# Fox News Reports on Collapse of Building 7 Before It Happens



## eots (Nov 28, 2008)

In this recently discovered clip, two Fox News 5 anchors talk about the collapse of Building 7 and are then interrupted by the building actually going down


.Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!


----------



## eots (Nov 29, 2008)

no theory here just the facts..see it with your own eyes


----------



## editec (Nov 29, 2008)

Perhaps FOX should change their slogan to: 

*We report the news, then make it happen.*​


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 29, 2008)

Seen this before.  Seems to me much more likely that the anchors were confused and misspoke than that the government orchestrated this whole thing with the utmost secrecy, has gone to great lengths to keep it completely quiet, but then "oh yeah, by the way, we told Fox News what we're doing."


----------



## editec (Nov 29, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> Seen this before. Seems to me much more likely that the anchors were confused and misspoke than that the government orchestrated this whole thing with the utmost secrecy, has gone to great lengths to keep it completely quiet, but then "oh yeah, by the way, we told Fox News what we're doing."


 

Ya _think?_

*Bad *Steerpike.

No tinfoil hat_ for you!_


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 29, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> Seen this before.  Seems to me much more likely that the anchors were confused and misspoke than that the government orchestrated this whole thing with the utmost secrecy, has gone to great lengths to keep it completely quiet, but then "oh yeah, by the way, we told Fox News what we're doing."



No they were sure of what was going on.They sure as hell wouldnt have reported that it came down with no prior knowledge that it was coming down BEFORE it came down if that was the case.Thats stretching saying it was just a matter of confusion.

This is just one of the many countless numbers examples of how 9/11 is very similiar to the Kennedy assassination.Same thing happened in the Kennedy assassination.BEFORE Kennedy had been assassinated in Dallas,its a known fact that it was announced overseas and printed up in newspapers in other countries around the globe that Kennedy had been assassinated.This is just another example of how when the govt orchestrates events,they always screw up in a major way like they did with Kennedy showing that it was all orchestrated from people in high power in the government.


----------



## Paulie (Nov 29, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> Seen this before.  Seems to me much more likely that the anchors were confused and misspoke than that the government orchestrated this whole thing with the utmost secrecy, has gone to great lengths to keep it completely quiet, but then "oh yeah, by the way, we told Fox News what we're doing."



The BBC also reported it pre-maturely.


----------



## Toro (Nov 29, 2008)

The BBC and Fox News were in on it.


----------



## DavidS (Nov 29, 2008)

Or it could be that the audio in the tape is not synched with the video.............


----------



## eots (Nov 29, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> Seen this before.  Seems to me much more likely that the anchors were confused and misspoke than that the government orchestrated this whole thing with the utmost secrecy, has gone to great lengths to keep it completely quiet, but then "oh yeah, by the way, we told Fox News what we're doing."



this was just put out what you would of seen is the clip of the bbc reporting the collapse 20 mins before it happened


----------



## eots (Nov 29, 2008)

DavidS said:


> Or it could be that the audio in the tape is not synched with the video.............



you cant be serious..


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 1, 2008)

yeah thats even much more lame than what Steerpike said.


----------



## Gem (Dec 1, 2008)

I knew it....FOXNEWS masterminded 9/11!


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 1, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> No they were sure of what was going on.They sure as hell wouldnt have reported that it came down with no prior knowledge that it was coming down BEFORE it came down if that was the case.Thats stretching saying it was just a matter of confusion.



Right, similar to how no news agency would make the mistake of calling a state won in an election before it was actually won.


----------



## eots (Dec 1, 2008)

its one more incident in a endless series of highly suspect and improbable events. surrounding 911...your election example sucks.. one...its highly improbable and two.. the people running in the election are known ..building 7 didn't mean anything to anyone in L.A or at the bbc...it seems a premature wire was sent to Reuters a half hour before building 7 fell


----------



## eots (Dec 1, 2008)

a better example is the president was shot a fox reported before it happened..and you dummies would say..well you know ..its like that rarest of occasions like when they print headlines announcing dewy wins...one of those deals..move along.. nothing to see here


----------



## glockmail (Dec 1, 2008)

eots said:


> no theory here just the facts..see it with your own eyes


 Your link in the OP doesn't work.


----------



## eots (Dec 1, 2008)

they keep removing it from youtube heres a new link 



Fox News Reports on Collapse of Building 7 Before It Happens | Clipmarks


----------



## glockmail (Dec 1, 2008)

eots said:


> they keep removing it from youtube heres a new link
> 
> 
> 
> Fox News Reports on Collapse of Building 7 Before It Happens | Clipmarks



First of all that wasn't FNC but an affiliate station. Second, lot of times the affiliates get a tape sent in with a summary story, and that's obviously what that was. The tape displayed behind the anchors was not real time but a recording, and the anchors were reporting on the written summary. They gave us the headline first, which is exactly what you'd expect them to do. 

When you conspiracy nuts try something like this it doesn't help your credibility.


----------



## eots (Dec 1, 2008)

the shot was live,,,  and the bbc report was 22mins before the collapse..a wire was sent from reuters a half hour in advance.. your made up story does not fit with the official vague explanation,,which is _someone_ at Reuters who remains unknown put it out on the wire


----------



## eots (Dec 1, 2008)

We've had such terrible loss of credibility, maybe the smartest thing to do is, bury it. And so we made that decision to bury, and then we watched the videos, disappear." 

The BBC's 'WTC 7 Collapsed
At 4:54 p.m.' Videos

At 21:54 GMT on 9/11/2001 the BBC announced that WTC 7 had collapsed. There was just one problem with this news: WTC 7 did not collapse until 22:20 GMT.
The videos below show the BBC World broadcast.

The BBC's 'WTC 7 Collapsed At 4:54 p.m.' Videos


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 1, 2008)

glockmail said:


> First of all that wasn't FNC but an affiliate station. Second, lot of times the affiliates get a tape sent in with a summary story, and that's obviously what that was. The tape displayed behind the anchors was not real time but a recording, and the anchors were reporting on the written summary. They gave us the headline first, which is exactly what you'd expect them to do.
> 
> When you conspiracy nuts try something like this it doesn't help your credibility.


these guys grasp at any straw


----------



## eots (Dec 1, 2008)

it is hardly a straw..your denial runs deep


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 1, 2008)

eots said:


> it is hardly a straw..your denial runs deep


of course i would deny you conspiracy kooks
you're all nutz


----------



## eots (Dec 1, 2008)

it something that requires explanation


----------



## eots (Dec 1, 2008)

oh ya this gentlemen will be on the alex jones show tomorrow this could be you chance to call and tell him about patriotsquestion911 conspiracy theory


*Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) &#8211; Former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, 1981 - 1984.  Also commanded the U.S. Army&#8217;s Electronic Research and Development Command and the U.S. Army&#8217;s Intelligence School and Center. Former head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence. 32-year Army career*. 

*Member, Military Intelligence Hall of Fame*. 
Video 7/11/06: "One of my experiences in the Army was being in charge of the Army&#8217;s Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence during the Cold War.  I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. It was my job. I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, &#8216;The plane does not fit in that hole&#8217;. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?" http://www.und 


Editor's note: For more information on the impact at the Pentagon, see Colonel Nelson, Commander Muga, Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski, Lt. Col. Latas, Major Rokke, Capt. Wittenberg, Capt. Davis, Barbara Honegger, April Gallop, Colonel Bunel, and Steve DeChiaro. 


Bio: Canadian Sub 

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


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 1, 2008)

eots said:


> oh ya this gentlemen will be on the alex jones show tomorrow this could be you chance to call and tell him about patriotsquestion911 conspiracy theory
> 
> 
> *Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) &#8211; Former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, 1981 - 1984.  Also commanded the U.S. Army&#8217;s Electronic Research and Development Command and the U.S. Army&#8217;s Intelligence School and Center. Former head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence. 32-year Army career*.
> ...


still claiming things that are not true

you are a fucking moron if you believe this bullshit


----------



## glockmail (Dec 1, 2008)

eots said:


> the shot was live,,,  and the bbc report was 22mins before the collapse..a wire was sent from reuters a half hour in advance.. your made up story does not fit with the official vague explanation,,which is _someone_ at Reuters who remains unknown put it out on the wire


 The evidence that you gave me does not support your assertion that it was live, but assuming for a moment that it was, the "collapse" of that building occurred over several hours or even days due to the internal fires that went completely unchecked. Engineers at scene knew that a total collapse was imminent and therefore prepared the surrounding area ahead of time. Many officials were alerted and of course the press knew too, and as is their nature, got the story mostly wrong.


----------



## eots (Dec 1, 2008)

quit whinning you little pussy..its your theory not mine phone the man and ask him about the site or shut the fuck up with your crazy theory about _*this site*_  being a fake and accept it and deal with it...


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 1, 2008)

glockmail said:


> The evidence that you gave me does not support your assertion that it was live, but assuming for a moment that it was, the "collapse" of that building occurred over several hours or even days due to the internal fires that went completely unchecked. Engineers at scene knew that a total collapse was imminent and therefore prepared the surrounding area ahead of time. Many officials were alerted and of course the press knew too, and as is their nature, got the story mostly wrong.


common sense doesnt work with these morons


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 1, 2008)

eots said:


> quit whinning you little pussy..its your theory not mine phone the man and ask him about the site or shut the fuck up with your crazy theory about _*this site*_  being a fake and accept it and deal with it...


you are the pussy that thinks the government planned 9/11


----------



## eots (Dec 1, 2008)

glockmail said:


> The evidence that you gave me does not support your assertion that it was live, but assuming for a moment that it was, the "collapse" of that building occurred over several hours or even days due to the
> 
> QUOTE]internal fires that went completely unchecked


. 

this is right out of popular mechanics



> Engineers at scene knew that a total collapse was imminent and therefore prepared the surrounding area ahead of time.




engineers at the scene ??..AND THEY WHERE WHO ? do you have a link?





> Many officials were alerted and of course the press knew too, and as is their nature, got the story mostly wrong



officials where alerted...any proof of this ?...why did the firemen hear only moments before ??


----------



## Big_D (Dec 1, 2008)

eots said:


> you cant be serious..



Can't be serious?  Have you ever seen a local newscast?  This happens _all _the time.  In fact, I am surprised that there actually isn't more of this on the internet.  Their video was probably behind as they were getting word of what was going on.  Do you believe that before the government attacked itself on 9/11 they were actually dumb enough to inform _every _local newscasters in the country what they were going to do?  How many people would then be in on the hoax?  You need more than this to make your point.  

If you believe have such conclusive proof then why do such few people believe the government is behind the attacks?


----------



## glockmail (Dec 1, 2008)

eots said:


> .
> 
> this is right out of popular mechanics
> 
> ...





> CNN BREAKING NEWS
> Amateur Video of Immediate Aftermath
> Aired September 11, 2001 - 16:20 ET
> 
> ...


 Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse: 2007-04-08


----------



## no1tovote4 (Dec 1, 2008)

Tried the link, got no video, nothing.  Not even a story about it.  I'm bored now.


----------



## eots (Dec 1, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse: 2007-04-08



where does it say they where on site


----------



## eots (Dec 1, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> common sense doesnt work with these morons



Fox News Reports on Collapse of Building 7 Before It Happens | Clipmarks



ya unlike _*divecon*_ these men show a clear lack of common sense..a couple of morons






*Deets, MS Physics, MS Eng &#8211; Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center.  Before this appointment, he served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden.  Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988).  Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics, a distinguished speaking engagement sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) (1986).  Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000.  Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers.  Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology.  37 year NASA career. 
Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Center]."  AE911Truth *

Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11, signed by more than 500 Architects and Engineers: 

"On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates  hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7.  We believe that there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore that the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7." Sign the Petition 


Editor's note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories.  It would have been the tallest building in 33 states.  Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers.  However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks."  Watch the collapse video here.  And six years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse. 


Bio: NASA - Dryden Flight Research Center 



*
Capt. Edgar Mitchell, U.S. Navy (ret), BS Industrial Management, BS Aeronautical Engineering, Doctor of Science, Aeronautics and Astronautics from MIT &#8211; Pilot and Astronaut.  Sixth man to walk on the moon (Apollo 14 mission).  Patrol bomber and attack plane pilot, U.S. Navy.  Test Pilot, Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 5 (VX-5).  Chief of Project Management Division, Navy Field Office for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory Project.  Graduated first in his class from the Aerospace Research Pilot School, and served as an instructor there.  Recipient of many awards and honors including the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the USN Distinguished Medal and three NASA Group Achievement Awards. Inducted to the Space Hall of Fame in 1979 and the Astronaut Hall of Fame in 1998.  Recipient of honorary doctorates in engineering from New Mexico State University, the University of Akron, Carnegie Mellon University, and a ScD from Embry-Riddle University.  Founder of the Institute of Noetic Sciences. 
Endorser of and proposed Commissioner of a New Investigation into 9/11 as described in the New York City Ballot Initiative 11/08: "Petition to Create a NYC Independent Commission with Subpoena Power to Conduct a Comprehensive and Fact-Driven Investigation of All Relevant Aspects of the Tragic Events of September 11, 2001 and Issue a Report. *
WHEREAS, many New York City voters believe that there remain many unanswered questions critical to establishing the truth about all relevant events leading up to, during and subsequent to the tragic attacks occurring on September 11, 2001 (&#8220;9/11&#8221, and 

WHEREAS, no prior investigation by any New York City agency or any other governmental entity has resulted in the citizens being provided with those critical answers or information necessary to establish the truth about those tragic events, ... 

An independent, temporary New York City commission (the &#8220;Commission&#8221 is hereby created to conduct a comprehensive, factdriven investigation into the events that took place on 9/11, as well as to thoroughly examine related events before and after the attacks, including any activities attempting to hide, cover up, impede or obstruct any investigation into these 9/11 events, following wherever the facts may lead. The Commission shall publish one or more reports of their findings." 


Website: Ed Mitchell 


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


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 1, 2008)

yes, asshole, you are a moron
if they also believe this bullshit, then THEY are morons as well


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 1, 2008)

eots said:


> it something that requires explanation



in most cases that would be true.  This will fly over your head since you are void of objectivity, but the FACT is no explanation would satisfy you short of one that proved not only a conspiracy, but a Bush conspiracy.  Your objectivityy void heart of hearts could you honestly say that you would be such a fruit cake about this issue had happened under Gore?

I'm essentially calling you out on your bullshit conpsiracy crap for what it really is.  Because if we really want to get into remotely plausible conspiracies it is far more likely that the whole thing was orchestrated by Clinton.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 1, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> in most cases that would be true.  This will fly over your head since you are void of objectivity, but the FACT is no explanation would satisfy you short of one that proved not only a conspiracy, but a Bush conspiracy.  Your objectivityy void heart of hearts could you honestly say that you would be such a fruit cake about this issue had happened under Gore?
> 
> I'm essentially calling you out on your bullshit conpsiracy crap for what it really is.  Because if we really want to get into remotely plausible conspiracies it is far more likely that the whole thing was orchestrated by Clinton.


slight correction, not just Bush, he believes both dems and repubs are all in on it


----------



## eots (Dec 1, 2008)

[





> QUOTE=Bern80;920244]in most cases that would be true.  This will fly over your head since you are void of objectivity, but the FACT is no explanation would satisfy you short of one that proved not only a conspiracy, but a Bush conspiracy.  Your objectivityy void heart of hearts could you honestly say that you would be such a fruit cake about this issue had happened under Gore?



absolutely gores no better than bush...fruitcake






> I'm essentially calling you out on your bullshit conpsiracy crap for what it really is.  Because if we really want to get into remotely plausible conspiracies it is far more likely that the whole thing was orchestrated by Clinton



there is no separation between.. Bush.. Clinton .Obama..AND ITS ALWAYS THE SAME... *CIA.. *and the same *Fed*  you know those organizations this man spoke of eliminating


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WSGwnz7XpY]YouTube - The speech that got John F. Kennedy Killed[/ame]


----------



## eots (Dec 2, 2008)

You Tube | December 1, 2008 

Philly 9/11 Truth probes Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who explains the necessity of the Patriot Act and his confidence in the anthrax investigations.

Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!


----------



## eots (Dec 2, 2008)

You Tube
December 1, 2008

Morning show radio host, Leigh Scott discusses 9/11 Truth with Bob, a UF student and 9/11 activist. WBXY is &#8220;The Star&#8221; radio in Alachua County, Florida at 99.5 FM. Site: TheStar.fm


Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!


----------



## editec (Dec 2, 2008)

Conspiracy theories exist because some of us cannot believe our leaders cannot possibly be as incompetent as they appear to be.

People become conspiracy theorists because they have faith that those in charge are NOT IDIOTS.

When we see how badly they fuck up, it simply stretches our imaginations that they can possible have been so dumb as apparently, they have been.

So, in a desperate attempt to make our presumption(that our leaders are not dumber than a box of rocks) people try to connect the dots to explain why things are going so badly.

So conspiracy theories are a leap of faith.

The leap of faith to believe that our leaders are evil bastards, rather than_ complete_ morons.


----------



## Big_D (Dec 2, 2008)

editec said:


> Conspiracy theories exist because some of us cannot believe our leaders cannot possibly be as incompetent as they appear to be.
> 
> People become conspiracy theorists because they have faith that those in charge are NOT IDIOTS...
> So conspiracy theories are a leap of faith.



