# "Building What": Geraldo At Large



## georgephillip (Dec 8, 2010)

From Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:

"On November 13, Bob McIlvaine and Tony Szamboti appeared on Geraldo Rivera's show "Geraldo At Large" on Fox News to talk about the 'BuildingWhat?' TV ad campaign and World Trade Center Building 7 for a short segment.

"Bob McIlvaine lost his son Bobby McIlvaine on September 11, 2001. He is an active member of NYC CAN, a group that co-sponsors the 'BuildingWhat?' TV ad campaign. 

"Tony Szamboti is a mechanical engineer and signer of the petition at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a group of more than 1,350 professionals calling for a new independent investigation into the destruction of Building 7 and the twin towers."

For those who are interested (unafraid?) of an *independent investigation* into the collapse of "Building What", aka, WTC7 there may never be a better time to educate Americans about how many skyscrapers fell on 9/11/2001.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 8, 2010)

Geraldo is still alive?


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 8, 2010)

My question is what will all the truthtards do if they ever get their "independant investigation" and it comes to the exact same conclusion as the investigation that has already been done.  We all know the answer.  If the "investigation" doesn't tell them exactly what they want to hear, they will ignore it like they ignore all the rest of the evidence they don't like.  In other words, a new investigation is a waste of time and money.  The truthtards won't like the outcome and everyone else won't be surprised by the outcome.  

Regardless, truthtards are lacking the one thing they really need to get a new investigation.  Evidence.  They have zero evidence the original investigation was fundamentally flawed.


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 8, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> My question is what will all the truthtards do if they ever get their "independant investigation" and it comes to the exact same conclusion as the investigation that has already been done.  We all know the answer.  If the "investigation" doesn't tell them exactly what they want to hear, they will ignore it like they ignore all the rest of the evidence they don't like.  In other words, a new investigation is a waste of time and money.  The truthtards won't like the outcome and everyone else won't be surprised by the outcome.
> 
> Regardless, truthtards are lacking the one thing they really need to get a new investigation.  Evidence.  They have zero evidence the original investigation was fundamentally flawed.


In spite of the government's successful policy of destroying much of the evidence through "cleaning up" the crime scene, there's no shortage of scientific proof WTC7 did not collapse from scattered fires and debris.

Some are simply afraid to look...

Evidence Destroyed is...


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 8, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> Geraldo is still alive?


That's the rumor.

The question in my mind is...has he earned so much money he no longer cares about anything resembling the truth.

Stay tuned.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 8, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > My question is what will all the truthtards do if they ever get their "independant investigation" and it comes to the exact same conclusion as the investigation that has already been done.  We all know the answer.  If the "investigation" doesn't tell them exactly what they want to hear, they will ignore it like they ignore all the rest of the evidence they don't like.  In other words, a new investigation is a waste of time and money.  The truthtards won't like the outcome and everyone else won't be surprised by the outcome.
> ...



ae911truth uses junk science, a lot of flawed opinion, and outright lies to make their case.  A shame they fool gullible people like you into believing their bullshit.  How does it feel to be led around by the short and curlies by people who's only goal is to milk you of as much money as possible?


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 8, 2010)

Are you an architect or engineer?

Do you have any links to support your claims?


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 8, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Are you an architect or engineer?
> 
> Do you have any links to support your claims?



Nope.  But the one engineer I DO have trumps all your wannabes.  Leslie Robertson, the lead engineer for the twin towers, understands what happened far better than a bunch of truthtards sitting around trying to figure out how they can make a living bilking gullible people like you out of your money.  

I know plenty of architects.  Architects have some understanding of engineering, but not to the degree necessary to make the kind of bullshit claims constantly being made at ae911.  Richard Gage is a dumbfuck who couldn't make it in the real world so now he makes his money telling truthtards what they want to hear.

As for links, that is too general just in claiming ae911 is a bunch of fucked up whiners out to make a buck or two.  Hell, just look at all the donate buttons they have on every page.  They couldn't be happier separating you sheep from your wool.  

State your case and I will debunk it complete with links to back up my claims.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 8, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Are you an architect or engineer?
> ...



First of all sir, I'd like to point out that it's quite obvious you have an Anti-911truth agenda.  It is clear, and most obvious when it comes to your registrar name and the date you joined, but that is just my opinion. 

To continue, I'm going to take you up on your claim.



> State your case and I will debunk it complete with links to back up my claims



Let's start it off simple.  

1) WTC7 Fell in Freefall for around 2-3 seconds (as admitted by NIST, and proven by video evidence.)

My question is: How does a building fall through the path of Greatest Resistance? If building 7 freefell into its own footprint, it needed to have the least resistance directly under it.  Where did all the support beams and columns on every floor go? The ONLY way for it to fall this way is if there is nothing under it, according to Newtonian Physics. 

2) Office fires burn at 1200-1400 Degrees, even as high as 1800 according to NIST.  If this is the case, how does it melt steel in WTC7?  You need 2400-2800 F degrees to even start melting steel, (especially with fireproofing)  1000 degrees off is a HUGE problem.  You cannot tell me water freezes at 40 degrees F or 100 degrees F, therefore you cannot say steel is melted by office fires.  Basic science.

3) Regarding the Twin Towers, simple question: 

How does a building with Asymmetrical damage (from the plane) collapse with Symmetrical damage? and 2nd part to this question is, how does the collapsing Twin Tower accelerate during initiation? Where is the 'jolt'?  

Newton's basic laws of physics were violated in all 3 WTC collapses.

And just a reminder 'Patriot911', do not distract from these points; instead debunk them with physics and facts, and show me your opinion and sources.  It is impossible to refute these basic points, so I can only expect your 'agenda' to try and detour from the discussion at hand.  Rebuttal my points.

PS.  You joined recently, are you a Disinfoagent? Just wondering.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 8, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> First of all sir, I'd like to point out that it's quite obvious you have an Anti-911truth agenda.  It is clear, and most obvious when it comes to your registrar name and the date you joined, but that is just my opinion.


No shit, Sherlock!  Did it take you all day to come to that conclusion or did someone have to point it out to you?  Nice that I am your first post on a fresh account.  My guess is you followed me from somewhere.   



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> 1) WTC7 Fell in Freefall for around 2-3 seconds (as admitted by NIST, and proven by video evidence.)
> 
> My question is: How does a building fall through the path of Greatest Resistance? If building 7 freefell into its own footprint, it needed to have the least resistance directly under it.  Where did all the support beams and columns on every floor go? The ONLY way for it to fall this way is if there is nothing under it, according to Newtonian Physics.


First off, it didn't fall into it's own footprint.  If it did, no other building around it would be damaged.  It did, however, fall straight down.

If you had ever read the NIST report, you would know that the collapse initiated inside the building before it was ever really visible on the outside.  Thus the support structures were already compromized.  It isn't hard to imagine there would be a 2-3 second span of time where the resistance just wasn't there.

A controlled demolition is just a collapse initiated with explosives.  From there, gravity does all the work.  If it can be done in a controlled demoltion, it can also happen if the collapse is initiated by other means such as fire. 



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> 2) Office fires burn at 1200-1400 Degrees, even as high as 1800 according to NIST.  If this is the case, how does it melt steel in WTC7?  You need 2400-2800 F degrees to even start melting steel, (especially with fireproofing)  1000 degrees off is a HUGE problem.  You cannot tell me water freezes at 40 degrees F or 100 degrees F, therefore you cannot say steel is melted by office fires.  Basic science.


Only truthtards believe the steel actually melted.  Steel loses half it's strength at just over 1000F, well within the range of office fires.  That is why they put flame retardant on the beams; to keep them from warping or failing due to a normal office fire.  Do you really think a beam has to completely melt before it fails?   



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> 3) Regarding the Twin Towers, simple question:
> 
> How does a building with Asymmetrical damage (from the plane) collapse with Symmetrical damage?


Simple.  The collapse of the south tower where you had the most obvious asymmetrical damage was not a symmetrical collapse at the start.  Watch any of the videos and you will see the entire upper structure starting to rotate before the stress on the supporting structures was too great and they too failed, bringing the entire structure down in what you call a "collapse with symmetrical damage".



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> and 2nd part to this question is, how does the collapsing Twin Tower accelerate during initiation? Where is the 'jolt'?


It is called gravity.  Gravity tries to accelerate everything at 32 feet per second per second.  That is called free fall.  For there to be a "jolt", you would need enough resistance to completely arrest the entire upper structure of either tower.  Neither tower's structures were designed to handle anywhere near the dynamic load of the entire upper structure moving down and colliding with them.  Thus you had near instantanious failure.  Did it slow down the collapse?  Yes.  The towers didn't fall at free fall acceleration speeds.  We know this because we can clearly see debris being pushed over the edge of the collapse event and debris beating the collapse event to the ground.  As Galileo proved at the leaning tower of Pisa, two objects of differing mass will fall at the same rate of speed.



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> Newton's basic laws of physics were violated in all 3 WTC collapses.


No they didn't.  You can't violate the laws of physics without rewriting the laws of physics.  What you are rather lamely pretending is that explosives can somehow make the laws of physics seem to be broken, yet you have not explained exactly how this is done.  Instead you are parroting all the conspiratard sites that pretend to know physics, but are really just out to bilk simpletons such as yourself out of your money through donations by telling you what you want to hear.  



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> And just a reminder 'Patriot911', do not distract from these points; instead debunk them with physics and facts, and show me your opinion and sources.  It is impossible to refute these basic points, so I can only expect your 'agenda' to try and detour from the discussion at hand.  Rebuttal my points.


I believe I did.  Go ahead and respond to them.



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> PS.  You joined recently, are you a Disinfoagent? Just wondering.


Coming from someone with exactly one post (this one), you don't have room to talk.  Actually I stated why I came over here.  Some truthtards claimed I was someone else over here so I came over here to prove I wasn't.    Oh well.  The truthtards at the other site were getting tired of constantly being beat up by the truth.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 8, 2010)

> My question is: How does a building fall through the path of Greatest Resistance? If building 7 freefell into its own footprint, it needed to have the least resistance directly under it.  Where did all the support beams and columns on every floor go? The ONLY way for it to fall this way is if there is nothing under it, according to Newtonian Physics.





> First off, it didn't fall into it's own footprint.  If it did, no other building around it would be damaged.  It did, however, fall straight down.



You are going to argue whether into its 'own footprint' and straight down are the same thing?  I can see how you find arguments; you make irrelevant points and detract from the actual issue at hand.



> Your Response:
> 
> If you had ever read the NIST report, you would know that the collapse initiated inside the building before it was ever really visible on the outside.  Thus the support structures were already compromized.  It isn't hard to imagine there would be a 2-3 second span of time where the resistance just wasn't there.



First off all, Freefall is impossible. why do you keep going around that, if the buildling fell there was no resistance. 2-3 second freefall is 10 floors. You are legitimately saying 10 floors of steel structure provided the same resistance as air would?  Just stop it.  You aren't citing any facts, just opinions that have no merit. 



> A controlled demolition is just a collapse initiated with explosives.  From there, gravity does all the work.  If it can be done in a controlled demoltion, it can also happen if the collapse is initiated by other means such as fire.



This is false.  it does not initiate the fall, it creates the fall by removing every support beam simultaneously so that it falls perfectly within its footprint.  Even if the slightest mishap goes wrong, the building will tilt because of the Resistance that was not removed.  You are illogical and are citing fallacies.  WTC7 to freefall for 2-3 seconds would have to have 10 floors perfectly removed simultaneously.  That is a fact, according to Newtonian Physics.  Stop spreading lies.




> Only truthtards believe the steel actually melted.  Steel loses half it's strength at just over 1000F, well within the range of office fires.  That is why they put flame retardant on the beams; to keep them from warping or failing due to a normal office fire.  Do you really think a beam has to completely melt before it fails?



If it did not completely melt then the path of greatest resistance would of been the path the steel didnt melt in, resulting in the building NOT falling through straight down.  Steel doesn't not turn molten from office fires.  WTC7 and the TwinTowers BOTH had molten steel.  Again, you don't cite sources, you talk out of pure assumption.  



> Simple.  The collapse of the south tower where you had the most obvious asymmetrical damage was not a symmetrical collapse at the start.  Watch any of the videos and you will see the entire upper structure starting to rotate before the stress on the supporting structures was too great and they too failed, bringing the entire structure down in what you call a "collapse with symmetrical damage".



Oh now you just put yourself into a big hole.  You just stated the building tilted, that is 100% correct.  If a building tilts, does it cause symmetrical damage? no.  If the top section tilted like it did, why did it not FALL off to the side and continue to tilt? once it tilted the building started to explode, leaving no resistance, thus stopping the tilt, defying Newton's laws of physics if it were a pancake collapse.  You said it yourself and you cant get away from this one, you just admitted that Newton's laws of physics didnt exist on 9/11 by stating the Tilt caused Symmetrical damage.  That is embarrassing. 



> It is called gravity.  Gravity tries to accelerate everything at 32 feet per second per second.  That is called free fall.  For there to be a "jolt", you would need enough resistance to completely arrest the entire upper structure of either tower.  Neither tower's structures were designed to handle anywhere near the dynamic load of the entire upper structure moving down and colliding with them.  Thus you had near instantanious failure.  Did it slow down the collapse?  Yes.



You didnt cite any sources for this fact, which is a pure lie.  Gravity pulls things at 32 feet per second, what does that have to do with 70+ floors being crushed by something that is half its size?  The only way to push down through the greatest resistance is by having it not exist anymore.  It did not slow down the collapse, you dont even look into your statements.  It is clear in the video, and with simple engineers programs to calculate there was no slow down, but an acceleration.  



> The towers didn't fall at free fall acceleration speeds.  We know this because we can clearly see debris being pushed over the edge of the collapse event and debris beating the collapse event to the ground.  As Galileo proved at the leaning tower of Pisa, two objects of differing mass will fall at the same rate of speed.



The Twin Tower collapsing in 9.5 is freefall, stop citing fallacies. Once again you prove MY point.  How are debris pushed over the edge hundreds of feet? Gravity doesnt cause lateral ejections, and the buildilng fell at almost the same speed as those lateral ejected debris. Just stop it.



> No they didn't.  You can't violate the laws of physics without rewriting the laws of physics.  What you are rather lamely pretending is that explosives can somehow make the laws of physics seem to be broken, yet you have not explained exactly how this is done.  Instead you are parroting all the conspiratard sites that pretend to know physics, but are really just out to bilk simpletons such as yourself out of your money through donations by telling you what you want to hear.



What planet are you on?  You disregard any fact I make.  In order for NISTs story to apply, Newtonian Physics would have to be violated, that is a fact.  Stop detracting from the point.  Site sources and rebuttal with science, you are just a mere distraction piece thus far.



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> And just a reminder 'Patriot911', do not distract from these points; instead debunk them with physics and facts, and show me your opinion and sources.  It is impossible to refute these basic points, so I can only expect your 'agenda' to try and detour from the discussion at hand.  Rebuttal my points.





> I believe I did.  Go ahead and respond to them.



I will state this again, office fires do not melt steel, do not create molten steel, do not cause steel high rises to collapse symmetrically, let alone all 3.

Stop avoiding the facts, stop spinning information, and stop picking certain things apart to make a random point, answer the specific question.  How does a building with Asymmetrical damage, with the top of the building collapsing down sideways, how does that create a symmetrical collapse from 100 stories?  It doesnt.



> Coming from someone with exactly one post (this one), you don't have room to talk.


I actually have the right to speak, and a good reason to.  You go around giving out disinformation about the facts of 9/11, whether its for personal gain, you are hired, or you like arguments, whatever it is, you need to be exposed with your trolling.



> Actually I stated why I came over here.  Some truthtards claimed I was someone else over here so I came over here to prove I wasn't.    Oh well.  The truthtards at the other site were getting tired of constantly being beat up by the truth.



1,400 Architects and Engineers are Truthtards?

BuildingWhat campaign. they are Truthtards?

NYCCAN organization. they are Truthtards?

I'd like to see your opinion 9/11 Commission Report then LMAO.

Stating why you came here, naming yourself patriot 911, and spewing disinformation with no sources, no facts, no science, no logic and no evidence, you prove nothing other than the fact you are here ONLY for disrupting the Truth.  

I wish I could see exactly where your IP was from, I'm willing to bet it would be associated with someone you wouldnt want us to know.  Any admin wanna trace it? Lol

once again, rebuttal my points with facts.  You have yet to prove 1 fact.  I cite physics, I cite sources (If the website would let me post links, it doesnt) and I use basic knowledge and my eyeballs.  You just smash a keyboard and spew disinformation and illogical rebuttals.  I wish we could have this conversation in real life, infront of logical people, where true citizens and peers could hear the Man you really are.  You are a disgrace sir.  

I am not going to be responding to your next post most likely.  My point was proven by your response that you are a joke.  Anyone that will come into this thread will see you dont cite sources, you dont use facts, you dont believe in Newtonian Physics, and cant stay on topic.  Good Luck, and I wish a Admin could forward me your IP just for shits and giggles. 

The perpetrators are running scared.  Stop assisting them.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 8, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> > My question is: How does a building fall through the path of Greatest Resistance? If building 7 freefell into its own footprint, it needed to have the least resistance directly under it.  Where did all the support beams and columns on every floor go? The ONLY way for it to fall this way is if there is nothing under it, according to Newtonian Physics.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In it's own footprint means debris doesn't go outside the footprint.  It is a controlled demolition term.  Look it up. 



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> First off all, Freefall is impossible.


You can't have it both ways.  You claim the building fell in free fall, yet you claim it is impossible.  Either it didn't fall in free fall or you are wrong.



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> why do you keep going around that, if the buildling fell there was no resistance. 2-3 second freefall is 10 floors. You are legitimately saying 10 floors of steel structure provided the same resistance as air would?  Just stop it.  You aren't citing any facts, just opinions that have no merit.


If ten floors worth of structure had already failed, what is to keep the building from achieving free fall for those ten floors?  This is what the NIST said happened, yet you say it is impossible.  Strange..... I seem to believe the experts over some tart who thinks he is a physics expert.



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> This is false.  it does not initiate the fall, it creates the fall by removing every support beam simultaneously so that it falls perfectly within its footprint.


Wow.  Apparently you've NEVER seen a controlled demolition in your life.  They don't cut all the supports at once.  Then you would have a structure that falls OUTSIDE it's footprint which is what you DON'T want in a controlled demolition.  What a controlled demolition does is time the supports to fail at different intervals to make the collapse progress as they want it to so the building falls in on itself and not just straight down.  Thanks for showing you are working with zero knowledge about controlled demolitions.



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> Even if the slightest mishap goes wrong, the building will tilt because of the Resistance that was not removed.


BULLSHIT!  You're trying to tell us that a single support can support the whole fucking building to the point where the building will tilt rather than destroy the support?!?  WOW!  You bring a whole new meaning to the term truthtard!!!



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> You are illogical and are citing fallacies.


Really?  So far the only one talking out his ass is you.  



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> WTC7 to freefall for 2-3 seconds would have to have 10 floors perfectly removed simultaneously.  That is a fact, according to Newtonian Physics.  Stop spreading lies.


I'm not.  You're trying to pretend a single support would cause the building to tilt.    THAT claim is absolutely RETARDED!  No building is designed so that even a whole bunch of supports would support the massive weights and stresses involved in a tilting structure before collapsing.



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> If it did not completely melt then the path of greatest resistance would of been the path the steel didnt melt in, resulting in the building NOT falling through straight down.  Steel doesn't not turn molten from office fires.  WTC7 and the TwinTowers BOTH had molten steel.  Again, you don't cite sources, you talk out of pure assumption.


Show me ANY source that says the buildings failed due to MELTED beams.  You won't be able to find any because once again you are talking out your ass.  Even your fellow truthtards gave up on the melted steel argument a long time ago.  A shame you couldn't even follow your fellow sheep.  



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> Oh now you just put yourself into a big hole.  You just stated the building tilted, that is 100% correct.  If a building tilts, does it cause symmetrical damage? no.  If the top section tilted like it did, why did it not FALL off to the side and continue to tilt? once it tilted the building started to explode, leaving no resistance, thus stopping the tilt, defying Newton's laws of physics if it were a pancake collapse.  You said it yourself and you cant get away from this one, you just admitted that Newton's laws of physics didnt exist on 9/11 by stating the Tilt caused Symmetrical damage.  That is embarrassing.


Embarassing for you, not for me.  As I already explained and you conveniently ignored, the supports are not designed to support the entire top part tilting.  Did the top part continue to rotate?  Absolutely.  Newtonian physics at work.  Was it tilting over the edge as you suggest?    Not by a long shot.  It was rotating INTO the building, not over the edge.  You sure you want to continue making a complete ass out of yourself like this?



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> You didnt cite any sources for this fact, which is a pure lie.  Gravity pulls things at 32 feet per second, what does that have to do with 70+ floors being crushed by something that is half its size?  The only way to push down through the greatest resistance is by having it not exist anymore.  It did not slow down the collapse, you dont even look into your statements.  It is clear in the video, and with simple engineers programs to calculate there was no slow down, but an acceleration.


Yes, tempesta.  I've heard your bullshit before.  It didn't fly then and it doesn't fly now.  There was resistance.  We know that by the debris being pushed over the edge and the debris beating the collapse event to the ground.  The ONLY thing that could slow down the collapse event is resistance from the building.  You were too damn stupid to understand then that a less than full acceleration is still a deceleration.  If something is expected to accelerate at 32 feet per second per second and it DOESN'T, something slowed it down.  That is deceleration and that is caused by resistance.  You are the only one I've ever met that couldn't grasp such a simple concept.  



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> The Twin Tower collapsing in 9.5 is freefall, stop citing fallacies.


Why?  Who is citing falacies?  YOU are.  First off, you don't calculate distance from the tops of the towers.  The point of collapse to the ground is where you calculate from.  The fact the tops of the towers collapsed INTO the collapse event is just more proof that the towers did not fall at free fall speeds.  If they had, the tops of the towers would still be intact upon impact.  So the south tower fell in 9.5 seconds and the north tower fell in 11.  Neither one is free fall speed.



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> Once again you prove MY point.  How are debris pushed over the edge hundreds of feet? Gravity doesnt cause lateral ejections, and the buildilng fell at almost the same speed as those lateral ejected debris. Just stop it.


You got owned on this subject as well.  It is called newtonian physics.  Once the debris was pushed over the side, it would continue on it's lateral trajectory all the way to the ground.  It was pushed over the side by the resistance of the rest of the building.  Debris is going to take the path of least resistance.  It can't fall down, so it falls over the edge, thus giving it lateral momentum.



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> What planet are you on?  You disregard any fact I make.  In order for NISTs story to apply, Newtonian Physics would have to be violated, that is a fact.  Stop detracting from the point.  Site sources and rebuttal with science, you are just a mere distraction piece thus far.


Awww... is poor tempesta getting frustrated?  You claim the laws of physics have been broken.  Hmmm.  Strange.  You CAN'T break the laws of physics and we didn't see any laws of physics broken that day.  All we have so far are the retarded claims of a guy with ZERO CLUE about physics pretending the laws were broken because that gives him some small modicum of self worth.    Instead you only demonstrate what a joke you are.



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> I will state this again, office fires do not melt steel, do not create molten steel, do not cause steel high rises to collapse symmetrically, let alone all 3.


True, true and you're full of shit.  The steel didn't melt.  Again you are the only truthtard pushing that point.  NOBODY ELSE is making that claim but you.  Why?  Because otherwise your claims make you look like an ass and a fool.  In other words, your true self shows through.



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> Stop avoiding the facts, stop spinning information, and stop picking certain things apart to make a random point, answer the specific question.  How does a building with Asymmetrical damage, with the top of the building collapsing down sideways, how does that create a symmetrical collapse from 100 stories?  It doesnt.


I already showed it does.  Why is it you can't explain how a single structure can withstand the weights and forces of the entire upper section without failing?  



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> > Coming from someone with exactly one post (this one), you don't have room to talk.
> 
> 
> I actually have the right to speak, and a good reason to.  You go around giving out disinformation about the facts of 9/11, whether its for personal gain, you are hired, or you like arguments, whatever it is, you need to be exposed with your trolling.


  In your dreams tempesta.  I don't get paid for this.  I LOVE making pissant truthtards that wouldn't know the truth if it came up and bit them on the ass look like the fools that they are.  You failed to respond to my rebuttal with anything other than the usual truthtard you're wrong.  Oh WAAAH!    You are such a fool and such an easy truthtard to debunk.  YOU may not think you've been debunked, but everyone else knows the truth.



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> > Actually I stated why I came over here.  Some truthtards claimed I was someone else over here so I came over here to prove I wasn't.    Oh well.  The truthtards at the other site were getting tired of constantly being beat up by the truth.
> 
> 
> 1,400 Architects and Engineers are Truthtards?


Yup.



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> BuildingWhat campaign. they are Truthtards?


Same people, asshole!



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> NYCCAN organization. they are Truthtards?


Yup.



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> I'd like to see your opinion 9/11 Commission Report then LMAO.


Not truthtards.  In fact, every time you've been asked to present a single piece of evidence that the 9/11 commission was fundamentally wrong, you ran for your mama like the little bitch that you are.



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> Stating why you came here, naming yourself patriot 911, and spewing disinformation with no sources, no facts, no science, no logic and no evidence, you prove nothing other than the fact you are here ONLY for disrupting the Truth.


Wrong again.  If I were "spewing disinformation" you would be able to refute what I claim.  Here's a hint, junior.... saying "nuh uh" isn't a refutation.  



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> I wish I could see exactly where your IP was from, I'm willing to bet it would be associated with someone you wouldnt want us to know.  Any admin wanna trace it? Lol


:roll:  Go ahead.  It comes from Colorado.  Littleton to be exact.  The admins already have my information.  They can verify it all they want.  I am SURE you would love to know who I really am as I am constantly showing you fucking truthtards up for the pieces of shit that you are.  But, alas, you are stuck in ignorance as always.



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> once again, rebuttal my points with facts.  You have yet to prove 1 fact.  I cite physics, I cite sources (If the website would let me post links, it doesnt) and I use basic knowledge and my eyeballs.  You just smash a keyboard and spew disinformation and illogical rebuttals.  I wish we could have this conversation in real life, infront of logical people, where true citizens and peers could hear the Man you really are.  You are a disgrace sir.


More blathering from a nobody with narcissism issues.  



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> I am not going to be responding to your next post most likely.  My point was proven by your response that you are a joke.  Anyone that will come into this thread will see you dont cite sources, you dont use facts, you dont believe in Newtonian Physics, and cant stay on topic.  Good Luck, and I wish a Admin could forward me your IP just for shits and giggles.


Run little bitch!  You've been owned again! 



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> The perpetrators are running scared.  Stop assisting them.


Why would I assist truthtards?  It is much more fun to make them cry.


----------



## eots (Dec 8, 2010)

> First off, it didn't fall into it's own footprint.  If it did, no other building around it would be damaged.  It did, however, fall straight down.
> 
> If you had ever read the NIST report, you would know that the collapse initiated inside the building before it was ever really visible on the outside.  Thus the support structures were already compromized.  It isn't hard to imagine there would be a 2-3 second span of time where the resistance just wasn't there



wouldint the entire enternal structures of the building collping befrore the outside create a massive amount of noise ? dust ? why did no one report anything like this 




> A controlled demolition is just a collapse initiated with explosives.  From there, gravity does all the work.  If it can be done in a controlled demoltion, it can also happen if the collapse is initiated by other means such as fire.






> Only truthtards believe the steel actually melted


.

femas first report said the steel melted first responder claimed melted steel



> Steel loses half it's strength at just over 1000F, well within the range of office fires.  That is why they put flame retardant on the beams; to keep them from warping or failing due to a normal office fire.  Do you really think a beam has to completely melt before it fails?



  do you relly think they design skyscraper without this foreknowledge of the properties of steel Einstein...lol



> Simple.  The collapse of the south tower where you had the most obvious asymmetrical damage was not a symmetrical collapse at the start.  Watch any of the videos and you will see the entire upper structure starting to rotate before the stress on the supporting structures was too great and they too failed, bringing the entire structure down in what you call a "collapse with symmetrical damage".



911parrot...lol.....so if fire alone could have weakened the critical column #79 and initiate the collapse..then why could not a single explosive charge do the same ?...if the NIST thery is correct then wtc 7 could brought down without having to set charges everywhere...correct ?


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 8, 2010)

Patriot911:

You live in Littleton, CO.

Colorado Public Television (Channel 12 on your TV) just aired Loose Change an American Coup on Dec 4th 2010.

Did you care to watch?

Their station is located in between your place of residence, and the Department of Homeland Security.

Good day sir.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 8, 2010)

eots said:


> wouldint the entire enternal structures of the building collping befrore the outside create a massive amount of noise ? dust ? why did no one report anything like this


Well, if I understand your craptastic English, they DID hear the noise.  Just look up any of the truthtard videos that claim they have the explosions caught on tape.  They have a low frequency rumble that happens just prior to the external collapse.  Now, anyone who has seen a controlled demolition knows, high explosives don't make a low rumble.  An internal collapse sure would.  



> A controlled demolition is just a collapse initiated with explosives.  From there, gravity does all the work.  If it can be done in a controlled demoltion, it can also happen if the collapse is initiated by other means such as fire.





			
				eots said:
			
		

> femas first report said the steel melted first responder claimed melted steel


FEMA's report was talking about steel samples from WTC 7.... you know... the steel you truthtards claim was shipped overseas before anyone could look at it, that showed heavy corrosion and exposure to high heat.  They never say the steel melted and that caused the collapse.

First responders claimed molten metal.  Are they metalurgists?  No.  So how can they say it was steel?  There are plenty of metals and alloys that will melt at the temperatures one finds in an office fire.  The kicker is there were reports of molten metal weeks after the collapse.  There is no chemical or explosive known to mankind that can melt steel and keep it melted for a week short of a nuclear reaction.  Therefore one has to look at other sources of heat after the collapse which would be the subterranian fires fueled by debris and the subway tunnels for oxygen.



			
				eots said:
			
		

> > Steel loses half it's strength at just over 1000F, well within the range of office fires.  That is why they put flame retardant on the beams; to keep them from warping or failing due to a normal office fire.  Do you really think a beam has to completely melt before it fails?
> 
> 
> 
> do you relly think they design skyscraper without this foreknowledge of the properties of steel Einstein...lol


OF COURSE they know steel has the potential to fail in a fire.  That's the whole point.  If steel had no chance of failure as many truthtards pretend, they wouldn't need fire retardant to slow or prevent collapse.



			
				eots said:
			
		

> 911parrot...lol.....so if fire alone could have weakened the critical column #79 and initiate the collapse..then why could not a single explosive charge do the same ?...if the NIST thery is correct then wtc 7 could brought down without having to set charges everywhere...correct ?


