullshit in that PDF from that fucking moronic asshole Alex Jones

you want some credibility, dont use anything connected to THAT asshole


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 20, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a NYer. I saw the World Trade Center collapse from 2 blocks away, and there were no explosions.
> ...


since he was INSIDE and in the basement, 90% of his story is bullshit
and also since it CHANGED after he was contacted by you fucking troofer morons the rest remains doubtful


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 21, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



No they are not. 

Now explain something to me. Why is there slag on the EXTERIOR of the bottom plate, but there is NO slag on the EXTERIOR of the left plate? Please explain.


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 21, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > BTW Georg, you STILL haven'tt addressed this post:
> ...



It's simple physics George. If you have a linear shape charge go off on a piece of metal plate, the force of the blast would go in what direction THROUGH the plate? Would the "blast force" go 45 degrees from the plane of the charge or perpendicular? You're trying to tell me that if I fire a bullet from gun, the bullet will leave the gun at 45 degree angle.

I have also provided you with photos of what a torch cut looks like. I have provided you with photos of people cutting beams with torches. I have provided you with a video of a worked who POINTS at column that were cut with torches that have angled cuts.

What have you provided as proof of it being thermite? Where are YOUR photos of a themite cut?


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 21, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> 3.  A free-fall drop of 2.25 seconds officially acknowledged.



Hold on a second George.

You say the roof-line took 6.5 seconds to collapse, yet freefall happened for only 2.23 seconds of it.

What happened that it didn't free-fall the ENTIRE 6.5 seconds???

Least resistance, right George? So what resisted the other 4+ seconds, if all the beams and connections were cut?


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 21, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> 3.  Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 600 feet at 50mph.



Proof of this? Photos? Video?



georgephillip said:


> 4.  Mid air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete.



Proof of this? Can you provide me proof that it was concrete that was pulverized in mid-air and not the gypsum planking, drop ceiling tiles, or fir proofing?

I'd LOVE to see how you came up with such a 100% positive claim like this.


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 21, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a NYer. I saw the World Trade Center collapse from 2 blocks away, and there were no explosions.
> ...



Why did he change his story from "rumblings like someone moving heavy furniture" to "a massive explosion that threw them up in the air"?


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 21, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


How many of those 3 or 4 images look like Swiss cheese?

The content I referenced was authored by Richard Gage, David Chandler, and Gregg Roberts NOT by Alex Jones.

When a timid dim-wit like you raises "credibility" issues, it's hard to stop laughing.


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 21, 2010)

Hey George.

Didn't Steven Jones admit in a conversation with Dr. Greening that the amount of thermite needed to melt or cut the steel columns was unreasonable and he now suggests that thermite was used as detonators for actual explosives?

You're a little behind in your "proof" aren't you?


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 21, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > 3.  A free-fall drop of 2.25 seconds officially acknowledged.
> ...


According to David Chandler's calculations the 2.25 seconds of free fall covered a distance of approximately 8 stories.

The destruction of the remaining 39 floors were slowed by 40,000 tons of structural steel and 90,000 tons of concrete not to mention the gypsum planking, drop ceiling tiles and fire proofing.

Do you think there's any connection between the collapse of the mechanical penthouse and those eight stories of free fall?


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 21, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Are you saying that the only way to create free-fall is to cut the columns and beams completely and that failing steel columns/beams in a structure, due to loss of strength or thermal expansion caused by heat, cannot cause the same thing?


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 21, 2010)

Sorry George. You'll need to change your stance now that thermite was used to cut the columns. Even Steven Jones admits it in this quote from this site:

Steven Jones and Frank Greening (and others) correspond - April-May, 2009. | 911Blogger.com



			
				Steven Jones said:
			
		