You make an excellent point.  I'm sure there are also other reasons why people believe in these, though.
Going back over the years it seems that for _every_ major event that has happened in or about this country that there is at least one conspiracy to it.
1) Saddam Hussein captured- people believe that we have taken the wrong person or this was solely a publicity stunt the real Saddam is out there.
2) 9/11 attacks- Our govt did it for different reasons.
3) Moon Landing - America faked it to scare the Russians.
4) JFK Assisgnation - Either the American govt or the Russians did it for one reason or another.
5) Mystery on the Monongahela-  This is a local conspiracy from the Pittsburgh area.  In the 50's there was a B-25 bomber left Nevada and was headed somewhere in the northeast when it suddenly crashed in the Monongahela River outside of Pittsburgh.  People believe that it was to be carrying an escaped Anastasia Romanov, that the Russians themselves brought it down, or it was taken over by Aliens.
6) Other countless plane crashes have been planned out for numerous reasons.
7) Oklahoma City bombing - There was supposedly more than Timothy McVeigh who did it or it was done by another group entirely.
8) Pearl Harbor attacks- FDR either knew of the planned attack beforehand or it was planned by him.
9) Celebrity deaths of countless people
10) Indian Ocean tsunami- The American govt caused it w/ nuclear experiments. 
Please correct me if I am missing any.
  If someone can believe in the 9/11 attacks are a hoax then what is stopping them from believing any other ones are fake?  Seriously, where do we stop?


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 2, 2008)

editec said:


> Conspiracy theories exist because some of us cannot believe our leaders cannot possibly be as incompetent as they appear to be.
> 
> People become conspiracy theorists because they have faith that those in charge are NOT IDIOTS.
> 
> ...



....or your just plain nuts.  Eots theories aren't isolated to 9/11.  

Eots, your rants speak far more to the state of your mind then they do about any possible conspiracy.  if you want to prove any type of theory it must be done from a state of objectivity.  You don't have that.  This is evidenced by your dismissal of any and all non-conspiracy based evidence.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 2, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Right, similar to how no news agency would make the mistake of calling a state won in an election before it was actually won.



Thats such a lame comparison its not even funny.The difference in those two is like night and day.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 2, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> of course i would deny you conspiracy kooks
> you're all nutz



the conspiracy kooks that are nutz are the people like you 9/11 apologists  guys who are in denial.you conspiracy kooks  grasp at straws all the time with your lame ass explanations.thats the thing that so funny when you call us conpiracy kooks is THIS time unlike in the kennedy assassination,9/11 WAS a conspiracy by a group of people.the only conspiracy kooks are the ones who defend the official version.steerpikes post is the only who who has posted who had a reasonable explanation that was wrong.everybody else's has been hysterical.especially the one after steerpikes.LOL


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 2, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> the conspiracy kooks that are nutz are the people like you 9/11 apologists  guys who are in denial.you conspiracy kooks  grasp at straws all the time with your lame ass explanations.thats the thing that so funny when you call us conpiracy kooks is THIS time unlike in the kennedy assassination,9/11 WAS a conspiracy by a group of people.the only conspiracy kooks are the ones who defend the official version.steerpikes post is the only who who has posted who had a reasonable explanation that was wrong.everybody else's has been hysterical.especially the one after steerpikes.LOL


yeah, thats why you morons believe every fucking conspiracy on the books
LOL


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 2, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> still claiming things that are not true
> 
> you are a fucking moron if you believe this bullshit



you need to look in the mirror when calling someone a fucking moron for allowing them to brainwash you with their bullshit.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 2, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> yes, asshole, you are a moron
> if they also believe this bullshit, then THEY are morons as well



thanks for proving your afraid of the truth and YOU are the moron the fact that  your so afraid of the truth you call these people in high positions in government morons as well.Nuff said frady cat.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 2, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> you need to look in the mirror when calling someone a fucking moron for allowing them to brainwash you with their bullshit.


 


9/11 inside job said:


> thanks for proving your afraid of the truth and YOU are the moron the fact that your so afraid of the truth you call these people in high positions in government morons as well.Nuff said frady cat.


 except you are the moron for believeing the bullshit you do
you are the brainwashed one
i'm not afraid of the truth, i KNOW the truth
unlike morons like you that are filled with bullshit


----------



## eots (Dec 2, 2008)

DiveCons  basic argument......blah... blah... moron for .blah ...blah...... bullshit you do...no you are..... morons like you ....blah ..blah... bullshit


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 2, 2008)

eots said:


> DiveCons  basic argument......blah... blah... moron for .blah ...blah...... bullshit you do...no you are..... morons like you ....blah ..blah... bullshit


naw, thats just what happens to morons like you
you have NO FACTS


----------



## eots (Dec 2, 2008)

sure I do ....FACT...the bbc reported the collapse of wtc 7 22mins before it occurred and fox news reported it several minutes before it occurred...THEN THEY BOTH ..denied it ever happened until independent individuals found video recordings to back what they remember seeing on the news...and they where forced to admit it occurred and offered no other explanation for the report or denial but..the _confusion of that day_
these are the facts... not in dispute.....


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 2, 2008)

eots said:


> sure I do ....FACT...the bbc reported the collapse of wtc 7 22mins before it occurred and fox news reported it several minutes before it occurred...THEN THEY BOTH ..denied it ever happened until independent individuals found video recordings to back what they remember seeing on the news...and they where forced to admit it occurred and offered no other explanation for the report or denial but..the _confusion of that day_
> these are the facts... not in dispute.....


WRONG
that is NOT a fact, that is conjecture
you assume something because someone else TOLD you it was
and they never admitted it was wrong


----------



## eots (Dec 2, 2008)

wtf are you talking about ?? are you even speaking English...the only conjecture is the belief I form  from these facts..confirmed and not disputed by fox or the bbc


----------



## Big_D (Dec 2, 2008)

eots said:


> wtf are you talking about ?? are you even speaking English...the only conjecture is the belief I form  from these facts..confirmed and not disputed by fox or the bbc



Again, why would our govt inform every news anchor in the country that they are attack us?  I never heard of an instance in the history of the world where an enemy informed their opponents of when, where, and how they would attack them.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 2, 2008)

eots said:


> wtf are you talking about ?? are you even speaking English...the only conjecture is the belief I form  from these facts..confirmed and not disputed by fox or the bbc


first off, the OP link was not fox news, but fox 5 news, there IS a difference, and for what you are saying to be true, it adds more people into your conspiracy, and again, no one has talked
you like to bring up these people that to most people are completely unknown, and claim they are this or that without anything to prove what they are
then you refuse to believe that someone could make up shit(like your patriots BS link) and that somehow, its not possible for a fake site to get away with it

that makes you a fucking moron


----------



## eots (Dec 2, 2008)

[





> QUOTE=DiveCon;921928]first off, the OP link was not fox news, but fox 5 news, there IS a difference, and for what you are saying to be true, it adds more people into your conspiracy


, 

no it doesn't one person opened their mouth 22mins early and that person may not even know any more than that,,and all it takes is one phone call with a excuse like we don't want to feed conspiracy theory's and endanger the troops or support terror ....so lose the tape of the little blooper and its done...






> and again, no one has talked



sure people talked ..people that saw it recounted the story,,,others tried to locate a copy..they talked to the news agency they talked back and called it urban legend ..eventually diligent patriots located copy's..then they talked about them...then the news groups admitted the occurrence and attributed it to confusion..




> you like to bring up these people that to most people are completely unknown, and claim they are this or that without anything to prove what they are




there are some extremely well known individuals..and several of the also appear in 911 lectures and film as well as the a site and many have appeared on national syndicated radio for example

Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) &#8211; Former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, 1981 - 1984.  Also commanded the U.S. Army&#8217;s Electronic Research and Development Command and the U.S. Army&#8217;s Intelligence School and Center. Former head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence. 32-year Army career. 


.......was a recent guest on Alex Jones




> then you refuse to believe that someone could make up shit(like your patriots BS link) and that somehow its not possible for a fake site to get away with it
> 
> that makes you a fucking moron



no a grassroot conspiracy of the type you describe and magnitude is mot possible..to assume the identities verifiable  nasa employees..norad directors ..etc..  and appear on national radio..portraying this person..appearing in documentary film and  at lectures  and your site  remains up for over 5 years unabated...none of them have ever got word of this deception because its a conspiracy and its secret and no one is saying anything .....not even divecon...or they just don't care their names and reputations are being used or slandered in this way...because.....nobody but a moron would belive the troofer bullshit anyway.....right ?


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 3, 2008)

eots said:


> wtf are you talking about ?? are you even speaking English...the only conjecture is the belief I form  from these facts..confirmed and not disputed by fox or the bbc



The problem Eots is how your brain functions (or doesn't function I guess).  You are so hell bent in your conspiracy beliefs that you are void of objectivity.  People who are objective take into account ALL explanations for evidence provided.

That is you start with what is known.  Let's assume it is true that two news organizations reported the collapse before it happened.  Before you can even begin to lean toward the notion that this information is evidence of a conspiracy, a lot of questions need to be addressed.  First and for most taking into what the possible explanations for this are.  I won't delineate all of these things that need to get cleared up, because it really isn't the point.

The point is that you are biased toward a specific explanation of the events of 9/11.  Evidenced by the fact that given two equally plausible explanations for a piece of evidence you, without fail, always, ALWAYS favor the one that is rooted in conspiracy.


----------



## eots (Dec 3, 2008)

*





Bern80 said:



			The problem Eots is how your brain functions (or doesn't function I guess).  You are so hell bent in your conspiracy beliefs that you are void of objectivity.  People who are objective take into account ALL explanations for evidence provided.
		
Click to expand...



Click to expand...

*


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > yes then examine there probability..where do you get off speaking of objectivity ..you never present any information of any relevance you have looked at very little of the 911 information but yet some how your convinced of the whitehouse version of events
> ...


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 3, 2008)

eots said:


> yes then examine there probability..where do you get off speaking of objectivity ..you never present any information of any relevance you have looked at very little of the 911 information but yet some how your convinced of the whitehouse version of events



Where did I say I believed the White House version of events?  That is the problem with you and over half the people on this board.  You assume the position of others for the convenience of your own argument. 




eots said:


> or  its because you don't have any...



The short list?  WHO told the news stations prematurely the building had collapsed? Semantics would be important in something like this.  Did the individual tell the news outlets the building _were going to_ collapse or did they tell them the building _had already_ collapsed?  Because of your bias you always jump from A to Z without ever looking into the other 25 or so steps you need to go through to plausibly prove Z.





eots said:


> yet you can not provide even one for this..



Again because it isn't the point.  We can play the game and proves my point just perfectly.  You took as evidence of a conspiracy two news agencies that reported an event before it happened without first determining WHY this happened which is a fairly critical component to lending any credibility to your conspiracy theory.

The other issue is with you concluding the your 'evidence' validates a conpsiracy, all your testimonials, all the people that it would require to pull off this conspiracy, which at this point would be several hundred, you have yet to provide a single person, not one, that has admitted any involvment in a conspiracy.  MEANWHILE, a terrorist organization HAS claimed responsibility for the events and their IS evidence that they indeed did do it.


----------



## Big_D (Dec 3, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> The short list?  WHO told the news stations prematurely the building had collapsed? Semantics would be important in something like this.  Did the individual tell the news outlets the building _were going to_ collapse or did they tell them the building _had already_ collapsed?  Because of your bias you always jump from A to Z without ever looking into the other 25 or so steps you need to go through to plausibly prove Z.



That is exactly what eots and 9/11 inside job are doing in the other thread.  They're clearly jumping to conclusions.  For example, they will post a poll that shows X amount of people believe that our govt let 9/11 happen.  Then they will assume that these people believe that our govt made it happen.  Meanwhile, I have posted the true poll and they ignore it.  Another example is when 9/11 inside job said that Ron Paul wants the 9/11 investigation reopened and therefore he believes that Paul must think that it was a hoax.  Meanwhile, he has never said this and actually has claimed the opposite.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 3, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> The problem Eots is how your brain functions (or doesn't function I guess).  You are so hell bent in your conspiracy beliefs that you are void of objectivity.  People who are objective take into account ALL explanations for evidence provided.
> 
> That is you start with what is known.  Let's assume it is true that two news organizations reported the collapse before it happened.  Before you can even begin to lean toward the notion that this information is evidence of a conspiracy, a lot of questions need to be addressed.  First and for most taking into what the possible explanations for this are.  I won't delineate all of these things that need to get cleared up, because it really isn't the point.
> 
> The point is that you are biased toward a specific explanation of the events of 9/11.  Evidenced by the fact that given two equally plausible explanations for a piece of evidence you, without fail, always, ALWAYS favor the one that is rooted in conspiracy.


exactly, Occams Razor


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 3, 2008)

Big_D said:


> That is exactly what eots and 9/11 inside job are doing in the other thread.  They're clearly jumping to conclusions.  For example, they will post a poll that shows X amount of people believe that our govt let 9/11 happen.  Then they will assume that these people believe that our govt made it happen.  Meanwhile, I have posted the true poll and they ignore it.  Another example is when 9/11 inside job said that Ron Paul wants the 9/11 investigation reopened and therefore he believes that Paul must think that it was a hoax.  Meanwhile, he has never said this and actually has claimed the opposite.



as always you twist our words.you didnt type in like I told you to on that google search,to  look at those links  I showed you that show over 40% believe it was an inside job.not jumping to conclusions at all,just going by what the polls proved.Not ignoring it,you hoever have ignored those posts i made on that thread of yours.thanks again for proving you only selectively read PARTS of my posts.I told you years ago he WAS on alex jones saying it new investigation needed to be reopened.People who listen to the alex jones raido show all know that.seriously if your only going to selectively read PARTS of my posts then that shows you dont want to see the other side of the coin.SO stop saying he has never said this.sounds like you never even listen to his show.if you do,its very seldom at all.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 3, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> The problem Eots is how your brain functions (or doesn't function I guess).  You are so hell bent in your conspiracy beliefs that you are void of objectivity.  People who are objective take into account ALL explanations for evidence provided.
> 
> That is you start with what is known.  Let's assume it is true that two news organizations reported the collapse before it happened.  Before you can even begin to lean toward the notion that this information is evidence of a conspiracy, a lot of questions need to be addressed.  First and for most taking into what the possible explanations for this are.  I won't delineate all of these things that need to get cleared up, because it really isn't the point.
> 
> The point is that you are biased toward a specific explanation of the events of 9/11.  Evidenced by the fact that given two equally plausible explanations for a piece of evidence you, without fail, always, ALWAYS favor the one that is rooted in conspiracy.




Just because he posts facts that you guys always ignore doesnt mean he isnt objective.sheesh.He HAS taken in all and they have been debunked by the experts as he has proved to you all MANY times.No you guys are BIASED in your beliefs.If you ever bothered to read the 9/11 books out there that criticise the 9/11 investigation and watch the videos out there,you would see that the evidence is overwhelming that its a coverup.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 3, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> Just because he posts facts that you guys always ignore doesnt mean he isnt objective.sheesh.He HAS taken in all and they have been debunked by the experts as he has proved to you all MANY times.No you guys are BIASED in your beliefs.If you ever bothered to read the 9/11 books out there that criticise the 9/11 investigation and watch the videos out there,you would see that the evidence is overwhelming that its a coverup.


no, he doesnt post facts, he posts bullshit
just like you

if you morons would actually look and understand, you would see that the facts back the official story
there is NO cover up

now, is there info that hasnt been released, no fucking doubt, you wont get to see everything


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 3, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> in most cases that would be true.  This will fly over your head since you are void of objectivity, but the FACT is no explanation would satisfy you short of one that proved not only a conspiracy, but a Bush conspiracy.  Your objectivityy void heart of hearts could you honestly say that you would be such a fruit cake about this issue had happened under Gore?
> 
> I'm essentially calling you out on your bullshit conpsiracy crap for what it really is.  Because if we really want to get into remotely plausible conspiracies it is far more likely that the whole thing was orchestrated by Clinton.



The only ones that are not objective are you guys.He always addresses the issue of the other side and when you guys cant counter it-you all engage in chiidish name calling.ESPECIALLY Diva con.I have noticed since I been on here that anytime ANYBODY comes on here and doesnt accept the official bullshit conspiracy crap that Muslims were behind it all and they post evidence refuting it in their opening posts,they get called a bunch of names.Obviously the truth hurts you guys.

oh and about Clinton? Clinton is long time buddies with the Bush's.He was involved as well but not to the extent that Bush was.Clinton knew about it happening as well only he didnt profit from it like Bush and Chenedy did.as far as we know anyways.He really didnt need to.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 3, 2008)

eots said:


> [
> 
> absolutely gores no better than bush...fruitcake
> 
> ...



exactly.well done again.You should also have added in MCcain  up there as well on how there is no separation in those men.Bush and Clinton for sure knew it was going to happen and wanted it tbama dont think he did at the time but he knows now and is lying his ass off about it as well.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 3, 2008)

Big_D said:


> You make an excellent point.  I'm sure there are also other reasons why people believe in these, though.
> Going back over the years it seems that for _every_ major event that has happened in or about this country that there is at least one conspiracy to it.
> 1) Saddam Hussein captured- people believe that we have taken the wrong person or this was solely a publicity stunt the real Saddam is out there.
> 2) 9/11 attacks- Our govt did it for different reasons.
> ...




okay Im only going to address part of this for now.more in the next couple of days.
1.Havent heard about this one so cant comment on it.
2.any person with logic and common sense knows that to be a fact.
3.THIS one for a long time I thought it was faked until recently when someone on another site I post at made a thread saying that if they DID fake it,then the Russians would have found out and exposed them so I now think they were telling the truth about this one.They got to tell the truth sometimes or they would never fool people like you.this I think was one of those times.more on the others in a couple of days.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 3, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> okay Im only going to address part of this for now.more in the next couple of days.
> 1.Havent heard about this one so cant comment on it.
> 2.any person with logic and common sense knows that to be a fact.
> 3.THIS one for a long time I thought it was faked until recently when someone on another site I post at made a thread saying that if they DID fake it,then the Russians would have found out and exposed them so I now think they were telling the truth about this one.They got to tell the truth sometimes or they would never fool people like you.this I think was one of those times.more on the others in a couple of days.


on #2, only people devoid of logic and common sense believe the nonsense you believe


----------



## Big_D (Dec 3, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> as always you twist our words.you didnt type in like I told you to on that google search,to  look at those links  I showed you that show over 40% believe it was an inside job.not jumping to conclusions at all,just going by what the polls proved.Not ignoring it,you hoever have ignored those posts i made on that thread of yours.thanks again for proving you only selectively read PARTS of my posts.