I am guessing you've been drinking heavily, doing drugs or both.  But no, you're not correct.  First off, there were three critical columns, 79, 80 and 81.  Second, the other columns were already weakened by fire, thus preventing them from holding their full loads.  Third, without extensive computer modeling by experts, knowing exactly which column to blow and where would be guesswork at best.  Do you really think they would leave it to guesswork?

And then, of course, we get back to the complete lack of evidence of explosives.  Even a single large charge (controlled demolitions usually cut up to 95% of the beam to help the explosive work, thus they would need a larger than normal charge) would be recorded on audio tapes, blow out windows, and register on the seismographs that recorded the events of 9/11.

You have another issue with this claim though.  How would the conspirators know for sure that debris from the towers would first hit the WTC 7, second start fires, third be assured the fire department would not fight the fires, fourth be assured that the water mains would be broken, and fifth scare the fire department enough to declair the WTC 7 a collapse hazard?  That is a HELL of a lot of stuff to leave to chance.  Would you knowing your life was on the line?


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 8, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> Patriot911:
> 
> You live in Littleton, CO.
> 
> ...



Nope.  Who would watch such a pile of crap.  Go read screw loose change for a rebuttal of loose change.


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 8, 2010)

After NIST first denied WTC7's free-fall in its final draft report released in August 2008, claiming that WTC7 took 40% longer than 'free-fall time' to collapse, AE911Truth associate David Chandler publicly challenged NIST's claims at a technical briefing.

"Along with several others, he filed formal requests for corrections during the public response period."

"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 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.*"

Anyone disagree with the claim "more that 400 structural steel connections had to fail per second, evenly across each of the eight floors involved" for the observed period of WTC7 free fall?

Republic Magazine16 P.23


----------



## Big Black Dog (Dec 8, 2010)

I hate Geraldo...  He's the worst person on Fox News...  Yuck.  Ms. G. Carlson is more my style.


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 8, 2010)

Big Black Dog said:


> I hate Geraldo...  He's the worst person on Fox News...  Yuck.  Ms. G. Carlson is more my style.


Judge Andrew Nappolitano also has expressed interest in WhatBuilding's efforts.
Geraldo has come a long way from where he started back in the 70s when his politics were much farther to the left.

If either Andrew or Geraldo can keep their jobs at FOX and question the official version of 911, it could make the 2012 election a real barn burner.

Does anyone know Sarah's or Huck's "thoughts" on 9/11Truth?


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 8, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> > I hate Geraldo...  He's the worst person on Fox News...  Yuck.  Ms. G. Carlson is more my style.
> ...



Hello phillip, great that you have taken the 'blinders' off and can reasonably think and use basic logic to determine that 9/11 requires a new investigation, its people like us that will help these Architects & Engineers for 911 truth, Patriotsquestion911, Firefightersfortruth, and the Building What campaign.  

I'm new to the forum but i saw your question regarding Huckabee.  Apparently Bob McIlvaine after the Geraldo interview was approached by huckabee behind the scenes and he shared his gratitude and shock around their building 7 message.  You can see Bob say this himself on air, just youtube/google it, I cannot post links here cuz im a newbie. 

But either way, MSM needs to run this 9/11 Truth, and if Fox News is the first to do so, and uses it as a platform with Huckabee or whatnot, I am all for it, even though I despise Faux News.


----------



## Obamerican (Dec 8, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


You also just joined. Are you a truthtard agent?


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 8, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Big Black Dog said:
> ...


Glad you're here, Physics.
I've been on USMB for about one year and found there are two hot-button subjects: Israel/Palestine and 911Truth. I think Americans have been denied the full truth about both issues, and I suspect many Americans will be sorely pissed-off if they ever find out.

We agree about FOX. While I would not have been surprised at Geraldo's reaction 35 years ago, he has definitely surprised me today.

If Mike Huckabee (along with his good friend Chuck Norris) were to start publicly questioning the official account of 911, millions of Americans who wouldn't pay attention to Richard Gage today will suddenly reconsider. 

If it's true for thousands of years ALL governments have existed to socialize cost and privatize profit, that dynamic doesn't exist without the "Big Lie."

If 9/11/2001 is proven to be such a Big Lie, Americans might find freedom a whole lot scarier than they ever thought.

Glad you're here.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 9, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Agreed.  And also note, I came here in the first place because I keep finding these people around the internet on youtube and forums who disrupt the conversation and try to alter what the main point is by stating something else, or just acting like a nuisance if you will.  It gets to me because they are purposefully distracting/confusing the facts, and the internet is the only thing we have right now to get the truth out.  I dunno who they are, whether they think this is a joke, or they are hired off, I still try to contribute the little I can because this 9/11 issue really has irked me.

Once this hits the mainstream I won't even bother to spread the information, because once it hits the major media, the country will be FURIOUS with our Government.  Geraldo is hopefully warming it up, if not, we still gotta keep pushing man.  Tthe physics and realities in our world do not lie.  Reinvestigation is needed.  Our soldiers are over seas, thousands have died, as a direct result of 9/11.  Almost a trillion spent on the war, yet we cant pass a bill to help 9/11 first responders....It all is just a scary game.  But they never predicted somethin like the internet, now Building What . Org is starting a revolution.  Can't wait for the 2nd campaign jan 2011.

PS.  I like to just ignore the Trolls.  Usually just respond to them once, rebuttal their points with facts, or state facts and ask them to rebuttal.  Their goal is to disrupt so writing them off after a post or two is the best pesticide. You'd probably agree.


----------



## eots (Dec 9, 2010)

*O






			F COURSE they know steel has the potential to fail in a fire.  That's the whole point.  If steel had no chance of failure as many truthtards pretend, they wouldn't need fire retardant to slow or prevent collapse.
		
Click to expand...

*so buildings are designed with this knowledge that steel lost strength when sufficiently heated and have designed to withstand the effects of fire until 9/11 







> I am guessing you've been drinking heavily, doing drugs or both


.

of course you would you need thoughts like that to keep up your denial



> But no, you're not correct.  First off, there were three critical columns, 79, 80 and 81.  Second, the other columns were already weakened by fire, thus preventing them from holding their full loads.  Third, without extensive computer modeling by experts, knowing exactly which column to blow and where would be guesswork at best.  Do you really think they would leave it to guesswork?



who said they had to know what the result of a planted bomb would be what 
it would not of been the first time a bomb was planted in a wtc building maybe this one just happened to catch fire .... furthermore

you are incorrect...there was *A* critical column that failed ...a *SINGLE BUCKLED COLUMN*


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paF0rBNksDM&feature=related[/ame]



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcaxvQGdmtw&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 9, 2010)

eots said:


> so buildings are designed with this knowledge that steel lost strength when sufficiently heated and have designed to withstand the effects of fire until 9/11


How many times does it need to be repeated before you truthtards get it through your thick skulls so it can echo there?  Look, if you don't believe me, do some research for once in your rather pathetic life.  This isn't a secret.  



eots said:


> > I am guessing you've been drinking heavily, doing drugs or both
> 
> 
> .
> ...


Naw.  Just wondering about the extremely poor spelling and grammar.  Usually people on drugs and / or alcohol tend to be really sloppy.  I guess you're just that way naturally, eh chump?  



eots said:


> > But no, you're not correct.  First off, there were three critical columns, 79, 80 and 81.  Second, the other columns were already weakened by fire, thus preventing them from holding their full loads.  Third, without extensive computer modeling by experts, knowing exactly which column to blow and where would be guesswork at best.  Do you really think they would leave it to guesswork?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 WTF are you talking about?  Are you trying to say they didn't intend for WTC 7 to collapse?  



eots said:


> you are incorrect...there was *A* critical column that failed ...a *SINGLE BUCKLED COLUMN*


I suggest you re-read the NIST report.  Yes, ONE of them failed first, but the rest in that area were close to failure which caused a cascading failure of columns.  Just planting a bomb on one of the columns and expecting the rest to fail would result in failure.


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 9, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


In his letter to Geraldo thanking him for his segment with Bob and Tony, Richard Gage notes a sampling of before and after opinions from audiences he presents his arguments to:

"By a show of hands before each of our more than 150 presentations, to audiences of 100 to 700, *about 85% of the skeptics* abandon their former embrace of the official story. 

"That kind of success will add much-needed credibility to FOX on this newly exposed national issue."

FOX TV's Geraldo...

If that same "kind of success" occurs in about 85% of regular FOX viewers during the next US presidential campaign...?


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 9, 2010)

"More than eight years after the tragedy of September 11, 2001, New York Supreme Court Justice Edward H. Lehner was hearing arguments in a courtroom less than a mile from Ground Zero about a ballot initiative to launch a new investigation of the 9/11 attacks. 

"When the lawyer for the plaintiffs sponsoring the initiative explained that the 9/11 Commission report left many unanswered questions, including 'Why did Building 7 come down,' *the Judge replied quizzically, 'Building what?'*

BuildingWhat


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 9, 2010)

Great posts phillip. we can only hope for the mainstream media to start the avalanche, and I hope its soon cuz I just heard the 9/11 First responders bill was blocked in the senate by the GOP today....akldsfjl;akdsjfkl;adsfkl;ads;klf....I can't stand this anymore, the 2nd round of the BuildingWhat campaign should be the tipping point.


----------



## eots (Dec 9, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > so buildings are designed with this knowledge that steel lost strength when sufficiently heated and have designed to withstand the effects of fire until 9/11
> ...



not according to NIST


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 10, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> Great posts phillip. we can only hope for the mainstream media to start the avalanche, and I hope its soon cuz I just heard the 9/11 First responders bill was blocked in the senate by the GOP today....akldsfjl;akdsjfkl;adsfkl;ads;klf....I can't stand this anymore, the 2nd round of the BuildingWhat campaign should be the tipping point.


"Like Judge Lehner, millions of people do not know or remember only vaguely that a third tower called World Trade Center Building 7 also collapsed on September 11, 2001. 

"In any other situation, the complete, free fall collapse of a 47-story skyscraper would be played over and over on the news. 

"It would be discussed for years to come and building design codes would be completely rewritten. 

"So, why does no one know about Building 7? 

"*And why did Building 7 come down?"*

I think mainstream (corporate) media will require powerful grassroots pressure to start that avalanche, PhysicsE. Corporate politicians will also resist viciously. Possibly the required level of economic/political pressure can only be applied in an election year?

I hadn't heard about the GOP blocking the 9/11 First responders bill but it's hardly surprising. 911 happened on their watch. If a majority of US voters become convinced Dick Cheney and George Bush knew in advance attacks were on the way and did nothing to prevent them, the Republican Party vanishes from the page of time.

Hopefully the Democrats won't be far behind.

Don't expect too much too soon.
Build for the summer of 2012.

That's when elected Republicans AND Democrats will not be in a position to spit on First responders without paying an immediate price at the polls. 

FWIT, the effective opposition to 911Truth on boards like this one will probably increase exponentially in the next 18 months if 911T is on the nightly news.

Think lawyers who majored in Math and English.

BuildingWhat


----------



## candycorn (Dec 10, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> Great posts phillip. we can only hope for the mainstream media to start the avalanche, and I hope its soon cuz I just heard the 9/11 First responders bill was blocked in the senate by the GOP today....akldsfjl;akdsjfkl;adsfkl;ads;klf....I can't stand this anymore, the 2nd round of the BuildingWhat campaign should be the tipping point.



It won't be.  People grieve for those who lost loved ones.  But nobody is going to make claims of conspiracies or that it was an inside job when there is no evidence to support it.


----------



## eots (Dec 10, 2010)

candycorn said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Great posts phillip. we can only hope for the mainstream media to start the avalanche, and I hope its soon cuz I just heard the 9/11 First responders bill was blocked in the senate by the GOP today....akldsfjl;akdsjfkl;adsfkl;ads;klf....I can't stand this anymore, the 2nd round of the BuildingWhat campaign should be the tipping point.
> ...



*bullshit * 


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

60 Aerospace Engineers Call for a New 9/11 Investigation | 9-11 News | World for 9-11 Truth | W9T.org


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzC3QI8JenU[/ame]


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 10, 2010)

candycorn said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Great posts phillip. we can only hope for the mainstream media to start the avalanche, and I hope its soon cuz I just heard the 9/11 First responders bill was blocked in the senate by the GOP today....akldsfjl;akdsjfkl;adsfkl;ads;klf....I can't stand this anymore, the 2nd round of the BuildingWhat campaign should be the tipping point.
> ...


If you honestly believe there's no evidence of an inside job, how do you explain the 2.25 seconds of free fall collapse that even the government now concedes WTC7 experienced?

Republic Magazine16 P.23

"NIST initially denied the fact of free-fall in its final draft report released in August 2008. In the technical briefing that followed, NIST&#8217;s lead investigator, Shyam Sunder explained, '*A free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it...'*

"However, physics instructor and AE911Truth associate David Chandler had used network television videos to carefully measure the acceleration of the building during its fall and *shown conclusively that a significant period of free-fall* was an indisputable fact. He publicly challenged NIST&#8217;s claims at the technical briefing. Along with several others, he filed formal requests for corrections during the public response period.

"*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."


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 10, 2010)

eots said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



Not one shred of real evidence has been presented in any of these videos.  Way to prove Candycorn's assertion.  Do you always make that *THUD* sound when you fall flat on your face like that?

Here's a clue for you, junior.  If you and your fellow truthtards actually HAD real evidence, you could go to a prosecutor and try and get an indictment.  But you don't.  So you can't.  So all you can do is sit in your mama's basement whining about all this supposed evidence which you can't quite list......


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 10, 2010)

From Press TV's interview with Noam Chomsky:

"'The explicit and declared motive of the [Afghanistan] war was to compel the Taliban to turn over to the United States, the people who they accused of having been involved in World Trade Center and Pentagon terrorist acts. 

"'The Talibanthey requested evidenceand the Bush administration refused to provide any,' the 81-year-old senior academic made the remarks on Press TVs program a Simple Question.

'We later discovered one of the reasons why they did not bring evidence: they did not have any.'

"The political analyst also said that nonexistence of such evidence was confirmed by FBI eight months later.

'The head of FBI, after the most intense international investigation in history, informed the press that the FBI believed that the plot may have been hatched in Afghanistan, *but was probably implemented in the United Arab Emirates and Germany.'*

Gee...wonder why the bombs aren't falling on Berlin again.

No Evidence


----------



## candycorn (Dec 10, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



You'll have to forgive id-eots.  He's.... well, stupid.


----------



## eots (Dec 10, 2010)

candycorn said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 10, 2010)

eots said:


> the perps control the evidence...this is why a real _investigation_ is needed


So you want to start a new investigation based on zero hard evidence.... so you can ignore that investigation as well as soon as it comes to the same basic conclusions.    No thank you.  Hundreds of millions of dollars spent and millions of man hours spent on the investigation and you truthtards want to throw it all away based on a hunch.   Good luck getting a judge or a prosecutor to even look at throwing out the FBI investigation just because a few assholes with brooms up their butts pretend they "know" what happened.

The very fact you truthtards can't come up with a unified theory of what happened on 9/11 shows you, as a collective bunch of fucks, don't have clue one about what happened.  Yet we, the sane people of America, are suppose to just believe a bunch of retards that can't even agree on what did and did not happen other than it didn't happen the way the government said.  :roll:  Riiiiiiight.  When pigs fly.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 10, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> Once this hits the mainstream I won't even bother to spread the information, because once it hits the major media, the country will be FURIOUS with our Government.  Geraldo is hopefully warming it up, if not, we still gotta keep pushing man.  Tthe physics and realities in our world do not lie.  Reinvestigation is needed.  Our soldiers are over seas, thousands have died, as a direct result of 9/11.  Almost a trillion spent on the war, yet we cant pass a bill to help 9/11 first responders....It all is just a scary game.  But they never predicted somethin like the internet, now Building What . Org is starting a revolution.  Can't wait for the 2nd campaign jan 2011


.
 I hope you are right, that the struggle for the truth will prevail. It would cause a grand upheaval and most people would take action in some form or another, I just don't think people like the ones you are and will encounter on here, that support the "official version" will have the balls to admit they were misled, and stand up and be counted as Americans who support their country. If the truth about the attacks on our country is brought to light, it will no doubt expose the Israeli complicity in the planning of the false flag events, and hopefully the wrath of the American people will crush the stranglehold Israel has on our country. There are too many Israeli firsters here, and in our government, and when that day comes, they will face the consequences


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 10, 2010)

Mr. Jones said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Once this hits the mainstream I won't even bother to spread the information, because once it hits the major media, the country will be FURIOUS with our Government.  Geraldo is hopefully warming it up, if not, we still gotta keep pushing man.  Tthe physics and realities in our world do not lie.  Reinvestigation is needed.  Our soldiers are over seas, thousands have died, as a direct result of 9/11.  Almost a trillion spent on the war, yet we cant pass a bill to help 9/11 first responders....It all is just a scary game.  But they never predicted somethin like the internet, now Building What . Org is starting a revolution.  Can't wait for the 2nd campaign jan 2011
> ...


The one thing you truthtards forgot in your little circle jerk over the "end of days" is that you have zero actual evidence that anyone other than Al Qaeda was involved.  You can sit around blaming Jews or Bush or the government until you are blue in the face, but NOBODY but a truthtard is going to do ANYTHING without evidence you are correct.

Let's face it; all we have to go on is the one, unified theory all you truthtards stand behind.

Oh wait.  You don't have a unified theory.

Well, at least we can go on what all you truthtards agree happened on 9/11, right?

No?  Can't agree on that either?

So let me get this straight.  You want us to believe a bunch of ignorant hicks who can't agree on who did it, how they did it, or even WHY they did it, have no real evidence to back up their claims, and have an obvious anti-<insert bad guy of choice> agenda.  Hmmm.  I don't think so.  What kind of fucked up moron would even DREAM of following a bunch of losers like the truthtard bowel movement?  Well, besides other truthtards.


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 10, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > the perps control the evidence...this is why a real _investigation_ is needed
> ...


2.25 seconds of hard free fall evidence, slick.
If you're not too busy sitting on Dick Cheney's broomstick to look.
When are you going to post something worth reading?
When pigs fly?


----------



## Wicked Jester (Dec 10, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> Patriot911:
> 
> You live in Littleton, CO.
> 
> ...


*OFFICIAL TRANSLATION:*

I just had my ass thoroughly kicked so, 

*END OF OFFICIAL TRANSLATION*


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 10, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> 2.25 seconds of hard free fall evidence, slick.
> If you're not too busy sitting on Dick Cheney's broomstick to look.
> When are you going to post something worth reading?
> When pigs fly?


First you need to post hard evidence.  The fact the north face of WTC 7 fell in near freefall for a little over two seconds is certainly not proof of controlled demolition.  All it is is proof that the north face of WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds at near freefall acceleration.

Try again, little pig.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 10, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



It doesn't seem to matter to people like you, what you are told or presented with. As long as unanswered questions about the attacks loom, and more and more scholars and intellects, military, engineers and regular folks view what the Truth Movement is asking and presenting as facts,  it is becoming unstoppable and will be unavoidable. People like you will ultimately end up on the wrong side of a massive upheaval, and you probably will be shown no mercy


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 10, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > 2.25 seconds of hard free fall evidence, slick.
> ...


2.25 seconds corresponds to eight floors falling at free fall speed.

This required 400 structural steel connections to fail every second, evenly across all eight floors.

Does that sound like broomstick fires, Dick?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 10, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> So you want to start a new investigation based on zero hard evidence.... so you can ignore that investigation as well as soon as it comes to the same basic conclusions.    No thank you.


The ones who ignored, and destroyed evidence are the conspirators, preventing a thorough examination of a crime scene. 



> Hundreds of millions of dollars spent and millions of man hours spent on the investigation and you truthtards want to throw it all away based on a hunch.


 What about the vast sums of money, and lives lost and maimed based on BULLSHIT?



> Good luck getting a judge or a prosecutor to even look at throwing out the FBI investigation just because a few assholes with brooms up their butts pretend they "know" what happened.


 The people making the accusations of a cover up and false flag attacks are a lot more credible then the government who has lied to it's people numerous times in the past, and people like you. It takes brave people to stand up for what is right, cowards succumb to authority no matter what is done to them and their families.



> The very fact you truthtards can't come up with a unified theory of what happened on 9/11 shows you, as a collective bunch of fucks, don't have clue one about what happened.  Yet we, the sane people of America, are suppose to just believe a bunch of retards that can't even agree on what did and did not happen other than it didn't happen the way the government said.  :roll:  Riiiiiiight.  When pigs fly.


 Sane people? You mean the ones that actually believe that 19 Saudis with box cutters, whose mastermind dwells in a cave, and circumvented the worlds most highly advanced defense apparatus is who did 9-11? You're calling that credible? You seem to be the fucking retard


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 10, 2010)

candycorn said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Great posts phillip. we can only hope for the mainstream media to start the avalanche, and I hope its soon cuz I just heard the 9/11 First responders bill was blocked in the senate by the GOP today....akldsfjl;akdsjfkl;adsfkl;ads;klf....I can't stand this anymore, the 2nd round of the BuildingWhat campaign should be the tipping point.
> ...



WTF are you talking about? People have been making claims that the govs. story is bullshit since day one. Especially the ones who lost loved ones.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 10, 2010)

Mr. Jones said:


> It doesn't seem to matter to people like you, what you are told or presented with.


Sure it does.  We just want to be presented with actual evidence, not lies, opinions and pseudo science.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> As long as unanswered questions about the attacks loom, and more and more scholars and intellects, military, engineers and regular folks view what the Truth Movement is asking and presenting as facts,  it is becoming unstoppable and will be unavoidable. People like you will ultimately end up on the wrong side of a massive upheaval, and you probably will be shown no mercy


Wrong yet again.  It doesn't matter how many people share your opinion.  It is still JUST OPINION.  There are no unanswered questions.  You just don't want to hear the answer because it doesn't say what you demand it say.  Tough shit.  Here in America you go off of EVIDENCE, not opinion.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 10, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> If you honestly believe there's no evidence of an inside job, how do you explain the 2.25 seconds of free fall collapse that even the government now concedes WTC7 experienced?


 I think you've been asking this person that for quite some time now?? It's not only the physics of how the buildings were taken down, that A&E and other prominent minds have proven NIST wrong on, but many curious coincidences leading up to the event, that get the average person to scrutinize the 9-11 attacks also. 
BTW, you posted some informative links, thanks.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 10, 2010)

Mr. Jones said:


> The ones who ignored, and destroyed evidence are the conspirators, preventing a thorough examination of a crime scene.


Another bullshit opinion.  What did you expect them to find at ground zero that they couldn't find at the landfill where it was all examined?  The people who were removing the debris were TRAINED in how to identify the equipment used in a controlled demolition because the charges don't always go off.  Not one blasting cap, wire, or any other shred of evidence was ever found of explosives.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> > Hundreds of millions of dollars spent and millions of man hours spent on the investigation and you truthtards want to throw it all away based on a hunch.
> 
> 
> What about the vast sums of money, and lives lost and maimed based on BULLSHIT?


Again opinion pretending to be evidence.  Show me evidence the investigation was fundamentally flawed.  Until you can do that, you will NEVER get a new investigation.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> > Good luck getting a judge or a prosecutor to even look at throwing out the FBI investigation just because a few assholes with brooms up their butts pretend they "know" what happened.
> 
> 
> The people making the accusations of a cover up and false flag attacks are a lot more credible then the government who has lied to it's people numerous times in the past, and people like you.


Listen up, junior.  Accusations aren't enough to get an investigation thrown out.  As for credibility, I've seen the claims you retarded truthers pretend are real.    They can't even stand up to casual examination, much less a real investigation even if you retards could actually agree on what you believe in.  

Doesn't it strike you as the least bit odd that none of you can agree on what happened or even have a complete theory from start to finish?



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> It takes brave people to stand up for what is right, cowards succumb to authority no matter what is done to them and their families.


The problem is you're not right.  You're not even close.  You're a loser who is so afraid of the Jews and whatever other boogie men you conjure up that you refuse to look at the truth.  The very fact you have no evidence should be a HUGE warning flag to anyone of even below average intelligence.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> > The very fact you truthtards can't come up with a unified theory of what happened on 9/11 shows you, as a collective bunch of fucks, don't have clue one about what happened.  Yet we, the sane people of America, are suppose to just believe a bunch of retards that can't even agree on what did and did not happen other than it didn't happen the way the government said.  :roll:  Riiiiiiight.  When pigs fly.
> 
> 
> Sane people? You mean the ones that actually believe that 19 Saudis with box cutters, whose mastermind dwells in a cave, and circumvented the worlds most highly advanced defense apparatus is who did 9-11? You're calling that credible? You seem to be the fucking retard


Yet I can produce literally tons of evidence that have stood up to examination in a court of law that proves Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11.  What do you have?  You have a bunch of retard loser opinions that amount to exactly jack shit.  Hmmmm.  Who is the fucking retard again, retard?


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 10, 2010)

Mr. Jones said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > If you honestly believe there's no evidence of an inside job, how do you explain the 2.25 seconds of free fall collapse that even the government now concedes WTC7 experienced?
> ...


Chomsky's 9 November 2010 interview stating the FBI has no EVIDENCE linking UBL with 911 might be the most significant link I've come across lately. If he sees sufficient EVIDENCE to change his opinion of how two planes toppled three skyscrapers, many others will reexamine their own beliefs.

If this happens during a presidential election, our votes might actually mean something.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 10, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't seem to matter to people like you, what you are told or presented with.
> ...


 It was a false flag attack to lead the country into war, many things point to that, and it is currently still being analyzed by those who share that belief, and are unsatisfied with the so called investigation because of omissions, and various other "coincidences" that the government covered up. The day is coming when the people will have had enough, and on that day, there wont just be peaceful demonstrations, I'm afraid it will get violent and bloody. I hope it doesn't come to that but the more people that wake up and have the seed of truth sprout in their minds, the more opposition the government as it is will face. More and more American people are fed up with the bullshit not only of 9-11, but everything else being done to them, and when they realize wtf is really going on, and who is to blame, and their backs are to the wall, the better off the country will be for future generations, all hell will break loose, and people like you will be running for your very lives for siding with the tyrannical force that has been oppressing, and ripping them off for generations. Enough is enough, the government is supposed to work for the people, not the other way around.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 10, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Wow.  Another fucking truthtard who thinks Osama bin Laden was personally behind the attacks instead of Al Qaeda.  :roll:  As for Chumpsky, he's a joke.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 10, 2010)

Mr. Jones said:


> It was a false flag attack to lead the country into war, many things point to that, and it is currently still being analyzed by those who share that belief, and are unsatisfied with the so called investigation because of omissions, and various other "coincidences" that the government covered up.


That is your OPINION.  It is not substantiated by any evidence.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> The day is coming when the people will have had enough, and on that day, there wont just be peaceful demonstrations, I'm afraid it will get violent and bloody.


So why is it the truthtard bowel movement has a hard time getting more than a couple people together at one time?  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> I hope it doesn't come to that but the more people that wake up and have the seed of truth sprout in their minds, the more opposition the government as it is will face.


Sure you don't.  You truthtards jack off to the idea of people rising up against the government.  If you didn't, you wouldn't be pushing so hard despite all the evidence to the contrary.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> More and more American people are fed up with the bullshit not only of 9-11, but everything else being done to them, and when they realize wtf is really going on, and who is to blame, and their backs are to the wall, the better off the country will be for future generations, all hell will break loose, and people like you will be running for your very lives for siding with the tyrannical force that has been oppressing, and ripping them off for generations. Enough is enough, the government is supposed to work for the people, not the other way around.


Oh waaaah!  Get a pacifier and suck for a while.  Your constant whining is both annoying and full of bullshit.  I am sure you like to think there are so many people backing you up, but there is a reason truthtard bullshit theories get relegated to conspiracy sections and ignored by everyone else; people are tired of hearing the same bullshit from you retards day in and day out.  Over nine years later and you STILL don't have a single shred of evidence, a coherent theory, an agreement on what happened, or even an agreement on WHO did it.  The ONLY thing you truthtards have in common is you disagree with every part of the official story no matter how much evidence there is.  THAT exposes you as the unreasoning, illogical, and delusional people that you are.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Dec 10, 2010)

Mr. Jones said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


You want violent and bloody?........Bring it on!........You won't see me running from a damn thing. Nope, i'll be wreaking total fucking hellacious havok on any of you who even dare try to harm my fellow americans.

Fact is, you people are the enemy. Just as much as the muslim terrorists are the enemy.

You want it, Jethro?........BRING IT!


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 10, 2010)

Wicked Jester said:


> You want violent and bloody?........Bring it on!........You won't see me running from a damn thing. Nope, i'll be wreaking total fucking hellacious havok on any of you who even dare try to harm my fellow americans.
> 
> Fact is, you people are the enemy. Just as much as the muslim terrorists are the enemy.
> 
> You want it, Jethro?........BRING IT!



You won't be alone.  Many of us believe in the cornerstone of our judicial system that a crime should be proven in a court of law, not done up like the Salem witch trials where a bunch of lameassed truthtards pretend their opinion is fact despite a distinct lack of evidence.

What is more American than innocent until proven guilty?  Yet these fuckers insist they know who is guilty and talk about rising up against them.  That isn't the way we do it in this country and many of us are not willing to let people like truthtards try and change that because they're too childish to accept the truth.


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 10, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


You're the joke, bitch.
How many books have you published?
Chomsky's the eight most wide quoted author of all time.
You?

'Still haven't explained WTC7's eight stories of free fall.
Are you perplexed?
Or stupid ?


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 10, 2010)

Wicked Jester said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Patriot911 said:
> ...


In the words of Pat Tillman Sr...

"Fuck you and yours!"

Wimpy Poseur won't be showing anything but the yellow streak running up his spine when things get violent.

Right, Poseur?


----------



## Wicked Jester (Dec 10, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


BRING IT ON PUNK!

How many jobs have you been fired from?.......I've never been fired from a job in my life.

Why are you a 60+ year old man living in the Pico/Union ghetto district?

Why were you living under your mothers roof at 50 years old?

Didn't have the gumption to make something of your life?

Is that why you are nothing more than a bitter old whiner these days?

Come on punk, explain yourself.....there is no excuse for your current lot in life.....NONE WHATSOEVER!

The opportunities are out there for everybody. Why did you not use those opportunities to better your life?...........Maybe you wouldn't be such a hateful, miserable old fuck at this stage in your life if you had.


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 10, 2010)

I've never killed anyone's child for money.

You?


----------



## Wicked Jester (Dec 10, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> I've never killed anyone's child for money.
> 
> You?


Nope!.......Never have!