> A number of FGs straw-man arguments were also identified and dispelled. On May 11, 2009, I wrote to FG: Nor is your conflation of "thermate" with "nanothermite" valid. Nor did I EVER write or say that thermate alone would suffice to bring down the Towers, but rather wrote that explosives would be needed (in addition).
> 
> During the discussion, I briefly expressed my hypothesis that nanothermite served as an igniting agent, as in the *super-thermite matches described in our paper, to ignite more conventional explosives such as C4 or HMX*, in the destruction of the WTC buildings. *Thermate (sulfur plus thermite and possibly the form thermate-TH-3) was ALSO in evidence and probably intended to weaken critical* steel members (e.g., residue/ material flowing with orange glow from the So. Tower just minutes before its collapse and the sulfidation of WTC steel reported in the FEMA report but ignored by NIST). Thermite incendiary without sulfur is not in evidence at the WTC to date.
> 
> But sulfur is NOT needed for the function of explosive nanothermite and would not be expected to appear in the red/gray chips. Reliable and robust super- or nano-thermite ignitors would each be ignited by an electrical pulse generated by a radio-receiver,* in turn igniting shaped charges to cut steel*, the sequence beginning near where the planes went in for the Towers and computer-controlled, so that the destruction wave *would proceed via explosives* in top-down sequence. Thus, this was no conventional (bottom first) controlled demolition, agreeing on this with B. Blanchard, but I never claimed it was! (For the Towers; the demolition of WTC7 appears to be bottom-first and more conventional.) The top-down destruction of the Towers in this model would doubtless require more explosives than would a conventional controlled demolition. Thermate (an incendiary, not an explosive) is not the be all and end all explanation (FGs terminology), nor did I ever claim it was * I have consistently pointed to evidence that explosives were used in bringing down the Towers.*



So thermite/thermate was used to ignite SHAPE CHARGES????? I thought you said it was thermite that CUT the columns George?


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 21, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


I don't have an explanation for the lack of slag on the exterior of the left plate.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 21, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


its because it WASNT cut by thermite or a shape charge
it was cut by a torch as part of the cleanup


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 21, 2010)

How many of those responding regularly to this thread believe there is NO good reason for an INDEPENDENT investigation into the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 21, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> How many of those responding regularly to this thread believe there is NO good reason for an INDEPENDENT investigation into the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001?


if we had not already been through over 8 YEARS of dishonest troofers denying the facts, i would have supported a full and open investigation
in fact i have called the 9/11 commission report nothing but a political CYA
at this point, no investigation would ever satisfy the troofers so it would be a waste of time
basically because the facts THEY question would remain the same
the things they question would not change


----------



## eots (Jul 21, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



apparently only on 9/11


----------



## eots (Jul 22, 2010)

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


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 22, 2010)

eots said:


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


ooooh more bullshit videos


that building had a CONCRETE CORE


----------



## eots (Jul 22, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > YouTube - Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!
> ...



what building ? there are multiple building fires shown in this video


----------



## eots (Jul 22, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkQPmmCr6JA]YouTube - Urgent NIST warning to ALL SKYSCRAPER OCCUPANTS[/ame]


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 22, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Yes you do have an explanation. It was cut with a TORCH. Just like everyone says.

The "grooves" match what a torch cut looks like:










The grooves are oriented in the direction that the torch flame cut through the plate. The reason you do not see slag on the outside of the left plate is because the torch created slag on the opposite side of the cut just like we see in the second photo above. That photo above has no slag on the torch side. yet in this photo of the opposite side of that metal block, we see slag:





And here is a photo of a worker actually cutting a column:





Here is one of your "authorities" stating that he thinks thermite DID NOT cut the columns but was used to either weaken them or as a means of detonating conventional explosives:


			
				Steven Jones said:
			
		

> A number of FGs straw-man arguments were also identified and dispelled. On May 11, 2009, I wrote to FG: Nor is your conflation of "thermate" with "nanothermite" valid. Nor did I EVER write or say that thermate alone would suffice to bring down the Towers, but rather wrote that explosives would be needed (in addition).
> 
> During the discussion, I briefly expressed my hypothesis that nanothermite served as an igniting agent, as in the *super-thermite matches described in our paper, to ignite more conventional explosives such as C4 or HMX*, in the destruction of the WTC buildings. *Thermate (sulfur plus thermite and possibly the form thermate-TH-3) was ALSO in evidence and probably intended to weaken critical* steel members (e.g., residue/ material flowing with orange glow from the So. Tower just minutes before its collapse and the sulfidation of WTC steel reported in the FEMA report but ignored by NIST). Thermite incendiary without sulfur is not in evidence at the WTC to date.
> 
> But sulfur is NOT needed for the function of explosive nanothermite and would not be expected to appear in the red/gray chips. Reliable and robust super- or nano-thermite ignitors would each be ignited by an electrical pulse generated by a radio-receiver,* in turn igniting shaped charges to cut steel*, the sequence beginning near where the planes went in for the Towers and computer-controlled, so that the destruction wave *would proceed via explosives* in top-down sequence. Thus, this was no conventional (bottom first) controlled demolition, agreeing on this with B. Blanchard, but I never claimed it was! (For the Towers; the demolition of WTC7 appears to be bottom-first and more conventional.) The top-down destruction of the Towers in this model would doubtless require more explosives than would a conventional controlled demolition. Thermate (an incendiary, not an explosive) is not the be all and end all explanation (FGs terminology), nor did I ever claim it was * I have consistently pointed to evidence that explosives were used in bringing down the Towers.*



All this evidence and you STILL want to believe that thermite was used to cut the columns.