I am twisting nothing around.  As I said in the obama/clinton thread I did search for it and couldnt find it at that point in time.  Since then I DID find a zogby poll that said that 43% of Americans believe the govt LET it happen.  I would assume this is the one you are talking about.  As I have said NUMEROUS times letting something happen is not the same as making it happen.  I have PROVEN that only 4.7% of Americans believe this and you cannot admit it to be correct.



9/11 inside job said:


> I told you years ago he WAS on alex jones saying it new investigation needed to be reopened.People who listen to the alex jones raido show all know that.seriously if your only going to selectively read PARTS of my posts then that shows you dont want to see the other side of the coin.SO stop saying he has never said this.sounds like you never even listen to his show.if you do,its very seldom at all.


I understand everything you are saying. Ron Paul says he wants the investigation reopened.  He doesnt believe it was done by the govt.  You make it seem that he agrees with everything you are saying, when in fact he agrees with me.  Again, Ron Paul agrees with ME not YOU.


----------



## Big_D (Dec 3, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> okay Im only going to address part of this for now.more in the next couple of days.
> 1.Havent heard about this one so cant comment on it.
> 2.any person with logic and common sense knows that to be a fact.
> 3.THIS one for a long time I thought it was faked until recently when someone on another site I post at made a thread saying that if they DID fake it,then the Russians would have found out and exposed them so I now think they were telling the truth about this one.They got to tell the truth sometimes or they would never fool people like you.this I think was one of those times.more on the others in a couple of days.



You dont have to take the time to address them all.  I was simply making the point that most of the conspiracy theories are crazy so to take one seriously you would have to take them all seriously and that there is no line where to stop.  Wouldn't you admit that some of these are silly?


----------



## eots (Dec 3, 2008)

some of them ??..your mixing apples and oranges  comparing a crime that was committed and a search for a mythical creature as all falling into this category of _conspiracy theory_... as you have been programmed to do..my father was a murder homicide detective..everyday he would go to work and investigate a crime..he would determine who may of conspired to commit this crime .he would examine evidence ...he would form a theory..then pursue a investigation...


----------



## Big_D (Dec 4, 2008)

eots said:


> some of them ??..your mixing apples and oranges  comparing a crime that was committed and a search for a mythical creature as all falling into this category of _conspiracy theory_... as you have been programmed to do..



In your opinion they are apples and oranges.  To some others they cannot believe any of the theories.  If say God told me that one of these conspiracy theories were true then I could have just as easily have chosen the JFK assassination, FDR knew of the impending Pearl Harbor attacks, Oklahoma City bombing was done by our govt, Our govt caused the Tsunamis in the Indian Ocean, the real Saddam Hussein is still at large,  or the death of Tupac Shakur just as easily as I chose the 9/11 attacks.  In my opinion, they are all nonsense.  



eots said:


> my father was a murder homicide detective..everyday he would go to work and investigate a crime..he would determine who may of conspired to commit this crime .he would examine evidence ...he would form a theory..then pursue a investigation...



That is what I did.  I have been in this debate before and nothing has convinced me that it was an inside job.  If I do come across conclusive evidence that show otherwise then I will change my opinion.  But I don't believe that will ever happen.


----------



## eots (Dec 4, 2008)

Big_D said:


> > In your opinion they are apples and oranges.  To some others they cannot believe any of the theories.  If say God told me that one of these conspiracy theories were true then I could have just as easily have chosen the JFK assassination
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I grew up with detectives you sir are no detective


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 4, 2008)

eots said:


> some of them ??..your mixing apples and oranges  comparing a crime that was committed and a search for a mythical creature as all falling into this category of _conspiracy theory_... as you have been programmed to do..my father was a murder homicide detective..everyday he would go to work and investigate a crime..he would determine who may of conspired to commit this crime .he would examine evidence ...he would form a theory..then pursue a investigation...



maybe you need to take a few more notes from him then on how to compile evidence that proves an action.  Two news agencies reporting something before it happened is not proof of anything.  As i said before there are several questions that requiring answering before you can even start, considering a conspiracy.


----------



## Big_D (Dec 4, 2008)

eots said:


> I grew up with detectives you sir are no detective



Lloyd Bentson called he wants his line back.  I am no detective, but I have let you and numerous other people about your opinion on the subject and NOBODY has provided any evidence to convince me.  I have listened to what you and 9/11 inside job said and have went on the Alex Jones website.  I have not seen enough evidence to convince me what you are saying.  Most of America must agree with me as more than 95% of this county has my opinion.  Your opening post in this thread is a great example how you jump to conclusions without adequate evidence.  Because someone is given word of an event before their visual feed shows it is in no way proof of a hoax.


----------



## eots (Dec 4, 2008)

95% of  Americans belive a lot of things..hell according to you 25% belive in big foot


----------



## Big_D (Dec 4, 2008)

eots said:


> 95% of  Americans belive a lot of things..according to you 25% belive in big foot



Not according to me, it is according to Zogby.  As I said in the other thread: This is one of the most highly regarded of its kind. Evidently, 9/11 inside job regards it as credible as he thought that one poll conducted by this company was in his favor, but I later proved him wrong.  That is a fact, that you cannot admit.  Next, it wasnt 25 %, but it still was a lot higher than who believe in the 9/11 hoax. That is how little the American people think of this conspiracy.  MUCH more people believe there is an ape like creature in our forest than who believe in the 9/11 myths.


----------



## eots (Dec 4, 2008)

polls are irrelevant in this situation...polling is not how we investigate crime


----------



## Big_D (Dec 4, 2008)

eots said:


> polls are irrelevant in this situation...polling is not how we investigate crime



This shows that if it were true more people would be on your bandwagon.  If it were true people on your side would be able to convince more than 4.7 % of the population.


----------



## eots (Dec 4, 2008)

this is only your stupid flawed logic...polling is irrelevant to a crime investigation


----------



## Big_D (Dec 4, 2008)

eots said:


> .polling is irrelevant to a crime investigation



that's true.  I just have a hard time believing that all high profile 9/11 hoax believers, like alex jones, can only convince 4.7% of the population if they were right and had better points to give.


----------



## eots (Dec 4, 2008)

its one of the few places the message can be heard ...a better question is why don't they interview people featured on patriots question 911..one of the generals was on Alex Jones today..but who  heard him compared to tonights fox broadcast and how many form there opinions on the  complete unqualified ridiculous collection of experts that presented the popular mechanics debunking 911..so no its not that surprising


----------



## Big_D (Dec 4, 2008)

eots said:


> its one of the few places the message can be heard ...a better question is why don't they interview people featured on patriots question 911..one of the generals was on Alex Jones today..but who  heard him compared to tonights fox broadcast and how many form there opinions on the  complete unqualified ridiculous collection of experts that presented the popular mechanics debunking 911..so no its not that surprising



I disagree with that first statement.  I have heard of it lots of times before I even heard of Alex Jones.  So what was it that was ridiculous from the collection on popular mechanics?  Were the people with PHD's unqualified?  How about the people with P.E., S.E., S.B., S.M., or the other degrees listed?  How about a professors of engineering?  Would those people know anything about a building collapse?  Would you think that the director of aviation for the VF Corp would know anything about a plane crash?  Would you think that the squadron commander of the U.S. airforce know anything about air defense?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 7, 2008)

continued-
4.JFK.are you joking? the evidence is overwhelming that the military industrial complex and the CIA were behind it all.man if you still believe in that fairy tale warren commission report that oswald killed kennedy, then your either in serious denial or have never seen the movie JFK and have never heard a different opposing view on it.
5.dont know anything about it so cant comment on it.
6.countless plane crashs? dont dont about countless ones but flight 93-i think was the number,happened under clintons watch where the news media said it was a malfunction on the airliner that caused the crash but witnesses said they saw a missile shoot it down and independent invesitgaters on the scene said a missile had to do that damage as well.I'll believe them anyday of the year over the corporate controlled media.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 7, 2008)

7.OK bombing? till Bush Jr came along,Clinton was the most evil and corrupt president there ever  was so I have to believe they are lying about this one as well.Yes tim Mcveigh was involved in it but so were others.The reason we know that is because witnesses reported seeing others with mcveigh prior to the explosion going on and they reported seeing them there driving off to policemen and said they did not go after them.they made no attempt to go after the others so I got to believe the government is involved in this one as well.especially since it happened under clintons watch.
8.Pearl Harbour? you CANT be serious? thats even been talked about on the history channel how FDR knew before hand about it and planned it all.The book that proves it ot be true is you need to read DAY OF DECEIT.It documents and proves it all.Its based off of over 20,000 previously declassified documents that used to be classified.It proves it all.You also  need to look at that thread going called Pearl Harbour and the deceptions of war.
9.Celebrity deaths? well obviously not all of them are.LOL.but Marilyn Monroe as anyone knows,was obviously murdered and did not commit suicide like they said she did.The autopsys prove that.Same with George Reeve.They said he committed suicide as well but the autopsys prove otherwise.
10.Indian Ocean? dont know anything about it so cant comment on it.
yeah there is another one you mentioned that is just as important that needs to be talked about as well-which I will get to in the next post and that is the Waco tragedy.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 7, 2008)

This is WHY- even thought I dont know too much about it,that I believe Clinton and the government were behind oklahoma city as well is because the evidence is overwhelming in the waco tragedy that Clinton was responsible for it happening.The major news magazines back then in 93 were even reporting it back then quoting Janet Reno that Clinton gave her the okay order to proceed to burn down the complex murdering innocent women and children.If you watch the video WACO.RULES OF ENGAGEMENT.you will see in that video where Clinton says on there-We did not start the fire,the fire was started accidently by the davidians.we found evidence that they accidently tripped over a gasoline cannister in the complex and that started the explosion.we did not start the fire.Clinton of course was known by everyone that served under him in his administration as a pathalogical liar incapable of telling the truth about anything.The video CLEARLY shows  a US army tank seeting fire to the compound.He also says in the video-we never fired on the complex.they fired at us but we never fired on them.alos bullcrap because the video clearly shows snipers firing on the complex as well.and the waco survivors said they answered the door and said-dont shoot,theres women and children here.we surrender.and yet the FBI still opened up fire on them and burned down the complex.I will believe the waco survivors  over the FBI and that bastard Clinton anyday of the year.who YOU going to believe? thats why I think he is involved in oklahoma as well since they arent telling the truth about that one either that more than one man was involved.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 7, 2008)

Finally for today.I want to comment mainly on JFK because that movie is the movie that got me interested in his assassination.I have read over 50 books on his assassination and the evidence is overwhelming that it was the CIA behind it all.many witnesses who interviewed jim garrison said that prior to his assassination in the months leading up to it in new orleans,they saw oswald and jack ruby together.they could place them together.They also saw david ferrie and oswald together as well.one witness-beverly oliver-who was jack rubys girlfriend and I have been fortunate enough to meet,was a stripper at the carousel club that jack ruby owned.she said she saw jack ruby come in there all the time with some really strange characters and on at at least two occassions she saw him with lee harvey oswald.she said ruby introduced him to her and said-beverly this is my friend lee oswald of the CIA and that oswald looked mad that ruby reviewed to her that he worked for the CIA.  she said she saw david ferrie come there as well on a few occassions. Madeline Brown was was LBJ's mistress-whom I also have met,said that she was at a party at LBJ'S ranch the night before the assassination and that Johnson,connolly,nixon and j edgar hoover were all there that night.she said that LBJ came out of a room that all those men were in and said that LBJ said-after tomorrow,that bastard kennedy will no longer be a problem anymore.LBJ AND NIXON were involved in it up to their ears.

also marina oswald-whom i have been fortunate to meet once as well,said that back then,she was threatend with having her children depoted to russia if she did not testify to the warren commission that she believed oswald killed kennedy.being a frightend 19 year old kid from russia back then she was afraid of them so she naturally told them what they wanted to hear.NOW she is no longer afraid of them and speaks a different tune and tells that story.can you blame her for doing that back then? come on,she was a frightened 19 year old.I would have done so as well if i had been her probably. years later after people started figuring it out that it was impossible for oswald to have pulled it off by himself,that there had to have been more than one shooter,thats when they came up with these theorys that maybe it was the russians,the cubans,the mob,castro.for a while I thought maybe it was just the mob that did it but thats what the government wanted people toto get their attention from who was REALLY behind it which was the CIA.none of those other groups had the power to set oswald up like they did and control the media like they did so anybody with logic and common sense can see it was the CIA.

dude if you still believe that oswald killed kennedy,then your way too far brainwashed to be reasoned with on 9/11. I dont even try to attempt to reason with people about 9/11 who still believe in that fairy tale that oswald killed kennedy.Now the ones that I have encountered over the years who can accept that the CIA killed kennedy but had nothing to do with 9/11,THOSE people I will at least try to reason with because their much more easier to reason with on this than the people who believe that lone gunman fairy tale are.


----------



## Big_D (Dec 7, 2008)

Again, my point was that there is no end to these conspiracy theories.   It seems that for every major event that happens in this country there is a conspiracy theory attach to it.  There is no end to them.


----------



## eots (Dec 8, 2008)

that much is correct the use of false flag terror is a method used repeatedly thought out history..I mean do I really i really have to post the Kennedy speech again where he calls it a conspiracy of massive proportions with its hand in  almost aspect of government and industry and military..or all the dead presidents that warned of this..


----------



## Big_D (Dec 8, 2008)

I *guarantee *that for the next horrible event that happens in the future, there will be people who believe the govt is behind it.


----------



## eots (Dec 8, 2008)

Big_D said:


> I *guarantee *that for the next horrible event that happens in the future, there will be people who believe the govt is behind it.



And I  will guarantee you.. there will most likely will be government involvement..

*Former ISI Chief: Mumbai And 9/11 Both Inside Jobs* 

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, December 8, 2008



*General Hamid Gul, the former head of the Pakistani ISI, told CNN yesterday* that both the Mumbai attacks and 9/11 were inside jobs, much to the chagrin of host and CFR luminary Fareed Zakaria, who told viewers that Guls opinions were absolutely wrong and thoroughly discredited.

When you look at the full spectrum of possibilities, who could have done it, then one knows that Samjhauta Express was a similar case, in which Pakistan ISI was accused. But it turned out that it was the militant Hindus themselves who had killed 68 passengers in that train, and that it was an inside job, said Gul. 

Now Colonel Srikant Purohit, who is a serving army officer, he has been caught in this particular case. And the whole thing has turned around.

*So, obviously, there is an inside job.*


Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 8, 2008)

eots said:


> And I  will guarantee you.. there will most likely will be government involvement..
> 
> *Former ISI Chief: Mumbai And 9/11 Both Inside Jobs*
> 
> ...


your biggest problem is you trust that liar alex jones too much
hes a known and proven LIAR


----------



## eots (Dec 8, 2008)

it was on CNN..I watched the interview myself.. Alex is just the only journalist that chose to write about it that could be found without a extensive search......._moron_..lol


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 8, 2008)

eots said:


> it was on CNN..I watched the interview myself.. Alex is just the only journalist that chose to write about it that could be found without a extensive search......._moron_..lol


oh geee, the former head of the ISI denies his department had anything to do with it

and you believe him

you're the moron


----------



## dilloduck (Dec 8, 2008)

eots said:


> it was on CNN..I watched the interview myself.. Alex is just the only journalist that chose to write about it that could be found without a extensive search......._moron_..lol



I think that there ARE a whole lot of questions that need to be answered about 9/11 but focusing on shit like building 7 only serves to drive you further into the lunatic category where you are easy to dismiss.


----------



## Big_D (Dec 8, 2008)

My Quote: "I guarantee that for the next horrible event that happens in the future, there will be people who believe the govt is behind it."


eots said:


> And I  will guarantee you.. there will most likely will be government involvement..



It's interesting that you will most likely believe that there will be government involvement for an incident that hasn't even happened yet!  



eots said:


> *Former ISI Chief: Mumbai And 9/11 Both Inside Jobs*
> Paul Joseph Watson
> Prison Planet.com
> Monday, December 8, 2008
> ...



You know who doesn't believe it was done by our government?  Osama Bin Laden!  He has confessed to it numerous times.
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Bin Laden video threatens America
Bin Laden says he ordered 9/11 attacks
The Guardian's Timeline of the tapes


----------



## eots (Dec 8, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> I think that there ARE a whole lot of questions that need to be answered about 9/11 but focusing on shit like building 7 only serves to drive you further into the lunatic category where you are easy to dismiss.




*ya dismiss this motherfucker*







Dwain Deets, MS Physics, MS Eng  Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center.  Before this appointment, he served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden.  Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988).  Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics, a distinguished speaking engagement sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) (1986).  Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000.  Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers.  Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology.  37 year NASA career. 
Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:


"*The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Center]."  AE911Truth *


Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11, signed by more than 500 Architects and Engineers: 

"On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates  hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7.  We believe that there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore that the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7." Sign the Petition 


Editor's note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories.  It would have been the tallest building in 33 states.  Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers.  However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks."  Watch the collapse video here.  And six years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse. 


Bio: NASA - Dryden Flight Research Center 




Capt. Edgar Mitchell, U.S. Navy (ret), BS Industrial Management, BS Aeronautical Engineering, Doctor of Science, Aeronautics and Astronautics from MIT  Pilot and Astronaut.  Sixth man to walk on the moon (Apollo 14 mission).  Patrol bomber and attack plane pilot, U.S. Navy.  Test Pilot, Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 5 (VX-5).  Chief of Project Management Division, Navy Field Office for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory Project.  Graduated first in his class from the Aerospace Research Pilot School, and served as an instructor there.  Recipient of many awards and honors including the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the USN Distinguished Medal and three NASA Group Achievement Awards. Inducted to the Space Hall of Fame in 1979 and the Astronaut Hall of Fame in 1998.  Recipient of honorary doctorates in engineering from New Mexico State University, the University of Akron, Carnegie Mellon University, and a ScD from Embry-Riddle University.  Founder of the Institute of Noetic Sciences. 
Endorser of and proposed Commissioner of a New Investigation into 9/11 as described in the New York City Ballot Initiative 11/08: "Petition to Create a NYC Independent Commission with Subpoena Power to Conduct a Comprehensive and Fact-Driven Investigation of All Relevant Aspects of the Tragic Events of September 11, 2001 and Issue a Report. 