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 10, 2010)

Ever enabled the killing of children for money?


----------



## Wicked Jester (Dec 10, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Ever enabled the killing of children for money?


Nope.......Never have!


----------



## eots (Dec 10, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



is that the new talking point to distract from the failure to produce the bin laden bogeyman or evidence of his involvement in 9/11 ?


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 10, 2010)

bin Laden did NOT do it.

Al Qaeda DID.

And they still can't wrap their minds around 2.25 seconds of WTC7 freefall.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 10, 2010)

eots said:


> is that the new talking point to distract from the failure to produce the bin laden bogeyman or evidence of his involvement in 9/11 ?



Nope.  That is just pointing out you fuckers are so damn stupid you think bin Laden was directly involved and like to ignore the fact it was AL QAEDA that was responsible.  We realize you idiots aren't capable of telling the difference between a man and an entire organization, but come on.... this one should be easy for someone as utterly retarded as you guys!

Which leads me to believe you do it on purpose to try and distract from the fact there is tons of evidence of Al Qaeda involvement.  Unfortunately, we're not nearly as stupid as you and your fellow truthtards which means we're not falling for the obvious fallacy.  So yet another epic failure on your part.

BTW, there is no HARD evidence of bin Laden's involvement.  You do, however, have several video taped confessions.  Last time I checked an uncoerced confession is indeed evidence enough to convict someone in court, much less get an indictment.  I am sure you will ignore that little gem of evidence as well.


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 10, 2010)

Wicked Jester said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Ever enabled the killing of children for money?
> ...


Ever been to Iraq?

If so, how many dead children did you see?


----------



## Wicked Jester (Dec 10, 2010)

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


Uh, the ADMITTED mastermind of 9/11 is sitting in a prison cell......You know, the guy dressed in a t-shirt looking quite haggard and hairy?......His name is Khalid Sheik Mohammed.....Educated people who don't live in complete denial and paranoia already know this.

Get a fucking life, and some professional help for your paranoid delusions.


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 10, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > is that the new talking point to distract from the failure to produce the bin laden bogeyman or evidence of his involvement in 9/11 ?
> ...


When are you planning to link to the "tons of evidence?"

When pigs fly?


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 10, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> bin Laden did NOT do it.
> 
> Al Qaeda DID.
> 
> And they still can't wrap their minds around 2.25 seconds of WTC7 freefall.



Sure we can.  So what.  Prove a building that lost it's support can't freefall for 2.25 seconds and that it can only do so via controlled demolitions.  Then maybe you can explain how there was no evidence of said explosives such as the noise they make, the fact it would have shot out glass at lethal velocities, there is no seismic evidence of demolitions charges, there was never any evidence found of demolitions charges including blasting caps, wiring, etc., and no steel showing signs of being cut with demolitions charges.

The only way your freefall becomes evidence is if someone actually believes you are some kind of engineering expert that can prove freefall of part of the building is impossible for 2.25 seconds of a 14 second collapse.  So go ahead and present us with your expert evidence as to how freefall is impossible except in a controlled demolition.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Dec 10, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


Did two tours in Iraq.

Saw quite a few dead children......Most pulled from a mass grave that was filled by Sadaam's cronies before the war, they were Kurdish children......And a couple who were killed by insurgent IED's......And one who lay dead after insurgents massacred an entire family.....She was about 4-5 years old.....Sad scenes indeed.......Just goes to show how brutal radical islamic extremists truly are.

Any other questions, loser?


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 10, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Ask and ye shall receive.

Moussaoui trial evidence

You can't claim this isn't evidence as it was used in a court of law and admitted as true evidence.  In fact, the evidence was so overwhelming that it help convict a man to life in prison with no chance at parole.


----------



## eots (Dec 10, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > is that the new talking point to distract from the failure to produce the bin laden bogeyman or evidence of his involvement in 9/11 ?
> ...




*BBC now admits al qaeda never existed*


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvlCaHCJQeA&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 10, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > bin Laden did NOT do it.
> ...


Maybe really are stupid enough to believe two planes brought down three steel-framed skyscrapers because of 19 Arabs with box cutters.

You may even be delusional enough to consider yourself an expert; however, the rest of us will need a few links.

Start with your "*14 second collapse"* of WTC7.

As far as my free fall claims are concerned I'll supply the same link P.23:

"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 involved. 

"These failures had to occur ahead of the collapsing section &#8211; NOT caused by it &#8211; because a free-falling object cannot exert force on anything in its path without slowing its own fall."

Do you see any way eight stories can free fall straight down without controlled demolitions eliminating some of the 40,000 tons of steel that comprised the building's path of greatest resistance?


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 10, 2010)

Wicked Jester said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...


How many of those dead children you claim to have seen would still be alive if you had not helped enable an invasion and occupation of their country?


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 10, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Patriot911 said:
> ...


"According to the Associated Press, three jurors decided Moussaoui had only limited knowledge of the September 11 plot, and three described his role in the attacks as minor, if he had any role at all."

"Tons of evidence"???

Moussaoui - Wiki


----------



## Wicked Jester (Dec 10, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


None......Islamic extremists are what they are.

Now, do you pay taxes?.....Have you EVER paid taxes?......If so, you are helping to fund both wars.....you do realize loser, that everytime you pay taxes, everytime you make a taxable purchase, you are funding the wars....Correct?

So, what's your fucking point......You miserable old failure in life?

LMAO!


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 10, 2010)

Sales taxes fund wars?

Who knew??

Would you rather be an old loser or a baby killer?

Or a fucking poseur?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 11, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> Yet I can produce literally tons of evidence that have stood up to examination in a court of law that proves Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11.  What do you have?  You have a bunch of retard loser opinions that amount to exactly jack shit.  Hmmmm.  Who is the fucking retard again, retard?


 The same alqaeda that Bush and his people said OBL was the mastermind/leader, then they torture a "confession" out of KSM. In the USA torturing confessions out of someone is illegal, and is not evidence in a court of real law. Go ahead and post your "tons of evidence" and I'll post how alqaeda is a created front. You are disparaging people for their not agreeing with the OCT as provided by their lying government and it gets you riled up, if it bothers you so much get the fuck off here. Face it, you are too terrified to contemplate the possibility that it was indeed a false flag attack, because you are scared, and you should be. The day is coming when it will be exposed like other government conspiracies, only this time it's going to get nasty for people like you when TSHTF.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 11, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Wow.  You SERIOUSLY missed the boat on this one!  In order to convict Moussaoui of ANYTHING, they first had to prove that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11.  That is what all the evidence is for.  Not a single jury member said they doubted that 9/11 wasn't carried out by 9/11.  If the prosecutors couldn't first prove 9/11 was carried out by 9/11, their whole case falls apart.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 11, 2010)

Mr. Jones said:


> The same alqaeda that Bush and his people said OBL was the mastermind/leader, then they torture a "confession" out of KSM. In the USA torturing confessions out of someone is illegal, and is not evidence in a court of real law.


Wow!  Your ignorance seriously knows no bounds!!!  Open a newspaper.  Read up on what you're debating about.  Because right now you look like a fucking fool who has his head so far up his ass daylight is only a distant memory.

KSM was not tortured for a confession.  KSM was tortured for intelligence.  His confession to 9/11 was made freely and before a court of law DIRECTLY, not under tortute.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Go ahead and post your "tons of evidence" and I'll post how alqaeda is a created front.


I posted the evidence.  Now post the EVIDENCE that Al Qaeda is a created front.  Not a bunch of retard writers trying to milk you out of your money.  EVIDENCE.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> You are disparaging people for their not agreeing with the OCT as provided by their lying government and it gets you riled up, if it bothers you so much get the fuck off here.


I am disparaging fucktards who wish to lie their collective asses off rather than actually look at the TRUTH!  The fact you dismiss evidence out of hand yet believe conspiracy sites that are proven liars says VOLUMES about your complete lack of character, integrity, honesty and credibility.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Face it, you are too terrified to contemplate the possibility that it was indeed a false flag attack, because you are scared, and you should be.


And you know me how?  I am more than able to comprehend our government carrying out a false flag operation.  Unlike you ignorant fucks, I DEMAND actual evidence of this before going off proclaiming the government or whatever personal boogieman you have is guilty.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> The day is coming when it will be exposed like other government conspiracies, only this time it's going to get nasty for people like you when TSHTF.


Again, what you need before you get ANY traction is actual evidence.  Look at all the claims made by the truthtard community.  There are literally hundreds of different theories as to who did it, how they did it and why they did it, yet there isn't a single shred of evidence to back ANY of these theories up.  NONE!  

So really all you're going to get traction with are the retards that are stupid enough to follow another bunch of retards with no evidence that their claims are true.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 11, 2010)

> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > The people who were removing the debris were TRAINED in how to identify the equipment used in a controlled demolition because the charges don't always go off.  Not one blasting cap, wire, or any other shred of evidence was ever found of explosives.
> ...


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 11, 2010)

Mr. Jones said:


> > Patriot911 said:
> >
> >
> > > The people who were removing the debris were TRAINED in how to identify the equipment used in a controlled demolition because the charges don't always go off.  Not one blasting cap, wire, or any other shred of evidence was ever found of explosives.
> ...


----------



## Wicked Jester (Dec 11, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Sales taxes fund wars?
> 
> Who knew??
> 
> ...


Do you pay taxes?

Have you ever paid taxes?

And. the wife and I are quite successful. We'll never be old losers or baby killers.

The baby killers are all over the middle east.....They are called muslim extremist's and palestinians.

Douchebag!


----------



## eots (Dec 11, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > That may be because it is reasoned that conventional CD explosives were not used, and thermite was used as a cutting agent, not only that the wires, and caps you speak of would be consumed..idiot.
> ...


----------



## Wicked Jester (Dec 11, 2010)

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Dec 11, 2010)

Wicked Jester said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Patriot911 said:
> ...


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 11, 2010)

Since it's already been proven WTC7 collapsed at free fall speed over approximately 8 stories through the path of greatest resistance, i.e., 40,000 tons of structural steel running from the bedrock to floor 47 and since freely falling objects can not exert force on anything in their path without slowing, that fact alone is sufficient to justify an *independent investigation* into the events of 9/11/2001.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Dec 11, 2010)

eots said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 11, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Since it's already been proven WTC7 collapsed at free fall speed over approximately 8 stories through the path of greatest resistance, i.e., 40,000 tons of structural steel running from the bedrock to floor 47 and since freely falling objects can not exert force on anything in their path without slowing, that fact alone is sufficient to justify an *independent investigation* into the events of 9/11/2001.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 11, 2010)

Wicked Jester said:


> Hell, since you're so damn gullible......I've got some prime ocean front property in the Mojave desert. Complete with a palm tree and a coconut........Interested?.....I'll give ya' a great deal!........TRUST ME!......Send me a payment, i'll send ya' the deed.



The difference is that there are 100% irrefutable facts, specifically the ones regarding Newtonian Physics, mainly the first 3 Laws.  Each were violated on 9/11/2001 if the NIST wants to say it 'collapsed' due to 'fire'.  Not only does steel not melt at those temps, freefall or near freefall speed are 100% impossible through the path of greatest resistance.  It's almost a joke having to state the realities of earth to you, it only takes your eyeballs and basic science to understand.  its as if you blinding rant on while ignoring the facts.  You seem scared of the truth...I wouldnt blame you.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Dec 11, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Since it's already been proven WTC7 collapsed at free fall speed over approximately 8 stories through the path of greatest resistance, i.e., 40,000 tons of structural steel running from the bedrock to floor 47 and since freely falling objects can not exert force on anything in their path without slowing, that fact alone is sufficient to justify an *independent investigation* into the events of 9/11/2001.


Yeah, that's what happens when a mega ton building rains debris on it, and rocks it's very foundation when IT DROPS TO THE FUCKING GROUND! within yards of it.........That's what happens when TWO mega ton buildings rocks its very foundation when they DROP TO THE FUCKING GROUND! within yards of it

Doesn't take an advanced degree in Physics to figure that out!

You loons are just too god damn funny!


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 11, 2010)

Wicked Jester said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Since it's already been proven WTC7 collapsed at free fall speed over approximately 8 stories through the path of greatest resistance, i.e., 40,000 tons of structural steel running from the bedrock to floor 47 and since freely falling objects can not exert force on anything in their path without slowing, that fact alone is sufficient to justify an *independent investigation* into the events of 9/11/2001.
> ...



A building freefalls into its footprint from minimal damage from buildings that fell over a football field away from it?

Then why didn't the other WTC's DIRECTLY under the towers collapse? 

These buildings were directly under it, yet did not collapse. 

Please show me the massive debris that caused WTC7 to collapse in freefall 6 hours after the towers.



But again, I'm gonna end my conversation with you as well.  You and Patriot911 refuse to use your eyes and are trying to rebuttal an impossibility.  You can't win, so you just distract and insult. Good day sir.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 11, 2010)

eots said:


> whata load of bullshit and disinfo



Strange that you can't refute what I've written though.  All you can do is sit on the sidelines playing with yourself while whining about the truth prevailing over your bullshit.  I've said it before and I'll say it again, it must truly suck to be you.


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 11, 2010)

Wicked Jester said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Since it's already been proven WTC7 collapsed at free fall speed over approximately 8 stories through the path of greatest resistance, i.e., 40,000 tons of structural steel running from the bedrock to floor 47 and since freely falling objects can not exert force on anything in their path without slowing, that fact alone is sufficient to justify an *independent investigation* into the events of 9/11/2001.
> ...


Maybe you should stick to lying about Iraq, Brando?

In order for WTC7's observed straight down collapse to occur more than 400 structural steel connections had to fail every second across eight floors for the 2.25 seconds of proven free fall acceleration to occur.

It also doesn't take an advanced Physics degree to establish those failures across eight floors of WTC7 had to occur ahead of the collapsing section (and "megatons of raining debris) NOT caused by it since a free falling object cannot exert force on anything in its path without slowing its own fall.

Try harder.

Poseur.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 11, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



This only shows you have no idea what can go on during a collapse.  Truthtards don't have the brain capacity to see anything more complex than legos.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 11, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> KSM was not tortured for a confession.  KSM was tortured for intelligence.  His confession to 9/11 was made freely and before a court of law DIRECTLY, not under tortute.


 You are nitpicking about what he was tortured for? He was tortured, and his children were threatened, and your going to say he freely confessed with out the threat of more torture or harm coming to his children? You are the one showing how far up your ass your head is asshole. Yeah..he freely admitted his involvement, you're a fucking joke.




> I posted the evidence.  Now post the EVIDENCE that Al Qaeda is a created front.  Not a bunch of retard writers trying to milk you out of your money.  EVIDENCE. I am disparaging fucktards who wish to lie their collective asses off rather than actually look at the TRUTH!  The fact you dismiss evidence out of hand yet believe conspiracy sites that are proven liars says VOLUMES about your complete lack of character, integrity, honesty and credibility.


You haven't posted shit but your own opinion, and delusions. You're running your mouth about evidence, post some then or stfu.
Fact is the actual truth hasn't been told unless you think it has because the "newspapers" tell you so, you are a fucking joke. You are just parroting the same shit that has been told for years now. Any fool can see that what occurred did not go down the way the government said it did. The 9-11 commission was a farce, the FBI investigation was bullshit, and the trial of KSM was also a sham. 




> And you know me how?  I am more than able to comprehend our government carrying out a false flag operation.


 Then answer this-Is it possible that the attacks on 9-11 could have been a false flag attack?



> Unlike you ignorant fucks, I DEMAND *actual evidence* of this before going off proclaiming the government or whatever personal boogieman you have is guilty.


You demand actual evidence yet readily accept confessions and intelligence obtained by torture. Do you have any idea what a stupid fuck you look like saying shit like that?




> Again, what you need before you get ANY traction is actual evidence.  Look at all the claims made by the truthtard community.  There are literally hundreds of different theories as to who did it, how they did it and why they did it, yet there isn't a single shred of evidence to back ANY of these theories up.  NONE!


 But there is traction, and the movement is growing with more and more credible people waking up everyday and demanding answers that haven't been provided yet, but there are some who are deliberately poisoning the well with outrageous claims in hopes of making the legitimate truth movement look bad. You probably know this but choose to ignore it and label everyone "truthtards" like a 1st grade prepubescent little girl.


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 11, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...


*Show me* how a free falling object CAN exert force on anything in its path without slowing its own fall.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 11, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> The difference is that there are 100% irrefutable facts, specifically the ones regarding Newtonian Physics, mainly the first 3 Laws.  Each were violated on 9/11/2001 if the NIST wants to say it 'collapsed' due to 'fire'.  Not only does steel not melt at those temps, freefall or near freefall speed are 100% impossible through the path of greatest resistance.  It's almost a joke having to state the realities of earth to you, it only takes your eyeballs and basic science to understand.  its as if you blinding rant on while ignoring the facts.  You seem scared of the truth...I wouldnt blame you.


It's mind boggling how some folks are still believing the bullshit that was told about 9-11. All the witnesses, first responders, the put options on the stock market, the PNAC scumbags, the lies that the Bush people said, the NORAD stand down, the security company for the airports and the WTC, there's so much shit that is too coincidental to be real, not to mention the bombings in London, where coincidentally they just happened to be running terrorist drills also..Come the fuck on people are you that much in denial that all this was planned, and you have been lied to? I mean it goes on and on, they are suffering from some mental block, or getting paid to be on forums like this.... Truly fucking amazing 

_&#8220;It is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth &#8230; For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.&#8221;
-- Patrick Henry

&#8220;The important thing is to never stop questioning.&#8221;
-- Albert Einstein_


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 11, 2010)

Mr. Jones said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > KSM was not tortured for a confession.  KSM was tortured for intelligence.  His confession to 9/11 was made freely and before a court of law DIRECTLY, not under tortute.
> ...


Want to see a fucking joke?  Look in a mirror.  You'll see an asshole looking back who believes everything he reads as long as it tells him what he wants to hear.  Personally, I don't give a shit if he were tortured or not.  He is directly responsible for 9/11.  If not, why are they holding his children?    Yet another truthtard inconsistancy.

Why is it you are defending a known terrorist?  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> > I posted the evidence.  Now post the EVIDENCE that Al Qaeda is a created front.  Not a bunch of retard writers trying to milk you out of your money.  EVIDENCE. I am disparaging fucktards who wish to lie their collective asses off rather than actually look at the TRUTH!  The fact you dismiss evidence out of hand yet believe conspiracy sites that are proven liars says VOLUMES about your complete lack of character, integrity, honesty and credibility.
> 
> 
> You haven't posted shit but your own opinion, and delusions. You're running your mouth about evidence, post some then or stfu.


  In other words, you don't have shit and now we both know it.  I've posted evidence.  You've failed to respond.  End of story.  Pretending only makes you look like a jackass who doesn't have a clue.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Fact is the actual truth hasn't been told unless you think it has because the "newspapers" tell you so, you are a fucking joke.


Do I believe we know everything about 9/11?  No.  I don't.  But I believe the major facts are correct.  Truthtards can't even say what the real "facts" are.  Why should we believe you lot of fucks?



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> You are just parroting the same shit that has been told for years now.


Funny how the truth doesn't change.  Truthtards change what they believe more often than they change their underwear.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Any fool can see that what occurred did not go down the way the government said it did.


And your evidence of this is...... your fucking opinion?  No thanks.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> The 9-11 commission was a farce, the FBI investigation was bullshit, and the trial of KSM was also a sham.


All the opinions of a liar and an asshole.  Hmmm.  I think I will believe the evidence over you and your obvious bias and agenda. 



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Then answer this-Is it possible that the attacks on 9-11 could have been a false flag attack?


Sure.  But there is no EVIDENCE to support your claims and TONS of evidence that supports the fact Al Qaeda was behind it.  See, you fucks believe what you want to believe regardless of the evidence.  Everyone ELSE believes the evidence.  Nine years now and not one "inside man" from an operation that would take thousands to tens of thousands of people to pull off according to the most common truthtard theories.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> > Unlike you ignorant fucks, I DEMAND *actual evidence* of this before going off proclaiming the government or whatever personal boogieman you have is guilty.
> 
> 
> You demand actual evidence yet readily accept confessions and intelligence obtained by torture. Do you have any idea what a stupid fuck you look like saying shit like that?


  I didn't say that.  YOU did, and yes, you look like a stupid fuck for saying shit like that.  I have accepted NOTHING obtained under tortute.  KSM admitted in a court of law he was behind 9/11.  That isn't torture no matter HOW much you want your hero to be released.  

Like I said, I DEMAND actual evidence.  What do you demand?  That some asshole says what you want to hear and you will follow him around with your head so far up his ass your hair blows forward when he belches.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> > Again, what you need before you get ANY traction is actual evidence.  Look at all the claims made by the truthtard community.  There are literally hundreds of different theories as to who did it, how they did it and why they did it, yet there isn't a single shred of evidence to back ANY of these theories up.  NONE!
> 
> 
> But there is traction, and the movement is growing with more and more credible people waking up everyday and demanding answers that haven't been provided yet, but there are some who are deliberately poisoning the well with outrageous claims in hopes of making the legitimate truth movement look bad.


You are fucking DELUSIONAL if you think you are getting traction!    I've been to 9/11 rallies before.  They couldn't even get two dozen people to show up and were laughed at by the vast majority of people.  But hey. If it gives you the warm and fuzzies to actually think there are more than a handful of you pricks out there, feel free to keep believing so.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> You probably know this but choose to ignore it and label everyone "truthtards" like a 1st grade prepubescent little girl.


Duh!  No shit, Sherlock!  You pissants ARE first grade prepubescent girls, so I call you truthtards.  You're fucking retarded.  You ignore the truth to push an agenda.  How much lower can one get?  I have absolutely ZERO respect for you or anyone like you.  So yes.  I will call you truthtards and be happy doing so.  It shows just how little I think of you.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 11, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Who said anything of the sort?    First off, there was resistance.  The NIST didn't say it fell AT free fall acceleration, they said it fell at ESSENTIALLY free fall acceleration.  Essentially does not equal at.  

Now, try to rub them two remaining brain cells together and try and think of how you can get essentially free fall acceleration without having to break so many structures.


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 11, 2010)

*Symmetry*

"The overall building mass fell uniformly and with almost perfect symmetry through what should have been the path of greatest resistance &#8211; 40,000 tons of structural steel. 

"This requires a precisely timed patterned removal of critical columns &#8211; which office fires, a gradual organic process, is not capable of.

According to this graph (Republic16 P.23) the NW corner of WTC7 fell AT FREE FALL acceleration for two to three seconds over a distance of 8 stories.

How is this possible?

Box cutters?http://www.republicmagazine.com/magazines/Republic-Magazine16.pdf


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 11, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> Want to see a fucking joke?  Look in a mirror.  *You'll see an asshole looking back who believes everything he reads as long as it tells him what he wants to hear*.


 This is a perfect description of yourself. You want to hear all the comforting lies that the MSM tells you, and read all the same shit again in the controlled print media as well because you are too damned scared to face the possibility of what is being proposed, you are a pussy through and through.



> P*ersonally, I don't give a shit if he were tortured or not*.  He is directly responsible for 9/11.  If not, why are they holding his children?    Yet another truthtard inconsistancy.


 But you say you care about evidence, and thump your chest about how things are done in the American court system.. You are talking out both sides of your lying ass mouth. And there is no proof KSM was responsible for 9-11 based on tortured info you jackass.. Holy shit you are a fucking joke  Ever stop to think they are holding his kids to get him to say what they want him to? You have no clue to this possibility?



> Why is it you are defending a known terrorist?


 Oh now I'm defending a "known terrorist" now? Way to deflect, but then that's all you got, you're like a dog chasing its own tail and sniffing its ass. I am referencing the credibility of the evidence and how it was obtained, and all you can back with is I'm a terrorist sympathizer. Listen asshole if anyone here is that it is you for siding with the real attackers of our nation and pretending you know it all because they tell you so. 




> In other words, you don't have shit and now we both know it.  I've posted evidence.  You've failed to respond.  End of story.  Pretending only makes you look like a jackass who doesn't have a clue.


 Again you post nothing of value that hasn't already been spewed by your leaders and collected dust for 9 years now. " I've posted evidence" Where? What? You're just a fucking parrot who was taught naughty words. 




> Do I believe we know everything about 9/11?  No.  I don't.  But I believe the major facts are correct.


 And what is it that the great Patriot 9-11 is curious about? How dare you insinuate YOU haven't been told everything. Please enlighten us before it's lights out at your mental hospital facility. ( Do they know that your sneaking into the nurses station and using their computer?)



> Truthtards can't even say what the real "facts" are.  Why should we believe you lot of fucks?


 We at least know something is not as it should be, and we at least have the patriotism to question authority. Uncle Sam tells you to shove it and rotate and like it, and you can't wait to please.



> Sure.  But there is no EVIDENCE to support your claims and TONS of evidence that supports the fact Al Qaeda was behind it.


 Hey stupid... Al-CIA -DUH is bullshit. Information on this is everywhere, and..ready for this?...OBL is probably dead too! Stands to reason that's why he can't be found! That must have rocked your little brain huh?



> See, you fucks believe what you want to believe regardless of the evidence.  Everyone ELSE believes the evidence.


Another appeal to a fallacy.."Cmon, everybody believes the manufactured evidence and story line, get with the program" No thank you, I'm not a puss like you, nor a sheeple.



> Nine years now and not one "inside man" from an operation that would take thousands to tens of thousands of people to pull off according to the most common truthtard theories.


 It's been done before and no one wants to get "suicided" Ever hear of blackmail, or how about this one..paidoff? Ever wonder about the missing trillions? No? I didn't think so. Oh man you are a feeble minded imbecile aren't you. Go back to your other forum, you offer nothing of value here. This is getting boring already...

:





> lol:  I didn't say that.  YOU did, and yes, you look like a stupid fuck for saying shit like that.  I have accepted NOTHING obtained under tortute.  KSM admitted in a court of law he was behind 9/11.  That isn't torture no matter HOW much you want your hero to be released.


   Yeah sure man..you first state you don't care if he was tortured, BUT in a COURT OF LAW he admits whatever they want.. Look, "court of law", should not be used in the same sentence as "torture" at least not in this country you fucking communist bastage.



> Like I said, I DEMAND actual evidence.


 Yes sure even tortured made up shit is good enough for you.



> What do you demand?


 I would demand assholes and mental patients like you be restrained in a 4 point and not allowed to be near the internet. Take your meds and go to bed you fucking loon.



> I've been to 9/11 rallies before.


  And probably got your ass kicked in, perhaps that explains your attitude. Tell you what next one you attend, yell out your screen name, maybe I'll hear you and we can have a... chat.

Look Parrot 9-11, you have done a fine job of making an ass out yourself for all to witness, you offer nothing more then the same old tired shit, and say the same things we are fighting against, you are an apologist for the government and all the traitors who have fucked up our nation, and the day will come when even they wont be there for you, because they don't give a shit about you, or yours..no matter how nice they are to you right now, or how much they may be paying you to make an ass out of yourself. They are paying you to do this right? Man if your doing this for free, you are really one sorry ass mother fucker. Get off the computer take your meds and get to bed the nurses might be coming soon! You wack job.


----------



## eots (Dec 11, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Patriot911 said:
> ...


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 12, 2010)

*7 Facts about Building 7*

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

"2) Building 7s collapse was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.

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

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

"5) 1,340+ architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for a new investigation that would include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives for the collapse of Building 7.

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

"7) Building 7 housed several intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and the NYC Office of Emergency Managements Emergency Operations Center, more commonly known as 'Giulianis Bunker'.

BuildingWhat?


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 12, 2010)

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


----------



## candycorn (Dec 12, 2010)

georgephillip said:


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


Its also the first building that had 2 110 story towers collapse next to it that were hit by two large commercial aircraft.  You're an idiot.  



georgephillip said:


> "2) Building 7s collapse was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.


As it was not attacked, it wasn't in the Commission's purview.  They didn't go in-depth about damage to other buildings as well.  Cray about that bitch.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nRSOvscgAs&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nRSOvscgAs&feature=related[/ame]



georgephillip said:


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


Did the 43 percent see Elvis there.  Immaterial and you're still an idiot. 



georgephillip said:


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


So?


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nRSOvscgAs&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nRSOvscgAs&feature=related[/ame]




georgephillip said:


> "5) 1,340+ architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for a new investigation that would include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives for the collapse of Building 7.


In the first place, thats a lie.
In the second place, so?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nRSOvscgAs&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nRSOvscgAs&feature=related[/ame]



georgephillip said:


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


Nobody cares.  



georgephillip said:


> "7) Building 7 housed several intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and the NYC Office of Emergency Managements Emergency Operations Center, more commonly known as 'Giulianis Bunker'.


Which is a reason not to have the government destroy their own property.  See, you're still an idiot.  

BuildingWhat?[/QUOTE]

Cry some more for us little bitch.



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nRSOvscgAs&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nRSOvscgAs&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 12, 2010)

Big Bitch:

I guess you're more intellectually comfortable with the idiocy that two planes completely collapsed three steel-framed skyscraper, right?

How did two planes manage that feat?

Nineteen pairs of box cutters?


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 12, 2010)

"    In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure.  

"None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building.  

"The fact of free fall by itself is strong evidence of explosive demolition, but the evidence of explosive demolition is even stronger than that.

"Mr. Chandler goes on to describe two particular attributes of Building 7s free fall descent that make the evidence for explosive demolition even more overwhelming:

    What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall.  Acceleration doesnt build up gradually.  

"The graph [measuring the buildings descent] simply turns a corner.  

"*The building went from full support to zero support instantly.*

*Secondly:*

    The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.

"Mr. Chandler summarizes the meaning of these observations, saying:

    The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures.  

"*All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns* had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.

"*Only explosives* can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.  

"The *absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds* is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building."

BuildingWhat


----------



## eots (Dec 12, 2010)

> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 12, 2010)

Mr. Jones said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > Want to see a fucking joke?  Look in a mirror.  *You'll see an asshole looking back who believes everything he reads as long as it tells him what he wants to hear*.
> ...


Wrong yet again.  I look at the EVIDENCE and let the evidence speak for itself.  I don't be someone else's bitch and believe whatever they tell me.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> > P*ersonally, I don't give a shit if he were tortured or not*.  He is directly responsible for 9/11.  If not, why are they holding his children?    Yet another truthtard inconsistancy.
> 
> 
> But you say you care about evidence, and thump your chest about how things are done in the American court system.. You are talking out both sides of your lying ass mouth. And there is no proof KSM was responsible for 9-11 based on tortured info you jackass.. Holy shit you are a fucking joke  Ever stop to think they are holding his kids to get him to say what they want him to? You have no clue to this possibility?