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 22, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> How many of those responding regularly to this thread believe there is NO good reason for an INDEPENDENT investigation into the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001?



George,

I believe that there should be an investigation, but not they way you think there should be. I think that there needs to be an investigation into the procedures during that day. People messed up along the lines and are covering their asses. I DON'T think buildings were brought down on purpose or missile were shot into the Pentagon.

People seem to think they find "evidence" of things or see things in photos that prove something without researching further.

I'll give you an example. Terral makes claims about WTC7's column showing thermite residue on some of the columns AND also refers to an angled cut in one of the photos. His annotations are in the white boxes:





Now explain something to me. Terral debunks himself with his own annotations. He claims in one of the annotations that the columns were cut with thermite. Here's the problem. Do you see his other annotations that say certain columns contain "no melting by fire" or "no burns"? How can there be thermite cuts on those columns when he himself sees no "burns" or "melting" on the same damn columns?

See that column circled in red at the top of the photo? Terral claimed that the angled cut was due to thermite as no worker would EVER cut a column at an angle. Bullshit. I worked in construction and that is simply not the case. Anyways, I did a little digging and what did I find? This photo of the same column:





The reason it LOOKED like an angled cut was because there was a piece of debris behind it that created the illusion it was cut AND the beam was at an angle in the debris pile. HE later admitted that he was incorrect about the cut.

Two main pieces of his argument debunked. Now what?


----------



## Gamolon (Jul 22, 2010)

eots said:


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



Question for you eots concerning the Windsor Tower in that video. What is the difference between the Windsor Tower and WTC7, WTC1, and WTC2? It wouldn't happen to be the fact that it had a concrete core would it?

Is that why the STEEL structure around the CONCRETE core collpased, yet the CONCRETE core stood?

The following is a link about the Windsor Tower, it's design, and the fire. Notice the picture on this page BEFORE the fire. What collapsed eots? I thought office fires didn't burn hot enough to collapse steel???


Please explain.

Case Studies: Historical Fires: Windsor Tower Fire


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 22, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > YouTube - Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!
> ...


yeah, and no plane hit that building either


----------



## eots (Jul 22, 2010)

pieces of a structure collapsing is not  the same as the complete collap[se of wtc 1-2and 7 as well the fires and durationwere insignificant in comparison wtc 7 is the only steel framed building in history to suffer such a collapse

The extensive three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation found that the fires on multiple floors in WTC 7, *which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event.* Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.
he structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse&#8212;would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors

Final World Trade Center 7 Investigation Report On September 11, 2001 Collapse Released


----------



## eots (Jul 22, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > YouTube - Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!
> ...




there are many  building fires in the video not just the Windsor..which did not collapse btw


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 22, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


From Republic Magazine Vol 16 P.23:

"In its final report NIST reversed itself on its denial of free-fall, but it couched its revised statement in deceptive language and failed to address how free fall could be compatible with its fire induced progressive collapse analysis.

"For the observed straight-down collapse, a thick network of heavy steel columns and beams had to be forcibly removed and more than 400 structural steel connections had to fail per second evenly all across each of the eight floors..."

"Moreover, in what looks like an attempt to bury the discussion, its change of stance on the question of free fall was omitted from the list of changes in its final report."


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 22, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


find a credible source


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 24, 2010)

Refute this content.
If you can.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 24, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Refute this content.
> If you can.


what content?


----------



## Kat (Jul 24, 2010)

Lol


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 25, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Refute this content.
> ...


"A free-falling object can not exert force on anything in its path without slowing its own its own fall."


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 25, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


what about it?
how is that relevant?


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 25, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


David Chandler's calculation of 2.25 seconds of free-fall speed correlates to a distance of 100 feet or approximately 8 stories.

The Republic article makes the claim on page 23 that "... more than 400 structural steel connection had to fail per second evenly all across each of the eight floors involved."

"These failures had to occur ahead of the collapsing section--NOT caused by it--because a free-falling object cannot exert force on anything in its path without slowing its own fall."


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 25, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


no, they didnt 
and as shown by the full video, some started way before you saw the remaining building collapse

why are you going back to already debunked issues again?


----------



## elvis (Jul 25, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


here's georgephilip's idol, chomsky, on the issue.  still waiting for george to listen to him on this issue.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoDqDvbgeXM]YouTube - Noam Chomsky on 911 conspiracy part 2[/ame]


----------



## eots (Jul 25, 2010)

Norm Chomsky is a commie new world order shill...