WHEREAS, many New York City voters believe that there remain many unanswered questions critical to establishing the truth about all relevant events leading up to, during and subsequent to the tragic attacks occurring on September 11, 2001 (9/11), and 

WHEREAS, no prior investigation by any New York City agency or any other governmental entity has resulted in the citizens being provided with those critical answers or information necessary to establish the truth about those tragic events, ... 

An independent, temporary New York City commission (the Commission) is hereby created to conduct a comprehensive, factdriven investigation into the events that took place on 9/11, as well as to thoroughly examine related events before and after the attacks, including any activities attempting to hide, cover up, impede or obstruct any investigation into these 9/11 events, following wherever the facts may lead. The Commission shall publish one or more reports of their findings." 


Website: Ed Mitchell 




Capt. Daniel Davis, U.S. Army  Former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director.  Decorated with the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal for bravery under fire and the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam.  Also served in the Army Air Defense Command as Nike Missile Battery Control Officer for the Chicago-Milwaukee Defense Area.  Founder and former CEO of Turbine Technology Services Corp., a turbine (jet engine) services and maintenance company (15 years).  Former Senior Manager at General Electric Turbine (jet) Engine Division (15 years).  Private pilot.

Statement to this website 3/23/07: "As a former General Electric Turbine engineering specialist and manager and then CEO of a turbine engineering company, I can guarantee that none of the high tech, high temperature alloy engines on any of the four planes that crashed on 9/11 would be completely destroyed, burned, shattered or melted in any crash or fire.  Wrecked, yes, but not destroyed.  Where are all of those engines, particularly at the Pentagon?  If jet powered aircraft crashed on 9/11, those engines, plus wings and tail assembly, would be there. 

Additionally, in my experience as an officer in NORAD as a Tactical Director for the Chicago-Milwaukee Air Defense and as a current private pilot, there is no way that an aircraft on instrument flight plans (all commercial flights are IFR) would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control.  No way!  With very bad luck, perhaps one could slip by, but no there's no way all four of them could! 

Finally, going over the hill and highway and crashing into the Pentagon right at the wall/ground interface is nearly impossible for even a small slow single engine airplane and no way for a 757. Maybe the best pilot in the world could accomplish that but not these unskilled "terrorists". 

*Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a "Conspiracy Theory" does not change the truth.  It seems, "Something is rotten in the State." *



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


----------



## eots (Dec 8, 2008)

Coming Soon: New Fake Bin Laden Video--Just In Time For 9/11


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZq_4PIbnhI]YouTube - Coming Soon: New Fake Bin Laden Video--Just In Time For 9/11[/ame]


911 - Bin Laden Confession Video - Fake???

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LjZqkFwOmo]YouTube - 911 - Bin Laden Confession Video - Fake???[/ame]


Bin Laden's son says videos are faked

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MprAMPnI6w]YouTube - Bin Laden's son says videos are faked[/ame]


DICK CHENEY: BIN LADEN, NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnrSmhokGyU]YouTube - DICK CHENEY: BIN LADEN, NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11[/ame]


Dick Cheney admits Bin Laden is innocent of 9/11!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IgtWjGZhk8]YouTube - Dick Cheney admits Bin Laden is innocent of 9/11![/ame]


----------



## Big_D (Dec 8, 2008)

Eots here are some credible people who think that the attacks were as the news agencies report:
Here is the link for the Popular mechanics 9/11 article which had numerous scientists, engineers, professors, people with very high degrees and it isn't the only one out there! This is just ONE of the sources I showed you and it consisted of 70+ individuals.
Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics

Here is are some links which shows numerous professors collaborated on papers that shows the fall of the twin towers:
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects - Civil Engineering - The University of Sydney
BBC News | AMERICAS | How the World Trade Center fell
mceer.buffalo.edu/meetings/AEI/presentations/06Mlakar-paper.pdf
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/0...ffmannWTC.html

They each have a great number of people who agree it was done by terrorists.

Here are two links that show COUNTLESS professors that agree with the TRUE story of 9/11
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - The Paper
Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and controlled demolition - Structural and Civil Engineers against Controlled Demolition


----------



## Big_D (Dec 8, 2008)

NOWHERE in those links did you prove that ANY of my videos are fakes.  I gave you three different accounts when Bin Laden has confessed and you were unable to discredit any of them.  



eots said:


> Coming Soon: New Fake Bin Laden Video--Just In Time For 9/11
> YouTube - Coming Soon: New Fake Bin Laden Video--Just In Time For 9/11


Nowhere in this video did they say the video was a fake.  In fact, the bin laden video didn't even come out at the time this news report went out.  Therefore, nobody can call it a fake as at the time nobody had seen it!  My question to you:  Why did you post this video?  I believe you did it just to add to the amount of videos you posted to try to gain more credibility.  




eots said:


> 911 - Bin Laden Confession Video - Fake???
> YouTube - 911 - Bin Laden Confession Video - Fake???



Are you serious with this one?  They are disputing only ONE video in this clip.  Next, the only evidence they give is that bin laden is supposedly writing a note with his right had while they say he is left handed.  However, his are is clearly out of the shot.  We do not know what he is doing.  



eots said:


> Bin Laden's son says videos are faked
> YouTube - Bin Laden's son says videos are faked



Nowhere in that clip does his son say that the videos were a fake.  The issues of the videos never came up.  In fact, when the report asks if him if he thought his father was responsible when he first saw the attacks, he 
responds saying, "yeah, maybe."



eots said:


> DICK CHENEY: BIN LADEN, NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11
> YouTube - DICK CHENEY: BIN LADEN, NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11
> Dick Cheney admits Bin Laden is innocent of 9/11!
> YouTube - Dick Cheney admits Bin Laden is innocent of 9/11!



These last two videos are both the same.  He is saying that there is no conclusive evidence linking 9/11 to Bin Laden.  He is not saying that terrorist are innocent.  Cheney also never said that any of these videos are fakes.


----------



## eots (Dec 8, 2008)

well good ..we got that far any way no conclusive evidence...good...thank you
true.. he did not reference the videos..we also agree on that.. however if there is no conclusive evidence it would follow that the videos are at least not considered as conclusive


----------



## roomy (Dec 9, 2008)

Conspiacy or not, the fact remains that the BBC reported the collapse of building 7 before it happened and with live pictures of the scene behind the newsreader clearly showing Building 7 standing.
Some say it was an insurance job on building 7 which took advantage of the situation.I dunno?

And what about the theory that it was a missile rather than a passenger plane that hit the Pentagon?And what about the wreckage site of flight 73 which supports the idea that the plane exploded in flight?
There are lots of questions that need to be addressed.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 9, 2008)

roomy said:


> Conspiacy or not, the fact remains that the BBC reported the collapse of building 7 before it happened and with live pictures of the scene behind the newsreader clearly showing Building 7 standing.
> Some say it was an insurance job on building 7 which took advantage of the situation.I dunno?
> 
> And what about the theory that it was a missile rather than a passenger plane that hit the Pentagon?And what about the wreckage site of flight 73 which supports the idea that the plane exploded in flight?
> There are lots of questions that need to be addressed.


they knew WTC7 was going to collapse by noon time on 9/11, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=58582387431741404&q=wtc7&hl=en (listen about 15 seconds into this vide) so its possible somewhere in the confusion of that day that someone translated the reports of the impending collapse into it had already collapsed before it had, or that it had in fact already collapsed and they were still running file footage behind them
there are likely hundreds of logical explanations for the BBC getting something wrong that day, there were MANY erroneous reports on 9/11 including that one plane had flown into the mall of America in MN 

in order for WTC7 to have been a controlled demolition, they would have had to have pre-wired it, a job that would have taken a lot of people to do, and it would have been very suspicious considering the number of people that worked there


as to the pentagon, Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Pentagon & Boeing 757 Engine Investigation

as to flight 93, there were eye witnesses that saw it nose dive into the ground


----------



## eots (Dec 9, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> they knew WTC7 was going to collapse by noon time on 9/11, WTC 7 (listen about 15 seconds into this vide) so its possible somewhere in the confusion of that day that someone translated the reports of the impending collapse into it had already collapsed before it had, or that it had in fact already collapsed and they were still running file footage behind them
> there are likely hundreds of logical explanations for the BBC getting something wrong that day, there were MANY erroneous reports on 9/11 including that one plane had flown into the mall of America in MN
> 
> in order for WTC7 to have been a controlled demolition, they would have had to have pre-wired it, a job that would have taken a lot of people to do, and it would have been very suspicious considering the number of people that worked there
> ...


----------



## Big_D (Dec 9, 2008)

roomy said:


> Conspiacy or not, the fact remains that the BBC reported the collapse of building 7 before it happened and with live pictures of the scene behind the newsreader clearly showing Building 7 standing.
> Some say it was an insurance job on building 7 which took advantage of the situation.I dunno?
> And what about the theory that it was a missile rather than a passenger plane that hit the Pentagon?And what about the wreckage site of flight 73 which supports the idea that the plane exploded in flight?
> There are lots of questions that need to be addressed.



So because the bbc reported the collapse of the building before it happened means it was a conspiracy?  Like Bern80 said, you're jumping from point A to point Z without going through every point in between.  If the American government did attack itself on 9/11 then why would they inform a separate news organization?  I never heard of a time in history when someone would inform the enemy that they are going to attack.



roomy said:


> And what about the theory that it was a missile rather than a passenger plane that hit the Pentagon?And what about the wreckage site of flight 73 which supports the idea that the plane exploded in flight?
> There are lots of questions that need to be addressed.



I never heard this theory before.  However, according to Dr. Paul Mlakar he has no problem with this according to the following paper: http://mceer.buffalo.edu/meetings/AEI/presentations/06Mlakar-paper.pdf
To anyone who thinks this guy might not know what he is talking about, Mlakar has a P.h.D., P.E., and according to the following link the winner of the 2003 Forensic Engineer of the Year:www.ascetcfe.org/files/pdf/PaulMlakar_bio.doc
This man knows what he is talking about.


----------



## Big_D (Dec 9, 2008)

eots said:


> can your mind no comprehend that for the tower to fall  in a controlled manner at free fall evenly that would require ever joint on ever floor to give way a the same instance or it would fall over or only collapse on one side
> WTC7 - This is an Orange
> wtc7 controlled demolition - Google Video



So the people just didn't notice the explosives being planted there?  The link that divecon supplied is much more respectable than yours.  This video only showed your point that the building fell after it was reported and we have been through this a number of times now.  I have made numerous points that went without a response.  Why did our government inform a news agency that they were attacking itself?  Wouldn't you just think that the video was out of sync with the reporter?  Couldn't the report have been given the wrong info or misunderstood what happened?  By saying that the reason why a report stated this prematurely because the government informed her is making a jump that evil knievel couldn't make.


----------



## eots (Dec 9, 2008)

Big_D said:


> > So the people just didn't notice the explosives being planted there?  The link that divecon supplied is much more respectable than yours.  This video only showed your point that the building fell after it was reported and we have been through this a number of times now.  I have made numerous points that went without a response.  Why did our government inform a news agency that they were attacking itself?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



not given the 911 evidence on a whole and the nature of the collapse..this is a orange


----------



## Big_D (Dec 9, 2008)

eots said:


> I havre answered this questions ..as it went out on Reuters 22 mins before it collapsed.. that it had collapsed by whom specifically has not been said this fact was completely denied and called urban legend until private individuals eventually found video tape of the original broadcasting..then it was admitted but the only explanation given was..the confusion of that day



How do you know it wasn't posted prematurely because of the confusion?  You are making the jump from point to the next without giving adequate evidence proving this. If the govt did inform the media that they were going to take down building 7 then why did they gave us this info before it happened?  



eots said:


> not given the 911 evidence on a whole and the nature of the collapse..this is a orange



Again, you have supplied no evidence that our govt informed the media of the attack.  You are jumping awfully far to conclusions.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 9, 2008)

eots said:


> not given the 911 evidence on a whole and the nature of the collapse..this is a orange


and you are a kumquat


----------



## eots (Dec 9, 2008)

Big_D said:


> How do you know it wasn't posted prematurely because of the confusion?  You are making the jump from point to the next without giving adequate evidence proving this. If the govt did inform the media that they were going to take down building 7 then why did they gave us this info before it happened?
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you have supplied no evidence that our govt informed the media of the attack.  You are jumping awfully far to conclusions.



fact....it went out on the wire 22mins before it it occurred this was denied by the media until it could no longer be...and like everything connected with 911 information is not forth coming no one said who specifically put it on the wire service or why..and I am sure never will without being court ordered to do so do so...


----------



## Big_D (Dec 10, 2008)

eots said:


> fact....it went out on the wire 22mins before it it occurred this was denied by the media until it could no longer be...and like everything connected with 911 information is not forth coming no one said who specifically put it on the wire service or why..and I am sure never will without being court ordered to do so do so...



I never heard of anyone denying this, but even if they did you are still jumping to conclusions.  You are making this claim but not backing it up.  This isn't the first time in history, something has been reported before it happened.  Joe DiMaggio was reported dead prematurely (as well as countless other people) but it doesn't mean there is a conspiracy about their deaths.


----------



## Paulie (Dec 10, 2008)

Big_D said:


> I never heard of anyone denying this, but even if they did you are still jumping to conclusions.  You are making this claim but not backing it up.  This isn't the first time in history, something has been reported before it happened.  Joe DiMaggio was reported dead prematurely (as well as countless other people) but it doesn't mean there is a conspiracy about their deaths.



I think the point is it would be kind of hard not to notice that a 47 story building is in fact still standing.  A person doesn't really compare.


----------



## Big_D (Dec 10, 2008)

Paulitics said:


> I think the point is it would be kind of hard not to notice that a 47 story building is in fact still standing.  A person doesn't really compare.



But the reporters are not actually at the building itself.  They are relaying the message from what other people have informed them and something could easily get lost from one individual to the next.  This would especially be true if you take in account that this was the biggest newsday of the past few decades adn therefore the most hectic.  If the reporters are actually aware that the building is still standing then why would say it fell?

If you also recall the Chicago Tribune said that Dewey Defeated Truman when in fact he had lost.  Was there a conspiracy here?


----------



## Toro (Dec 10, 2008)

BBC on the conspiracy

BBC NEWS | The Editors


----------



## eots (Dec 10, 2008)

nobody..was aware of building 7 before 911..many where not even aware of it much later..the reporters were reading off the wire service..but my questions are this... why was it denied for all these years ?..who's decision was that and.why.?..who exactly put it on the wire services?..where did he get this information.?.like any good investigator would


----------



## Big_D (Dec 10, 2008)

eots said:


> nobody..was aware of building 7 before 911..many where not even aware of it much later..the reporters were reading off the wire service..but my questions are this... why was it denied for all these years ?..who's decision was that and.why.?..who exactly put it on the wire services?..where did he get this information.?.like any good investigator would



Unlike a good investigator you are jumping to conclusions.   You have not supplied any information for your theory and therefore should be more open minded about what happened.  As I have said, there have been other news stories that went out before it happened.  It doesnt mean there is a conspiracy with every one of them.


----------



## eots (Dec 10, 2008)

Big_D said:


> Unlike a good investigator you are jumping to conclusions.   You have not supplied any information for your theory and therefore should be more open minded about what happened.  As I have said, there have been other news stories that went out before it happened.  It doesnt mean there is a conspiracy with every one of them.



I am not jumping to conclusions ,,I am asking reasonable questions as opposed to your make theoretical scenarios that would explain the incident


----------



## Big_D (Dec 10, 2008)

eots said:


> I am not jumping to conclusions ,,I am asking reasonable questions as opposed to your make theoretical scenarios that would explain the incident



I think that I and some other people believe that you are saying that the since two news organizations report the fall of the building early then it must be part of a conspiracy.  Are you not saying this?


----------



## eots (Dec 10, 2008)

i am saying like with so many things surrounding 911 it raises a red flag and leaves unanswered questions and the answers . are not forth coming...why?...its just like..I cant see the pentagon footage... WHY ?..that link you posted ..for years the bbc called it urban legend until bbc staff..started saying the tapes where destroyed..then they admitted it  and I  belive mistakenly broadcast the request to anyone who had a copy 
...not expecting them to surface... but they did..I have watched this all unfold


----------



## Big_D (Dec 10, 2008)

eots said:


> .for years the bbc called it urban legend until bbc staff..started saying the tapes where destroyed..then they admitted it  and I  belive mistakenly broadcast the request to anyone who had a copy
> ...not expecting them to surface... but they did..I have watched this all unfold



If what you are saying is true then maybe the BBC doesnt want it to surface since it was an obvious blunder.  I assume it cannot look good for one of the top regarded news agencies in the world to state something had happened before it actually did.  It doesnt have to raise any eyebrows.  This makes a lot more sense than the American govt informing a major news agency that they are planning to attack itself.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 11, 2008)

Big_D said:


> Eots here are some credible people who think that the attacks were as the news agencies report:
> Here is the link for the Popular mechanics 9/11 article which had numerous scientists, engineers, professors, people with very high degrees and it isn't the only one out there! This is just ONE of the sources I showed you and it consisted of 70+ individuals.
> Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics
> 
> ...



oh please stop using that pathetic popular mechanics as a source.Its the warren commission report of the kennedy assassination.It does not address many important things that occured that day,has many omissions and distortions, and David Ray Griffith has debunked those popular mechanics myths in his very well researched book DEBUNKING THE 9/11 DEBUNKING. an answer to popular mechaincs and other defenders of the official conspiracy theory.seeing you only read parts of posts though you'll probably not see what I posted on Griffiths book though.publications like popular mechanics and those other propaganda sources you listed that defend the official version are lies and disinformation.Griffith has debunked those disinformation sources as well.Those old laughable sites you listed have been debunked by Griffith and many other experts Eots has referred you to before but you always ignore.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 11, 2008)

eots said:


> I grew up with detectives you sir are no detective



Boy you can say that again.He falls for lies and propaganda  constantly.