  Just shows you how you don't have a fucking clue about anything.  No evidence on KSM?    I don't need KSM's admission to know who was behind 9/11.  You can pretend he is the only source of evidence, but anyone with more than one brain cell knows better.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Oh now I'm defending a "known terrorist" now? Way to deflect, but then that's all you got, you're like a dog chasing its own tail and sniffing its ass. I am referencing the credibility of the evidence and how it was obtained, and all you can back with is I'm a terrorist sympathizer. Listen asshole if anyone here is that it is you for siding with the real attackers of our nation and pretending you know it all because they tell you so.


Yup.  You and your butt buddies Osama and KSM are so tight.  I am sure they would be glad for you fighting so hard to get them off the hook, but they are proud of what they've done.    Fuckin loser!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Again you post nothing of value that hasn't already been spewed by your leaders and collected dust for 9 years now. " I've posted evidence" Where? What? You're just a fucking parrot who was taught naughty words.


Evidence.  And I've posted it several times now.  Of course, you're a fucking proven liar, so it is no surprise you would go right on lying about what everyone can see with their own eyes.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> And what is it that the great Patriot 9-11 is curious about? How dare you insinuate YOU haven't been told everything. Please enlighten us before it's lights out at your mental hospital facility. ( Do they know that your sneaking into the nurses station and using their computer?)


  I must have hit a nerve with the fact you swallow whatever the conspiratard sites give you regardless of reality.  Again, I look at the EVIDENCE.  I look at the REAL experts who KNOW what was going on, not just guessing or giving their opinion.  People like Leslie Robertson who actually DESIGNED the towers.  You're just bitching and moaning because you have no evidence or real experts to rely on.  Keep sucking on AJs privates and maybe he will clue you in.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> We at least know something is not as it should be, and we at least have the patriotism to question authority. Uncle Sam tells you to shove it and rotate and like it, and you can't wait to please.


Wrong yet again.  All you need to do is provide evidence your bullshit is correct.  See, unlike you bitches, I actally demand evidence before trying to commit treason.  Funny how you fucks seem to all miss this critical fact.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Hey stupid... Al-CIA -DUH is bullshit. Information on this is everywhere, and..ready for this?...OBL is probably dead too! Stands to reason that's why he can't be found! That must have rocked your little brain huh?


I didn't ask for pissant opinions on what is going on.  I asked for evidence.  You don't have any so you have to cry that the information is out there and then run away like a little bitch.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Another appeal to a fallacy.."Cmon, everybody believes the manufactured evidence and story line, get with the program" No thank you, I'm not a puss like you, nor a sheeple.


  Spoken like a well shorn sheeple.  You believe whatever the conspiracy sites tell you with NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER while sitting and spinning, yet can't see that fact.  Shows you just how blind you are.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> It's been done before and no one wants to get "suicided" Ever hear of blackmail, or how about this one..paidoff? Ever wonder about the missing trillions? No? I didn't think so. Oh man you are a feeble minded imbecile aren't you. Go back to your other forum, you offer nothing of value here. This is getting boring already...


Missing trillions?  Wow.  Just more evidence you swallow whatever the other conspiratards "cum" up with.  See, unlike you, I don't just listen to the claims, I dig.  There are several trillions of dollars worth of orders that are not properly and fully accounted for.  The trillions are not missing or stolen.  Keep trying though.  Bad paperwork does not equal theft to anyone but brain dead fucks like you.



> In fiscal 1999, a defense audit found that about $2.3 trillion of balances, transactions and adjustments were *inadequately documented.* These "unsupported" transactions do not mean the department ultimately cannot account for them, she advised, but that tracking down needed documents would take a long time. Auditors, she said, might have to go to different computer systems, to different locations or access different databases to get information.


Source



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Yeah sure man..you first state you don't care if he was tortured, BUT in a COURT OF LAW he admits whatever they want.. Look, "court of law", should not be used in the same sentence as "torture" at least not in this country you fucking communist bastage.


I see you're too much a dumb fuck to understand the difference between a verbal confession before the court and trying to get a confession under torture submitted as evidence.  Of course, one first has to ignore your bullshit claim they got a confession from him under torture.  The torture was used to gain intelligence, not a confession.  We have more than enough evidence against him to need a confession.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Yes sure even tortured made up shit is good enough for you.


I see you can't even function any longer without lying out your ass.  And apparently you don't know what constitues actual evidence.  Either that or you're just continuing to be dishonest.  Big surprise there.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> > What do you demand?
> 
> 
> I would demand assholes and mental patients like you be restrained in a 4 point and not allowed to be near the internet. Take your meds and go to bed you fucking loon.


[/quote]
Aww... the sick fuck thinks everyone is as retarded as he is.  Too bad.  So sad.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> > I've been to 9/11 rallies before.
> 
> 
> And probably got your ass kicked in, perhaps that explains your attitude. Tell you what next one you attend, yell out your screen name, maybe I'll hear you and we can have a... chat.


You wouldn't survive the encounter.  Tell you what.  Why don't you go to an FDNY firehouse and tell them all your theories and see what happens.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Look Parrot 9-11, you have done a fine job of making an ass out yourself for all to witness, you offer nothing more then the same old tired shit, and say the same things we are fighting against, you are an apologist for the government and all the traitors who have fucked up our nation, and the day will come when even they wont be there for you, because they don't give a shit about you, or yours..no matter how nice they are to you right now, or how much they may be paying you to make an ass out of yourself. They are paying you to do this right? Man if your doing this for free, you are really one sorry ass mother fucker. Get off the computer take your meds and get to bed the nurses might be coming soon! You wack job.


Wrong yet again.  Funny how all you can do is throw insults around, yet can't actually respond to what I write, which makes you the bitch.    Loser.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 12, 2010)

eots said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Its also the first building that had 2 110 story towers collapse next to it that were hit by two large commercial aircraft.  You're an idiot.
> ...



And what started the fires across several floors, broke the water mains, and caused enough damage that the fire department didn't want to risk fighting a fire in a building showing signs of collapse?  Dumbass.


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 12, 2010)

Was it broken water mains or box cutters that produced 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration?


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 12, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Was it broken water mains or box cutters that produced 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration?



He won't answer, he is scared.

phillip I applaud your resilience.  I don't like these guys, I've been reading their responses and I cannot even begin to imagine what kind of people these guys are in real life.  I'm glad you are here to rebuttal with facts, even though they are of no interest them. It really sucks to know we live with citizens who act this way...Makes you wanna vomit sort of.

Weakness of attitude becomes weakness of character. - Albert Einstein


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 12, 2010)

I can only repeat what I said earlier about my expectations of what will happen if 70% to 85% of regular FOX viewers begin to reconsider their government's "role" in 911 immediately prior to our next presidential election.

At the very least there will be architects, engineers, and lawyers who majored in Math defending the OCT on boards like this one.

I think we should take every opportunity to hone our arguments between now and then.

If the OCT turn out to be a "Big Lie", it will present a crisis unlike any of us currently alive have ever seen. I think it's a good idea to get ahead of this curve, if that's as all possible.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 12, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Was it broken water mains or box cutters that produced 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration?
> ...



LOL!  Look at the weak minded "physicsexists" that pretends he is all knowledgable.  A shame he can't actually debate.  He got his ass owned on other sites so here he just ignores everyone who doesn't agree with him.  Kind of like he ignores all the evidence that disagrees with his bullshit theories.  The perfect example of a fucked up truthtard.  Way to go PE!


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 12, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Was it broken water mains or box cutters that produced 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration?



Neither.  It was the internal collapse which destroyed many of the columns, including those that supported the NW corner exterior that experienced near free fall acceleration.  But you knew that.  We honest people just have to keep repeating ourselves for peon truthtards like you who refuse to look at the truth.    What a loser!


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 12, 2010)

Any "thoughts" on why WTC7's roof stayed level during free fall?


----------



## Wicked Jester (Dec 12, 2010)

One of the best videos debunking these troofers claims:

[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q20NmYGE-T4[/ame]

Of course, they'll completely ignore it......The truth hurts the lil' pinheads, BADLY!


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 12, 2010)

What do you "think" Rich Larry Silverstein meant by the word "pull?"

How long would it take to prep a 47 story building for controlled demolition?

How much money has Rich Larry made from the events of 911?

Try to stay in character.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 12, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> What do you "think" Rich Larry Silverstein meant by the word "pull?"
> 
> How long would it take to prep a 47 story building for controlled demolition?
> 
> ...



What do YOU think he meant?  Bear in mind, if you claim Silverstein meant controlled demolition that it also means the fire department made the decision to use demolition charges and carried out the deed.  Most truthtards conveniently ignore this little fact when they jack off to Silverstein and his pull it comment.

As for made, he has lost money.  Millions in fact.  All the money you truthtards ignorantly claim he "made" went right into the rebuilding of the towers.  Or do you honestly expect everyone to believe a person in a lease can just walk away from a lease after destroying the leased object without paying for it?    Nobody but a truthtard is that dumb.


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 12, 2010)

Apparently you are.

Bitch.


----------



## eots (Dec 12, 2010)

patriot911 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > what do you "think" rich larry silverstein meant by the word "pull?"
> ...



post anything credible saying silverstein lost millions....or shut up


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 12, 2010)

"NEW YORK - Larry Silverstein, who acquired the lease to operate the World Trade Center in July, *is seeking $7.2 billion from insurers* for the destruction of the center - *twice the amount insurers say he can claim*.

"The two hijacked airliners that struck the 110-story twin towers Sept. 11 were separate 'occurrences' for insurance purposes, entitling him to collect twice on $3.6 billion of policies, a spokesman for Mr. Silverstein said.

"Companies that insured the building, including Chubb Corp., Swiss Reinsurance Co., Allianz AG, Ace Ltd. and XL Capital Ltd., said that because the attack was coordinated it counts as only a single occurrence.

"This is something that's going to be debated for a very long time," said Julie Rochman of the American Insurance Association, a trade group representing Chubb and the other insurers.

Mr. Silverstein, who has vowed to rebuild the complex, is liable for more than $100 million a year in lease payments to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the 16-acre (6.5-hectare) site, the spokesman for the property company said." 

Rich Larry's Scam


----------



## Wicked Jester (Dec 12, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> What do you "think" Rich Larry Silverstein meant by the word "pull?"
> 
> How long would it take to prep a 47 story building for controlled demolition?
> 
> ...


You're so fucking stupid and ignorant, you make it too fucking easy!
[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=43F54hR0NW8&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 12, 2010)

eots said:


> patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


You really have to wonder what Larry knew and when he knew it.

It doesn't appear he's lost any money so far on 911:

"Under a pending agreement, a developer and his investors will get back most of the down payment that they made to lease the World Trade Center just six weeks before a terrorist attack destroyed the twin towers. 

"Developer Larry Silverstein and investors Lloyd Goldman and Joseph Cayre are nearing a deal that would give them about $98 million of their original investment of $124 million, The New York Times reported Saturday. [MontereyHerald 11/22/2003]

"Instead of renovation, Silverstein is rebuilding, funded by the insurance coverage on the property which 'fortuitously' covered acts of terrorism. Even better, Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy, based on the two, in Silverstein's view, separate attacks. 

"*The total potential payout is $7.1 billion, more than enough to build a fabulous new complex and leave a hefty profit for the Silverstein Group, including Larry Silverstein himself.*"

Silverstein Makes...


----------



## eots (Dec 12, 2010)

wicked jester said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > what do you "think" rich larry silverstein meant by the word "pull?"
> ...



controlled demolition inc had the contract for the ground zero clean up and destruction of evidence,,,true story


----------



## eots (Dec 12, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > patriot911 said:
> ...



ya parrots9/11 prefers to make his own facts


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 12, 2010)

eots said:


> controlled demolition inc had the contract for the ground zero clean up and destruction of evidence,,,true story


So you're surprised a company that specializes in demolition and cleanup should be involved?  BTW, it was one of several companies involved in the cleanup.  

Which, of course, backs up the common sense claim that the clean up crews knew the signs of controlled demolition.  Or are they just more of the thousands in on your "little" conspiracy?


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 12, 2010)

Imagine a one inch steel column reduced to half-inch thickness with "...edges curled like a paper scroll."

"Gaping holes - some larger than a silver dollar - let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange."

Luckily some of the steel that NIST claims was never recovered from WTC7 has found its way to The Worcester Polytechnic Institute:

"A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. 

"Its edgeswhich are curled like a paper scrollhave been thinned to almost razor sharpness. 

"Gaping holessome larger than a silver dollarlet light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. 

"This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bendingbut not holes.

Swiss Cheese Steel...see it here


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 12, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > patriot911 said:
> ...



Deal reached on World Trade Center rebuilding between Larry Silverstein, Port Authority | 7online.com



> Silverstein,*who has paid billions of dollars in rent to the Port Authority since 2001*, said the agency wasn't building its part of the project on time, throwing off the timing and financing for his buildings in a tough real estate market.



Like I said.  Silverstein was leasing the property.  The insurance doesn't even go to him, but to the rebuilding of the tower and other buildings destroyed on 9/11.  In the mean time he has to keep paying the port authority to continue the lease once the new buildings are built.  

Oh, and the insurance payout was only 4.55 billion.  Source

In the long run he is still going to make money, but he didn't make anything off the insurance.

I am sure this is evidence you will ignore in order to push your Silverstein bullshit.


----------



## eots (Dec 12, 2010)

patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > controlled demolition inc had the contract for the ground zero clean up and destruction of evidence,,,true story
> ...



you just love to make up your little made up facts without any links...dont you  ? One company was awarded the contract...so who were the other companies involved ? Involved  ?...the lunch truck drivers ?..dump truck drivers ?...who and it what capacity ?...are you not the one that just that told us silverstein lost millions on 9/11 when the exact opposite was true ?


----------



## eots (Dec 12, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 12, 2010)

eots said:


> patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 12, 2010)

eots said:


> patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



  I love it when truthtards step in their own shit and don't realize it until it covers everything!  

One company was not awarded the contract for clean up at WTC ground zero.  Four were.  Tully Construction, Bovis Lend Lease International, AMEC Construction Management, and Turner Construction.  CDI was a SUBCONTRACTOR to Tully Construction.  

Source

You know.... if you actually CHECKED my facts before shitting all over yourself, you wouldn't end up like this.   

BTW, apparently you missed the part where I proved Silverstein continues to lose billions to keep up the lease for the WTC complex.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 12, 2010)

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Awww.... the poor truthtard is too fucking stupid to click on links..... and then demands links.  



			
				eots said:
			
		

> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh, sorry.  Forgot I was talking to a truthtard that can't tell the difference between losing money now and making money in the future.   

See.... the insurance money went to rebuilding the tower and the other office buildings destroyed on 9/11.  Silverstein doesn't get that money.  Plus he has to pay to keep the lease to the WTC complex.  So yes.  He is bleeding money right now.

In the future, when the new tower opens and the other office buildings open, Silverstein will still be in control of the WTC complex and will start making money.  

I realize this is very hard for your peabrain to comprehend, but believe it or not, some people spend money to make money.  Hence the very true claim that Silverstein has lost millions since 9/11.  Some day, in the future, if everything goes according to plan, Silverstein will make money.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 12, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


>



All PhysicsExist is good for is cheering on those who push the same bullshit agendas as he does.  He can neither debate the facts nor can he debate physics.  It is a sad, pathetic life for this truthtard.  Let's all give him a hand!    Oooops!  That's just the finger he deserves.  Don't worry.  I am sure he takes it as a sign we think he is number one!


----------



## eots (Dec 12, 2010)

New York City, New York state and the Port Authority *would provide $600 million in backup financing if Silverstein first secures commitments to lease 400,000 square feet.*

Silverstein said in a statement: "Today's agreement between my company and the Port Authority will accelerate the rebuilding of the World Trade Center. This is great news for New York."

Deal reached on World Trade Center rebuilding between Larry Silverstein, Port Authority | 7online.com


----------



## eots (Dec 12, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Patriot911 said:
> ...



and this financial information comes from ?.....the land of your imaginings ?


----------



## Wicked Jester (Dec 12, 2010)

eots said:


> wicked jester said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


So fucking what?.

What do you do, hire comapnies who have zero experience cleaning up areas where BUILDINGS HAVE FALLEN?

Once again, YA' GOT NOTHIN'!

But then, YOU TROOFERS GOT NOTHIN!

Btw, where's your boy Miller?.....You invited his sorry ass up here, he's permanently banned for threatening to kill a bunch of us last night........Just goes to show the integrity of the loons you morons throw up here.......I thought he was supposed to be some kind of 'expert"

You people are fuckin' idiots, nothing more.......Just a bunch of paranoid fools who GOT NOTHIN'!


----------



## Wicked Jester (Dec 12, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


HEY!.....GOD DAMMIT!

Give him some fucking credit!

He can  with the best of 'em when facts are thrown squarely in his lunatic face!

Don't be dissin' da' loons!


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 12, 2010)

eots said:


> New York City, New York state and the Port Authority *would provide $600 million in backup financing if Silverstein first secures commitments to lease 400,000 square feet.*
> 
> Silverstein said in a statement: "Today's agreement between my company and the Port Authority will accelerate the rebuilding of the World Trade Center. This is great news for New York."
> 
> Deal reached on World Trade Center rebuilding between Larry Silverstein, Port Authority | 7online.com



They are talking about the third office tower.    What.... you think I didn't read my own source?!?  Or are you just too fucking stupid to understand what was written?

See, when you look at the WHOLE paragraph, you can see eots is just being the dishonest asshole he always is.



> Developer Larry Silverstein would have to raise $300 million in cash to build a third office tower at the site. New York City, New York state and the Port Authority would provide $600 million in backup financing if Silverstein first secures commitments to lease 400,000 square feet.



Wow.  When one looks at the entire context, eots has shit all over his face.  Again.  I'm beginning to suspect he LIKES it!


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 12, 2010)

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Still too ignorant to click on links?    Seriously.... it was funny the first time, but are you really too stupid to click on links when given to you?  No WONDER you think nobody ever links evidence!  You're too much of a dumb fuck to CLICK.    That's just too rich.

CLICK ME YA FUCKIN MORON!  I AM A LINK!!!!

Maybe this is how I have to post links from now on.


----------



## eots (Dec 12, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Patriot911 said:
> ...



the link has to confirm your assertion he made no money  and how he is bleeding money and all the rest of your made up bullshit...this link speaks to none of that and spending and investing money is not losing money,, receiving 600 million in back up financing is not losing money...so other than the amount he received in insurance you have no clue what Silverstein financial situation is you just...made it up


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 12, 2010)

So who actually got to keep the $4billion - $7billion insurance bonanza?

"Larry Silverstein, despite not being the owner of the buildings, *was the sole beneficiary of the insurance* indemnity payments of more than 7 billion Dollars. 

"Good for Larry that he had not forgotten to increase the insurance policies, just in time, when he signed the lease three months before the catastrophe happened: 'Larry Silverstein, since July landlord of the towers, demands from the insurers 7.2 billion Dollars compensation, his speaker, Steve Solomon, said. ... The Port Authorities of New York and New Jersey, owners of the WTC, agree with Silverstein's demand.' --Die Welt, Berlin, Oct 10, 2001.

'The Port Authorities believe that Silverstein should get the 7,2 billion Dollar compensation instead of them, *despite the fact that, as the lawful owners, should be indemnified.* 

"*Larry, born under a lucky star*.

"The following insurance companies are liable to Silverstein's compensation demand: 'Chubb Corp., Swiss Reinsurance Co., Lloyd's of London, German Alliance Corp., ACE Ltd and XL Capital Ltd.' --Die Welt, Berlin, Oct 10, 2001.

"Wonderful people like Larry Silverstein have many wonderful friends. 

"With the help of New York's Jewish mayor, Michael Bloomberg, *Silverstein found new investors, who are prepared to provide the money to build a new WTC. *

*Larry can therefore keep the 7 billion Dollars from the underwriters and put it into a saving account*: 'Within the next five years a new WTC could be erected on "Ground Zero", Silverstein said after a meeting with the designated New York mayor, Michael Bloomberg.' --Die Welt, Berlin, Nov 28, 2002"

WITNESS: LARRY...


----------



## eots (Dec 13, 2010)

> Wicked Jester;
> 
> Btw, where's your boy Miller?"you invited his sorry ass up here, he's permanently banned for threatening to kill a bunch of us last night........Just goes to show the integrity of the loons you morons throw up here.......I thought he was supposed to be some kind of 'expert"



what the fuck are talking about  you poor sick man ?


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 13, 2010)

"Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site.  

"In their paper, entitled *Active Thermitic Material* Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:_

    '[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, *unreacted thermitic material*, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.'

BuildingWhat?_


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 13, 2010)

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



  I see you still refuse to be honest about this.  Did you notice he has to put up 300,000 AND get committment for 400,000 sqare feet of occupancy?  

And the article I already linked that shows he spent billions of dollars to keep the lease going shows he has been losing money.

So far your only comeback has been dishonestly cherrypicking a sentence out of context and whining like a little bitch about a lack of links that were there the entire time.   

All truthtards have left.  Dishonest and whining.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 13, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> So who actually got to keep the $4billion - $7billion insurance bonanza?
> 
> "Larry Silverstein, despite not being the owner of the buildings, *was the sole beneficiary of the insurance* indemnity payments of more than 7 billion Dollars.
> 
> ...



You've already been shown this was false, yet you insist on continuing the lie.  Truthtards are so fucking stupid.  Do they really think nobody notices when their bullshit smells to high heaven?


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 13, 2010)

Why are you so arrogant?

Are you Republican?


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 13, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Why are you so arrogant?
> 
> Are you Republican?



I am someone who is fighting for the truth.  This isn't a partisan issue.  You and your "ilk" are out to lie your asses off to push your agendas of hate by lying about the deaths of three thousand Americans.  That, to me and many others, is VERY wrong.  Therefore I have nothing but extreme contempt for you and your "ilk".

The very fact you can't respond to what I write should be a HUGE clue of who is right and who is lying.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 13, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> From Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:
> 
> "On November 13, Bob McIlvaine and Tony Szamboti appeared on Geraldo Rivera's show "Geraldo At Large" on Fox News to talk about the 'BuildingWhat?' TV ad campaign and World Trade Center Building 7 for a short segment.
> 
> ...



Oh its on fox news, that explains it  

Bwahahahahahhaha


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 13, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you so arrogant?
> ...


Why should I or anyone else automatically assume everything you post is accurate?

Are you infallible?

If you think parasites like Larry Silverstein don't earn their billions by using other people's money and blood, your agenda is not about truth.

It is about slavery.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Dec 13, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


Yeah, it's all about da' Jooooooooooos, eh, ya' lil' dirtbag?

Look, maybe if you had tried to make something of your life, instead of wallowing in your own self pity, you may have become as successful as Siverstein..........Just think, you wouldn't be rotting away in that ghetto known as the Pico/Union District waiting for your clock to be finally punched after living your self imposed miserable existence. You have no one to blame but yourself for your lot in life.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 13, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Spoken like a true truthtard seriously afflicted with paranoid delusions.  

Am I infallible?  Absolutely not, and I will freely admit mistakes when made.  The problem is you have to actually show I am wrong.  Just claiming it and posting opinions doesn't cut it.  The truth is what it is.  The evidence is VERY clear.

Want more proof you are so full of shit your breath smells?  You claim Silverstein earned billions..... so why isn't he rich?  Here is the current list of the top four hundred richest people in the US.  He's not on the list.  Yet another truth you will run from.  YOU claim he made 7 billion, yet the list cuts off at 1.1 billion.

So when do your lies end, GP?  When do you grow a pair of balls and start facing up to the truth?


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 13, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you so arrogant?
> ...



I just fucking vomited. I would pay millions just to get my hands on this guys IP address.  It is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO obvious you are a patsy.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 13, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



What did you do?  Smell your own bullshit?    You're a fucking joke.  Now go play in traffic like all good truthtards should do.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 13, 2010)

Anyone else notice truthtards tend to get threatening and violent when their pet theories are constantly and consistantly trashed by the truth?    If they can't convince people, harassment is the next logical step for them I guess.  Of course their threats and whining is rather pathetic and totally pointless.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Dec 13, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


And what would you do with that IP address?

Careful now!

We just took care of one of your fellow troofer loons for making threats.......G'head, SAY IT!


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 13, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> Anyone else notice truthtards tend to get threatening and violent when their pet theories are constantly and consistantly trashed by the truth?    If they can't convince people, harassment is the next logical step for them I guess.  Of course their threats and whining is rather pathetic and totally pointless.



Patriot911, you have yet to prove one fact.  You are a distraction.  You give commentary and disinformation, thats it.

Please answer the following Patsy911:

Name 1 time a steel structure high rise building has collapsed due to an office fire in history.  
If you find one, did it collapse completely?

How does a building freefall through the greatest resistance for 2.25 seconds?
If NIST says the falling debris from the Towers "played no significant role in the cause of the collapse of WTC7" then how did it collapse? 
Can office fires melt and cut 8 floors of solid steel structures in 5 hours?  If so, how?

How do pools of liquid molten steel "running down beams like a foundry" end up at the bottom of WTC7, and Tower 1 & 2?
What could reach temperatures of 2500F+ Degrees?


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 13, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone else notice truthtards tend to get threatening and violent when their pet theories are constantly and consistantly trashed by the truth?    If they can't convince people, harassment is the next logical step for them I guess.  Of course their threats and whining is rather pathetic and totally pointless.
> ...


More bullshit from you.  Just because you're too big of a pussy to man up to the truth doesn't mean it's not the truth.

Please answer the following Patsy911:



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> Name 1 time a steel structure high rise building has collapsed due to an office fire in history.


Windsor tower.  


			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> If you find one, did it collapse completely?


Nope.  Just ten stories of the steel part.  The concrete part of the structure survived, but the building was a total loss.



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> How does a building freefall through the greatest resistance for 2.25 seconds?


"Greatest resistance"?    My you have a highly inflated ego to strut around making such claims.  Are you a structural engineer?  No?  Kindergarten drop out sounds about right.

The internal collapse that occured just prior to the external collapse damaged or destroyed many of the columns that would normally resist the collapse.  



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> If NIST says the falling debris from the Towers "played no significant role in the cause of the collapse of WTC7" then how did it collapse?


From the fires generated by the debris.  Duh!  Are you REALLY this fucking retarded?



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> Can office fires melt and cut 8 floors of solid steel structures in 5 hours?  If so, how?


Nope.  But then again only you retarded fucks are claiming steel was melted.  

Now if you want to talk about structures damaged to the point of failure, sure.  That can happen in under an hour in the right circumstances.  That is why they use fire retardant on the steel; to slow down the heating of the steel and prevent collapse.  Most standards require between one and four hours of protection for the steel.  Five hours is more than enough for heating steel to the point of failure.  Past that, you get a cascading failure as other structures already stressed and heated to the point of failure cannot accomodate the additional strain.



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> How do pools of liquid molten steel "running down beams like a foundry" end up at the bottom of WTC7, and Tower 1 & 2?


Prove it was steel.  You've quoted lots of people who would have no clue what the actual metal content was, but you haven't proven it was steel.

Pictures of the event show clearly solid steel glowing red hot.

As for remaining red hot for weeks, that is nothing more than fires burning in the debris pile fueled by oxygen from the subway tunnels.  

Unless, of course, you can name ANY substance that can keep steel red hot for weeks at a time.  What?  You failed miserably at that before?  Well, then I don't expect you to do any better this time.

All of which proves ANYTHING molten would not be due to explosives or thermite.  Explosives don't cut with heat and thermite would have cooled LONG before it had a chance to pool or drip off anything.  



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> What could reach temperatures of 2500F+ Degrees?


Nothing in the collapse which is why your claims are pure horse shit.  I am sure you're going to try and pretend molten "steel" is proof of 2500F+ degrees, but first you have to prove it was steel.    You've failed before at that and you will fail again.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 13, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> Windsor tower.



Wrong. 

"The [Madrid] Windsor Building was of a similar truss design to the twin towers, the fire started 11 stories from the top of the building, and it burned at temperatures of 800ºC for more than 18 hours [AFP]. The core of the building did not fail."

"The fire in WTC 1 is reported to have burned at 800ºC and was located roughly 17 stories from the top of the building meaning the inner core supported only 6 additional floors of weight above the fire zone in comparison to the Windsor Building. WTC 1 collapsed after only 85 minutes, reportedly through core failure."



			
				Patriot911 said:
			
		

> Nope.  Just ten stories of the steel part.  The concrete part of the structure survived, but the building was a total loss.



So a building burns for 18-20 hours and has nowhere near a total collapse and you compare it to the WTC collapses for your answer? At least post relevant responses instead of this opinionated commentary.




			
				patriot911 said:
			
		

> "Greatest resistance"?    My you have a highly inflated ego to strut around making such claims.  Are you a structural engineer?  No?  Kindergarten drop out sounds about right.



This is your logical response to my question regarding Newtonian Physics and the freefall stated by NIST?  You just got done saying:

Patriot911: "Anyone else notice truthtards tend to get threatening and violent when their pet theories are constantly and consistantly trashed by the truth?  If they can't convince people, harassment is the next logical step for them I guess. Of course their threats and whining is rather pathetic and totally pointless."

It's quite a coincidence that you do not respond logically to any basic questions, only respond with opinions and commentary.



			
				Patriot911 said:
			
		

> The internal collapse that occured just prior to the external collapse damaged or destroyed many of the columns that would normally resist the collapse.


How did any type of collapse occur? How does an office fire cause 8 floors to collapse before/after/during/between/around anytime in our reality? They barely reach half the temperatures that steel is required of to melt.  
So how is their an "internal collapse that occured prior to the external collapse?" by your claims?
How did it freefall once it fell?  Where did the 8 floors go?




			
				Patriot911 said:
			
		

> From the fires generated by the debris.  Duh!  Are you REALLY this fucking retarded?



How does a fire segregated to specific floors cause a building to collapse? Where in history has this happened? Show me one time a building has collapsed due to office fires please.  Also point out to me how a buildling freefalls for 2.25 seconds through the path of greatest resistance.  But this time please refrain from calling me "Fucking retarded" or  accuse me of having "a highly inflated ego" and then assume I am a "Kindergarten drop out."




			
				Patriot911 said:
			
		

> But then again only you retarded fucks are claiming steel was melted.


Besides the fact that you are once again acting like a hypocrite and posting fallacies, how else do 8 floors of concrete and structural steel remove it self? NOT by melting? 
How else?  By beams bending and sagging? Theres no external damage or movement from the building for 5 hours, so there's zero possibility that it was weakened sagging steel.





			
				Patriot911 said:
			
		

> Past that, you get a cascading failure as other structures already stressed and heated to the point of failure cannot accomodate the additional strain.