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 25, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


When you use the word "they" are you referring to the 400 structural steel connections that would have had to fail across each of the eight floors for free fall to occur?

Are you disputing David Chandler's observation of free fall for 2.25 seconds?

Do you think the collapse of the mechanical penthouse prior to the straight down descent of WTC7's roof-line occurred without explosives?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 25, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


all of that is utter bullshit
with the exception of the 2.25 sec part


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 25, 2010)

elvis said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


Noam believes government culpability in the terror attacks of 9/11 would have required secrets too large to keep concealed.

He doesn't mention the Manhattan Project which lead to the first nuclear weapons and required far more participants inside the conspiracy.

I can only reiterate my best guess that Chomsky is well aware that if the Bush Administration allowed 9E to occur in order to profit from the War on Terror, the consequences of the rage that deception would produce in a country with 200 million private guns would be hard to predict and harder to control.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 25, 2010)

eots said:


> Norm Chomsky is a commie new world order shill...


Noam's actually about as far from a communist as you can get.

He's an anarchist who believes all states are artificial and will eventually pass from the page of time.

Even if this specie doesn't self destruct first.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 25, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


I'm not sure the 2.25 seconds of free fall is possible without the structural connections failing across each of  the eight floors.

I'm also wondering if the collapse of the mechanical penthouse explains how those connections failed?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 25, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


you do understand that 2.25 seconds is a very SHORT time span
and it slowed down from there
AKA met resistance


----------



## eots (Jul 26, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Norm Chomsky is a commie new world order shill...
> ...



call it what you will... I will call it same shit different pile


----------



## slackjawed (Jul 26, 2010)

eots said:


> Norm Chomsky is a commie new world order shill...



Norm? Noam Chomsky is a commie new world order shill and a fool to boot. I am not sure about Norm, are they brothers?


Hey EOTS!


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 26, 2010)

Who would make the smarter president Noam or Sarah?


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 26, 2010)

eots said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


That's probably how Dick Cheney's nose works.

Communism as a system of government requires *state* control of the economy and often a single, highly authoritarian political party in order to function.

Anarchism considers the *state* undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful; however, fundamentally different schools of anarchist thought support anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.

At his core, Chomsky is a moral philosopher as far ahead of his age as Plato and Freud were of theirs.

At least.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 26, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


Maybe the first thing we should determine is whether WTC7 fell from the top down or bottom up? I've been assuming top down, but that may not be the case.

If 8 stories fell at free-fall that leaves 39 stories which did not.

39/47 = ~83% of WTC7 which did not fall at free-fall?

There was 40,000 tons of structural steel running from bedrock to the 47th floor. Wouldn't we also need to know how this steel spine connected to the mechanical penthouse?

No one I know is arguing all 47 floors fell without meeting resistance; however, they are claiming the resistance those floors encountered was weakened by controlled demolitions.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 26, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


if you havent seen anyone claim the whole building fell at free fall, then you need to read a few more of the threads here


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 26, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Norm Chomsky is a commie new world order shill...
> ...



Damn this thread is STILL going on? well that being the case,Chomsky has been bought off and has become corrupt.He is just like this one author who wrote a few books on the kennedy assassination.Cant remember his name off the top of my hat but in the beginning he wrote a couple books on the kennedy assassination criticising that other fairy tale commission,the warren commission and would say that it was a plot by the mob or castro,that there was definetely a conspiracy.Years later,he then switched his tune saying there was no conspiracy and that he wrong,that the warren commission was correct. 

He was either bought off and paid to start writing lies or he never was interested in the truth and it was all planned out that way in the beginning.Same with Chomsky.He has now been bought off and has now become another one of their shills willing to write or say anything for money.that is if he was wasnt already in the beginning,just pretending to be a skeptic like that Kennedy author was. the fact that Chomsky says that Oswald Killed Kennedy,is all the more evidence in the world to know that guy is corrupt and bought off.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 26, 2010)

In a country where a greater percentage of the population knows more about Oprah's political views than they do about Chomsky's, do you really want him to lose even more credibility by telling us what he really thinks about JFK's assassination or 9E?

If the right window opens, like the one after 9/11, millions of Americans who have never heard of Noam may get a chance to hear his views about Israel/Palestine or the Salvador Option or the American Empire.

They may get insights into the class war in America they won't find anywhere else.

Then everybody will be free to tell us what they really believe about the major "conspiracy theories" of our time.


----------