----------



## eots (Dec 11, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> oh please stop using that pathetic popular mechanics as a source.Its the warren commission report of the kennedy assassination.it does not address many important things that occured that day and david ray griffith has debunked those popular mechanics myths in his very well researched book DEBUNKING THE 9/11 DEBUNKING an answer to popular mechaincs and other defenders of the official conspiracy theory.seeing you only read parts of posts though you'll probably not see what I posted on Griffiths book though.publications like popular mechanics and those other propganda sources you listed that defend the official version are lies and disinformation.



if you want a really good laugh check out the list of experts they consulted it is truly laughable...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 11, 2008)

Big_D said:


> I *guarantee *that for the next horrible event that happens in the future, there will be people who believe the govt is behind it.



Thats because the majority of the time they DID orchestrate it all. I just proved in that post that many of those conspiracys you listed were done by the government.Im not going to repeat it for you just cause your in denial about it and choose to ignore facts.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 11, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> no, he doesnt post facts, he posts bullshit
> just like you
> 
> if you morons would actually look and understand, you would see that the facts back the official story
> ...



No he DOES and so do I,your the moron not actually reading and understanding the facts.the facts DONT back the official story frady cat.start reading books and go to these 9/11 truth sites instead of listening to the corporate controlled media which has brainwashed you with their lies and propaganda.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 11, 2008)

eots said:


> DiveCons  basic argument......blah... blah... moron for .blah ...blah...... bullshit you do...no you are..... morons like you ....blah ..blah... bullshit



yep thats his argument he comes up with all the time like most people do here.I think Im going to put him on my ignore list,he's not worth the effort.He's just a troll posting to get reactions out of us.At least Big D TRYS to back up what he says.


----------



## eots (Dec 11, 2008)

Air Crash Analysis
Cleveland Center regional air traffic control

Bill Crowley special agent, FBI

Ron Dokell president, Demolition Consultants

Richard Gazarik staff writer, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Yates Gladwell pilot, VF Corp.

Michael K. Hynes, Ed.D.,
ATP, CFI, A&P/IA president, Hynes Aviation Services; expert, aviation crashes

Ed Jacoby Jr. director,
New York State Emergency Management Office (Ret.); chairman, New York State Disaster Preparedness Commission (Ret.)

Johnstown-Cambria County Airport Authority

Cindi Lash staff writer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Matthew McCormick manager, survival factors division, National Transportation Safety Board (Ret.)

Wallace Miller coroner, Somerset County, PA

Robert Nagan meteorological technician, Climate Services Branch, National Climatic Data Center

Dave Newell director, aviation and travel, VF Corp.

James O&#8217;Toole politics editor, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Pennsylvania State Police Public Information Office

Jeff Pillets senior writer,
The Record, Hackensack, NJ

Jeff Rienbold director, Flight 93 National Memorial, National Park Service

Dennis Roddy staff writer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Master Sgt. David Somdahl public affairs officer,
119th Wing, North Dakota
Air National Guard

Mark Stahl photographer; eyewitness, United Airlines Flight 93 crash scene







now patriots queastion 911



Larry L. Erickson, BS Aeronautical Eng, MS Aeronautical Eng, PhD Eng Mechanics &#8211; Retired NASA Aerospace Engineer and Research Scientist.  Conducted research in the fields of structural dynamics, aerodynamics, aeroelasticity and flutter.  Recipient of NASA's Aerodynamics Division Researcher-of-the-Year Award.  33-year NASA career.  Member, American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics.  Instructor, Physics and Aerospace Engineering, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo 1998 - present.  Author and co-author of several scientific papers on aerodynamic analysis.  Contributing author to Applied Computational Aerodynamics (1990). 
Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
"Serious technical investigations by experts seem to be lacking from the official explanations."  AE911Truth 



 Dwain Deets, MS Physics, MS Eng &#8211; Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center.  Before this appointment, he served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden.  Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988).  Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics, a distinguished speaking engagement sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) (1986).  Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000.  Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers.  Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology.  37 year NASA career. 
Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Center]."  AE911Truth 




 Capt. Daniel Davis, U.S. Army &#8211; Former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director.  Decorated with the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal for bravery under fire and the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam.  Also served in the Army Air Defense Command as Nike Missile Battery Control Officer for the Chicago-Milwaukee Defense Area.  Founder and former CEO of Turbine Technology Services Corp., a turbine (jet engine) services and maintenance company (15 years).  Former Senior Manager at General Electric Turbine (jet) Engine Division (15 years).  Private pilot.


Capt. Edgar Mitchell, U.S. Navy (ret), BS Industrial Management, BS Aeronautical Engineering, Doctor of Science, Aeronautics and Astronautics from MIT &#8211; Pilot and Astronaut.  Sixth man to walk on the moon (Apollo 14 mission).  Patrol bomber and attack plane pilot, U.S. Navy.  Test Pilot, Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 5 (VX-5).  Chief of Project Management Division, Navy Field Office for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory Project.  Graduated first in his class from the Aerospace Research Pilot School, and served as an instructor there.  Recipient of many awards and honors including the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the USN Distinguished Medal and three NASA Group Achievement Awards. Inducted to the Space Hall of Fame in 1979 and the Astronaut Hall of Fame in 1998.  Recipient of honorary doctorates in engineering from New Mexico State University, the University of Akron, Carnegie Mellon University, and a ScD from Embry-Riddle University.  Founder of the Institute of Noetic Sciences. 
Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## eots (Dec 11, 2008)

Air Crash Analysis
Cleveland Center regional air traffic control

Bill Crowley special agent, FBI

Ron Dokell president, Demolition Consultants

Richard Gazarik staff writer, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Yates Gladwell pilot, VF Corp.

Michael K. Hynes, Ed.D.,
ATP, CFI, A&P/IA president, Hynes Aviation Services; expert, aviation crashes

Ed Jacoby Jr. director,
New York State Emergency Management Office (Ret.); chairman, New York State Disaster Preparedness Commission (Ret.)

Johnstown-Cambria County Airport Authority

Cindi Lash staff writer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Matthew McCormick manager, survival factors division, National Transportation Safety Board (Ret.)

Wallace Miller coroner, Somerset County, PA

Robert Nagan meteorological technician, Climate Services Branch, National Climatic Data Center

Dave Newell director, aviation and travel, VF Corp.

James OToole politics editor, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Pennsylvania State Police Public Information Office

Jeff Pillets senior writer,
The Record, Hackensack, NJ

Jeff Rienbold director, Flight 93 National Memorial, National Park Service

Dennis Roddy staff writer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Master Sgt. David Somdahl public affairs officer,
119th Wing, North Dakota
Air National Guard

Mark Stahl photographer; eyewitness, United Airlines Flight 93 crash scene







now patriots queastion 911



Larry L. Erickson, BS Aeronautical Eng, MS Aeronautical Eng, PhD Eng Mechanics  Retired NASA Aerospace Engineer and Research Scientist.  Conducted research in the fields of structural dynamics, aerodynamics, aeroelasticity and flutter.  Recipient of NASA's Aerodynamics Division Researcher-of-the-Year Award.  33-year NASA career.  Member, American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics.  Instructor, Physics and Aerospace Engineering, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo 1998 - present.  Author and co-author of several scientific papers on aerodynamic analysis.  Contributing author to Applied Computational Aerodynamics (1990). 
Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
"Serious technical investigations by experts seem to be lacking from the official explanations."  AE911Truth 



 Dwain Deets, MS Physics, MS Eng  Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center.  Before this appointment, he served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden.  Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988).  Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics, a distinguished speaking engagement sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) (1986).  Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000.  Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers.  Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology.  37 year NASA career. 
Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Center]."  AE911Truth 




 Capt. Daniel Davis, U.S. Army  Former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director.  Decorated with the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal for bravery under fire and the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam.  Also served in the Army Air Defense Command as Nike Missile Battery Control Officer for the Chicago-Milwaukee Defense Area.  Founder and former CEO of Turbine Technology Services Corp., a turbine (jet engine) services and maintenance company (15 years).  Former Senior Manager at General Electric Turbine (jet) Engine Division (15 years).  Private pilot.


Capt. Edgar Mitchell, U.S. Navy (ret), BS Industrial Management, BS Aeronautical Engineering, Doctor of Science, Aeronautics and Astronautics from MIT  Pilot and Astronaut.  Sixth man to walk on the moon (Apollo 14 mission).  Patrol bomber and attack plane pilot, U.S. Navy.  Test Pilot, Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 5 (VX-5).  Chief of Project Management Division, Navy Field Office for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory Project.  Graduated first in his class from the Aerospace Research Pilot School, and served as an instructor there.  Recipient of many awards and honors including the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the USN Distinguished Medal and three NASA Group Achievement Awards. Inducted to the Space Hall of Fame in 1979 and the Astronaut Hall of Fame in 1998.  Recipient of honorary doctorates in engineering from New Mexico State University, the University of Akron, Carnegie Mellon University, and a ScD from Embry-Riddle University.  Founder of the Institute of Noetic Sciences. 
Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## Big_D (Dec 11, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> oh please stop using that pathetic popular mechanics as a source.Its the warren commission report of the kennedy assassination.It does not address many important things that occured that day,has many omissions and distortions, and David Ray Griffith has debunked those popular mechanics myths in his very well researched book DEBUNKING THE 9/11 DEBUNKING. an answer to popular mechaincs and other defenders of the official conspiracy theory.seeing you only read parts of posts though you'll probably not see what I posted on Griffiths book though.publications like popular mechanics and those other propaganda sources you listed that defend the official version are lies and disinformation.Griffith has debunked those disinformation sources as well.Those old laughable sites you listed have been debunked by Griffith and many other experts Eots has referred you to before but you always ignore.



Stop using popular mechanics as a source?  Did you not read anything in that post you quoted from me?  As I have said a good number of times there are countless number of people that I have used to back up my opinion.  

So what was it that was ridiculous from the collection on from the list I gave? Were the people with PHD's unqualified? How about the people with P.E., S.E., S.B., S.M., or the other degrees listed? How about a professors of engineering? Would those people know anything about a building collapse? Would you think that the director of aviation for the VF Corp would know anything about a plane crash?  Why don't you read Dr. Mlakars paper that I posted about the Pentagon?  Would you think that the the winner of the 2003 Forensic Engineer of the Year know anything about this?www.ascetcfe.org/files/pdf/PaulMlakar_bio.doc

Also, I have seen Griffins book before I even went on this website.  It is nothing special.  Some of his points can be easily disputed.  For example, he says that the steel on the wtc building couldn't have soften enough to collapse because the temp of the gasoline on a plane in flight will be just slightly lower than what is needed to do so.  He completely ignores the fact that the temp would OBVIOUSLY increase from the friction caused when the plane hit the tower.  Do you know that* Griffin was a professor in philosophy and theology!*  He does not have a P.h.D. in psychics and is not and expert on aviation, engineering, construction, and construction UNLIKE my sources I used.  I don't know why you would take his word, but not he individual who won the Forensic Engineer Award!  It is interesting that you state I do not read your post throughout when it seems conspicuous that your hardly reading any of mine!


----------



## Big_D (Dec 11, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> Boy you can say that again.He falls for lies and propaganda  constantly.





9/11 inside job said:


> yep thats his argument he comes up with all the time like most people do here.I think Im going to put him on my ignore list,he's not worth the effort.He's just a troll posting to get reactions out of us.At least Big D TRYS to back up what he says.



I have read everything that you all said and went to the links that you recommended.  Nothing that you nor Alex Jones stated is convincing to me.  I have read and watched EVERYTHING you have placed in front of me but the fact is your side is just not convincing.  I will admit that I believed in conspiracy theories in the past, but this one just doesnt add up.  You say that I fall for propaganda when you seem to take whatever jones says to heart.  Sorry, but I need more evidence than what someone guy says on his website.


----------



## Big_D (Dec 11, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> Thats because the majority of the time they DID orchestrate it all. I just proved in that post that many of those conspiracys you listed were done by the government.Im not going to repeat it for you just cause your in denial about it and choose to ignore facts.



Stating opinion is not fact.  You posted that according to Zogby, 40% of Americans believe that 9/11 was an inside job and your "proof" is your claim that you read it but never supplied a link.  Meanwhile, I have posted the REAL zogby poll and proved that it was only 4.7% of Americans.


----------



## eots (Dec 11, 2008)

Big_D said:


> Stop using popular mechanics as a source?  Did you not read anything in that post you quoted from me?  As I have said a good number of times there are countless number of people that I have used to back up my opinion.
> 
> So what was it that was ridiculous from the collection on from the list I gave? Were the people with PHD's unqualified? How about the people with P.E., S.E., S.B., S.M., or the other degrees listed? How about a professors of engineering? Would those people know anything about a building collapse? Would you think that the director of aviation for the VF Corp would know anything about a plane crash?  Why don't you read Dr. Mlakars paper that I posted about the Pentagon?  Would you think that the the winner of the 2003 Forensic Engineer of the Year know anything about this?www.ascetcfe.org/files/pdf/PaulMlakar_bio.doc
> 
> Also, I have seen Griffins book before I even went on this website.  It is nothing special.  Do you know that* Griffin was a professor in philosophy and theology!*  He does not have a P.h.D. in psychics and is not and expert on aviation, engineering, construction, and construction UNLIKE my sources I used.  It is interesting that you state I do not read your post throughout when it seems conspicuous that your hardly reading any of mine!


*



David L. Griscom, PhD &#8211; Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service*.  Fellow of the American Physical Society.  Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997).  Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003).  Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005).  Winner of the 1993 N. F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers. * Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988. *

*Personal blog 1/5/07: "David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of The Destruction of the World Trade Center*: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True:  This scholarly work, rich in eyewitness accounts, includes 11 separate pieces of evidence that the World Trade Center towers 1, 2 [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories], and 7 were brought down by explosives.  [Editor's note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories.  It would have been the tallest building in 33 states.  Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers.  However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks."  Watch the collapse video here.  And six years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.]

*... I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and (ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals like, say, the Journal of Applied Physics. *

The issue of knowing who was really behind the 9/11 attacks is of paramount importance to the future of our country, because the "official" assumption that it was the work of 19 Arab amateurs (1) does not match the available facts and (2) has led directly to the deplorable Patriot Act, the illegal Iraq war, NSA spying on ordinary Americans, repudiation of the Geneva Conventions, and the repeal of habeas corpus (a fundamental point of law that has been with us since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215). 

Surely these Orwellian consequences of public ignorance constitute more than sufficient motivation for any patriotic American physicist or engineer to join the search for 9/11 Truth!" http://impactglassman 




Dwain Deets, MS Physics, MS Eng &#8211; Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center.  Before this appointment, he served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden.  Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988).  Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics, a distinguished speaking engagement sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) (1986).  Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000.  Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers.  Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology.  37 year NASA career. 




Patriots Question 9/11 - Engineers and Architects Question the 9/11 Commission Report

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


----------



## Big_D (Dec 11, 2008)

eots said:


> if you want a really good laugh check out the list of experts they consulted it is truly laughable...



You have made this claim before but never seem willing to back it up. What was laughable about the my list?  Here is my list of experts again: http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...erpetrated-the-9-11-attacks-5.html#post926058
I have supplied EXPERTS from many different backgrounds.  How about Dr. Mlakar?  You never made any comment about him or his report and as I said he is the winner of the 2003 Forensic Engineer Award.  (http://mceer.buffalo.edu/meetings/AE...akar-paper.pdf, www.ascetcfe.org/files/pdf/PaulMlakar_bio.doc)

Or how about Clint Oster you also never showed how he was not an adequate source.  He worked on the popular mechanics article you all think so little of.  Meanwhile, according to his university's website, "he is He has been a consultant on aviation and other transportation issues to the *U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, NASA, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, state and local governments, and private sector companies in the U.S., Canada, the United Kingdom, Russia, and Australia.* He is also an accident investigator for the Indy Racing League. Professor Oster received a B.S.E. from *Princeton University,* an M.S. from Carnegie-Mellon University, and a Ph.D. from *Harvard University*."
Faculty/Research - School of Public Affairs and Environmental Sciences, IU Bloomington

I also posted a paper from Thomas W. Eagar, Sc.D., P.E. about the fall of the twin towers.  You never said how this man doesnt know what he is talking about *so why dont you do so now?*  I know you wont.  This gentleman is a professor at MIT of a number of engineering classes.  
Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

I also had countless other like this that I will not go into.  It is funny how you can say that my experts are laughable when never seem to back this up how undistinguished they are. You made the statement *now back it up!*


----------



## Big_D (Dec 11, 2008)

eots said:


> *
> David L. Griscom, PhD &#8211; Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service*.  Fellow of the American Physical Society.  Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997).  Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003).  Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005).  Winner of the 1993 N. F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers. * Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988. *
> *Personal blog 1/5/07: "David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of The Destruction of the World Trade Center*: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True:  This scholarly work, rich in eyewitness accounts, includes 11 separate pieces of evidence that the World Trade Center towers 1, 2 [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories], and 7 were brought down by explosives.  [Editor's note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories.  It would have been the tallest building in 33 states.  Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers.  However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks."  Watch the collapse video here.  And six years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.]
> *... I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and (ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals like, say, the Journal of Applied Physics. *
> ...



More expert opinions! 