How is this possible?  The whole structure wasn't on fire. Where in history has a steel high rise collapsed because some floors failed and the bottom floors werent able to "accom[m]odate the additional strain." ?  If this were to happen, there would be a "jolt" and deceleration within the collapse on video, which show NEITHER happening.  So show me where your statement comes into play, I see only opinions and commentary, no evidence.





			
				patriot911 said:
			
		

> Prove it was steel.  You've quoted lots of people who would have no clue what the actual metal content was, but you haven't proven it was steel.



This is the type of shit you pull.  What other melted metal would it of been? What other object on earth melts and is liquified in the WTCs? Is there another material that it would of been running down beams like a foundry?  Is there another metal that the firefighters and fire responders could have mistaken for steel?  Prove it WASNT steel.




			
				Patriot911 said:
			
		

> your claims are pure horse shit.  I am sure you're going to try and pretend molten "steel" is proof of 2500F+ degrees, but first you have to prove it was steel.    You've failed before at that and you will fail again.



You have yet to prove one point, or rebuttal one fact.  You just commentate and post your opinions.  Once again:

How does a object exert no force and collapse at complete freefall through the path of greatest resistance right under it.  Office fires do not melt steel, and video evidence proves that the beams inside had not collapsed from bowing/sagging.  So how did WTC7 collapse at freefall speeds for 2.25 seconds, according to Newtonian Physics, it is impossible, unless nothing is under it resisting.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 13, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > Windsor tower.
> ...


The core of the building was concrete.  The steel framed part of the structure failed.  Would you like a picture of where the ten stories collapsed?



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> "The fire in WTC 1 is reported to have burned at 800ºC and was located roughly 17 stories from the top of the building meaning the inner core supported only 6 additional floors of weight above the fire zone in comparison to the Windsor Building. WTC 1 collapsed after only 85 minutes, reportedly through core failure."


Yeah, and you fucktards are too damn stupid to understand the simple concept of different buildings constructed differently and under different circumstances don't have to behave exactly the same.    Only a moron of EPIC proportions would believe everything has to happen the same even when you change major variables.



			
				Patriot911 said:
			
		

> Nope.  Just ten stories of the steel part.  The concrete part of the structure survived, but the building was a total loss.



So a building burns for 18-20 hours and has nowhere near a total collapse and you compare it to the WTC collapses for your answer? At least post relevant responses instead of this opinionated commentary.[/quote]
  The only part of the building that was a steel framed structure completely and totally collapsed.  That isn't opinionated commentary.  That is called the truth.  I realize you don't want anyone to see you've been owned yet again, but tough shit.  



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> This is your logical response to my question regarding Newtonian Physics and the freefall stated by NIST?  You just got done saying:
> 
> Patriot911: "Anyone else notice truthtards tend to get threatening and violent when their pet theories are constantly and consistantly trashed by the truth?  If they can't convince people, harassment is the next logical step for them I guess. Of course their threats and whining is rather pathetic and totally pointless."


  Awww.  Did I strike a nerve?  See, the difference is truthtards like you tend to insult / threaten and run.  I make fun of sick fucks like you and then rip your theories apart.  I realize that must sting, but like I said above, tough shit.  Suck it up, pussy!



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> It's quite a coincidence that you do not respond logically to any basic questions, only respond with opinions and commentary.


Wrong yet again.  YOU may not understand my response (big surprise there!) but that doesn't mean it isn't logical and based in facts.



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> How did any type of collapse occur? How does an office fire cause 8 floors to collapse before/after/during/between/around anytime in our reality? They barely reach half the temperatures that steel is required of to melt.


More bullshit claims from the king of bullshit.  NOBODY HAS SAID THE STEEL HAD TO MELT!  That is your claim and your claim only.  Why?  Because you know you've been owned, so you have to introduce a straw man of your own making; melted steel.  



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> So how is their an "internal collapse that occured prior to the external collapse?" by your claims?


Read the NIST report.  It is very clearly explained there.  You might have to take it to someone with a higher than single digit IQ to explain it to you.  All them drugs have burned out your brain.



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> How did it freefall once it fell?  Where did the 8 floors go?


Read the report.  



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> How does a fire segregated to specific floors cause a building to collapse? Where in history has this happened? Show me one time a building has collapsed due to office fires please.


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MRSr1MnFuk&feature=player_embedded[/ame]



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> Also point out to me how a buildling freefalls for 2.25 seconds through the path of greatest resistance.  But this time please refrain from calling me "Fucking retarded" or  accuse me of having "a highly inflated ego" and then assume I am a "Kindergarten drop out."


You ARE a fucking retard and you DO have a highly inflated ego.  AND I already answered your question, so suck it up, pussy, and deal with the answer.



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> Besides the fact that you are once again acting like a hypocrite and posting fallacies, how else do 8 floors of concrete and structural steel remove it self? NOT by melting?


Through collapse.  Duh!  Pay attention, truthtard!  



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> How else?  By beams bending and sagging? Theres no external damage or movement from the building for 5 hours, so there's zero possibility that it was weakened sagging steel.


  So speaks the "engineer" with the inflated ego.  And what are you basing that on, truthtard?  Your years of experience?  



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> How is this possible?  The whole structure wasn't on fire. Where in history has a steel high rise collapsed because some floors failed and the bottom floors werent able to "accom[m]odate the additional strain." ?  If this were to happen, there would be a "jolt" and deceleration within the collapse on video, which show NEITHER happening.  So show me where your statement comes into play, I see only opinions and commentary, no evidence.


Read the report, douchebag.  All your questions are answered there.



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What.... are you so fucking stupid you can't think of any metal besides steel?    Aluminum, as one example, is used in lots of office materials and melts at temperatures seen on 9/11.  
 But I'm not the one who has made the claim they know specifically what metal it is.  YOU have.  So prove it was steel.  You've made the claim.  You're building your case on needing temperatures above 2500F.  You first need to prove your base claims before you can build on them or the whole theory is nothing but bullshit.



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


More bullshit from you.  I have.  You just don't want to accept it.  Not my problem.



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> How does a object exert no force and collapse at complete freefall through the path of greatest resistance right under it.  Office fires do not melt steel, and video evidence proves that the beams inside had not collapsed from bowing/sagging.  So how did WTC7 collapse at freefall speeds for 2.25 seconds, according to Newtonian Physics, it is impossible, unless nothing is under it resisting.


Read above.  The answer doesn't change because you're too fucking stupid to understand the answer or too dishonest to acknowledge the truth.


----------



## eots (Dec 13, 2010)

so it is parrots0/11 contention was wrong when In the opening statement of the final report they state ..they discovered a new phenomena of fire induced global collapse and it is the first known instance of a steel framed building has collapsed due to fire..wow if they cant even get that right how can we trust the investigation at all ?


----------



## eots (Dec 13, 2010)

your bullshit debwunker video also states that damage from falling debris took ouT 25% of the supports of wtc 7....BUT NIST SAYS DAMAGE PLAYED NO SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN THE COLLAPSE....so are you debwunking NIST now ??


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 13, 2010)

eots said:


> so it is parrots0/11 contention was wrong when In the opening statement of the final report they state ..they discovered a new phenomena of fire induced global collapse and it is the first known instance of a steel framed building has collapsed due to fire..wow if they cant even get that right how can we trust the investigation at all ?



  The truthtard ability to be so completely and utterly dishonest is absolutely ASTOUNDING!!!!!!  Did the NIST say this was the first known instance of a steel framed building collapsing due to fire?  Nope.  eots, in his complete and utter dishonesty, leaves out key words.  Why?  Because he is a fucking liar.

What the NIST REALLY said:

"This was the first known instance of the total collapse *of a tall building primarily due to fires*".

It is amazing ANYONE would believe anything you say, eots.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 13, 2010)

eots said:


> your bullshit debwunker video also states that damage from falling debris took ouT 25% of the supports of wtc 7....BUT NIST SAYS DAMAGE PLAYED NO SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN THE COLLAPSE....so are you debwunking NIST now ??



Nope.  Both are true.  Yes, I realize that fact probably hurts your widdle truthtard brain, but the damage to the south face of the building had little to do with the collapse that initiated in the northwest area of the building.  Was the south face damaged?  Yes.  Was there structural damage?  Yes.  Did WTC 7 collapse due to fire?  Yes.  None of these are mutually exclusive no matter how much that hurts your widdle truthtard brain.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 13, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> You speak with only opinion and commentary, spread misinformation and distraction, and have a complete lack of moral and pride.
> 
> BuildingWhat? - A TV Ad Campaign to Raise Awareness of Building 7 - What is Building 7 ?
> AE911Truth.org



  Nice response, truthtard!  Just more evidence you can't debate and have to have conspiratard sites tell you what to think.  It must truly suck to be a slave to conspiratard sites.


----------



## eots (Dec 13, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > so it is parrots0/11 contention was wrong when In the opening statement of the final report they state ..they discovered a new phenomena of fire induced global collapse and it is the first known instance of a steel framed building has collapsed due to fire..wow if they cant even get that right how can we trust the investigation at all ?
> ...



well actually pinhead thats not what they said...but regardless was the Windsor not a TALL building...lol  ( they actually said over 15 stories )


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 13, 2010)

eots said:


> well actually pinhead thats not what they said...but regardless was the Windsor not a TALL building...lol



  OMG you truthtards are seriously dumb fucks!  That was a DIRECT QUOTE from the executive summary!  CLICK HERE YA DUMB FUCK!  I know how you have a hard time identifying links.  Page 37.  First paragraph.  Last sentence.

As for the Windsor tower, it did not suffer a total collapse except for the steel framed section of the building.  You still lose!


----------



## saiweril (Dec 13, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> OMG you truthtards are seriously dumb fucks!


Um, I don't think you should ever insult and call people dumb again, Patriot911.


----------



## eots (Dec 13, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > your bullshit debwunker video also states that damage from falling debris took ouT 25% of the supports of wtc 7....BUT NIST SAYS DAMAGE PLAYED NO SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN THE COLLAPSE....so are you debwunking NIST now ??
> ...



the claim was that this building  had damage to 25% of the supports and this played a significant role in the collapse this in complete contradiction to the NIST report


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 13, 2010)

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Not my claim.  I posted the video to show examples of steel framed buildings that collapsed due to fire.  Try to keep up.  You're embarassing yourself!


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 13, 2010)

saiweril said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > OMG you truthtards are seriously dumb fucks!
> ...



Who gives a shit what a liar like you thinks?


----------



## eots (Dec 13, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Patriot911 said:
> ...



you did no such thing


----------



## saiweril (Dec 13, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> saiweril said:
> 
> 
> > Patriot911 said:
> ...


Aww, what's that matter Patriot911?  A wittle mad that you got majorly bitch-slapped today?!


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 13, 2010)

saiweril said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > saiweril said:
> ...



  Making a mistake and admitting to it is not a "major bitch-slap".  Once again, I don't give a shit what a liar like you thinks.


----------



## eots (Dec 13, 2010)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpJdpoQJ1wA[/ame]


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 13, 2010)

Wicked Jester said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Patriot911 said:
> ...


Still waiting for your BIG break, Malibuuuuuuuu?

Tell me how eight stories of WTC7 fell at free fall speeds for 2.25 seconds WITHOUT explosives?


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 13, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > your bullshit debwunker video also states that damage from falling debris took ouT 25% of the supports of wtc 7....BUT NIST SAYS DAMAGE PLAYED NO SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN THE COLLAPSE....so are you debwunking NIST now ??
> ...


What makes you think the collapse "initiated in the northwest area of the building" since the roof remained level across the entire width of the building?

More from Mr Chandler:

"Mr. Chandler goes on to describe two particular attributes of Building 7&#8217;s free fall descent that make *the evidence for explosive demolition even more overwhelming*:

    &#8220;What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall.  Acceleration doesn&#8217;t build up gradually.  The graph [measuring the building&#8217;s descent] simply turns a corner.  

"*The building went from full support to zero support instantly.*&#8221;

Secondly:

    &#8220;The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building&#8230; *The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width*.&#8221;

Mr Chandler's summation:

"&#8220;The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures.  

"*All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second*, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.&#8221;

BuildingWhat?


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 13, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Chandler is a joke.  When are you truthtards going to realize the sites you "trust" for all your information lie to you on a regular basis!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rhY9c_iemA]Part 1[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60A86cg16KQ]Part 2[/ame]


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 13, 2010)

Patriot911, stop spreading misinformation and lying, please.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 13, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> Patriot911, stop spreading misinformation and lying, please.


No misinformation.  No lying.  That's what bothers you so much.  You KNOW deep down it is the truth, but you just don't have the balls to admit it to yourself, much less anyone else.    It takes a real piece of shit to not own up to his mistakes.  It is an even bigger piece of shit that has to pretend everyone else is lying in order to cover up for his own incompetence and dishonesty.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 13, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Patriot911, stop spreading misinformation and lying, please.
> ...



Once again, please stop lying.  Could you refrain from spreading misinformation as well?  I'd also like to suggest trying to take a step back when it comes to your personal attacks.  Your opinion and commentary are not needed in these forums, but feel free to express yourself.  This is America, even the ignorant can speak.  its up to you how you present yourself, and if mocking people and being a nuisance is how you project your personality, then I sympathize for you, I really do.

Once again Patriot911: 

1: How does WTC7 freefall for 2.25 seconds through the path of greatest resistance?  8 total floor lengths were removed, how so? 

2: There is no bowing or bending of the structure, thus eliminating the fires inside breaking apart the beams over 5 hours.  So in this case how does a building remove 8 floors for a complete freefall?  

3: How does it collapse INSIDE before it collapses as a whole? Use facts, not opinion.

4: How does WTC7, and the towers have molten steel/molten liquid at the bottom of the buildings if temperatures needed to produce such molten need to be in excess of 2500F degrees? (Aluminum is silver, not gold/glowing)

5: Has any steel structure building _completely_ collapsed in history?  If so, where? 

6: Why is the WTC7 not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission report?

I'm keeping it limited so you do not distract with opinions and commentary.


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 13, 2010)

Is David Chandler or "Aliententity" lying about 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration?


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 13, 2010)

"Freefall is an embarrassment to the official story, *because freefall is impossible for a naturally
collapsing building.* 

"In a natural collapse there would be an interaction between the falling and the
stationary sections of the building. 

"This interaction would cause crushing of both sections and slowing of the falling section. 

"I have done measurements on several known demolitions, using similar software
tools, and found that they typically fall with accelerations considerably less than freefall. 

"Building 7 was not only demolished, *it was demolished with tremendous overkil*l.

"Freefall was so embarrassing to NIST that in the August 2008 draft release for public comment of their
final report, the fact of freefall was denied and crudely covered up with the assertion that the collapse
took *40% longer than 'freefall time*.' 

"They asserted that the actual collapse, down to the level of the 29th floor, took 5.4 seconds whereas freefall would have taken only 3.9 seconds. 

"They arrived at their figures with only two data points: the time when the roofline reached the level of the 29th floor and an artificially early start time several seconds prior to the beginning of the obvious, sudden onset of
freefall. 

"They started their clock at a time between the collapses of the east and west penthouses when
the building was not moving. 

"They claimed they saw a change in a 'single pixel' triggering what they asserted was the onset of collapse, but anyone who has worked with the actual videos will recognize that the *edge artifacts in the image of the building make this an unrealistic standard*. 

"Furthermore, even if there was a tiny motion of the building at that point, it continued to stand essentially motionless for several more seconds before the dramatic onset of freefall collapse. 

"The fact of a cover up in NIST's measurement is underlined in that the formula they point to as the basis for their calculation of 'freefall time' is valid only under conditions of constant acceleration. 

"They applied that equation to a situation that was far from uniform acceleration. Instead, the building remained essentially at rest for several seconds, then plunged into freefall, then slowed to a lesser acceleration. 

*"Their analysis demonstrates either gross incompetence or a crude attempt at a cover up*. 

"The scientists at NIST are clearly not incompetent, so the only reasonable conclusion is to interpret this as part of a cover up. 

"(It is important to stand back occasionally and recognize the context of these events. This was not just a cover-up of an embarrassing fact. It was a cover-up of facts in the murder of nearly 3000 people and part of a justification for a war in which well over a* million people have since been killed*.)"

Why did NIST change their story regarding WTC7's 2.25 seconds of free fall between August and November of 2008?

Freefall.pdf P.4


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 13, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> Once again, please stop lying.


Hate to break it to you, princess, but I haven't been lying.  YOU'RE the douche that lies, remember?



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> Could you refrain from spreading misinformation as well?


No misinformation either.  Just the truth.  



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> I'd also like to suggest trying to take a step back when it comes to your personal attacks.


Awwww.... diddums get his wittle feewings hurt?  Tough shit.  Grow a pair and suck it up, asshole!



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> Your opinion and commentary are not needed in these forums, but feel free to express yourself.


  Like your opinion and commentary are needed!!    You're just steamed because I continue to make you look like the fool that you are. 



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> This is America, even the ignorant can speak.


You are living proof of that.



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> its up to you how you present yourself, and if mocking people and being a nuisance is how you project your personality, then I sympathize for you, I really do.


I am only this way with true pieces of shit that use the deaths of 3000 Americans to push an agenda via lies and opinions while ignoring the facts and evidence.  If you don't like it, you are free to stop posting.  I'm not going to stop because some pissant is suddenly trying (and failing) to take the high road.  I guess the spamming technique didn't work out too well for you, eh?  



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> Once again Patriot911:
> 
> 1: How does WTC7 freefall for 2.25 seconds through the path of greatest resistance?  8 total floor lengths were removed, how so?


Collapsed.  Internal.  Read it in the NIST report.  You know.... if you keep asking the same bullshit questions you're going to get the same answers.  The truth doesn't change just because you're too big of a pussy to acknowledge it.



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> 2: There is no bowing or bending of the structure, thus eliminating the fires inside breaking apart the beams over 5 hours.  So in this case how does a building remove 8 floors for a complete freefall?


And you're now an engineering genius?    No thank you.  Your knowledge of engineering and physics could fit on the head of a pin with room to spare.    



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> 3: How does it collapse INSIDE before it collapses as a whole? Use facts, not opinion.


Read the NIST report.  It explains it all.  If you can't understand it, take it to the nearest kid and have him explain it to your sorry ass.



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> 4: How does WTC7, and the towers have molten steel/molten liquid at the bottom of the buildings if temperatures needed to produce such molten need to be in excess of 2500F degrees? (Aluminum is silver, not gold/glowing)


There were no recorded temperatures of 2500F.  You are once again lying out your sorry ass.  And aluminum is only silver if it is pure.  Any alloy of aluminum or contaminated aluminum is going to glow orange.  



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> 5: Has any steel structure building _completely_ collapsed in history?  If so, where?


Ahhh.  You've been listening too much to eots where he dishonestly claims the NIST says WTC 7 was the first steel structure building to collapse.  He neglects the height aspect.  But since you're ignorant, yes, there have been TONS of steel structured buildings that have collapsed in history.  They've collapsed for all kinds of reasons.  You're so fucking retarded you couldn't even ask the question right!   



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> 6: Why is the WTC7 not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission report?


The 9/11 commission report was a report on the events leading up to 9/11, the attack itself, and the post 9/11 events.  It had nothing to do with collateral damage.  It didn't report on WTC 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 because they were not the targets of the attack.  



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> I'm keeping it limited so you do not distract with opinions and commentary.


  You're going to be no happier with the answers this time as you were all the other times.  Maybe you should quit being a bitch and actually READ the NIST report.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 13, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> "Freefall is an embarrassment to the official story, *because freefall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building.*



I already showed you Chandler getting his ass kicked.  He is a loon just like the rest of you truthtards.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 13, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Is David Chandler or "Aliententity" lying about 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration?



Practically the only thing he isn't lying about.  Typical truthtard.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 13, 2010)

You did not post one fact Patriot911.
Stop with the personal attacks, stop distracting and using your opinion.  Answer questions with facts, and for a start that would begin with citing facts, and not directing us to the NIST report.  You need to realize that people can easily see the conversation on these forums and with logic realize you are spewing random insults and misinformation while myself and others are asking basic questions, stating facts, and citing our sources.  you can continue on the same pace and style you have been, but it's not helpful for your 'cause', whatever it may be.

Once again Patriot911:

How does an office fire cause an internal collapse before the total collapse?  

How does a building freefall through the path of greatest resistance, where are the Newtonian Physics?

If the freefall speed is clocked at 2.25s or 8 floors minimum, where is the resistance?  Objects cannot fall at the speed of freefall through other objects, so how did the 47 story steel structure collapse completely, and show freefall speed acceleration?  It is impossible unless those floors were not there, or were removed.  And office fires cannot do such, so how did this happen?

Please refrain from posting commentary and opinions.  Answer with facts, and do not cite NIST for god sakes.


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 14, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Is David Chandler or "Aliententity" lying about 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration?
> ...


Assuming that's an admission Chandler's correct, how does any falling building go into free fall WITHOUT an external force removing its supporting structure?


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 14, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> You did not post one fact Patriot911.


So says a little pissant who can't actually prove I am lying, so has to stick to general claims.  What a little bitch!



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> Stop with the personal attacks, stop distracting and using your opinion.


This coming from someone who gives nothing BUT opinion!    That's rich!  



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> Answer questions with facts, and for a start that would begin with citing facts, and not directing us to the NIST report.


The NIST report DIRECTLY ANSWERS your questions.  Read it for once.  We know you can read.



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> You need to realize that people can easily see the conversation on these forums and with logic realize you are spewing random insults and misinformation while myself and others are asking basic questions, stating facts, and citing our sources.  you can continue on the same pace and style you have been, but it's not helpful for your 'cause', whatever it may be.


You mean exposing your lies and bullshit?    Yes, I am sure people recognize that.  That is why you're trying so hard to shut me up.  Isn't going to work.  And since you and people like you are beneath contempt, I will continue to treat you like the scum you are.  

As for repeating the same questions without addressing what I've already written, remove your head from your ass, shove said questions as far up there as you can, and then feel free to stick your head back up your ass.  The last part is optional.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 14, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



So fire and gravity are not external forces?  Wow!  That is news to the world of science!  We're going to have to rewrite a LOT of textbooks!!!!


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 14, 2010)

Fire and gravity caused the failure of four hundred structural steel connections per second across eight lower floors of WTC7?

We'll have to rewrite EVERY textbook, starting with Isaac Newton's.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 14, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Fire and gravity caused the failure of four hundred structural steel connections per second across eight lower floors of WTC7?
> 
> We'll have to rewrite EVERY textbook, starting with Isaac Newton's.



 Wrong yet again.  The fact you are either incapable of learning what happened or are just willingly ignoring what happened to push your agenda proves you're nothing but a wimpering truthtard with nothing to actually contribute.  That must truly suck to know you've actually failed at being a truthtard!  Wow.


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 14, 2010)

Are you stupid enough to believe scattered fires and gravity produced 2.25 seconds of free fall?

Do you believe every lie your government tells?

Or only those that serve your agenda?


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 14, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Fire and gravity caused the failure of four hundred structural steel connections per second across eight lower floors of WTC7?
> ...



I dont understand why you are playing this game with us.  Stop it and act like a prideful citizen.  Stand up for the truth and stop distracting everyone from the facts.  

You have yet to post one fact, cite any credible source, and have continued to attack us with personal jabs and illogical remarks.  I do not understand your agenda because you are all over the place. 

Once again Patriot911:

How does a building have an internal collapse from office fires? 

How did the steel melt/deform but show ZERO effects on the outside of the buildling for the 5-6 hours it was burning?

Where in history has an office fire caused a steel building to completely collapse? If so, where?

How does 2 objects exert no force through eachother, where the greatest resistance is, but instead provide Freefall acceleration?  

According to Newtonian Physics, the only way for this to be possible is if the floors were not there/just removed, how were they?  

Office fires don't cause complete collapses, and the debris played no significant role in the collapse, so what caused 8 floors to disappear?

Please refrain from personal attacks, and avoid answering with your personal opinion. Cite sources, state facts, and stop directing us to NIST while calling us 'fucking retarded' or 'truthtards', please.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 14, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> I dont understand why you are playing this game with us.  Stop it and act like a prideful citizen.  Stand up for the truth and stop distracting everyone from the facts.


I'm not playing games, and I AM standing up for the truth.  The very fact you can't even ADDRESS responses to your posts show that you not only know you're lying, but that responding would prove that to everyone. 



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> You have yet to post one fact, cite any credible source, and have continued to attack us with personal jabs and illogical remarks.  I do not understand your agenda because you are all over the place.


That is because once again, you're lying your truthtard ass off.  I've posted facts and I've cited credible sources.  This is the truth of the matter easily verified.  A shame you have to stoop to lying like this. 



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> Once again Patriot911:


Why is it you find it impossible to respond to what I have already written in response?  Truthtards are so full of shit.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 14, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> Office fires don't cause complete collapses,



You mean fires can affect steel and structural steel components to cause a PARTIAL collapse?


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 14, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Are you stupid enough to believe scattered fires and gravity produced 2.25 seconds of free fall?



Do you know what the definition of structural failure is?


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 14, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Are you stupid enough to believe scattered fires and gravity produced 2.25 seconds of free fall?
> ...



Structural failures produce Freefall acceleration through the path of greatest resistance?


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 14, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


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



They CAN!  OMG you're starting to see the light!!!


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 14, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Are you stupid enough to believe scattered fires and gravity produced 2.25 seconds of free fall?
> ...


"Structural failure refers to loss of the load-carrying capacity of a component or member within a structure or of the structure itself. 

"Structural failure is initiated when the material is stressed to its strength limit, thus causing fracture or excessive deformations. 

"*In a well-designed system, a localized failure should not cause immediate or even progressive collapse of the entire structure.* 

"Ultimate failure strength is one of the limit states that must be accounted for in structural engineering and structural design."


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 14, 2010)

The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures.  

"*All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns* had to have been removed over *the span of 8 floors* low in the building simultaneously to within a *small fraction of a second*, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.

"*Only explosives* can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.  

"The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building."

BuildingWhat?


----------



## candycorn (Dec 14, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If he's asking for your IP...isn't that a TOS Violation?


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 14, 2010)

georgephillip said:


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


----------



## candycorn (Dec 14, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures.
> ...


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 15, 2010)

The Nature of WTC7's Collapse

From a letter to "A Letter to a Die-Hard Supporter of the Official Explanation":

"If you think about the nature of the collapse, supposedly due to fire weakening the steel, you will agree that it would only be necessary to follow the early stages of the collapse to determine its character. 

"If heat is the cause, the steel will weaken gradually and will start to sag in the region where the fire is most intense. At that moment the steel will have almost enough strength to hold up the weight of the building, but not quite. So we have the force of gravity acting downwards, trying to produce an acceleration of 32 feet per second per second, and the force of the hot steel pushing upwards, a force a bit less than that of gravity. 

"Let us say we are looking at it at the moment when the strength has declined to the point where the steel is capable of pushing upwards with 90% of the force required to hold the building up against gravity. There would thus be a net downward force of 10% of gravity. 

"Now acceleration is proportional to force and we have a net force of 10% of gravity so we would see an acceleration downwards of 3.2 feet per second per second.

"When you graph the data you find that the fall did not start with a motion which could be ascribed to a small net force of that order. The downward acceleration of the roof was very close to free fall right from the start, 30 feet per second per second, and continued at that rate until out of sight. There is no hint of a slow start. This tells us that the steel supports went from adequate strength to virtually no strength in an instant. 

"For reasons stated above *this is absolutely impossible *if the loss of strength is due to the *application of heat*.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 15, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> The Nature of WTC7's Collapse
> 
> From a letter to "A Letter to a Die-Hard Supporter of the Official Explanation":
> 
> ...



When one starts with a bullshit assumption (pretending 10% of gravity means anything) one ends up with a bullshit conclusion.

Why is it truthtards can't understand a sudden failure?  Steel is brittle.  Put steel under a lot of pressure, heat it up to the point of failure and it can snap.  You go from 100% support to 0% support in a heartbeat.


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 15, 2010)

Links?


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 15, 2010)

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

Is steel that brittle?

BuildingWhat?BuildingWhat? - A TV Ad Campaign to Raise Awareness of Building 7 - Free Fall Collapse


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 15, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


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



Do you know how steel structures are designed? Do you understand load distribution? 

I said this in the other thread, but you folks just can't grasp it. All the individual structural components (beams, columns, etc.) are tied together with connections (bolts, welds, etc.). This "network" of connected, individual components work together as a whole to support a finite weight limit. This means that structural engineers perform calculations for stress levels to see what the current structural can hold. 

If you start to fail certain components within that "network", the other components have to pick up the slack of the weakened/failed component (a columns for example).

I used this example before. Let's take two people. We'll take a 3" diameter, 10' long steel pipe filled with concrete. We'll put each person on each end of the pipe to hold it up. Your jobs are to stay rigid and old the pipe up and horizontal. Think about the weight supported by each person. They BOTH take part in holding the load up. 

Now, one person drops one end of the pipe. The other person is now responsible for keeping the entire pipe horizontal ALONE and from one end. That person is probably not "designed" to be strong enough to keep that pipe horizontal all alone and will "fail" by either dropping the pipe or falling forward due to the weight.

Do you understand that scenario?


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 15, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> 2: There is no bowing or bending of the structure, thus eliminating the fires inside breaking apart the beams over 5 hours.  So in this case how does a building remove 8 floors for a complete freefall?



What's between those 8 floors? You make it sound like WTC7 was a solid entity. Isn't there air between those floors?


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 15, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> "All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second,..."
> 
> Is steel that brittle?
> 
> BuildingWhat?BuildingWhat? - A TV Ad Campaign to Raise Awareness of Building 7 - Free Fall Collapse



When you start with bullshit, you end with bullshit.  Claiming all 24 colums and 58 perimeter columns had to be removed at exactly the same time is pure bullshit.

But hey.  Let's run with it.  

So it is your conclusion that all 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to be removed within a small fraction of a second.  Well, that rules out thermate or thermite.  So we're talking high explosives ala controlled demolition.

The smallest explosive charge needed to remove column 79 (the one that initially failed) would create the equivalent sound of a gun shot going off right next to you.... if the blast were to go off half a mile away in an urban setting.  BUT... you claim it HAD to be more than one column.  You're talking about 24 interior columns (big charges) and 58 perimeter columns (not quite as big) going off within a second.  

Yet nobody heard anything even approaching what one would expect.

Yet seismographs both in downtown Manhattan and the far more sensitive ones at the permanent site at Lamont Doherty didn't record anything resembling explosives going off.

Yet nobody found A column or perimeter column cut by demolitions charges despute there being 82 columns you claim had to be cut.  They DID find columns that had suffered failure due to heat and stress.

Yet nobody found evidence of explosives being used at all.  No blasting caps.  No wiring.  Nothing.

So tell us, GP..... knowing what you know now, how did anyone do it?  There is no such thing as silent explosives.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 15, 2010)

georgephillip said:


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



You mean over-stressing interior columns and perimeter columns to a point that the fail is not the same as "removing them"?


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 15, 2010)

CORE DENIAL?

"Each tower was supported by a structural core extending from its bedrock foundation to its roof. The cores were rectangular pillars with numerous large columns and girders, measuring 87 feet by 133 feet. 

"The core structures housed the elevators, stairs, and other services. 

"The cores had their own flooring systems, which were structurally independent of the floor diaphragms that spanned the space between the cores and the perimeter walls. 

"The core structures, like the perimeter wall structures, were 100 percent steel-framed.

"The exact dimensions, arrangement, and number of the core columns remained somewhat mysterious until the publication of a leaked collection of detailed architectural drawings of the North Tower in 2007. 

"Although the drawings show the dimensions and arrangement of core columns, they do not show other engineering details such as the core floor framing. 

"It is clear from photographs, such as the one on the right, that the core columns were abundantly cross-braced.

"*Core Denial*

"Establishing the true nature of the core structures is of great importance given that the most widely read document on the World Trade Center attack -- the 9/11 Commission Report -- denies their very existence, claiming the towers' cores were 'hollow steel shaft:'"


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 15, 2010)

patriot911 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "all 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second,..."
> ...


links?


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 15, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> CORE DENIAL?
> 
> "Each tower was supported by a structural core extending from its bedrock foundation to its roof. The cores were rectangular pillars with numerous large columns and girders, measuring 87 feet by 133 feet.
> 
> ...




You're talking about the towers now.  What happened to WTC 7?


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 15, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


Would you actually believe them and take them into consideration if I linked sources to back up each of my claims?


----------



## tempesta29 (Dec 15, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> When you start with bullshit, you end with bullshit.  Claiming all 24 colums and 58 perimeter columns had to be removed at exactly the same time is pure bullshit.
> 
> But hey.  Let's run with it.



Let's do run with it, because if columns hadn't been removed in such a fashion, free fall would never have occurred. You can bark all you want. That's physics. If a building is falling at the same speed as a brick through the air for a period of 2.25 seconds, then every single column, both perimeter and core, would had to have been removed floor by floor, simultaneously over about 8 floors.

We will await your demonstration of fire's capability of producing such a result.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 15, 2010)

tempesta29 said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > When you start with bullshit, you end with bullshit.  Claiming all 24 colums and 58 perimeter columns had to be removed at exactly the same time is pure bullshit.
> ...



He only has insults and commentary.  He will only respond with his opinion and try and make the conversation personal, without providing any rebuttals and claiming our evidence is 'fake'.  He is a prime example of an insane person.


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 15, 2010)

Gamolon said:


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


Removing all 82 columns over eight floors "within a small fraction of a second..." according to David Chandler is the requirement for 2.25 seconds of free fall.


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 15, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


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


We agree there are no silent explosives, Patriot911, and I don't know how or who brought down the three WTC towers.

That's why I'm on the side of those calling for a credible and independent investigation into the crimes.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 15, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



along with the evidence which proves the story has been covered up also indicates the need of a new investigation.  Wouldnt you all want to know the exact reason why we have thousands of our troops stationed in the middle east?  wouldnt you want to know who exactly murdered 3000 people?  Wouldnt you want indisputable evidence that the buildings fell the way they did?  Well NIST and the 9/11 commission provided nothing but coverup and lies.  Physics prove that the fire theory is impossible in reality.  We are only pressing for truth because we CARE About this country, whoever proceeded with covering up these crimes and whoever participated in the event itself, should all be brought to light.  We have spent 1 trillion tax dollars on the wars, we have enacted the Patriot act, and TSA.  This is all because of 9/11, if you have common sense and use basic logic, you can see a reinvestigation is REQUIRED, BY LAW.

NYC Coalition For Accountability Now
AE911Truth.org
BuildingWhat? - Building 7 |Please stand with the 9-11 families in calling for a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ?
www.youtube.com/ae911truth


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 15, 2010)

tempesta29 said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > When you start with bullshit, you end with bullshit.  Claiming all 24 colums and 58 perimeter columns had to be removed at exactly the same time is pure bullshit.
> ...



Nice running away from the truth ya pussy!  What's wrong?  Is the truth too painful for you to bear?  Are you seriously so afraid of the truth that you can't handle addressing it?  

We know the building fell for 2.25 seconds at free fall.  That is a known.

We know how loud explosives are and how much produces how big of a bang.  That is a known.

We know explosives work via pressure.  That is a known.

We know the windows didn't blow out of the WTC 7 which is what one would expect from a sealed building.  That is a known.

We know there was dust coming out the top of the WTC 7 which would indicate this is where the air inside the building exited.  That is a known.

So we have two schools of thought.  One that says there were explosives used to cut all the columns and one that says the inside of the building at least partially collapsed before the exterior collapsed, thus allowing near free fall acceleration.  

Explosives would have been heard CLEARLY AND WITHOUT DOUBT at LEAST a half mile away.  You don't mistake a noise as loud as a gun shot going off right next to you.

Did we hear such an event?  No.  Do we have clear audio tapes of the collapse event?  Yes.

Explosives would have left clear and easily identifiable cut marks in the steel.  Did anyone see this?  No.

Explosives would have left a seismic signature just prior to the collapse.  Did we see that in the seismic record?  No.

Did the windows blow out with great force from the pressure of the blast wave?  No.

OK, now let us look at the second theory.

The claim is that the interior started collapsing before the exterior.

Is there any evidence to support this?  Yes.  The penthouse clearly collapses several seconds before the exterior collapses.

So go ahead and refute these facts.  Don't just puss out and run away.  Be a man.  Grow some balls for once in your life and stand up for what you "believe" in.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 15, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> We agree there are no silent explosives, Patriot911, and I don't know how or who brought down the three WTC towers.
> 
> That's why I'm on the side of those calling for a credible and independent investigation into the crimes.



OK, so now we're making progress.  We agree there are no silent explosives.  Would you also agree there was no large explosion that could clearly be heard half a mile away in an urban area milliseconds before the collapse started?


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 15, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Patriot911 said:
> ...


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 15, 2010)

24 year FBI veteran Coleen Rowley has added her support for a new 911 Investigation.

From Wiki:

"After the September 11, 2001, attacks, Rowley wrote a paper for FBI Director Robert Mueller documenting how FBI HQ personnel in Washington, D.C., had mishandled and failed to take action on information provided by the Minneapolis, Minnesota Field Office regarding its investigation of suspected terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui.

"This individual had been suspected of being involved in preparations for a suicide-hijacking similar to the December 1994 'Eiffel Tower' hijacking of Air France 8969. 

"*Failures identified by Rowley may have left the U.S. vulnerable to the September 11, 2001, attacks*. 

"Rowley was one of many agents frustrated by the events that led up to the attacks, writing:

    "'During the early aftermath of September 11th, when I happened to be recounting the pre-September 11th events concerning the Moussaoui investigation to other FBI personnel in other divisions or in FBIHQ, almost everyone's first question was 'Why?--Why would an FBI agent(s) deliberately sabotage a case?' 

"(I know I shouldn't be flippant about this, but jokes were actually made that the key FBI HQ personnel had to be spies or moles, like [Robert Hanssen], who were actually working for Osama Bin Laden to have so undercut Minneapolis' effort.)

In July 2009 Coleen explained why she's calling for a new investigation:

"The official dissembling and excuse-making about the *true causes and prior mistakes that gave rise to and allowed the terrorist attacks to happen*, almost immediately ushered in the Bush-Cheney Administration's egregious and lawless, post 9-11 'war on terror' agenda which bore no connection to the original causes and no connection to the goal of reducing terrorism and making the world safer. 

"When I got a chance, about 8 ½ months after 9-11 to tell what I knew, I did so and my disclosures led to further investigation by the Department of Justice Inspector General and figured in the 9-11 Commission Report."

Now it's time to put Dick and Rummy and Dubya UNDER OATH and on CSPAN and SHOW the "true causes and prior mistakes" that produced the crimes of 911.

Why I Support


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 15, 2010)

GP, why are you running away from the discussion at hand?


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 15, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> GP, why are you running away from the discussion at hand?



Are you man enough to confront these facts of reality?

 FACTS ABOUT BUILDING 7

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

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

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

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

5) 1,340+ architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for a new investigation that would include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives for the collapse of Building 7.

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

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

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b74naeawdCs[/ame]

After those facts and watching that video, what do you have to say?  Or can you even man up and watch the videos you are disrespecting?


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 15, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > GP, why are you running away from the discussion at hand?
> ...


Wrong.  WTC 1 and 2 collapsed before WTC 7 and those were both fire induced.  Would you not agree the circumstances surrounding all three collapses is ALSO unprecidented?



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> 2) Building 7s collapse was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.


And why should it be?  The 9/11 commission report is all about the attack, what led up to the attack, failures during the attack and what we can do to prevent future attacks.  The 9/11 commission report also didn't report the complete destruction of WTC 3, 4, 5 or 6.  What does this prove?  Truthtards will see boogiemen behind every little detail.  



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

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


And?  What difference does that make?  Most Americans think Iraq was behind 9/11 as well.  Doesn't make it true.



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

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


  More truthtard dishonesty.  WHY did it take 7 years?  Because the first four and a half were spent doing the reports for WTC 1 and 2.  



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> 5) 1,340+ architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for a new investigation that would include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives for the collapse of Building 7.


So we should listen to 0.0513% of all engineers and architects WHY?  Without real evidence, you're never going to get a new investigation no matter HOW much you cry and stomp your little feet or hold your breath.



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

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


And?  Who is going to go into a burning building and wire it with explosives?  It would be a FEDERAL crime for everyone involved, even if all they did was not come forward with the information.  It is called aiding and abetting.  



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> 7) Building 7 housed several intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and the NYC Office of Emergency Managements Emergency Operations Center, more commonly known as Giulianis Bunker


And?  What does that have to do with the collapse?


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 15, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > We agree there are no silent explosives, Patriot911, and I don't know how or who brought down the three WTC towers.
> ...


Nope.

'Not ready to concede there weren't explosions heard by first responders and others on 911.

There even seems to be some physical evidence of highly advanced pyrotechnic material.

"Starting in 2007, a group of independent researchers began examining the ubiquitous 'dust' (powder actually) from the World Trade Center disaster to see if identifiable residues might help explain the highly energetic destruction that was observed in the videos. 

"Naked-eye and microscopic examination revealed numerous tiny metallic and magnetically attracted spheres and red/gray chips, quite distinctive in the dust samples.

"The existence of iron-rich microspheres in the WTC dust was documented by government agencies in 2004 and 2005. 

"But nothing yet had been published about the red/gray chips in the dust until Steven Jones first described them in 2007. 

"*What might have been misinterpreted as the residue of common paint when seen with the naked eye proved to be a highly energetic advanced nano-composite material.*

Not something Osama could have cooked up in his cave, I'm guessing.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 15, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Dec 15, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > We agree there are no silent explosives, Patriot911, and I don't know how or who brought down the three WTC towers.
> ...



THERE WERE EXPLOSIONS THAT COULD BE HEARD A "HALF MILE AWAY IN A URBAN SETTING"

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4z-Wrp1pY8[/ame]


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 16, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> GP, why are you running away from the discussion at hand?


Bad timing on my part.

I should not have changed the subject; however, the only direction I'm running is spelled out clearly by BuildingWhat?

"The &#8220;BuildingWhat?&#8221; campaign is a non-partisan effort led by 9/11 family members to raise awareness of the destruction of *World Trade Center Building 7* and shift public opinion such that the *New York City Council will be inspired to open an independent investigation into how this building,* which housed the City&#8217;s Emergency Operations Center, *was destroyed at 5:20pm on September 11, 2001.*


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 16, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Woah!  Nobody is saying people didn't hear explosions on 9/11.  It is highly debateable as to whether those explosions were caused by explosives or not, but that is a different issue.

What we are talking about is the explosions YOU claim would have happened a split second before WTC 7 started to collapse.  To my knowledge, there isn't a single witness that claims explosives happened just before or right at the start of the collapse of WTC 7.  The only witness I've seen talking about WTC 7 explosions during the collapse was talking about explosions going off DURING the collapse, but you claim they would happen BEFORE the collapse.



			
				georgephillip said:
			
		

> There even seems to be some physical evidence of highly advanced pyrotechnic material.


I thought you wanted all columns cut at the same time or within milliseconds of each other.  You can't do that with "pyrotechnic" material.  That is why things like thermate or thermite are not used in controlled demolitions.  You can't time it for shit.  You need something that cuts quick and can be controlled down to the millisecond which is exactly what you claimed was needed.  Also, they are talking about the towers, not WTC 7.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 16, 2010)

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Why listen to a truthtard asshole when there are examples of what actually happened?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7734040581876690159#

Hear a bang as loud as a gun shot?  They are a couple blocks away yet we hear NOTHING.  No KABOOM.  No earth shaking.  It is time for you to stop listening to the assholes who lie to you and start looking at the truth.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 16, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> 5) 1,340+ architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for a new investigation that would include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives for the collapse of Building 7.



How many of those 1,340 architects and engineers went through the NIST report about WTC7 and showed what calculations and what parts of the collapse sequence NIST came up with in their study as being wrong and how it was wrong?


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 16, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > 5) 1,340+ architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for a new investigation that would include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives for the collapse of Building 7.
> ...



Are you serious?  Take 30 minutes out of your life, and this will answer your question.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA[/ame]

No one wants to put effort into looking into the other side they are disrespecting. research, put some effort and time, and actually use an open mind when creating a rebuttal.  It is beyond naive not to.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 16, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


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



No we're disrespecting fucking idiots like you who are basically the scum of the earth. 

Have a good night.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 16, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> No one wants to put effort into looking into the other side they are disrespecting. research, put some effort and time, and actually use an open mind when creating a rebuttal.  It is beyond naive not to.


This is your problem; you think nobody is listening to you  or looking into the other side and instead are just hurling around insults.  You're wrong.

I can only speak for myself.  I've researched it.  I don't deny the 2.25 seconds of free fall.  I do, however, find your conclusions based on this fact are seriously flawed.

It has to do with deductive reasoning.  If this then that.  If it can't pass some tests that it HAS to pass in order to be true, you have to either figure out why or move on to a different theory.

For instance.  We know 7 had a period of free fall.  Fact.

You make the claim the ONLY way this can happen is with explosives simultaniously cutting all the columns.

So if explosives were used, then we would hear them.  Did we hear them?  No.

We know for a fact how loud explosives are.  We know what kind of sound it is.  We know how far it can travel and how loud it would be when it got there.

This has to be addressed or else there were no explosives.

So if explosives were used, then they would set off seismic waves through the bedrock that seismographs would pick up.  Did that happen?  No.

This has to be addressed or else there were no explosives.

Controlled demolitions sites have all the windows removed from the building because the pressure wave from the explosion would blow out the window.

If there were explosives in 7, and because there were all those windows, then they would have been blown out by the explosives, much to the dismay of the people around WTC 7 who testified they were caught in the debris.  Did this happen?  Not according to the people who were there.

Until you can resolve these GLARING discrepancies, nobody can believe your theory because it doesn't fit the FACTS of the matter.  If a theory doesn't fit the facts, it is a failed theory and you need to go back to the drawing board until you come up with a theory that fits ALL the facts, not just the facts you want to address.


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 16, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Patriot911 said:
> ...


What points in this timeline of WTC7's collapse do you agree or disagree with?

"Sequence of WTC 7 Collapse

Approximately 7 hours after fires initiated in WTC 7, the building collapsed. 

"The start of a timed collapse sequence was based on 1733, the time registered by seismic recordings described in Table 1.1 (in Chapter 1). 

"The time difference between each of the figures was approximated from time given on the videotape. 

"Figures 5-20 to 5-25 illustrate the observed sequence of events related to the collapse.

    ~533 p.m. WTC 7 begins to collapse. Note the two mechanical penthouses at the roof on the east and west sides in Figure 5-20.

    ~503 p.m. Approximately 30 seconds later, Figure 5-21 shows the east mechanical penthouse disappearing into the building. It takes a few seconds for the east penthouse to 'disappear' completely.

    ~508 p.m. Approximately 5 seconds later, the west mechanical penthouse disappears (Figure 5-22) or sinks into WTC 7.

    ~509 p.m. Approximately 1 or 2 seconds after the west penthouse sinks into WTC 7, the whole building starts to collapse. A north-south 'kink' or fault line develops along the eastern side as the building begins to come down at what appears to be the location of the collapse initiation (see Figures 5-23 and 5-24).

    ~510 p.m. WTC 7 collapses completely after burning for approximately 7 hours (Figure 5-25). 

"*The collapse appeared to initiate at the lower floors*, allowing the upper portion of the structure to fall."


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 16, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



I have not verified the exact times, but it seems like the right timeline.  We know the collapse started on the lower floors because it was a bottom up collapse, not a top down collapse ala the towers.  This would be true with either the NIST explanation or the CD explanation.

Proceed.


----------



## tempesta29 (Dec 16, 2010)

Prewfy911 has got this thing wrapped up with his "them darn bomb thangs are loud" argument. He has yet to demonstrate what kind of audio equipment was used in recording 7's collapse and from what distances--significant factors in making a conclusion on the subject. We don't even know if what cameras used would have picked up some explosions. I think that he thinks that since the youtube videos he sees provide clear audio of explosions, then all WTC 7 collapse videos must also.

Kevin McPadden and Craig Bartmer did hear explosions coming from WTC 7 during its collapse however. Plus, as has been demonstrated to ol' Prewfy9112001 a million times: free fall is proof of controlled explosives.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 16, 2010)

tempesta29 said:


> Prewfy911 has got this thing wrapped up with his "them darn bomb thangs are loud" argument. He has yet to demonstrate what kind of audio equipment was used in recording 7's collapse and from what distances--significant factors in making a conclusion on the subject. We don't even know if what cameras used would have picked up some explosions. I think that he thinks that since the youtube videos he sees provide clear audio of explosions, then all WTC 7 collapse videos must also.
> 
> Kevin McPadden and Craig Bartmer did hear explosions coming from WTC 7 during its collapse however. Plus, as has been demonstrated to ol' Prewfy9112001 a million times: free fall is proof of controlled explosives.



  Jumping to conclusions as always, eh, tempussy?

We know how loud explosives are.  We know how loud they are at given distances.  We know there was recording equipment that would have EASILY picked up the sound of explosions from WTC 7. 

We know the people in the video did not react like they had heard an explosion, but reacted as though they were hearing something unusual.  

We know they were close enough they had to move to get away from the debris.

We know the audio was working because the reporter was talking before, during and after the collapse.

Yet somehow tempussy believes these explosions were silent.  80+ columns all blowing at once and nobody heard a thing other than a cop who heard something loud AFTER the collapse started and not before.  His first clue as to the collapse was someone yelling at him, not an explosion.  McPhadden was smoking dope.    They have recordings of everything that was going on that day, yet nobody has a countdown on tape.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 16, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> tempesta29 said:
> 
> 
> > Prewfy911 has got this thing wrapped up with his "them darn bomb thangs are loud" argument. He has yet to demonstrate what kind of audio equipment was used in recording 7's collapse and from what distances--significant factors in making a conclusion on the subject. We don't even know if what cameras used would have picked up some explosions. I think that he thinks that since the youtube videos he sees provide clear audio of explosions, then all WTC 7 collapse videos must also.
> ...



Tempussy!  Nice.  

Did he prove there was a  method of wiring a 47 story building for demolition without anybody noticing?


----------



## eots (Dec 16, 2010)

candycorn said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > tempesta29 said:
> ...



if fire alone brought the building down then why would ever floor need to be wired with explosives to bring it down ? could there not of been a bomb planted as in the first wtc bombing and the building happened to catch fire ?


----------



## tempesta29 (Dec 17, 2010)

candycorn said:


> Tempussy!  Nice.



You come to internet forums, and this is what you type. It's truly astounding. I suggest re-enrollment in junior high; make it a New Year's resolution. It'll do you wonders.


----------



## eots (Dec 17, 2010)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdr0bHCklRw&feature=recentlik[/ame]


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 17, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


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



Look.

You folks keep asking for an explanation and for us to explain how fires affected WTC7 and caused a collapse right? Well there's a step by step analysis in the NIST report about how this occurred and how the fires initiated the collapse, and then how global collapse happened.

Are you ready to go step by step through their analysis (or steps) with me and show me where they are wrong and why? We can start with the floors around column 79 giving way and how that happened. 

Are you willing to debate each of those steps and causes and supply your evidence and facts to dispute them and tell me why it's not a good explanation?


----------



## eots (Dec 17, 2010)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xca6o38ZNY&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## eots (Dec 17, 2010)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvay28lZiHU&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 17, 2010)

eots said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvay28lZiHU&feature=related



Eots,

Do you agree with Dr. Quintiere's following hypothesis as to what he thinks happened? Here is the quote from his paper.



> An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
> appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
> the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
> corresponding to failure based on structural analyses. This hypothesis puts
> ...


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 17, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Patriot911 said:
> ...


Let me start with David Chandler's claim (P.13 #186) that "(f)ree fall is an embarrassment to the official story, because freefall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building."

I'm guessing you disagree with all or part of this statement?

Freefall


----------



## eots (Dec 17, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvay28lZiHU&feature=related
> ...



http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...ceives-nation-about-twin-towers-core-586.html


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 17, 2010)

eots said:


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



Do you agree with his hypothesis or do you think he is wrong? 



> An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
> appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
> the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
> corresponding to failure based on structural analyses. This hypothesis puts
> ...


[/QUOTE]


----------



## tempesta29 (Dec 17, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Look.
> 
> You folks keep asking for an explanation and for us to explain how fires affected WTC7 and caused a collapse right? Well there's a step by step analysis in the NIST report about how this occurred and how the fires initiated the collapse, and then how global collapse happened.
> 
> ...



One mustn't debate each step. The entire premise that a building can reach free fall under those conditions is false. That's all that needs to be addressed. The entire report is predicated upon this claim. You know damn well that steel will always provide more resistance than air unless that steel is cut. Since NIST isn't claiming the steel was cut, they're wrong. It's that simple. Bowing steel offers a minimum resistance.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 17, 2010)

tempesta29 said:


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



I'll ask this again.

So no matter how much dead weight I put onto the top of one column standing in it's end, that dead weight will NEVER fall at freefall if the column fails?


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 17, 2010)

tempesta29 said:


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



Another thing. How come when the beams were "cut" was there a .8 second period of time that the building WASN'T in freefall?


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 17, 2010)

tempesta29 said:


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


  Oh this is priceless!  Ignore the details and look at the big picture of how tempussy tells you it is!  Don't bother him with facts and minor things like impossibilities, because it is his way or the highway!  Nothing in between!  No discussion allowed!


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 17, 2010)

georgephillip said:


> Let me start with David Chandler's claim (P.13 #186) that "(f)ree fall is an embarrassment to the official story, because freefall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building."
> 
> I'm guessing you disagree with all or part of this statement?
> 
> Freefall



Absolutely.  Anytime ANYONE starts talking about absolutes, you can pretty much bet they are talking out their ass.  It is a convenient way to dismiss every other theory simply based on it being an "impossibility" and thus not worthy of discussion.  That is why people such as David Chandler don't want to go into the details too much because then the "impossible" isn't so impossible anymore.

One thing life teaches us is that there isn't just one way for things to happen.  Car wrecks happen in all kinds of different ways, so saying that because a car has a five star safety rating means you can't die in a car wreck only shows one has a very limited imagination.  Same thing with buildings.  There are VERY few known collapses of buildings, but we know they are all different.  Pretending they have happened enough to be able to make claims about impossibilities should be a HUGE red flag to anyone reading the claim.

Let me put it to you another way.  If building collapses were such known events, why does the NIST even bother studying them?  It is because no two buildings are alike and no two collapses are alike.  You are talking different construction, different materials and different circumstances surrounding the collapse.  

According to the NIST, there were three distinct collapse events; a vertical collapse, a horizontal progression, and then the exterior collapse.

The vertical collapse started with the buckling of one of the major support columns the NIST numbered as column 79.  This collapsed caused a vertical progression of the collapse all the way up the building to the roof.  The visible sign of this progression is the disappearance of the East penthouse that held a lot of the mechanical hardware for the building.

So now you basically have a hole going from top to near bottom for the east side of the building.  Every time an east side of a floor collapsed, that put stresses on the western side of the floors.  Eventually the strain on the floors became too great and the collapse started progressing ACROSS the building instead of up and down.

All the time these internal collapses are going on, load bearing structures are being destroyed.

Destroy enough load bearing structures and the whole thing is going to start coming down.  That is exactly what we saw happen on 9/11.  The last of the load bearing structures gave way in the first .8 seconds of the collapse where the collapse was less than free fall.  For the next 2.25 seconds, there was little to hold the building up and the building fell in essentially free fall.   As the collapse starts nearing the ground, more support is given to the building from the already collapsed sections and slows the building down until the collapse event is complete.

There you have it.  How a building can fall in essentially free fall for 2.25 seconds of the collapse.  You don't have to take out every structure inside the building, just enough structures to get the building moving.  Gravity and momentum will finish the job.  Having a lot of the internal structures already destroyed by an internal collapse event or two and the external of the building is going to come down REALLY fast.

So no.  I don't believe David Chandler when he pretends to be omnicient and can confidently claim free fall in a natural collapse is an impossibility.  Read up on David Chandler and you will find he has made a LOT of very aggregious errors throughout the years.  He is known amongst the truthers, but outside the truther community, he is pretty much a nobody.  He is not a structural engineer.  He is not omnicient.


----------



## tempesta29 (Dec 17, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> I'll ask this again.
> 
> So no matter how much dead weight I put onto the top of one column standing in it's end, that dead weight will NEVER fall at freefall if the column fails?



Pay attention. You asked this, among other questions, and I answered at length. Find the thread.


----------



## tempesta29 (Dec 17, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Another thing. How come when the beams were "cut" was there a .8 second period of time that the building WASN'T in freefall?



I never said that a controlled demolition was always in free fall. Many buildings whose beams are cut never reach it. This one did. That's the point.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 17, 2010)

tempesta29 said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Another thing. How come when the beams were "cut" was there a .8 second period of time that the building WASN'T in freefall?
> ...



But the beams were cut the moment the building started down. According to you, the floors were cut all at the same time? 

Move goalposts much?


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 17, 2010)

tempesta29 said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > I'll ask this again.
> ...



Oh yeah. You said a column will ALWAYS provide some resistance regardless of the dead weight load applied. 

Laughable. You need to be educated. Go talk to a structural engineer about your claim. They'll laugh you out of the building.


----------



## tempesta29 (Dec 17, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> But the beams were cut the moment the building started down. According to you, the floors were cut all at the same time?
> 
> Move goalposts much?



A disingenuous post. If you have a point make it. If you have a real question, ask it.



Gamolon said:


> Oh yeah. You said a column will ALWAYS provide some resistance regardless of the dead weight load applied.
> 
> Laughable. You need to be educated. Go talk to a structural engineer about your claim. They'll laugh you out of the building.



How can steel provide 0 resistance? Even air provides resistance. It doesn't matter how much load is applied. A single steel column will obviously provide more resistance to a trillion ton load than nothing will. A trillion ton mass will fall faster in a vacuum than that mass will atop a single steel column.

Please refute this.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 17, 2010)

QUOTE=Patriot911;3075752]


> Wrong, ignorant prick!  Wires and blasting caps are NOT consumed in the explosion.


 There is detonation cord that is itself an explosive and therefore would be consumed. Look it up you ignorant asshole.


> Steel cut with thermite is also VERY identifiable as you have both the melted steel and left over melted iron from the reaction.


 And the molten pools of metal are just made up. Right.



> Firefighters were not ignored by the commission.  And again, you're pretending the 9/11 commission was the investigation.  It wasn't.  The investigation was carried out by the FBI.


 No matter how you slice your bullshit, it's still bullshit, and disingenuous of you to say that firefighters were not ignored. Flawed investigation by FBI = flawed commission report.




> So name a witness who believes your bullshit about controlled demolition?  Not every witness made it into the final report, but that doesn't mean they weren't heard.


 There are many people, look them yourself up asshole.




> Wrong yet again.  If a new investigation were instigated just based on accusations NOTHING would ever get closed.


 The original gov version was instigated on preconceived accusations, and assumptions! 




> One doesn't work towards a pre-conceived notion, but should start with no presumptions and see what the evidence shows.


 But that's what the gov and NIST did.




> That is because the evidence of explosives were completely missing.  You can't have explosives that don't make a REALLY loud noise, yet no noise was heard.  When talking about the towers, you had people trapped inside the towers in the very area (the core) you truthtards claim all the high explosives were going off.... yet they survived and didn't hear any explosives going off.


 Yeah and all the people that heard explosions are all wrong. Do you turn off the volume when videos are played. WTF is wrong with your mind you ignorant fuck?




> You've had NINE FUCKING YEARS to come up with ANYTHING and none of you have it.  You have tons of conflicting theories none of which hold up to even casual examination, much less a serious investigation.


 The basic theory that the gov is lying and there is a cover up is the same.




> Yet they don't believe anyone but Al Qaeda was involved.  *Sure there was a lot of CYA after 9/11* as nobody wanted to have the finger pointing at them claiming they were part of the problem that allowed 9/11 to happen.  And in the end, Kean and Hamilton both agreed that the 9/11 commission report was complete and true from everything they had at the time.


 All this CYA sure makes for a good thorough investigation and final report to you then? Kean and Hamilton recently wrote a book about the obstacles. Check it out. Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.
Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said. 
9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon - washingtonpost.com



> Gee.  What a surprise!  You're wrong yet again.  Flight instructors said Hani Hanjour was a bad pilot.  Not one instructor has ever said anything bad about Atta because he was a very accomplished pilot.  Where do you get all these lies?  Do you pull them out your ass or do you just believe whatever you make up?


 Even saying one pilot was bad and couldn't have flown is enough to raise doubt about this story. Ever hear of beyond a reasonable doubt? It's used by jurors in our court system.



> As for Hanjour, he made a 330 degree turn in almost three minutes to line up with the Pentagon because he came in too high.  He then flew the plane into the Pentagon.  It is easy.  Load up any flight simulator you like and try it yourself.  I've done it repeatedly and in far more dramatic fashion than Hanjour.


 Please elaborate. Are you a pilot? The maneuvers are so easy for you but not for the pilotsfor9-11truth.org?




> Gee.  What a surprise!  You're wrong again.  William Rodriguez did indeed testify before the 9/11 commission.  He wasn't the lying asshole he is today, so he gave a much different accounting than he gives now.