Here is one paper on why the WTC building collapsed:
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf
-Zden&#283;k P. Ba&#382;ant- Professor at Northwestern

his credentials: 
"Engineer Zden&#283;k P. Ba&#382;ant is best known as a *world leader in scaling research in solid mechanics* (1&#8211;6). His research focuses on the effect of structure size on structural strength as it relates to the failure behavior of the structure. He also has made outstanding advances in structural stability (7), fracture mechanics (8), the micromechanics of material damage (8&#8211;10), concrete creep (11&#8211;13), and probabilistic mechanics (6, 8, 14). *He was elected to the National Academy of Engineering in 1996 and to the National Academy of Sciences in 2002, 1 of only 153 members with such a dual appointment.* In his Inaugural Article (1), published in this issue of PNAS, Ba&#382;ant presents a simple justification of the scaling laws for the fracture of quasibrittle materials such as concrete, rock, fiber composites, and sea ice."
Inaugural Article: Biography of Zden&#x0011b;k P. Ba&#x0017e;ant
Civil and Environmental Engineering - Faculty Profile - Zdenek Bazant


"That impact was too much, and no building could possibly withstand such weight, so floor after floor came down in what we call progressive collapse"
Jets hit towers in most vulnerable spots / Killers appear to have known where to strike
-Hassan Astaneh
His Creditentials: 
"CEE professor Hassan Astaneh has been teaching at Berkeley since 1986. He has taught classes on the design of steel structures and advanced steel design engineering mechanics-static. He is an expert in the effects of disasters on steel structures and has testified before Congress on how the structural integrity of the World Trade Center reacted to the terrorist attack."
Engineering News, Date

Here is a link for a full analysis of why all three WTC buildings collapsed:
Key Findings of NIST&#8217;s June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster
-National institute of Standard and technology 

"This paper uses a finite element model to investigate the stability of the Twin-Towers of the World Trade Center, New York for a number of different fire scenarios."
Edinburgh Research Archive : Item 1842/1216
by 
Dr. Asif Usmani
Dr. Y.C. Chung
Dr. Jose Torero
Each of their individual credit MORE than speak for themselves.  Just read these below and you will be convinced.
Fire Safety Engineering
Fire Safety Engineering

"The exterior structure is comprised of columns. The vertical load bearing members and the horizontal elements called "beams." When the plane impacted the building, it severely damaged those exterior columns. The following fire further damaged the support columns. So it was a two step event; initial damage by plane and further damage or subsequent loss of structural stability that caused the building to fail. "
CNN.com - Tod Rittenhouse: Why the World Trade Center collapsed - September 13, 2001
-Todd Rittenhouse
His credentials:

"Tod Rittenhouse is an expert in blast engineering from the international consulting engineering firm Weidlinger Associates and has been the blast engineer for a number of embassies and government buildings."

CNN.com - Tod Rittenhouse: Why the World Trade Center collapsed - September 13, 2001

"Eventually, the loss of strength and stiffness of the materials resulting from the fire, combined with the initial impact damage, would have caused a  failure of the truss system supporting a floor, or the remaining perimeter columns, or even the internal core, or some combination.  Failure of the flooring system would have subsequently allowed the perimeter columns to buckle outwards.  Regardless of which of these possibilities actually occurred, it would have resulted in the complete collapse of at least one complete story at the level of impact.

Once one story collapsed all floors above would have begun to fall.  The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum, crushing the structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire structure."
New York Architecture Images- World Trade Center

His credentials more than speak for themselves:
Tim Wilkinson - Civil Engineering - The University of Sydney


----------



## Toro (Dec 11, 2008)

And here is Protec's - a world renowned expert demolition firm - refutation of the conspiracy theories.

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 12, 2008)

Big_D said:


> Can't be serious?  Have you ever seen a local newscast?  This happens _all _the time.  In fact, I am surprised that there actually isn't more of this on the internet.  Their video was probably behind as they were getting word of what was going on.  Do you believe that before the government attacked itself on 9/11 they were actually dumb enough to inform _every _local newscasters in the country what they were going to do?  How many people would then be in on the hoax?  You need more than this to make your point.
> 
> If you believe have such conclusive proof then why do such few people believe the government is behind the attacks?




This is really scraping at the bottom of the barrel.you need to look at that newscast again cause they were NOT behind.They were all up to the minute on it for at LEAST 3 weeks all fighting to be first.Havent you ever seen on local news where they say things like important news break,you will see this only on channel 5,or you will see it here on channel 9 FIRST? News stations are always fighting to be the first with news stories.Theres no way in hell they would have reported it 23 minutes before it falls unless it was already scripted. obviously you  only looked at like a few minutes of the things that 911truth.org website says if you went there at all because the evidence there is overwhelming that it was an inside job with constant updates all the time.It takes dozens and dozens of hours to look through that material there to see all the information there they have that proves it all.thats what I did.you cant just look at it for only a few minutes and make a decision.LOL.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 12, 2008)

Big_D said:


> Stop using popular mechanics as a source?  Did you not read anything in that post you quoted from me?  As I have said a good number of times there are countless number of people that I have used to back up my opinion.
> 
> So what was it that was ridiculous from the collection on from the list I gave? Were the people with PHD's unqualified? How about the people with P.E., S.E., S.B., S.M., or the other degrees listed? How about a professors of engineering? Would those people know anything about a building collapse? Would you think that the director of aviation for the VF Corp would know anything about a plane crash?  Why don't you read Dr. Mlakars paper that I posted about the Pentagon?  Would you think that the the winner of the 2003 Forensic Engineer of the Year know anything about this?www.ascetcfe.org/files/pdf/PaulMlakar_bio.doc
> 
> Also, I have seen Griffins book before I even went on this website.  It is nothing special.  Some of his points can be easily disputed.  For example, he says that the steel on the wtc building couldn't have soften enough to collapse because the temp of the gasoline on a plane in flight will be just slightly lower than what is needed to do so.  He completely ignores the fact that the temp would OBVIOUSLY increase from the friction caused when the plane hit the tower.  Do you know that* Griffin was a professor in philosophy and theology!*  He does not have a P.h.D. in psychics and is not and expert on aviation, engineering, construction, and construction UNLIKE my sources I used.  I don't know why you would take his word, but not he individual who won the Forensic Engineer Award!  It is interesting that you state I do not read your post throughout when it seems conspicuous that your hardly reading any of mine!



No you havent backed up anything you have  said.Eots addressed all your points you brought up and countered them all.Your just in complete denial about it that that you dont want to see the other side of the coin.so what if Griffith isnt the expert on those things you mentioned,he INTERVIEWED those  experts you mentioned  on demolitions,aviation,engineering,construction in his book.THOSE people dont accept the official version for a second as Griffith has proved in his book.considering you use all those laughable links that have been debunked countless times by experts  like that old propaganda site underneath the popular mechanics link you provided,and you havent bothered to address many of my points I brought up on your other thread that I have repeated to you at LEAST 3 times,you always show that contrary to what you say,you DO only read parts of our posts and NOT all of it.you know it,we know it.I have given you links to sites that answer all the points you bring up,you never looked at those sites.you just said that you looked at his book,yeah you LOOKED at it,you didnt read it though obviously.yeah the temperature would increase but he proves in his book,that the designers of the buildings said there would be a great loss of life from the fires but the structures themselves would stay intact and remain standing.Griffith also in his book and in other books out there as well, also shows that the people you mention as experts,that they ALSO have government contracts as well,that they are HARDLY independent experts like popular mechanics claims them to be.sorry but I would say that the people like Kevin Ryan -who actually helped build the towwers,who have said that the towers would withstand an airliner slamming into it and the fires would kill people but not bring the towers down,I'll listen to those people over your sources like popular mechanics anyday of the year.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 12, 2008)

Big_D said:


> Stating opinion is not fact.  You posted that according to Zogby, 40% of Americans believe that 9/11 was an inside job and your "proof" is your claim that you read it but never supplied a link.  Meanwhile, I have posted the REAL zogby poll and proved that it was only 4.7% of Americans.



why would a magazine go to the trouble of defeding the official version and popular mechanics and THE go on to say in that article over 40% believe it was an inside job? Believe me I WILL find that article and issue where it stated that.ALSO you never answered my question,which was DO you believe in that other fairy tale commission-the warren commission fairy tale that oswald killed kennedy and was the lone assassin? cause if you have,well then your hopeless to be reasoned with on 9/11 cause if you cant belief that the CIA/MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX was behind kennedys assassination,you'll never accept it that they were behind 9/11 as well.I dont even try to reason with people who still accept the fairy tale that oswald killed kennedy,now the ones who can accept the CIA killed kennedy but believe the official version of 9/11,THOSE people I will TRY to reason with? so AGAIN,whats your answer on kennedy?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 12, 2008)

eots said:


> if you want a really good laugh check out the list of experts they consulted it is truly laughable...



yeah I know.First popular mechanics-which Griffith has debunked in his book,THEN NISY who changed their story at least 3 times when the experts pointed holes in it,and NOW Thomas Eager who Kevin Ryan who helped build the towers has debunked NUMEROUS times before in debates.priceless.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 12, 2008)

Oh by the way Bid D,dont worry I'll read your link on professor Bazent and what he says but im sure its as laughable as your OTHER sources such as POPULAR MECHANICS,links to those two propaganda sites below it that you listed thats been debunked as well,THOMAS EAGER that again Kevin Ryan has debunked MANY times and  the findings of NIST which haave been debunked by Griffith and other experts numerous times as well which is why they kept changing their story and could never get their story straight.LOL.meanwhile I will look and hunt for that article I saw and come back and post it here when I find it.till then I'll just enjoy watching Eots take you to school and watch you live in denial.LOl.btw i was watching a special on PBS about the kennedy assassination the other night and of course they were propagating the idea that oswald did it and there was no conspiracy,but they went on at the end to say something like despite all these findings,70% of the public still believe there was a conspiracy.why would over 70% believe in a conspiracy to kill kennedy but that only 4% as you claim would only believe in 9/11?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 12, 2008)

editec said:


> Conspiracy theories exist because some of us cannot believe our leaders cannot possibly be as incompetent as they appear to be.
> 
> People become conspiracy theorists because they have faith that those in charge are NOT IDIOTS.
> 
> ...



this post is so moronic its laughable. Bush,Clinton and Cheney are far more than incompetent.They are evil men who have committed atrocities that rivals Hitlers that you'll never hear about from the corporate controlled media.the only ones making desperate attempts are people such as you and diva con to try and prove that it wasnt an inside job.the conspiracy theorists such as me and Eots are the ones who are not afraid of the truth and can think outside the box.The conicidence theorists such as you guys are the ones who cannot connect the dots that it was an inside job.Matter of fact I was at a 9/11 truth movement once and someone there who works for the airlines was there and she told me that she was very suspecious of the official 9/11 commission report  when it first came out and knew it was an inside job because she told me they have procedures that they follow in case something like this happens prevent this kind of disater from happening and to make sure an airliner DOESNT crash into a tower like that which were not followed that day and were violated.

The   reason this post is so moronic is that the proof that it wasnt just a matter of incompetence by Bush is that if it WERE and Norad was just plain incompetent that day,there would have been multiple heads rolling with multiple firings for their incompetence at NORAD  yet not one single person got fired or demoted that day at Norad or in the pentagan .Bush in fact PROMOTED the commander in charge of Norad after 9/11.thats proof that it was an inside job.Only I'll spell it out for you but you'll come back and post something to try and save face that it Wasnt.thats one of the many similarities in the kennedy assassination and 9/11 is the proof that it was an inside job by the CIA to kill kennedy and not just mere incompetence of the secret service and dallas police dept that day is that nobody from the secret service or dallas police dept got fired and there should have been MULTIPLE firings there as well.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 12, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> This is really scraping at the bottom of the barrel.you need to look at that newscast again cause they were NOT behind.They were all up to the minute on it for at LEAST 3 weeks all fighting to be first.Havent you ever seen on local news where they say things like important news break,you will see this only on channel 5,or you will see it here on channel 9 FIRST? News stations are always fighting to be the first with news stories.Theres no way in hell they would have reported it 23 minutes before it falls unless it was already scripted. obviously you only looked at like a few minutes of the things that 911truth.org website says if you went there at all because the evidence there is overwhelming that it was an inside job with constant updates all the time.It takes dozens and dozens of hours to look through that material there to see all the information there they have that proves it all.thats what I did.you cant just look at it for only a few minutes and make a decision.LOL.


 no shit moron, they try to be FIRST
usually means they are NOT correct


----------



## Big_D (Dec 12, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> This is really scraping at the bottom of the barrel.you need to look at that newscast again cause they were NOT behind.They were all up to the minute on it for at LEAST 3 weeks all fighting to be first.Havent you ever seen on local news where they say things like important news break,you will see this only on channel 5,or you will see it here on channel 9 FIRST? News stations are always fighting to be the first with news stories.Theres no way in hell they would have reported it 23 minutes before it falls unless it was already scripted. obviously you  only looked at like a few minutes of the things that 911truth.org website says if you went there at all because the evidence there is overwhelming that it was an inside job with constant updates all the time.It takes dozens and dozens of hours to look through that material there to see all the information there they have that proves it all.thats what I did.you cant just look at it for only a few minutes and make a decision.LOL.



How do you know that they were not behind?  How do you know that the connection was to the video wasnt simply behind from what the newscasters are getting word?  
If you believe that the newscasters were aware of the attacks beforehand then why dont you just simply supply me information proving it.

There are also other reports that came out early.  This is not the first time in history this has happened.  For example, Dewey defeating Truman.  People have been report to be dead beforehand.  This would include Gerald Ford, Dick Cheney, Bill Henry (baseball player), Pope John Paul II, and MANY others.  I've made this point beforehand to no response.

I have asked this question now numerous times and NEVER got a response but will ask it again:  If the American Govt was behind the attacks why would they inform two large news media?


----------



## Big_D (Dec 12, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> No you havent backed up anything you have  said.


First, YOU have made the claim that 9/11 is done by the CFR through the govt and NEVER backed anything up with that.  Never proved that clinton nor bush was responsible NOTHING. I am not making those accusations and therefore do not have to back anything up.  However, I have anyways showed that bin laden admitted to the attacks and had NUMEROUS experts prove they have the same opinion I do.



9/11 inside job said:


> Eots addressed all your points you brought up and countered them all.Your just in complete denial about it that that you dont want to see the other side of the coin.


Do you really think that?  Go over this thread and see all the questions I asked about this silly theory and never got a response from him or you.



9/11 inside job said:


> so what if Griffith isnt the expert on those things you mentioned,


The point was that you and eots thought little of the experts I provided.  Meanwhile these people were professors at high universities, had very advanced degrees, won awards and then you downgrade them by saying that Griffin countered all their points when he is no expert at all. 

If you want a good reading then check this out from this article: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic.../12/MN101866.DTL&hw=STRUCTURAL&sn=025&sc=505:
"That impact was too much, and no building could possibly withstand such weight, so floor after floor came down in what we call progressive collapse"
-Hassan Astaneh
His Creditentials:
"CEE professor Hassan Astaneh has been teaching at *Berkeley *since 1986. He has taught classes on the *design of steel structures and advanced steel design engineering mechanics-static. He is an expert in the effects of disasters on steel structures* and has testified before Congress on how the structural integrity of the World Trade Center reacted to the terrorist attack."

http://www.coe.berkeley.edu/engnews/fall03/EN10F/Prof Min.html

I'll take this gentleman's opinion!  Or the following...
"Dr Seffen was able to calculate the "residual capacity" of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse.
His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm
- Dr. Steffen
His Creditentials: 
http://www-civ.eng.cam.ac.uk/struct/kas/
http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~kas14/

There you go two opinions from a professor at the University of Cambridge (UK) and one from Berkley.  Two amazingly high universities.  I can post more but I think we all got the point.



9/11 inside job said:


> he INTERVIEWED those  experts you mentioned  on demolitions,aviation,engineering,construction in his book.THOSE people dont accept the official version for a second as Griffith has proved in his book.



So did the people at popular mechanics.  They also interviewed people were are experts in those fields who DO accept the official version.  



9/11 inside job said:


> considering you use all those laughable links



What about them are laughable?  Answer this question:  What was it about the winner of the 2003 Forensic Engineer of the year Award that was laughable?  Or how about the individual who, "was elected to the National Academy of Engineering in 1996 and to the National Academy of Sciences in 2002, 1 of only 153 members with such a dual appointment." (Inaugural Article: Biography of Zden&#x0011b;k P. Ba&#x0017e;ant)  Why dont you inform us how the professors at MIT, Edinburgh, University of Sydney, Purdue, or other high universities.  As I said to Eots; You made this state *now back it up.*  Sadly enough it appears that the more you all make statements it appears that you can say that my experts are invalid, but can NEVER back it up.  




9/11 inside job said:


> that have been debunked countless times by experts  like that old propaganda site underneath the popular mechanics link you provided,and you havent bothered to address many of my points I brought up on your other thread that I have repeated to you at LEAST 3 times,you always show that contrary to what you say,you DO only read parts of our posts and NOT all of it.



What point was that you said three times now that I havent responded too?  I have asked you all NUMEROUS questions to support your theory that went unanswered.  For example, I have probably asked about five time now why our govt would inform the media about their plans of attacks and your response is crickets chirping.  I have also asked countless times why my experts are so far-fetched to the same response.  I have also shown that Bin Laden has admitted to these attacks and was never given an adequate reply.  Eots did supply some links in regards to it but they were EASILY dismissible.  



9/11 inside job said:


> you know it,we know it.I have given you links to sites that answer all the points you bring up,you never looked at those sites.you just said that you looked at his book,yeah you LOOKED at it,you didnt read it though obviously.


Do you have a camera in my home and are spying at me?  How do you know how much I have read or not read?  You ASSUME I didnt do anything because it weakens your argument when I claim (and have) read your posts and done what else you asked of me.  The fact of the matter is you and eots are just not that convincing.  For example, I asked why you believe the Clinton, Bush's administrations were behind the attacks.  You replied b/c they are the CFR puppets and are willing to do whatever they ask.  Sorry, but I have a hard time believing this.  You then say that Obama knows of the attacks and is unable to inform us because he is also a puppet for the CFR.  Of course you never back up this statement as well.  Bush is the president and Obama will be one on 1/20.  NOBODY, can tell them what they can or cannot do.  It is interesting that these are and were the most powerful people on the planet yet are being told what to do by the CFR.  Meanwhile, they CFR and our govt cant keep alex jones quiet!