 "Not only have Mr. Rodriguez's basic claims remained unchanged, the cover-up continues; his actual testimony remains "restricted". He immediately thought the explosion was caused by a generator. Shortly after the first explosion a second explosion rocked the building and caused the office's false ceiling to collapse. Following these explosions Felipe David, who was severely burned, ran into the office. Rodriguez said there was a third explosion and he believed then the explosions were caused by an earthquake." Clearly, Rodriguez was indeed talking about "explosions" from the very start.
William Rodriguez Vindicated by Newly Released 9/11 Commission Notes | 911Blogger.com




> The burns were caused by the fuel coming down the elevator shafts.


Even NIST admitted that the fuel was consumed on impact of the planes.




> Why no arab names?  Because you believe everything you read from 9/11 conspiracy sites and never bother to actually check the facts for yourself.  Thus you are constantly being made a fool of by the people you trust.  How does that make you feel?


 Based on what has been said by the gov and its official version, and its history of lying to the public I will be more inclined not to believe what they say. They have lost credibility.



> You mean the same excercises they ran for several years prior?  What about them.  These excercises caused about five seconds delay total when the FAA asked NORAD if this was real or an exercise.


 Bullshit. Norad's stand down on 9/11 was so blatant that it changed the story a few times as each previous version has been exposed as lies The falsity of Norad's explanations were so severe that even the 9/11 Commission considered recommending criminal charges for the making of false statements. Again- 9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon - washingtonpost.com




> Sure does.  We had no plans in place for an attack of that type.  It is always easy to get blindsided by an attack you are not expecting to happen in the way they attack.


The drills that were being run and that you admit to for years, were for a similar attack on the nation like what occurred on 9-11. What do you mean we had no plans in place, and blinsided? What? 




> Bullshit.  Logan International was serviced by an American company, ICTS, that was a subsidiary of a Netherlands company owned by an Israeli.   You must have gotten suckered by this article which clearly states all the airports were serviced by one company, yet when you read the article it is clear they are ONLY talking about Logan.


Google





> Yeah, I love that one!  You truthtards like to pretend they were Mossad agents!  WOOoOOooOOoO!!!!  Here's the problems.  The didn't record the first hit.


 How do you know they didn't? Why did they say they were there to document the event?




> There were suspected Israeli spies in the US spying on suspected terrorists.  What about it?


 You don't seem to care about  another nation spying on yours, and the connections and ramifications. Israel had the most to gain from the attacks and they have admitted  as much, but it's of no consequence to you, not even the slightest bit intriguing. 




> What about it?  The PNAC document doesn't talk about "needing" a new "Pearl Harbor".  It just said it would take longer.


 They mentioned it asshole. You know what you are a fucking liar, and don't deserve any responses from people here. It is clear you don't care about the nation you live in because you dismiss so much as trivial. Go and fuck off somewhere else.





> I've looked at ALL the evidence, not just the evidence that backs up the official story.


 Apparently not.


> I am not like you truthtards; blindly listening to the people who lead me around by the short and curlies.


But you are.



> I think for myself and draw my OWN conclusions.


No you really don't, and you don't have the balls to stand up for your country despite the obviousness of something being drastically wrong. You are a pos and should not be entitled to call yourself an American.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 17, 2010)

Mr. Jones said:


> There is detonation cord that is itself an explosive and therefore would be consumed. Look it up you ignorant asshole.


Oh!  Look at the ignorant prick pretending everything was done just with det cord!  WOOO!!!   



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> > Steel cut with thermite is also VERY identifiable as you have both the melted steel and left over melted iron from the reaction.
> 
> 
> And the molten pools of metal are just made up. Right.


Nice duck job, asshole!  The molten pools of metal wouldn't be from thermate or thermite as it would be cool within minutes of the reaction having gone off.  Use your brain for once in your pathetic life!  NO CHEMICAL REACTION can melt steel and KEEP it melted for any length of time, much less weeks.  This is a FACT.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> No matter how you slice your bullshit, it's still bullshit, and disingenuous of you to say that firefighters were not ignored. Flawed investigation by FBI = flawed commission report.


So prove it.  We have the fire fighter's testimony.  Find one that says explosives were used.  You won't find one.  If you had, you truthtards would have trotted it out long before now and wouldn't have to resort to bullshit claims with nothing to back it up.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> There are many people, look them yourself up asshole.


You made the assertion.  It isn't up to me to prove your bullshit.  It is up to you.  And since you can't, we now have more evidence you willfully lie your truthtard ass off.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> The original gov version was instigated on preconceived accusations, and assumptions!


Yet all the evidence backs up the government version, proves your version (whichever one of the dozens you believe) is pure bullshit.  And the evidence YOU have your bullshit is real?  Don't tell me.  Let me guess.  There is tons out there and I need to look it up for myself.   



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> But that's what the gov and NIST did.


According to a piece of shit truthtard like you.  The NIST actually changed their theories several times over the course of the investigation, which proves they were NOT working with a preconceived notion, but were actively working on building a theory that fit the facts.  Reality trumps truthtards with no dignity or honesty.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Yeah and all the people that heard explosions are all wrong.


No, piece of shit truthtards that pretend every bang heard on 9/11 was caused by explosives is wrong.  I have no doubt people heard stuff on 9/11.  There were 12 full size transformers in WTC 7.  Ever hear a transformer cook off?  
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4XPxEoDfvs]Transformer letting go[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sngiPk6sTBs]Another one[/ame]
That is one of many things that don't like fire and go bang when exposed to a lot of heat.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Do you turn off the volume when videos are played. WTF is wrong with your mind you ignorant fuck?


I listen to what they say and DON'T say.  Unlike you douches that pretend you know what they're REALLY saying.  Where are all the firefighters that heard these explosions if they really thought they were caused by explosives?  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> The basic theory that the gov is lying and there is a cover up is the same.


Pretending the government is lying about everything and is the source of all evil in the world despite evidence to the contrary is clinically described as a paranoid delusion.  It is one that all truthtards have.  Some pretend it is the government.  Others pretend it is Jews.  Others the NWO.  All paranoid delusions.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> All this CYA sure makes for a good thorough investigation and final report to you then?


Nobody on the 9/11 commission needed to CYA.  Their job was to expose any and all CYA.  They feel they did a good job of it.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Kean and Hamilton recently wrote a book about the obstacles. Check it out. Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.


I guess you're too fucking ignorant to understand what it means when they say INITIAL story.    Was the 9/11 commission lied to?  Of course.  Did they get to the bottom of it?  They think they did.  They probably missed some.  Bottom line, though, is they found zero evidence of government participation of or foreknowledge of 9/11.  This is a fact you truthtards continue to ignore.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources.


That wasn't suspicion.  You truthtards don't understand the first thing about the judicial system.  They had actual evidence.  

Now, don't you think if this wrongdoing involved actual participation in the events of 9/11 or assisting in any way the attacks that they would have turned this evidence over IMMEDIATELY and WITHOUT QUESTION to the justice department?  Of course they would have.  But that doesn't fit into your precious theories.  NONE of this does.  It is just a distraction from your failed and decidedly pathetic theories.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.
> 9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon - washingtonpost.com


And?  How does that prove the government was behind 9/11?  Not ONE SHRED of evidence pointed to ANYONE besides Al Qaeda being involved.  THAT is a fact you will run from until the day you die.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Even saying one pilot was bad and couldn't have flown is enough to raise doubt about this story.


The 9/11 commission didn't say that.  One of Hanjour's flight instructors did.  All the evidence points to a fairly incompetent pilot flying Flight 77.  They didn't use rudder control and were very shaky with the controls, whereas a good pilot is SMOOOOOOTH.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Ever hear of beyond a reasonable doubt? It's used by jurors in our court system.


A shame you truthtards don't use that.  You're so cock sure you know every little fact that you miss the fact you have NOTHING to back up your "facts".  You don't have reasonable doubt about your theories.  You have absolute doubt!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Please elaborate. Are you a pilot? The maneuvers are so easy for you but not for the pilotsfor9-11truth.org?


Any pilot that says a 330 degree turn while dropping some 3000 feet in a little over three MINUTES is a difficult maneuver is lying his retarded ass off and should be stripped of his pilots credentials.  I've seen some of your truthtard "credible pilot testimony" and it was all bullshit.  I especially like the supposed fighter pilot and commercial airline pilot that said such a maneuver would have the plane pulling 5, 6, or 7 Gs.  Problem is, G is a known, calculated value if you know how long and how fast someone goes through a turn.  Flight 77 never pulled more than one G.  Many sports cars can pull more than a G.   

So yeah.  Don't talk to me about these supposed experts at Pilots for 9-11 truth.  They're a bunch of fucking liars like the rest of the truthtards.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> "Not only have Mr. Rodriguez's basic claims remained unchanged, the cover-up continues; his actual testimony remains "restricted". He immediately thought the explosion was caused by a generator. Shortly after the first explosion a second explosion rocked the building and caused the office's false ceiling to collapse. Following these explosions Felipe David, who was severely burned, ran into the office. Rodriguez said there was a third explosion and he believed then the explosions were caused by an earthquake." Clearly, Rodriguez was indeed talking about "explosions" from the very start.
> William Rodriguez Vindicated by Newly Released 9/11 Commission Notes | 911Blogger.com
> Bullshit.  First off, linking a blog is about as honest as posting something from the National Enquirer!
> 
> ...


----------



## eots (Dec 17, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > There is detonation cord that is itself an explosive and therefore would be consumed. Look it up you ignorant asshole.
> ...


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 17, 2010)

Mr. Jones, I apologize for my comment about your family.  That was out of line and won't happen again.  Sorry.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 17, 2010)

eots said:


> So its your contention the real patriots featured at this site are working with Al Qaeda and should be considered pieces of shit by their mothers ??
> No, they should be considered pieces of shit by EVERYONE.  And since when have traitors been considered patriots?
> 
> When people proclaim someone is guilty based on suspicions and lies with no actual evidence to back up their claims, that is NOT American.  That is a witch hunt.  That is a lynch mob.  That is rule by emotion, not law and evidence.  So how can you claim truthtards are patriots instead of traitors?  You truthtards have first amendment protections to allow you to spread your lies.  The moment you try to go past your hate speech, you will find out the true meaning of patriotism as true American patriots put you FIRMLY back in your place.
> ...


----------



## eots (Dec 17, 2010)

eots said:


> So its your contention the real patriots featured at this site are working with Al Qaeda and should be considered pieces of shit by their mothers? ?





> No, they should be considered pieces of shit by EVERYONE.  And since when have traitors been considered patriots?



So the answer is yes...




> When people proclaim someone is guilty based on suspicions and lies with no actual evidence to back up their claims, that is NOT American


.  

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1PEs0btWWc[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKX6luiMINQ[/ame]



> That is a witch hunt.  That is a lynch mob.  That is rule by emotion, not law and evidence.  So how can you claim truthtards are patriots instead of traitors?  You truthtards have first amendment protections to allow you to spread your lies.  The moment you try to go past your hate speech, you will find out the true meaning of patriotism as true American patriots put you FIRMLY back in your place


.

You hate us for are freedoms...just like...t_he terrorist_




> Also, I did not say you truthtards are working with Al Qaeda.  If you were doing that you would be keeping your big mouths shut.  Al Qaeda has repeatedly accepted responsibility for the attacks.



got a link to that ?



> They WANT responsibility.  And here you truthtards are trying your damndest to get Al Qaeda off the hook.  You may THINK you're doing them a favor, but I think they're probably pretty pissed off at you.



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-hYorNi0nA[/ame]


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 17, 2010)

> Oh!  Look at the ignorant prick pretending *everything was done just with det cord*!  WOOO!!!


 Hey asshole, your trying real hard to put your own words in my reply, but it doesn't work any reader of your replies can see your spin. You are caught lying AGAIN. Where did I say *everything was done with det cord*.  My response was that there are det cords that are known to be explosives themselves. Your continued deliberate spin is typical,  proving again you are full of shit.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> And the molten pools of metal are just made up. Right.





> Nice duck job, asshole!  The molten pools of metal wouldn't be from thermate or thermite as it would be cool within minutes of the reaction having gone off.  Use your brain for once in your pathetic life!  NO CHEMICAL REACTION can melt steel and KEEP it melted for any length of time, much less weeks.  This is a FACT.


  You are an absolute idiot, what the fuck have you been reading about thermite? Links? Is there any other material useful in controlled demolition, other than thermite or thermate, that would continue burning for weeks despite all attempts to extinguish the fire with water? .. Jet fuel and fires fed with office furnishings will not burn underground without oxygen,  your claim to doing your own research is clearly another lie fuckwad. Again provide some links.



> So prove it.  We have the fire fighter's testimony.  Find one that says explosives were used.  You won't find one.  If you had, you truthtards would have trotted it out long before now and wouldn't have to resort to bullshit claims with nothing to back it up.


 Fireman have been quoted in print and on video saying the collapse was like a CD demolition, with the popping sounds, sounding like "detonators". You are behind catch up this has been known for years now. 



> Yet all the evidence backs up the government version, proves your version (whichever one of the dozens you believe) is pure bullshit.  And the evidence YOU have your bullshit is real?  Don't tell me.  Let me guess.  There is tons out there and I need to look it up for myself.


 Yeah asshole there are a lot of contradictions about the attack, and of course you will say they have proof, but upon further review, much of their/your proof is suspect. Just because they tell you something doesn't mean it is so. Damn, you are one fucked up SOB. You don't seem to be able to grasp this yet. The concerns people have are because they are genuine. You should try looking into the many valid points and arguments these people are making, instead of pretending to know what you are talking about.



> According to a piece of shit truthtard like you.  The NIST actually changed their theories several times over the course of the investigation, which proves they were NOT working with a preconceived notion, but were actively working on building a theory that fit the facts.  Reality trumps truthtards with no dignity or honesty.


  NIST had to change their story because it did not make sense, they ran with the fire collapse theory, which is not plausible according to many engineers and scholars. They were trying to change the facts to fit the fire theory, and failed. Remember, NIST said they had no evidence of explosions at the WTC. They lied to you and you believed them. Now, nine years later, they have to give up their evidence, and there are explosions all over the place.  The reality is that we don't know everything we should, and the nation and its people are paying a steep price, or haven't you noticed, asshole?




> No, piece of shit truthtards that pretend every bang heard on 9/11 was caused by explosives is wrong.  I have no doubt people heard stuff on 9/11.


 Hey fucktard, they heard EXPLOSIONS. NIST denied it, and they lied, credibity for NIST -0 people that were there- priceless.



> There were 12 full size transformers in WTC 7.  Ever hear a transformer cook off?
> That is one of many things that don't like fire and go bang when exposed to a lot of heat.


 Sure it is possible transformers blew, it still doesn't explain a lot. Next you'll be saying witnesses heard exploding cans of Glade or Pledge, 9-11 solved.



> I listen to what they say and DON'T say.  Unlike you douches that pretend you know what they're REALLY saying.  Where are all the firefighters that heard these explosions if they really thought they were caused by explosives?


 haven't you heard about the gag-order James Woolsey handed down to 9/11 Firefighters? Many  firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but theyre afraid for their jobs to admit it because their bosses forbid discussion of this fact. Just like witnesses at the Pentagon. You're about as dumb as a douchebag.




> Pretending the government is lying about everything and is the source of all evil in the world despite evidence to the contrary is clinically described as a paranoid delusion.


 The government does lie to its citizens, it is a proven fact. Are you really  that naive, or just really really stupid?



> It is one that all truthtards have.  Some pretend it is the government.  Others pretend it is Jews.  Others the NWO.  All paranoid delusions.


 Hardly. Read up on the subject, you might be surprised.




> Nobody on the 9/11 commission needed to CYA.  Their job was to expose any and all CYA.  They feel they did a good job of it.


 No they admit they did not do as good a job as they could have, ask John Farmer you fucking twit.




> I guess you're too fucking ignorant to understand what it means when they say INITIAL story.    Was the 9/11 commission lied to?  Of course.  Did they get to the bottom of it?
> They think they did.


 Looks like you've done some actual research on this one. I tried to tell you...But no they don't think they got to the bottom of it.. continue to read on. 



> They probably missed some.  Bottom line, though, is they found zero evidence of government participation of or foreknowledge of 9/11.  This is a fact you truthtards continue to ignore.


 So which is it? They covered their asses..but they did a good job...but they missed some.. you are a fucking idiot and are all over the place, take your damned meds and get off the computer... Holy shit....unbelievable....
 Of course they didn't find any evidence, because the investigation was FLAWED, hence the commission report was FLAWED. They possibly would have found evidence of government participation or foreknowledge but they say that they were basically lied to by the FBI, CIA, Whitehouse and NORAD. Now do you see the need for a real investigation? Probably not, you confused sorry ass, ignorant SOB.




> That wasn't suspicion.  You truthtards don't understand the first thing about the judicial system.  They had actual evidence.


 Based on what? See the above response.



> Now, don't you think if this wrongdoing involved actual participation in the events of 9/11 or assisting in any way the attacks that they would have turned this evidence over IMMEDIATELY and WITHOUT QUESTION to the justice department?  Of course they would have.


 Fuck No! it's obvious that forces much larger and with a lot more pull were in charge, hell they were lied to and sidetracked, and still wouldn't do anything about it. The people that pulled this attack off, could easily wipe out whomever they want to. It is fear that is keeping the truth from coming out, not lack of evidence, fool.



> But that doesn't fit into your precious theories.  NONE of this does.  It is just a distraction from your failed and decidedly pathetic theories.


 Hey I didn't start this, I was with the program way back when the STHF, not anymore tho.



> And?  How does that prove the government was behind 9/11?  Not ONE SHRED of evidence pointed to ANYONE besides Al Qaeda being involved.  THAT is a fact you will run from until the day you die.


 I don't think anyone doubts that Alqaeda is dangerous, but if you read about the organization, there are questionable aspects about their complicity. Look up Alqaeda and CIA. Look up false flag attacks while your at it.




> The 9/11 commission didn't say that.  One of Hanjour's flight instructors did.  All the evidence points to a fairly incompetent pilot flying Flight 77.  They didn't use rudder control and were very shaky with the controls, whereas a good pilot is SMOOOOOOTH.


 A good pilot like you, with all that simulator time? I'll take the words of the pilotsfortruth.org over a jackass like you any day.




> A shame you truthtards don't use that.  You're so cock sure you know every little fact that you miss the fact you have NOTHING to back up your "facts".  You don't have reasonable doubt about your theories.  You have absolute doubt!


 Asshole, no one here is claiming "we are so sure of anything" other then we have been lied to.



> Any pilot that says a 330 degree turn while dropping some 3000 feet in a little over three MINUTES is a difficult maneuver is lying his retarded ass off and should be stripped of his pilots credentials.  I've seen some of your truthtard "credible pilot testimony" and it was all bullshit.
> I especially like the supposed fighter pilot and commercial airline pilot that said such a maneuver would have the plane pulling 5, 6, or 7 Gs.  Problem is, G is a known, calculated value if you know how long and how fast someone goes through a turn.  Flight 77 never pulled more than one G.  Many sports cars can pull more than a G.


 I'm no pilot and don't pretend to be but, hey they are more trustworthy then your lying ass that's for sure



> So yeah.  Don't talk to me about these supposed experts at Pilots for 9-11 truth.  They're a bunch of fucking liars like the rest of the truthtards.


 Prove it asswipe, the only proven liar is you, you been caught lying about the 9-11 commission, the evidence provided by the FBI to said commission, thermite/mate, the pilots, WTC and airport security, the list goes on.. your bluster is meaningless. 

[quote-Mr. Jones] 
"Not only have Mr. Rodriguez's basic claims remained unchanged, the cover-up continues; his actual testimony remains "restricted". He immediately thought the explosion was caused by a generator. Shortly after the first explosion a second explosion rocked the building and caused the office's false ceiling to collapse. Following these explosions Felipe David, who was severely burned, ran into the office. Rodriguez said there was a third explosion and he believed then the explosions were caused by an earthquake." Clearly, Rodriguez was indeed talking about "explosions" from the very start.
William Rodriguez Vindicated by Newly Released 9/11 Commission Notes | 911Blogger.com[/quote]



> Bullshit.  First off, linking a blog is about as honest as posting something from the National Enquirer!  :lol


 No your posting ridiculous government talking points that are highly questionable is bullshit. The man heard explosions and saved people from the building. Many people believe him, what would he have to gain from lying?




> Bullshit.  It was consumed in about 15 minutes, not on impact.  Come on.  You think ANYONE believes that bullshit?    But feel free to quote the NIST that says all that fuel was consumed on impact.


 Yeah and you still believe fuel trickled down staggered elevator shafts almost 1/4 mile seconds after the plane hit. Fucking moron.




> Yet the 9/11 commission clearly states there was no stand down order.    You're such a fucking liar.  You're also pretty damn stupid if you actually think anyone believes your bullshit of a stand down order.


 People can look it up for themselves and make their own conclusions but we discussed the 9-11 ommission report, how credible could it be by now? Not much after all we've learned.  The war games or drills resulted in confusion, no doubt about that, but what is one to make of the testimony given at the *9-11 commission by Norman Mineta? *
*During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice Presidentthe plane is 50 miles outthe plane is 30 miles out.and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president do the orders still stand? And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!?*





> The ONLY similarity is there were hijacked planes in the excercised which got cancelled as soon as the events of 9/11 started unfolding.


 It fucking confused NORAD AND THE RESPONDERS! DAMN you are dense. All the warnings the government and some employees of the government had, told not to fly on 9-11 etc...and they still ran the drills? Something aint right MFker, can't you see that? It is tooo conincidental, just like the London bombings..Ypu act like people have no right to question this shit? Fuck you!



> And if you are seriously so fucking ignorant you didn't know that we didn't have plans in place for people hijacking planes INSIDE the US and crashing them into buildings, you shouldn't be here typing anything.  You should be in a rubber room with constant supervision.


 You are really stupid man. They had been planning against this scenario before 9-11. They thought about it, an planned for a response against it.Hell it was even on Nightline with Peter Jennings!  Your "caught by surprise" act is astoundingly stupid.




> One can always tell a truthtard is WAAAAAAY out if his league when he gets so desperate as to link a google search and hope nobody notices.


 I posted a simple Google search to help your retarded ass along, and to show you how easy looking something up can be, But Wow that went right over your head didn't it?



> So now it is your claim securacom is an Israeli owned company?    WRONG!  It was backed by an American-Kuwaiti investment firm, but it was an American owned company.  Also, Marvin Bush was not involved with securacom on 9/11 and NEVER had any kind of role in operations.


 Prove it. Links? 




> Because unlike you ignorant fucks, I do my research.  You should try it some time.


 Take your own advice or take your meds. Still on the Mental facilities computer? Almost lock down time isn't it?



> Did you notice they are not speaking English and they are being interpreted?


 Yeah  sure, but you believe that Irans president wasn't misquoted don't you asswipe?



> Also, the FBI concluded the Israelis had no foreknowledge of the attack.  They looked at the tape.  If they saw the first hit, that would be absolute proof of foreknowledge of the attack, wouldn't it?


 Right...because "The FBI said.. The ones who fucked the 9-11 investigation up on purpose? Yeah they're credible.
 Look up the Israeli spy ring scandal, if you really give a shit about your nation. I'm getting tired of babysitting your dumbass.



> Also, it would directly contradict their story:
> Source
> Now, how can they have taped the first hit after reading about the attack on the internet?


 Who the fuck really knows what we would have learned from the bastards, they laugh while your fellow citizens are getting killed and you excuse that as a sign of immaturity? When their photos were developed, it was revealed that the dancing Israelis were smiling in the foreground of the New York massacre. You POS ass kissing treasonous scumbag.




> Like I've stated repeatedly, I believe what the evidence tells us, not what a bunch of paranoid delusional fucks tell us they know for sure even without any evidence.


 You are lost in a made up world, and have been castrated of your manhood, if you ever had any to begin with you coward. You are led like a sheep.



> That being said, does Israel spy on us?  Absolutely!  Everyone spies on everyone!  You think we don't have spies in Israel?   It is all part of the game of international politics and intrigue.


  Americans losing their lives is no fucking game. 
You make me sick. I know people who died for this bullshit, and been maimed for the state of Israel. Isntreal is part of the reason we are over seas. 



> And what has Israel gained?  Iran is still threatening to wipe them out.  Hezzbolah is still there.  Hamas is still there.  Al Qaeda was some threat, but not much.  Afghanistan wasn't a threat.  Saddam was a minor threat, but not THAT much.


   You really don't know shit.



> Really?  I am lying?  Wow.  I take it you've never actually READ the PNAC document.  Here's the sentence for you.  "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing eventlike a new Pearl Harbor".  So where in there do they say they NEED one?  They don't.  Thanks for proving just how big a piece of shit you really are and that you will stoop to any level to try and make a point.  So, despite your request, I am not going to go and fuck off somewhere else.  I am going to stay right here and make your life a living hell as I continue to expose your underhanded, dishonest and deceitful lies.


 I have read the PNAC, and you mincing words around it doesn't take anything away from the fact that the writers needed a "catastrophic and catalyzing" event to kick off their plans for a "New American Century" Any fool can read it and decipher what it means you asshole!




> Really?  Given this discussion so far, you are woefully unprepared for any kind of debate because you don't even know the simple facts.  Hell, anyone who has to link to google to try and prove a point is just flailing to stay afloat.


 This hasn't been a discussion, it has been a look at you getting caught lying, and trying to deceive people, and when they read your BS it will be clear that you are the one woefully ignorant and unprepared.




> So says the proven piece of shit liar.  You think ANYONE is going to believe you after you've spent this whole post exposing your dishonesty for everyone to see?


 No one has to believe me or especially you, all they have to do is what you have been lacking...research and reading, and have an open mind. 




> You obviously don't know what the fuck you are talking about.  I am actually heavily involved in the local politics here because I know things are very wrong.  I don't need to go making up a bunch of shit to know that.  You apparently do.  Either that or you just can't STAND the truth so you have to make shit up just so you can fuel your own hate.  Either way it is dishonest.


 Local politics huh? You mean the Ds against the Rs? If you think things are wrong at the local level, what makes you think they aren't wrong when it comes to such a world changing topic such as 9-11? You are sounding clueless again. Stay out of politics, I doubt you'll contribute anything for the greater good of anybody worth a damn.



> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Yep so says I, too bad. Look up some of the things you are arguing about next time. You look like an ass as always. You don't even know about the trouble your nation is really in, or don't care. I'm leaning towards you not caring, you haven't shown you do. 
If I was on Alqaedas side , I would really be on the governments side...Twist your douche bag brain around that.
Self Edited-No family Attacks.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 18, 2010)

eots said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xca6o38ZNY&feature=related



Strange how the witnesses that said they heard explosions are dying.


----------



## eots (Dec 18, 2010)

mr. Jones said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xca6o38zny&feature=related
> ...



indeed


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 18, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones, I apologize for my comment about your family.  That was out of line and won't happen again.  Sorry.


 You know it's really pathetic that you have to resort to that. I don't normally even get bent outta shape and resort to name calling but when you come on here and start and end every sentence with an insult, I wont turn the other cheek. Not once have I entered a thread, or introduced myself to a forum with name calling, or insults. You have come here and challenged people with such tactics, and I'am grateful to the mods and who ever reported you as I initially didn't see your remark. I can assure you that had you not had the cloak of the internet to hide behind you would have thought twice about bringing up my family in a face to face scenario. That aside, if you can't hold a discussion without using your low ball tactics, I will not be responding to any of your posts.
P.S-Mom is proud


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 18, 2010)

eots said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > So its your contention the real patriots featured at this site are working with Al Qaeda and should be considered pieces of shit by their mothers? ?
> ...


Your answer was incomplete, thus wrong.  Expand your horizons and embrace your shittiness.



eots said:


> You hate us for are freedoms...just like...t_he terrorist_


  Keep repeating that and maybe some day you will convince yourself.  You'll never convince another soul since it is complete bullshit.



eots said:


> > Also, I did not say you truthtards are working with Al Qaeda.  If you were doing that you would be keeping your big mouths shut.  Al Qaeda has repeatedly accepted responsibility for the attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> got a link to that ?


Look it up.  What.... you one of those retards that think there was just one video of Osama admitting 9/11?  How about the videos where some of the hijackers are giving their final testiments?>



			
				eots said:
			
		

> > They WANT responsibility.  And here you truthtards are trying your damndest to get Al Qaeda off the hook.  You may THINK you're doing them a favor, but I think they're probably pretty pissed off at you.
> 
> 
> 
> [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-hYorNi0nA[/ame]


  So a bullshit video trying to pretend there is no "Al Qaeda" means Al Qaeda doesn't exist?  What kind of bullshit denial is this?    You truthtards never fail to amaze me at just how stupid you dumb fucks really are.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 18, 2010)

Mr. Jones said:


> > Oh!  Look at the ignorant prick pretending *everything was done just with det cord*!  WOOO!!!
> 
> 
> Hey asshole, your trying real hard to put your own words in my reply, but it doesn't work any reader of your replies can see your spin. You are caught lying AGAIN. Where did I say *everything was done with det cord*.  My response was that there are det cords that are known to be explosives themselves. Your continued deliberate spin is typical,  proving again you are full of shit.
> ...




 No your posting ridiculous government talking points that are highly questionable is bullshit. The man heard explosions and saved people from the building. Many people believe him, what would he have to gain from lying?


 Yeah and you still believe fuel trickled down staggered elevator shafts almost 1/4 mile seconds after the plane hit. Fucking moron.


 People can look it up for themselves and make their own conclusions but we discussed the 9-11 ommission report, how credible could it be by now? Not much after all we've learned.  The war games or drills resulted in confusion, no doubt about that, but what is one to make of the testimony given at the *9-11 commission by Norman Mineta? *
*&#8220;During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President&#8230;the plane is 50 miles out&#8230;the plane is 30 miles out&#8230;.and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president &#8220;do the orders still stand?&#8221; And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said &#8220;Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!?*



 It fucking confused NORAD AND THE RESPONDERS! DAMN you are dense. All the warnings the government and some employees of the government had, told not to fly on 9-11 etc...and they still ran the drills? Something aint right MFker, can't you see that? It is tooo conincidental, just like the London bombings..Ypu act like people have no right to question this shit? Fuck you!

 You are really stupid man. They had been planning against this scenario before 9-11. They thought about it, an planned for a response against it.Hell it was even on Nightline with Peter Jennings!  Your "caught by surprise" act is astoundingly stupid.


 I posted a simple Google search to help your retarded ass along, and to show you how easy looking something up can be, But Wow that went right over your head didn't it?

 Prove it. Links? 


 Take your own advice or take your meds. Still on the Mental facilities computer? Almost lock down time isn't it?