9/11 inside job said:


> yeah the temperature would increase but he proves in his book,that the designers of the buildings said there would be a great loss of life from the fires but the structures themselves would stay intact and remain standing.



This is what doesnt make sense.  He said the temp on the planes were just slightly below the temp for the steel structure to soften.  Then the friction from the crash would obviously cause it to increase above that amount.  What I would like to know is how he knows how much the exact temp would increase from the crash.  As I have said there are also MANY experts who agree with me.  Like the award winners and the professors of MIT, Purdue, and from the other Universities I gave.  Sorry, but I will take their word over someone who is a retired philosophy professor!  



9/11 inside job said:


> Griffith also in his book and in other books out there as well, also shows that the people you mention as experts,that they ALSO have government contracts as well,that they are HARDLY independent experts like popular mechanics claims them to be.  sorry but I would say that the people like Kevin Ryan -who actually helped build the towwers,who have said that the towers would withstand an airliner slamming into it and the fires would kill people but not bring the towers down,I'll listen to those people over your sources like popular mechanics anyday of the year.



So do the some of the people listed from Eots list are also govt employees!  As I have shown now I also have a few professors that are not even Americans.  Therefore our govt has no control over what they say and they still agree with me.  For example the professors at the Univeristy of Sydney and Edinburgh. Are you saying the American govt is making them say this?  If you are then why cant they stop Alex Jones and company from apparently revealing the conspiracy?  I know you said why you think the govt wont kill Jones, but when I asked why dont they just simply threaten his life and his family you gave no response.  Just another issue I made that never received a reply from the two of you.  Sorry, but I will take the word of the individuals with a number of degrees, professors, and engineer award winner and MANY other awards over your people.


----------



## Big_D (Dec 12, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> why would a magazine go to the trouble of defeding the official version and popular mechanics and THE go on to say in that article over 40% believe it was an inside job? Believe me I WILL find that article and issue where it stated that.



Because the magazine DIDNT say that.  At least not from what i could find.  I have supplied a poll of what I thought you were talking about and never got a response.  Here is the link again: &#8220;9/11&#8243; Zogby Poll Commissioned By Iran | Sweetness & Light
If this is the one you are talking about then you are completely ignorant of the facts.  
FACT: this article is NOT asking if the people believe if they believe 9/11 was an inside job.  They are asking if the govt LET it happen.  Letting something happen isnt the same as making something happen.   A point I have PROVEN to you both COUNTLESS times.  

FACT: ONLY 4.7% of Americans believe 9/11 was an inside job.  
http://www.911truth.org/images/ZogbyPoll2007.pdf
This poll was amazingly sponsored by the 9/11 truth movement.

Nobody can deny this FACT.

As I said before almost 4 TIMES the amount of peolpe believe in big foot than the attacks being a hoax.  



9/11 inside job said:


> ALSO you never answered my question,which was DO you believe in that other fairy tale commission-the warren commission fairy tale that oswald killed kennedy and was the lone assassin? cause if you have,well then your hopeless to be reasoned with on 9/11 cause if you cant belief that the CIA/MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX was behind kennedys assassination,you'll never accept it that they were behind 9/11 as well.I dont even try to reason with people who still accept the fairy tale that oswald killed kennedy,now the ones who can accept the CIA killed kennedy but believe the official version of 9/11,THOSE people I will TRY to reason with? so AGAIN,whats your answer on kennedy?



I didnt answer this b/c I thought it was just a hypothetical question nor is it relevant.  To be honest, I have not researched this at all.  However, I did see a documentary of this on the history channel and they went through all the points in the movie one by one.  They dismissed all the points thoroughly.  However, I am sure that you do not believe them at all.  Other than this I have not heard anything else on the topic. If you want to start a new thread or have one to show me otherwise then please do so.


----------



## Big_D (Dec 12, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> yeah I know.First popular mechanics-which Griffith has debunked in his book,THEN NISY who changed their story at least 3 times when the experts pointed holes in it,and NOW Thomas Eager who Kevin Ryan who helped build the towers has debunked NUMEROUS times before in debates.priceless.



You take the opinion of a former philosophy professor (Griffith) over Physic and engineering experts!  I have a hard time believing that anyone would be able to debunk Thomas Eager.  Having a different opinion doesnt debunk anything.   He is a professor at MIT!  According to these sites *MIT is the top engineering school in the nation!* 
Best Engineering Colleges 2009 | Electronics News and Comment | Blog on Design News - 1823
Top Ranked Engineering Colleges/Universities, Best Colleges Engineering
Best Engineering Colleges By Salary Potential

and this site has it listed as the* best engineering school in the World!*
http://skorcareer.com.my/blog/10-worlds-top-engineering-universities-schools-2007/2008/05/16/

Yet, you do not think he knows what he is talking about.  *Again, he is an engineering professor at the top engineering college in the WORLD and he agrees with me!*

I thought that I would also throw in another mans opinion.  You can read his paper here: http://www.nist.gov/testimony/2002/abwtc.html

- Dr. Arden Bement
His Credentials:
""Dr. Bement joined the Purdue faculty in 1992 after a 39-year career in industry, government and academia. His positions included: vice president of technical resources and of science and technology for TRW Inc. (1980-1992); deputy under secretary of defense for research and engineering (1979-1980); director, Office of Materials Science, DARPA (1976-1979); professor of nuclear materials, MIT (1970-1976); manager, Fuels and Materials Department and the Metallurgy Research Department, Battelle Northwest Laboratories (1965-1970); and senior research associate, General Electric Co. (1954-1965). He has also been a director of Keithley Instruments Inc. and the Lord Corp. and a member of the Science and Technology Advisory Committee for the Howmet Corp., a division of ALCOA."

http://www.nsf.gov/news/speeches/bement/bement_bio.jsp

AGAIN, how does this guy not know what he is talking about?  Or how was it about the winner of the 2003 Forensic Engineer of the year Award that was silly? Or how about the individual who, "was elected to the National Academy of Engineering in 1996 and to the National Academy of Sciences in 2002, *1 of only 153 members with such a dual appointment.*" (Ihttp://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=518768) Why dont you inform us how the professors at MIT, Edinburgh, University of Sydney, Purdue, or other high universities are not qualified to voice their opinions!  Instead of keep avoiding this issue why don't you hit it head on?  I am still waiting for you both to do so.


----------



## Big_D (Dec 12, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> Oh by the way Bid D,dont worry I'll read your link on professor Bazent and what he says but im sure its as laughable as your OTHER sources such as POPULAR MECHANICS,



Good I look forward to reading it.  FYI his is another exert from his credentials:
"In 1996, he received the *Prager Medal from the Society of Engineering Science (SES)* and the *Newmark Medal from the American Society of Civil Engineers.* In 1997, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers awarded him the *Warner Medal*, which recognizes outstanding contributions to the engineering literature. He has received *four honorary doctorates and will be presented with a fifth this fall* from l'Institut National des Sciences Appliquées in Lyon, France. Ba&#382;ant has authored or coauthored six books and more than 450 articles in refereed journals. In 2001, he received the *award of Highly Cited Researcher, which is given by the Institute for Scientific Information to only 250 authors worldwide across all engineering fields.* In addition, he served as president of SES and was founding president of the International Association of Fracture Mechanics and Concrete Structures."
Inaugural Article: Biography of Zden&#x0011b;k P. Ba&#x0017e;ant

Sounds to me he knows what he is talking about.

As I asked before, please explain to me how this gentleman and the countless others I posted are laughable?



9/11 inside job said:


> links to those two propaganda sites below it that you listed thats been debunked as well,THOMAS EAGER that again Kevin Ryan has debunked MANY times and  the findings of NIST which haave been debunked by Griffith and other experts numerous times as well which is why they kept changing their story and could never get their story straight.LOL.meanwhile I will look and hunt for that article I saw and come back and post it here when I find it.



Even if those stories are debunked that still leaves COUNTLESS others that I have supplied that believe me.  As I said before Eager is an engineering professor at the top engineering school in the WORLD.  Yet, you dont think he knows what he is talking about.  Again, having a different opinion doesnt debunk anything.  Meanwhile, you will believe Griffiths word over NUMEROUS experts in physics and engineering when he was only a philosophy professor!



9/11 inside job said:


> till then I'll just enjoy watching Eots take you to school and watch you live in denial. LOl.



By "Take me to school" do you mean make points how my experts are fools and NEVER backs that up?  Or do you mean how he said that the bin laden tapes are fake and NEVER backed it up.  I also asked him, "Why cant the govt stop 9/11 conspiracy believers from exposing them if they pulled off the biggest conspiracy of all time?" about five times to no reply whatsoever.  He continually avoided it over and over again and went on to other aspects I was arguing that were more in his favor.  You will NEVER win a discussion that way.  Or do you mean when I make many other points to no response?  Sorry, but I will believe Bin Laden when he said he did the attacks.



9/11 inside job said:


> btw i was watching a special on PBS about the kennedy assassination the other night and of course they were propagating the idea that oswald did it and there was no conspiracy,but they went on at the end to say something like despite all these findings,70% of the public still believe there was a conspiracy.why would over 70% believe in a conspiracy to kill kennedy but that only 4% as you claim would only believe in 9/11?



You seem to be doing me a favor with that info.  If you are saying that the kennedy assassination is true and that is why 70 percent of the people then the 9/11 conspiracy must NOT be true as it has only 4 percent that agree with you.


----------



## eots (Dec 13, 2008)

[





> QUOTE=Big_D;938457]Good I look forward to reading it.  FYI his is another exert from his credentials:
> "In 1996, he received the *Prager Medal from the Society of Engineering Science (SES)* and the *Newmark Medal from the American Society of Civil Engineers.* In 1997, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers awarded him the *Warner Medal*, which recognizes outstanding contributions to the engineering literature. He has received *four honorary doctorates and will be presented with a fifth this fall* from l'Institut National des Sciences Appliquées in Lyon, France. Ba&#382;ant has authored or coauthored six books and more than 450 articles in refereed journals. In 2001, he received the *award of Highly Cited Researcher, which is given by the Institute for Scientific Information to only 250 authors worldwide across all engineering fields.* In addition, he served as president of SES and was founding president of the International Association of Fracture Mechanics and Concrete Structures."
> Inaugural Article: Biography of Zden&#x0011b;k P. Ba&#x0017e;ant
> 
> ...



there are not countless others..and you cherry pick the best one ther where legions of magazines editors and other such laughable experts listed do I really need to post them again ?





> Even if those stories are debunked that still leaves COUNTLESS others that I have supplied that believe me.  As I said before Eager is an engineering professor at the top engineering school in the WORLD.  Yet, you dont think he knows what he is talking about.  Again, having a different opinion doesnt debunk anything.  Meanwhile, you will believe Griffiths word over NUMEROUS experts in physics and engineering when he was only a philosophy professor!



don't pretend it s just griffin



> By "Take me to school" do you mean make points how my experts are fools and NEVER backs that up?  Or do you mean how he said that the bin laden tapes are fake and NEVER backed it up


. 

I most defiantly did..not going to do it again..*fbi..tapes nonconclusive*



> I also asked him, "Why cant the govt stop 9/11 conspiracy believers from exposing them if they pulled off the biggest conspiracy of all time?" about five times to no reply whatsoever.



..answer ..they have..so far...its called _a cover up[/I ]and its a ridiculous question..why wont they ,,is a better one....because intelligent a patriotic Americans will demand answers until the truth is told




			He continually avoided it over and over again and went on to other aspects I was arguing that were more in his favor.  You will NEVER win a discussion that way.  Or do you mean when I make many other points to no response?  Sorry, but I will believe Bin Laden when he said he did the attacks.
		
Click to expand...


of course you do




			You seem to be doing me a favor with that info.  If you are saying that the kennedy assassination is true and that is why 70 percent of the people then the 9/11 conspiracy must NOT be true as it has only 4 percent that agree with you
		
Click to expand...


polling is not how we investigate a crime_


----------



## Big_D (Dec 14, 2008)

Another post by eots and another example of how he cannot back up what he is saying and avoided a number of issues.  


eots said:


> [
> 
> there are not countless others..and you cherry pick the best one ther where legions of magazines editors and other such laughable experts listed do I really need to post them again ?


There were magazine editors and newspaper writers on that list but as I have said a great number of times now, so were professors, scientists, high officers in the armed forces, and people with numerous degrees.  The magazine editors and newspaper writers were there because they used information from an article written.  They didnt ask these people about a field they are not in.  What I gave you was the sources page for the popular mechanics article, therefore they had to give them credit for their work.  So why *dont you back up your statement* and explain why the rest of the collection on popular mechanics were laughable? Were the people with PHD's unqualified? How about the people with P.E., S.E., S.B., S.M., or the other degrees listed? How about a professors of engineering? Would those people know anything about a building collapse? What about the Physics professors?  Please explain who unqualified they are.  Would you think that the director of aviation for the VF Corp would know anything about a plane crash? Would you think that the squadron commander of the U.S. airforce know anything about air defense?  Here are my lists again: http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...uilding-7-before-it-happens-7.html#post931319, http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...ilding-7-before-it-happens-10.html#post936466 

I also have A LOT more that just popular mechanics.  I asked what about professors Bazant and you never responded how he was unqualified.  *So I will ask again:  How is he unqualified?*  Why dont you answer the question this time?  Here is his credentials again in case you forgot: Inaugural Article: Biography of Zden&#x0011b;k P. Ba&#x0017e;ant  His credentials clearly speak for themselves.  Also dont stop at him.  Since you just said my experts were laughable then please inform me how ALL of them are so.  
How about the list of the following people who also agree with me?  I will post the individual with their credentials.  *As I have shown in previous posts, ALL of these people agree with me.*
Dr. Asif Usmani: Fire Safety Engineering
Dr. Jose Torero: Fire Safety Engineering
Dr. Tim Wilkinson: Tim Wilkinson - Civil Engineering - The University of Sydney
Dr. Hassan Astaneh: Engineering News, Date (his credentials are under his photo)
Dr. Ronald Greeley : https://sec.was.asu.edu/directory/person/39261
Dr. W. Gene Corley: W. Gene Corley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dr. Robert L. Parker: Robert L. Parker
Dr. Thomas R. Edwards: Thomas R. Edwards, Jr. Memorial Service
Dr. James G. Quintiere:James G. Quintiere, Faculty, Department of Fire Protection Engineering, University of Maryland
Dr. Mete Sozen: https://engineering.purdue.edu/CE/People/view_person?resource_id=2260
Dr. Fred Culick: GALCIT :: Fred Culick
Dr. Ching S. Chang: The College of Engineering University of Massachusetts | C.S. Chang
There are plenty more, but that is all I feel like posting at this time.  
So again, inform me how these people are laughable?

*
Since you said that these people are laughable I expect you to back it up. * However, the more and more you post the more it shows that you cannot do this.  I am *STILL *waiting for you two to do so.




eots said:


> don't pretend it s just griffin



As you can see from the links I provided there are CLEARLY numerous other experts who agree with the true story of 9/11.  As ANYONE can see there a great number of experts, that are more knowledgeable than Griffin is on this subject matter, that agree with me.




eots said:


> I most defiantly did..not going to do it again..*fbi..tapes nonconclusive*



Do you really believe that?  After stating about five times or so that Bin Laden admitted to the attacks you finally respond to it with three youtube clips.  As I have said, this response was overturned as all three were ridiculous. The first one you showed was a clip of a newscast talking about a bin laden video that wasnt even shown to the public yet!  The newscasters said that the upcoming video COULD have been a fake.  Then NEVER said it was one.  The second youtube clip was an interview with bin ladens son.  I have NO idea why you posted that one.  You claim that he said that his fathers videos are fakes but *he never even mentions the videos.*  Nowhere in the clip does he say that his father's tapes are fakes.  In fact, when the newscaster asked him if on 9/11 he thought his father was responsible, he responded, "Yeah, maybe."  Sounds like Bin Laden's own son agrees with me.  The last clip claimed that *one *of bin ladens videos is fake.  The clip is only 42 seconds long.  The announcer only gives us two reasons why they are fake.  1) Bin Laden is "shown" in the video writing a note with his right hand when in fact he is left handed.  However, as anyone can see from the video his arm is clearly out of the shot.  We do not know what he is doing with his right hand and the announcer is presuming that he is writing a note.  2) Bin laden looks different in this video than the other ones.  However, the guy actually admits at the beginning of the clip that this video is of poor quality.  That is why he looks different!  If the govt actually did create this video I'm sure they have the funds to make it as accurate as possible.  As a result, NONE of the youtube clips you provided were able to prove that the bin laden tapes are fake.  In fact, he has made a number of different ones and your best video only criticized the one. 




eots said:


> ..answer ..they have..so far...its called _a cover up[/I ]and its a ridiculous question..why wont they ,,is a better one....because intelligent a patriotic Americans will demand answers until the truth is told_


_

That doesn't make sense.  You all agree that Alex Jones is exposing the govt correct?  If so then they would obviously stop him from doing so.  Why cant they threaten him so that he then agrees with the govt or talk about something else?  Noway would the govt just LET someone expose them on the air waves.  If the govt can convince over 95% of the people of a "hoax" then they can accomplish this.



eots said:



			of course you do
		
Click to expand...


If 9/11 was an inside job then why is osama bin laden not even exposing the govt?  The biggest enemy this nation has agrees that our govt is not responsible for the attacks!  Bin laden is still a powerful man in the middle east.  If he would say that our govt did it to ourselves then it would convince many more middle easterners.  



eots said:



			polling is not how we investigate a crime
		
Click to expand...