 Yeah  sure, but you believe that Irans president wasn't misquoted don't you asswipe?

 Right...because "The FBI said.. The ones who fucked the 9-11 investigation up on purpose? Yeah they're credible.
 Look up the Israeli spy ring scandal, if you really give a shit about your nation. I'm getting tired of babysitting your dumbass.

 Who the fuck really knows what we would have learned from the bastards, they laugh while your fellow citizens are getting killed and you excuse that as a sign of immaturity? When their photos were developed, it was revealed that the dancing Israelis were smiling in the foreground of the New York massacre. You POS ass kissing treasonous scumbag.


 You are lost in a made up world, and have been castrated of your manhood, if you ever had any to begin with you coward. You are led like a sheep.

  Americans losing their lives is no fucking game. 
You make me sick. I know people who died for this bullshit, and been maimed for the state of Israel. Isntreal is part of the reason we are over seas. 

   You really don't know shit.

 I have read the PNAC, and you mincing words around it doesn't take anything away from the fact that the writers needed a "catastrophic and catalyzing" event to kick off their plans for a "New American Century" Any fool can read it and decipher what it means you asshole!


 This hasn't been a discussion, it has been a look at you getting caught lying, and trying to deceive people, and when they read your BS it will be clear that you are the one woefully ignorant and unprepared.


 No one has to believe me or especially you, all they have to do is what you have been lacking...research and reading, and have an open mind. 




> You obviously don't know what the fuck you are talking about.  I am actually heavily involved in the local politics here because I know things are very wrong.  I don't need to go making up a bunch of shit to know that.  You apparently do.  Either that or you just can't STAND the truth so you have to make shit up just so you can fuel your own hate.  Either way it is dishonest.


 Local politics huh? You mean the Ds against the Rs? If you think things are wrong at the local level, what makes you think they aren't wrong when it comes to such a world changing topic such as 9-11? You are sounding clueless again. Stay out of politics, I doubt you'll contribute anything for the greater good of anybody worth a damn.



> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Yep so says I, too bad. Look up some of the things you are arguing about next time. You look like an ass as always. You don't even know about the trouble your nation is really in, or don't care. I'm leaning towards you not caring, you haven't shown you do. 
If I was on Alqaedas side , I would really be on the governments side...Twist your douche bag brain around that.
Self Edited-No family Attacks. [/QUOTE]





Nice job Jones.Great watching you hand his ass to him on a platter like you did.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 18, 2010)

Mr. Jones said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones, I apologize for my comment about your family.  That was out of line and won't happen again.  Sorry.
> ...


  Well, if you weren't such a piece of shit, I wouldn't have to bother to call you a piece of shit, would I.  Apparently you see nothing wrong with using the deaths of 3000 Americans to push your anti-government agenda.  I do.  And I don't mind making you fools look like the dishonest retards that you are, and if that includes calling a spade a spade, then so be it.  

Oh, and way to gracefully accept an apology.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 18, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> > Well, if you weren't such a piece of shit, I wouldn't have to bother to call you a piece of shit, would I.
> 
> 
> There you go again, I guess being the way you are is a result of some deep seeded trauma or something, it comes natural to you and it must be very sad to go through life thinking that swearing and calling people names while hiding behind a monitor makes you a_ real _man.
> ...


----------



## tempesta29 (Dec 18, 2010)

I suggest not giving Patriot911FreedomFries too much attention. He doesn't deserve it.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 18, 2010)

Mr. Jones said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > > Well, if you weren't such a piece of shit, I wouldn't have to bother to call you a piece of shit, would I.
> ...


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 18, 2010)

tempesta29 said:


> I suggest not giving Patriot911FreedomFries too much attention. He doesn't deserve it.



Tempussy is still upset his favorite theory isn't supported by the facts.    He is such a sore loser!


----------



## eots (Dec 18, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> tempesta29 said:
> 
> 
> > I suggest not giving Patriot911FreedomFries too much attention. He doesn't deserve it.
> ...



funny you seem to be the one losing it .and.the one that cant present evidence
what evidence do you have to support the official explanation of the collapse again ???


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 18, 2010)

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > tempesta29 said:
> ...



What, specifically are you asking me to back up?  

You want to know for a fact there were no explosives in WTC 7?  Sure I can prove that.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-WZpXiEKAo]Here you go[/ame]

Taken a couple blocks from WTC 7 during the collapse.  Hear any loud bangs?  Me neither.  The audio was working and recording the whole time.  

This goes right in line with the testimony of numerous 9/11 firefighters who were close to the WTC 7 during the collapse.  

An audio tape taken a couple blocks away from an event that, if it happened according to how truthtards claim, should have heard an explosion louder than a gun shot at that distance.  

So how about it?  Is the video faked?  Why does everyone just look in the direction of WTC 7 instead of acting like they just heard a loud explosion.  

I am sure you can explain all this away, right?  Or are you going to just ignore it?


----------



## eots (Dec 18, 2010)

lol...here is the building in the background standing solid no visible fire...but seconds later it dust and we have a reporter telling us some unnamed agents have determined this "rare phenomena" is about to occur and secs later it does and as far as the sound goes there is virtually no background noise not even that of a falling building  and very minimal sound of response from people in the area....this is what you call proof of the NIST theory ??


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 18, 2010)

eots said:


> lol...here is the building in the background standing solid no visible fire...but seconds later it dust and we have a reporter telling us some unnamed agents have determined this "rare phenomena" is about to occur and secs later it does and as far as the sound goes there is virtually no background noise not even that of a falling building  and very minimal sound of response from people in the area....this is what you call proof of the NIST theory ??



The only alternative to the NIST theory I've seen submitted was the one by you stupid assed truthtards claiming explosives brought the tower down.  You didn't hear any explosives.  Nobody reacts to any explosions.  Yet here you are still pretending and still ignoring the evidence.  And you idiots are clueless as to why nobody likes you and everyone makes fun of you.    Welcome to reality, shithead!

So if there were no explosives, doesn't that just leave the NIST theory?  Or are you going to come up with yet another theory that directly conflicts with your fellow truthtards' theories?  Wouldn't be the first time.  Won't be the last.

BTW, the "unnamed agents" were officers.  Apparently you're not even able to listen to the audio without ending up lying your ass off.    Who did you think they were?  Undercover boogiemen?


----------



## eots (Dec 18, 2010)

> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 18, 2010)

eots said:


> SO the officers names where ???
> 
> BTW WHAT GIVES YOU THE IDEA ANYONE LIKES YOU OR IS NOT LAUGHING AT YOU ?


AAAAAAAND there go the goalposts!  Never mind the fact nobody heard explosions.  Never mind the fact nobody reacted to explosions.  THAT'S not important.  What IS important is that eots gets the names of the officers that told people WTC 7 was going to collapse.   

And what would you do with that information, eots?  Try to contact them?  Tell us exactly why it is more important to know the names of the officers who told the reporter WTC 7 was going to collapse than it is to address the fact no explosion preceeded WTC 7's collapse.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 18, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SO the officers names where ???
> ...



I've often wondered why those "interested in the truth" simply won't call the Arlington VA fire department and ask them if they saw bodies in the wreckage, bodies of children, plane wreckage on the scene smoldering from the fire, etc....  Simply call them and ask them if you're in prolonged dis-belief about a plane hitting the building.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 18, 2010)

eots said:


> lol...here is the building in the background standing solid no visible fire...but seconds later it dust and we have a reporter telling us some unnamed agents have determined this "rare phenomena" is about to occur and secs later it does and as far as the sound goes there is virtually no background noise not even that of a falling building  and very minimal sound of response from people in the area....this is what you call proof of the NIST theory ??


 There were people in and around wtc 7 that heard explosions, but some people are scared and prefer not to believe them and continue to trust they are being told the truth by a system that has been caught lying to them countless times in the past. They want to believe the outrageous conspiracy theory about box cutters, and pilots that couldn't fly etc.. that was told to them, it comforts them like an infant in its mothers arms sucking her breast, so be it. .
Other objective thinking people would deem those that were there, and those that have higher credentials that initiated the alternative scenarios, as viable credible sources, instead of the fools who scream profanities when they are stone cold busted distorting and spreading false information, then are made to apologize like a child for actions that most 1st graders know is unacceptable.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 18, 2010)

Mr. Jones said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > lol...here is the building in the background standing solid no visible fire...but seconds later it dust and we have a reporter telling us some unnamed agents have determined this "rare phenomena" is about to occur and secs later it does and as far as the sound goes there is virtually no background noise not even that of a falling building  and very minimal sound of response from people in the area....this is what you call proof of the NIST theory ??
> ...



Whats funny about your posts is that you swear there are alternative scenarios but run like a little bitch when asked to furnish those scenarios.

Please entertain us with what you think happened...front to back in reasonable detail...on 9/11/01.  I'm sure you're too much of a pussy to weigh in on anything in your own words.

Such is the life of a twoofer, scared shitless when asked to take a stand.  It always makes me laugh.


----------



## eots (Dec 18, 2010)

candycorn said:


> patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



plane hitting the building ? What conversation are you in...the voices in your head ?


----------



## eots (Dec 18, 2010)

patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > so the officers names where ???
> ...



so   we have no idea who is informing  the reporter the building is about to collapse


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 18, 2010)

candycorn said:


> Whats funny about your posts is that you swear there are alternative scenarios but run like a little bitch when asked to furnish those scenarios.
> 
> Please entertain us with what you think happened...front to back in reasonable detail...on 9/11/01.  I'm sure you're too much of a pussy to weigh in on anything in your own words.
> 
> Such is the life of a twoofer, scared shitless when asked to take a stand.  It always makes me laugh.


 You call people names and insult them and you want them to do something for you afterwards? I am not here to entertain you, or appease you, and write you an essay. You believe your government is a benevolent entity, I don't, and succumbing  to your demands is the last thing anybody should do. Your cavalier attitude about the nations troubles and disdain towards those that care about it don't demand any respect.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 18, 2010)

Mr. Jones said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Whats funny about your posts is that you swear there are alternative scenarios but run like a little bitch when asked to furnish those scenarios.
> ...



No, I don't want you to do anything.  I get a remarkable amount of entertainment watching twoofers sling shit all over the place and none of it sticks; ever.  Simply goading a dumb animal into acting like a dumb animal.  And you oblige always.  

You don't give a fuck about anything otherwise you'd be actually doing something other than sitting on the internet doing your "activism".  It's funny, totally unproductive, and really, really lame.  

Please feel free to keep on posting; they're cul-de-sacs of moronic behavior...



Mr. Jones said:


> [paraphrase]You deride alternate theories...


Yet you're too chicken shit to provide a single alternate theory about the events of that day.  In layman's terms, you're what is called a pussy. 

Sorry but it's true.


----------



## eots (Dec 19, 2010)

candycorn said:


> mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



you are a hired troll


----------



## tempesta29 (Dec 19, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> tempesta29 said:
> 
> 
> > I suggest not giving Patriot911FreedomFries too much attention. He doesn't deserve it.
> ...



This guy is like the bully in junior high that was actually just a sad kid desperate for attention. I suggest, however, that you try to speak with your family about your emotional issues. A public internet forum isn't the medium to express your deeply-seeded, social psychoses. We've already established you don't deal with facts. Posting a video and guessing how many blocks someone is from a building isn't a fact. Saying only the northwest corner of WTC 7 fell at free fall speed is not a fact.

You've been given the arguments. They haven't changed. You simply aren't refuting them. Your response to WTC 7's stage of free fall was that "your precious columns were already gone," apparently implying that WTC 7 was an empty shell when the roofline came down. You even used a video showing the northeast penthouse, but forgot there were other rooftop structures. So that claim was shot down. WTC 7 fell at free fall for a significant duration of its collapse. Any measurable period of free fall would be extremely uncharacteristic for a building which had allegedly collapsed due to fire. Steel offers a minimum amount of resistance in its failure unless it is cut. There you have it.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 19, 2010)

candycorn said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



 You keep begging me for an essay like some **** on her knees, you have no shame. Maybe if you ask nice, I might do it candycunt...go ahead and ask really nice...on your knees bitch....LOL  Are you too chicken shit to ask me nice in front of everyone, don't be shy candycunt..LOL...


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 19, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Let me start with David Chandler's claim (P.13 #186) that "(f)ree fall is an embarrassment to the official story, because freefall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building."
> ...


Do you consider Newtons Third Law of Motion an absolute?

Chandler does, and at this point I haven't seen any good reason to believe WTC7's collapse should be treated as an exception.

The disappearance of the East penthouse seems like a logical starting point. Chandler claims that NIST "attributes the collapse of the east penthouse to the failure of a single column..."

"But it is much more likely that at least two and possibly three supporting columns were 'taken out' simultaneously. 

"*Three columns supported the east penthouse*. 

"One of our German colleagues has pointed to evidence that the east penthouse fell through the interior of the building *at close to freefall*, evidenced by a ripple of reflections in the windows as it fell. 

"*Yet the exterior of the building retained its integrity*."

Do you believe it's accurate to say:

The east penthouse was supported by three columns?

The collapse of the east penthouse was due to the failure of a single column?

The east penthouse fell through the building at close to free fall?

Freefall


----------



## candycorn (Dec 19, 2010)

Mr. Jones said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...





candycorn said:


> No, I don't want you to do anything.  I get a remarkable amount of entertainment watching twoofers sling shit all over the place and none of it sticks; ever.  Simply goading a dumb animal into acting like a dumb animal.  And you oblige always.


You apparently can't read.  Which is fine because you sure as shit can't reason.  9 years, no progress.  Might be time to change your tactics loser-boy.  How's Jess?


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 19, 2010)

Mr. Jones said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > lol...here is the building in the background standing solid no visible fire...but seconds later it dust and we have a reporter telling us some unnamed agents have determined this "rare phenomena" is about to occur and secs later it does and as far as the sound goes there is virtually no background noise not even that of a falling building  and very minimal sound of response from people in the area....this is what you call proof of the NIST theory ??
> ...


So let's see..... you have some that claim they heard explosions.  You have others that claim not to.  So you have a conflict.  In these cases, you turn to the evidence.  We have audio recordings that SHOW NO EXPLOSIONS GOING ON PRIOR TO OR DURING THE COLLAPSE.  Do you lying truthtards accept that?  No.  Why?  It doesn't show you what you want to see.  Now, if that video had explosions in it, you would be touting it's praises as proof you were right.  I know it.  You know it.  Everyone else knows it.  And you know what?  You would be right.  It WOULD be evidence.  You fucking liars would FINALLY have something to hang your hat on.  But it doesn't.  So you're stuck denying yet more evidence with no excuse.  

Truthtards are such a fucking joke.  Not even a funny one either.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 19, 2010)

tempesta29 said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > tempesta29 said:
> ...



And right on time is tempussy's pathetic attempt at trying to appear sane.  Too little too late.  You can't address the video either.  Nor can you address any of the other facts that prove there were no explosives.  

So all we have is a lying truthtard who pretends that HIS way is the ONLY way regardless of the facts and evidence at hand.    Whatever, tempussy.  You're nothing but a piece of shit hack and all you do is prove it with every post.


----------



## eots (Dec 19, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



THERE ARE SEVERAL REPORTS OF EXPLOSIONS JUST PRIOR TO COLLAPSE

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STbD9XMCOho[/ame]


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 19, 2010)

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



So you're going to believe some truthtard loser who is obviously lying over audio recordings where you can hear with your own ears there were no large explosions.  Wow.  I realize truthtards are living in a fantasy world, but this total denial is just astounding even for them!


----------



## tempesta29 (Dec 19, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> So you're going to believe some truthtard loser who is obviously lying over audio recordings where you can hear with your own ears there were no large explosions.  Wow.  I realize truthtards are living in a fantasy world, but this total denial is just astounding even for them!



I like how you think videos that lack explosions are evidence there were no explosives, but videos that clearly show massive explosions, in your book, mean nothing.

And Kevin McPadden is a 9/11 first responder. Who the fuck are you, redneck?


----------



## tempesta29 (Dec 19, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> And right on time is tempussy's pathetic attempt at trying to appear sane.  Too little too late.  You can't address the video either.  Nor can you address any of the other facts that prove there were no explosives.
> 
> So all we have is a lying truthtard who pretends that HIS way is the ONLY way regardless of the facts and evidence at hand.    Whatever, tempussy.  You're nothing but a piece of shit hack and all you do is prove it with every post.



So what happened with your video showing that everything on the roof was gone by the time WTC 7's roofline began falling? That didn't work out too well for you did it? Turns out WTC 7 wasn't just an empty shell when the roofline began collapsing. So you were wrong, again.


----------



## eots (Dec 19, 2010)

patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > patriot911 said:
> ...



my own ears ??...video tape released by controlled media and nist is not...my own ears...what world do you live in ?


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 19, 2010)

tempesta29 said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > So you're going to believe some truthtard loser who is obviously lying over audio recordings where you can hear with your own ears there were no large explosions.  Wow.  I realize truthtards are living in a fantasy world, but this total denial is just astounding even for them!
> ...


What videos would those be?  And if they show "massive explosions" IN YOUR OPINION, well that is just fucking useless as you are a clear and proven liar of epic proportions.  You need actual proof to back up your claims because your word isn't worth shit.



			
				tempesta29 said:
			
		

> And Kevin McPadden is a 9/11 first responder. Who the fuck are you, redneck?


Kevin McPadden is a fucking liar.  As for me, I'm just the guy exposing all your truthtard bullshit for what it is.  I realize you cannot handle that or respond to that, which is hilarious, but I am not going to stop.  Sucks to be you, but them's the breaks.  It is always better to side with the truth instead of lying your ass off about every little thing.

So have you come up with a good excuse for the video where you can neither hear any kind of explosion and clearly nobody else is startled by the sound of an explosion?  Come on.  It is YOUR claim there HAD to be explosives because there is no other explanation.  So come on.  Man up, ya dickless wonder!  Or you going to run away again and pretend the video doesn't exist.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 19, 2010)

eots said:


> patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



  Why am I not surprised a piece of shit like you would once again deny evidence simply because it doesn't show you what you want to see.    You fuckers are so transparent it isn't even funny anymore!  

Go ahead and keep denying the obvious truth.  It only hurts your own credibility.... if you actually had any left.  Anyone coming along and watching your bullshit antics of denial will quickly come to the correct conclusion that you and the rest of the truthtards are only talking out of your ass and are traitors to the US, not patriots like you falsely claim.


----------



## eots (Dec 19, 2010)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZNQq7XBLwc[/ame]


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 19, 2010)

eots said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZNQq7XBLwc



Instead of making us suffer 13+ minutes of a truthtard with the personality of a damp rag, why don't you tell us what point you are attempting, and in all likelihood failing, to make.


----------



## eots (Dec 19, 2010)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNtTcS2vrUg[/ame]


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 19, 2010)

tempesta29 said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > And right on time is tempussy's pathetic attempt at trying to appear sane.  Too little too late.  You can't address the video either.  Nor can you address any of the other facts that prove there were no explosives.
> ...


 Sort of like a human beings skull disintegrating from the inside, in front of you, but you wouldn't see their eyebrows descend to their chin? No outwardly appearance of something unnatural going on?  Is this sorta what he is implying to you?


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 19, 2010)

Mr. Jones said:


> tempesta29 said:
> 
> 
> > Patriot911 said:
> ...


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 19, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZNQq7XBLwc
> ...




So a person's personality determines whether physics exist or if nanothermite was found?  Why do we need to tell you what point is being made?  You have eyeballs (that you dont like to use) watch the video, and rebuttal.  It's the least you could do, especially for your reputation.  Don't you respect yourself more than to talk about things you know nothing about?  It's like your hobby.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 19, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


*
His reputation is that he could be town mayor. 
Yours is that of a worthless troll.

100% correct on both counts.

Your reputation as CreativeSchemes is about as bad.  You have that effect on people, you're widely hated by everyone.  Its the one thing that we all agree on.
*


----------



## eots (Dec 19, 2010)

candycorn said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Patriot911 said:
> ...



my sources tell me it is actually you that is hated we all agree


----------



## tempesta29 (Dec 19, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> What videos would those be?  And if they show "massive explosions" IN YOUR OPINION, well that is just fucking useless as you are a clear and proven liar of epic proportions.  You need actual proof to back up your claims because your word isn't worth shit.
> 
> Kevin McPadden is a fucking liar.  As for me, I'm just the guy exposing all your truthtard bullshit for what it is.  I realize you cannot handle that or respond to that, which is hilarious, but I am not going to stop.  Sucks to be you, but them's the breaks.  It is always better to side with the truth instead of lying your ass off about every little thing.
> 
> So have you come up with a good excuse for the video where you can neither hear any kind of explosion and clearly nobody else is startled by the sound of an explosion?  Come on.  It is YOUR claim there HAD to be explosives because there is no other explanation.  So come on.  Man up, ya dickless wonder!  Or you going to run away again and pretend the video doesn't exist.



Yawn............


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 19, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Yeah, that's what I thought.  You shitheads can't watch that crap either.


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 19, 2010)

tempesta29 said:


> Yawn............


All assholes like tempussy have left is to be internet trolls.  Pathetic, but predictable.


----------



## tempesta29 (Dec 19, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> tempesta29 said:
> 
> 
> > Yawn............
> ...



Quoted for irony.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 20, 2010)

tempesta29 said:


> How can steel provide 0 resistance? Even air provides resistance. It doesn't matter how much load is applied. A single steel column will obviously provide more resistance to a trillion ton load than nothing will. A trillion ton mass will fall faster in a vacuum than that mass will atop a single steel column.
> 
> Please refute this.



Now we're getting somewhere.

At some point, the resistance from a component (be it air, steel, whatever) will become unnoticeable due to the weight/shape of the object coming down. 

Tell you what. Let's use a thousand ton block of cement dropped from 40 stories. How much resistance would air apply? How much slower than free fall speed would that block fall? Since you are debating this and used it as an example in your argument, show us the numbers. You obviously understand this concept enough to give numbers right?

Moving forward, let's use two 20' high I beams, standing on their ends. Let's put a "trillion ton load" on top of one and 500 lb. load on top the other. Let's apply a continuous heat source at the bottom third of each column. Which load will will reach the ground first based on how much resistance each column provides to each given weight and at what point the column fails due to the heat applied AND the stress applied by each load?


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 20, 2010)

tempesta29 said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > But the beams were cut the moment the building started down. According to you, the floors were cut all at the same time?
> ...



Ok, I'll ask it. You are using the free fall speed of the 2.25 sec portion of the collapse to prove that all the columns were cut at the same time as that's the ONLY way it could have fallen at that speed. 

NO RESISTANCE is your claim because the beams were all cut.

Well, if the columns were all cut simultaneously (removed and no resistance as you claim), then why didn't the free fall start at the moment all the columns were cut? Why the .8 of no free fall in the beginning? Free fall should have started instantly when the beam's were cut right?

Another question. Can you show me a column from WTC7 that has thermite residue on it from a cut?


----------



## tempesta29 (Dec 20, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Now we're getting somewhere.
> 
> At some point, the resistance from a component (be it air, steel, whatever) will become unnoticeable due to the weight/shape of the object coming down.
> 
> ...



You'll of course need to show the relevance for these before I begin to entertain them. Neither hypothetical is comparable to any event that took place on 9/11. The dead loads allegedly responsible for bringing down WTC 7 were the building's components themselves. Of course, at some point, with enough load, it is hard to distinguish between free fall and very near fre efall. That simply isn't the case with WTC 7. Are you implying that WTC 7's dead load was responsible for overcoming resistance to the point of free fall?


----------



## tempesta29 (Dec 20, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Ok, I'll ask it. You are using the free fall speed of the 2.25 sec portion of the collapse to prove that all the columns were cut at the same time as that's the ONLY way it could have fallen at that speed.
> 
> NO RESISTANCE is your claim because the beams were all cut.
> 
> Well, if the columns were all cut simultaneously (removed and no resistance as you claim), then why didn't the free fall start at the moment all the columns were cut? Why the .8 of no free fall in the beginning? Free fall should have started instantly when the beam's were cut right?



I never claimed that all buildings brought down in controlled demolitions reach free fall, let alone remain in that state for the entirety of collapse. My only claim was that free fall isn't possible unless explosives are used to sever columns. Logical fallacy at its finest.

There are too many unseen influences that could offer minimal resistance during collapse. The WTC 7 collapsed at near free fall when it wasn't actually in free fall. I don't think anyone claimed that a building brought down in a controlled manner will always be in free fall.



> Another question. Can you show me a column from WTC7 that has thermite residue on it from a cut?



No.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 21, 2010)

tempesta29 said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, I'll ask it. You are using the free fall speed of the 2.25 sec portion of the collapse to prove that all the columns were cut at the same time as that's the ONLY way it could have fallen at that speed.
> ...



You're missing my point. You are claiming that WTC7 fell at free fall because the columns were all simultaneously cut, which is the ONLY reason a building could fall at free fall.

The point I am trying to make is that if this were true, that all columns were cut at the same time, why didn't free fall occur immediately? Why the .8 seconds of no free fall?

Isn't this defying your version of Newtonian physics? If all the columns were cut at the same time and according to you this initiates free fall, what resistance was being provided for the first .8 seconds?


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 21, 2010)

tempesta29 said:


> *Of course, at some point, with enough load, it is hard to distinguish between free fall and very near fre efall*. That simply isn't the case with WTC 7. Are you implying that WTC 7's dead load was responsible for overcoming resistance to the point of free fall?



And here is the crux of the argument. At which point was the load to much for the perimeter columns of WTC7 to handle and cause a catastrophic failure to bring it down? 

You are claiming it's not possible for the load that was left be carried by the perimeter column and the rest of what was standing of WTC7 to cause a failure and then free fall.

That means you have proof that it should have. The NIST report on WTC7 explains all this and how it was possible, but you don;t want to discuss the step by step analysis. You just want to sit on your laurels and say that free fall isn't possible. Based on what? You just admitted above that free fall or near free fall is possible with the right load, did you not?

So, at what point would the load from what was left of WTC7 after the initial collapse of the internal columns (79, etc.) overcome what was left of the supporting structure's support ability?

Let's see some of your calculations to support this? 

Do you even understand how buildings are designed and how engineers calculate what loads the internal structure can support? Do you understand that all the internal steel structural components (columns, girders, floors, beams, connections, etc.) work together as a whole to support that calculated load? That is pieces of that structural network start to fail that other pieces need to pick that up?

How can you expect a damaged structure with missing components to support a load it was designed to support when it was whole and undamaged?


----------



## tempesta29 (Dec 21, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> tempesta29 said:
> 
> 
> > *Of course, at some point, with enough load, it is hard to distinguish between free fall and very near fre efall*. That simply isn't the case with WTC 7. Are you implying that WTC 7's dead load was responsible for overcoming resistance to the point of free fall?
> ...



Nonsense. NIST does not explain how free fall was possible, only what they believe happened AND that free fall occurred. In fact, free fall is mentioned very near the end of the report itself, and only a few times.

And why are you referring only to the perimeter columns? Are you claiming all two dozen core columns were bearing no load?



> So, at what point would the load from what was left of WTC7 after the initial collapse of the internal columns (79, etc.) overcome what was left of the supporting structure's support ability?
> 
> Let's see some of your calculations to support this?
> 
> ...



It's funny to see a man so desperately grasping at straws as you are. We are discussing a steel framed high rise here. This isn't some extreme case or some experiment where massive loads are placed atop a single steel beam. This building held itself up for decades. WTC 7, like any steel framed skyscraper, is over engineered so that if a couple support columns were to fail, it would still stand with ease, not topple to the ground and most definitely not be so overcome with its own load that it reaches free fall.

You aren't under the impression buildings are designed to carry just their own dead loads (plus the weight of office supplies and humans) are you?


----------



## tempesta29 (Dec 21, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> You're missing my point. You are claiming that WTC7 fell at free fall because the columns were all simultaneously cut, which is the ONLY reason a building could fall at free fall.
> 
> The point I am trying to make is that if this were true, that all columns were cut at the same time, why didn't free fall occur immediately? Why the .8 seconds of no free fall?
> 
> Isn't this defying your version of Newtonian physics? If all the columns were cut at the same time and according to you this initiates free fall, what resistance was being provided for the first .8 seconds?



No, I'm not missing your point. The absence of free fall is not proof that controlled explosives weren't used. This is a logical fallacy. Stop repeating it. It's embarrassing. Plenty of controlled demolitions fall at slower than free fall. There is your proof.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 21, 2010)

tempesta29 said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > You're missing my point. You are claiming that WTC7 fell at free fall because the columns were all simultaneously cut, which is the ONLY reason a building could fall at free fall.
> ...



Most definitely you are. According to you and others, you are claiming two things.

1. Cut columns equals zero resistance
2. Zero resistance equals free fall.

Isn't that right?

If so, that means that the instant the columns were all cut, free fall should occur. Yet there is a .8 second time-frame that it does not. If the columns were all cut, what was providing that .8 seconds of resistance BEFORE free fall occurred?


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 21, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> tempesta29 said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



What does these .8 seconds have to do with the 2.25 seconds of freefall that occured?  2.25 seconds of freefall is impossible unless each floor was simultaneously removed/destructed.  Fire cannot cause this, and the only way for this to be performed logically is with some type of explosives.  Fire did not melt/bend 8 floors of structural steel from REGULAR office fires.  Take off the blinders, and think about it.  Believe your eyes, not the words of NIST.  Do buildings fall like that from regular fires?  Does freefall happen when a steel building collapses?  Do steel buildings collapse into their own footprint? Have they?  No.  Demolitions are the only examples of this, and they look identical to WTC7 collapse.  Stop playing games with yourself.  RESPECT YOURSELF, use your INTELLECT.  These building investigations are a sham.


----------



## tempesta29 (Dec 21, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Most definitely you are. According to you and others, you are claiming two things.
> 
> 1. Cut columns equals zero resistance
> 
> Isn't that right?



No, it isn't right, and I've explained several times now why it isn't right. Straw men are typical of your ilk. Re-read my claim. A square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn't a square. This should be simple for anyone with even mediocre intelligence to comprehend.



> If so, that means that the instant the columns were all cut, free fall should occur. Yet there is a .8 second time-frame that it does not. If the columns were all cut, what was providing that .8 seconds of resistance BEFORE free fall occurred?



<paragraph rendered null and void>


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 21, 2010)

Two decades in the future how will Americans view 911?

Judge Andrew Napolitano suggests we may well view it the way many of us view JFK's assassination today: "..*it couldn't possibly have been done the way the government told us*."

BuildingWhat

What about two generations into our future?

Will the grandchildren of today's 9E generation be satisfied with the current official explanations for how two planes collapsed three steel-framed skyscrapers?


----------