You're right.  It doesnt change the fact that 9/11 inside job had the incorrect poll.  I also have a hard time believing that if the 9/11 hoax believers had better points then they would be able to convince more than 4.7% of the people.  Evidently, the big foot believers have more points to go on as much more people believe in that compared to the 9/11 conspiracy!_


----------



## eots (Dec 14, 2008)

"Yes, it sounds like him, but the voice is not as soft as previous tapes by Osama bin Laden, and delivery is not as slow as previous delivery," said Melham. "I really can't say with any degree of certainty that that's him." 

CNN.com - Is it the voice of bin Laden? - Nov. 14, 2002


----------



## eots (Dec 14, 2008)

so big d ..please tell me about the bio weapon experiment conducted in NY by the government on its citizens...


----------



## Big_D (Dec 14, 2008)

eots said:


> "Yes, it sounds like him, but the voice is not as soft as previous tapes by Osama bin Laden, and delivery is not as slow as previous delivery," said Melham. "I really can't say with any degree of certainty that that's him."
> 
> CNN.com - Is it the voice of bin Laden? - Nov. 14, 2002



This is not one of the videos where bin laden admitted to the 9/11 attacks, so this article is pointless.  The videos were he did claim responsibility are *not* regarded as fakes.  That is why they hold water. When he says, "...delivery is not as slow as previous delivery," wouldn't you then believe that Melham thinks the prevoius tapes are real?  This would include the ones where bin laden claims responsibility.  

Also, Melham went on to state in the article: "That soft spoken diabolical voice, if you will, attracted some people, obviously, and because it was as distinct as I said earlier, and that's why when I heard it the first time it didn't hit me as this is the authentic Osama, but *I could be wrong*"  
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/11/12/binladen.voice.id/]CNN.com - Is it the voice of bin Laden? - Nov. 14, 2002
I will admit that this tape the are referring to at least has a good possibility of being a fake but since he is not accepting credit for the 9/11 attacks it is irrelevant.


----------



## eots (Dec 14, 2008)

Dick Cheney admits Bin Laden is innocent
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I22AmlZFzKg]YouTube - Dick Cheney admits Bin Laden is innocent[/ame]


----------



## Big_D (Dec 14, 2008)

eots said:


> so big d ..please tell me about the bio weapon experiment conducted in NY by the government on its citizens...



So what is this, another conspiracy?  Why dont you tell us how my list of experts I have posted earlier today were "laughable."   You seem to be avoiding that issue.



eots said:


> Dick Cheney admits Bin Laden is innocent
> YouTube - Dick Cheney admits Bin Laden is innocent



Do you remember what I said in regards to this video beforehand?  Cheney is not saying that Bin Laden is innocent.  NOWHERE in that video does he say that.  Watch the video to find out for yourself.  Bin laden confessed to this on a few different occasions: 
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1550477.cms
Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11
Bin Laden, Most Wanted For Embassy Bombings?
Bin Laden says he ordered 9/11 attacks


----------



## eots (Dec 14, 2008)

just admit the facts bin laden is not on the the fbi most wanted for 911..reason no conclusive...if you wish to phone them and ask the reason yourself feel free..I DID
FBI - Most Wanted - The FBI's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives

*]...none of the are government counter terrorism directors or norad tac directors or top gun flight instructors...6 man to walk on the moon..head of the depleted uranium program awarded with the highest of military and presidential medals..it just does not compare*
*

and the biggest irony is the director of NIST  calls the investigation failed and a cover -up as do many of the 911 commission members yet you hold there reports up as truth
so you disagree with those you are agreeing with *





Timothy J. Roemer, PhD, 9/11 Commissioner &#8211; Former 6-term Congressman from Indiana (1991 - 2003).  Former member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.  Currently President of the Center for National Policy.

CNN Article 8/2/06 : "A member of the 9/11 commission said Wednesday that panel members so distrusted testimony from Pentagon officials that they referred their concerns to the Pentagon's inspector general. ... "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting," Roemer told CNN. "We were not sure of the intent, whether it was to deceive the commission or merely part of the fumbling bureaucracy." 



John F. Lehman, Jr., PhD &#8211; 9/11 Commissioner.  Former Secretary of the Navy 1981 - 1987.  Former staff member to Henry Kissinger on the National Security Council.  Member, Project for the New American Century (PNAC). 
Article Washington Post 8/2/06:  "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. ... 

"My view of that was that whether it was willful or just the fog of stupid bureaucracy, I don't know," Lehman said. "But in the order of magnitude of things, going after bureaucrats because they misled the commission didn't seem to make sense to me." washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines 

John J. Farmer, Jr., Senior Counsel, 9/11 Commission &#8211; Former Attorney General of the State of New Jersey.  Former Chief Counsel to former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman.  Former Commissioner of the State Commission of Investigations. Former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey.

Washington Post Article 8/2/06 - "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 was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. ... This is not spin. This is not true." http://www.washingtonpost 





Peter Rundlet, Counsel for the 9/11 Commission &#8211; Former Associate Counsel to President Clinton.  Former White House Fellow, serving in the Office of the Chief of Staff to President Clinton.  Former Vice President for National Security and International Affairs, Center for American Progress. 

Currently Director of Policy and Government Relations for Humanity United, an independent grantmaking organization committed to building a world where modern-day slavery and mass atrocities are no longer possible. 
Essay 9/30/06: "A mixture of shock, anger, and sadness overcame me when I read about revelations in Bob Woodward&#8217;s new book about a special surprise visit that George Tenet and his counterterrorism chief Cofer Black made to Condi Rice, also on July 10, 2001 ... 

If true, it is shocking that the administration failed to heed such an overwhelming alert from the two officials in the best position to know. Many, many questions need to be asked and answered about this revelation &#8212; questions that the 9/11 Commission would have asked, had the Commission been told about this significant meeting. Suspiciously, the Commissioners and the staff investigating the administration&#8217;s actions prior to 9/11 were never informed of the meeting. 



Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

by Alan Miller     Page 1 of 3 page(s) 


OpEdNews » Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


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


----------



## eots (Dec 14, 2008)

and pleases share with me on your insights on the bioweapon experiments in NY


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 14, 2008)

eots said:


> Dick Cheney admits Bin Laden is innocent
> YouTube - Dick Cheney admits Bin Laden is innocent


LIAR
he didnt say he was innocent

yet another piece of proof that troofer morons are the biggest liars on the planet


----------



## Big_D (Dec 14, 2008)

eots said:


> just admit the facts bin laden is not on the the fbi most wanted for 911..reason no conclusive...if you wish to phone them and ask the reason yourself feel free..I DID
> FBI - Most Wanted - The FBI's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives



I told you in the past that I knew this to be correct.  However, as I have shown you in post number 158 he has admitted to the attacks on a few different occasions.  Again, if 9/11 was an inside job then why is osama bin laden not even exposing the govt? *The biggest enemy this nation agrees that our govt is not responsible for the attacks!* Bin laden is still a powerful man in the middle east. If he would say that our govt did it to ourselves then it would convince many more middle easterners. As a result, more of them would be turned against us.


----------



## Big_D (Dec 14, 2008)

eots said:


> and pleases share with me on your insights on the bioweapon experiments in NY



What is the relevance of this?  Another post goes by without you informing me how my experts were laughable.  Why don't you tell me how my experts were so unqualified?


----------



## eots (Dec 14, 2008)

Big_D said:


> I told you in the past that I knew this to be correct.  However, as I have shown you in post number 158 he has admitted to the attacks on a few different occasions.  Again, if 9/11 was an inside job then why is osama bin laden not even exposing the govt? *The biggest enemy this nation agrees that our govt is not responsible for the attacks!* Bin laden is still a powerful man in the middle east. If he would say that our govt did it to ourselves then it would convince many more middle easterners. As a result, more of them would be turned against us.



the predominate view in the middle east and much of the rest of the world
already is that there was American involvement


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 14, 2008)

eots said:


> the predominate view in the middle east and much of the rest of the world
> already is that there was American involvement


yeah, they also say the holocaust didnt happen


----------



## eots (Dec 14, 2008)

Big_D said:


> What is the relevance of this?  Another post goes by without you informing me how my experts were laughable.  Why don't you tell me how my experts were so unqualified?



*Air Crash Analysis*

cleveland Center regional air traffic control

B*ill Crowley special agent, FBI*

Ron Dokell president, *Demolition Consultants*

Richard Gazarik *staff writer,* Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Yates Gladwell* pilot,* VF Corp.

Michael K. Hynes, Ed.D.,
ATP, CFI, A&P/IA president, Hynes Aviation Services; expert, aviation crashes

*Ed Jacoby Jr. director,
New York State Emergency Management Office (Ret.); chairman, New York State Disaster Preparedness Commission (Ret.)*

Johnstown-Cambria County *Airport Authority*

Cindi Lash *staff writer,* Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

*Matthew McCormick manager, survival factors division, National Transportation Safety Board (Ret.)*

Wallace Miller coroner, Somerset County, PA

Robert Nagan meteorological technician, *Climate Services Branch,* National Climatic Data Center

Dave Newell director, *aviation and travel, VF* Corp.

James OToole *politics editor*, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

*Pennsylvania State Police Public Information Office*

Jeff Pillets *senior writer,*
The Record, Hackensack, NJ

Jeff Rienbold director, Flight 93 National Memorial, *National Park Service*

Dennis Roddy *staff writer*, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Master Sgt. David Somdahl *public affairs* officer,
119th Wing, North Dakota
Air National Guard

Mark Stahl *photographer;* eyewitness, United Airlines Flight 93 crash scene

*Air Defense*
Lt. Col. Skip Aldous (Ret.) squadron commander,
U.S. Air Force

Tech. Sgt. Laura Bosco *public affairs officer,*
Tyndall Air Force Base

Boston Center regional *air traffic control*

Laura Brown spokeswoman,
Federal Aviation Administration

Todd Curtis, Ph.D. founder, Airsafe.com; president, Airsafe.com Foundation

Keith Halloway *public affairs officer,* National Transportation Safety Board

Ted Lopatkiewicz director, *public affairs*, National Transportation Safety Board

Maj. Douglas Martin *public affairs *officer,
North American Aerospace Defense Command

Lt. Herbert McConnell *public affairs *officer,
Andrews AFB

*Michael Perini public affairs officer,* North American Aerospace Defense Command

John Pike *director, GlobalSecurity.org*

Hank Price *spokesman*, Federal
Aviation Administration

Warren Robak RAND Corp.

Bill Shumann *spokesman,*
Federal Aviation Administration

Louis Walsh *public affairs officer*, Eglin AFB

Chris Yates aviation security *editor,* analyst, Janes Transport

Aviation
Fred E.C. Culick, Ph.D., S.B., S.M. professor of aeronautics, California Institute of Technology

Robert Everdeen* public affairs*, Northrop Grumman

Clint Oster professor of *public and environmental affairs,* Indiana University; aviation safety expert

Capt. Bill Scott (Ret. USAF) Rocky Mountain* bureau chief, *Aviation Week




Bill Uher *News Media Office,* NASA Langley Research Center

Col. Ed Walby (Ret. USAF)
director, business development, HALE Systems Enterprise, Unmanned Systems, Northrop Grumman


http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=9


----------



## Big_D (Dec 14, 2008)

eots said:


> the predominate view in the middle east and much of the rest of the world
> already is that there was American involvement



So if bin laden would say he had more no part in it then the number would be much higher.

I am not sure about the entire middle east, but according to WorldOpinionPoll.org only 12 % of the people of egypt believe it was done by our govt.  Also, according to the same website only 15% of the world believe it was an inside job.  Here are the polls that were posted on wikipedia from WorldOpinionPoll.org. 9/11 opinion polls - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Big_D (Dec 14, 2008)

eots said:


> *Air Crash Analysis*
> 
> cleveland Center regional air traffic control
> 
> ...



I have made this point to you on countless occasions and there really seems to be no need to make it again because you are too ignorant to understand it.  Anyways here we go again.  When I first posted that link for the popular mechanics page it was to show you that there are a number of experts on my side.  However, there are no "experts" page so the only way to show you was to use their sources used for the article.  Obviously on the page there are a number of physics, aviation experts, engineers, etc.  Also on the page are articles written by people that are used in this feature.  Popular Mechanics obviously has to give these people credit so they place it on this page.  They never said that all these people are experts on the topics. Popular Mechanics simply used part of their previous work for this article and have to give them credit.  That is why there are writers, editors, etc on the sources page.  When I posted this I assumed you knew this and when I was talking about experts I of course meant the numerous professors, engineer, and so forth.  Plus, you still have answered me how the list of 13 experts I posted earlier today were laughable.  Yet again you avoided the question.


----------



## eots (Dec 14, 2008)

*the Japanese congress and Italy  and Germany say the holocaust never happened ?*


Italy Main Japanese Opposition Party Questions 9/11 in Parliament 


Broadcast on Japanese public TV
Main Japanese Opposition Party Questions 9/11 in Parliament

*Andreas von Buelow, PhD &#8211; Former State Secretary of the Federal Ministry of Defense of West Germany.  Former Minister of Research and Technology.  Member of Bundestag (Parliament) 1969 - 1994. *
Video 5/6/06:  "The official story is so inadequate and far-fetched that there must be another one."   Google Video 


Article/Interview 1/13/02: "The planning of the attacks was technically and organizationally a master achievement.  To hijack four huge airplanes within a few minutes and within one hour, to drive them into their targets, with complicated flight maneuvers!  This is unthinkable, without years-long support from secret apparatuses of the state and industry."   http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/VonBuelow 


Documentary Shadowplay 2008:   "This whole behavior of government after 9/11 shows me that there must be these people which brought it about.  It must be very, very high up. ...  I think so.  It's a covert operation, a typical covert operation where you have patsies, false flag, where you prepare everything to blame different people from the people which really did the things.  But they are able to influence the public opinion in order to say, 'Well, the Muslims are our real foes, which we have to fight.'"  YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. 


Member: Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice   Association Statement: "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is a non-partisan organization consisting of independent researchers and activists engaged in uncovering the true nature of the September 11, 2001 attacks." 


*Horst Ehmke, PhD &#8211; Former Minister of Justice (West Germany).  Former Minister for Research and Technology. * Cabinet Member under Chancellors Kurt Kiesinger and Willy Brandt 1966 - 1974.  Professor of Law, University of Freiburg 

Article 7/22/04: "Terrorists could not have carried out such an operation with four hijacked planes without the support of a secret service." http://www.guardian.co 





Bio: Google Translate 



*Eckart Werthebach, JD &#8211; Former President, Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV), Germany&#8217;s domestic intelligence service 1991 - 1995.  Mayor of Berlin 2000 - 2001.  Berlin's Minister of the Interior 1998 - 2001. *
Article Euro Intel Experts Dismiss &#8216;War on Terrorism&#8217; as Deception 12/4/01: "Eckehardt [sic] Werthebach, former president of Germany's domestic intelligence service, Verfassungsschutz, told AFP that "the deathly precision" and "the magnitude of planning" behind the attacks of September 11 would have needed "years of planning." 

Such a sophisticated operation, Werthebach said, would require the "fixed frame" of a state intelligence organization, something not found in a "loose group" of terrorists like the one allegedly led by Mohammed Atta while he studied in Hamburg. 

Many people would have been involved in the planning of such an operation and Werthebach pointed to the absence of leaks as further indication that the attacks were "state organized actions." Jeff Rense Program 

Bio: Google Translate 

*Francesco Cossiga &#8211; President of Italy (1985 - 1992) and Former Prime Minister.  Also served as Undersecretary for Defence.  Former President of the Italian Senate.  *Former Chairman of the Chamber of Deputies Foreign Affairs Committee.  Former Professor of Constitutional Law, Sassari University.  Named "Doctor of Civil Law" from Oxford University.  Honorary Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford.  Member of the Council of the Foundation of the Academy of Philosophy Studies of Liechtenstein.  Honorary Senator of the Senate of the University of Bonn.  Holds honorary degrees from major universities around the world.  Author of Il Torto e il Diritto: Quasi un Antologia Personale (The Wrong and the Right: A Personal Anthology) (1993). 
Article Corriere della Sera 11/30/07:  Mr. Cossiga commenting on a purported new video from Osama bin Laden:  "From areas around the Palazzo Chigi, nerve centre of direction of Italian intelligence, it is noted that the non-authenticity of the video is supported by the fact that Osama bin Laden in it 'confessed' that Al Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers in New York.  However, all of the democratic areas of America and of Europe, with the Italian center-left in the forefront, now know full well that the disastrous attack was planned and executed by the American CIA and Mossad with the help of the Zionist world to falsely incriminate Arabic countries and to persuade the Western Powers to intervene in Iraq and Afghanistan."  Original article in Italian Corriere della Sera 


*
Fernando Rossi &#8211; Former Senator, Italy.  Secretary of the Senate's Committee on Constitutional Affairs.  Member of the Parliamentary Commission for Regional Issues.  Member of the Committee on Finance and the Treasury. *
Signatory: 9/11: Breaking the Wall of Silence Petition 12/07, which states: 

"September 11, 2001 has changed the course of history and changed the entire global framework.  Following the tragic and spectacular attack, which killed three thousand innocent people, most of the truisms of western culture have been shattered.  9/11 was followed by a U.S. offensive that has already produced two wars and changed not only the geopolitics of entire areas of the planet, but also the balance of power that had evolved over the previous decades. 

Although the attack has been responsible for changing the world with remarkable speed, a comprehensive explanation of the events of September 11, and their planning, took over three years to be drafted by a commission of inquiry authorized by the Congress of the United States.  And a single entity has been judged to be entirely responsible and condemned to life imprisonment. 

However a careful analysis reveals that the official version of 9/11 is not only deficient in dozens of essential points, but in dozens of other points it is demonstrably false. 
Book 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA: "Cossiga indicated his suspicion that the attacks presupposed some form of complicity within the US security system. The mastermind of the attack, Cossiga observed must have been a "sophisticated mind, provided with ample means not only to recruit fanatic kamikazes, but also highly specialized personnel. I add one thing: it could not be accomplished without infiltrations in the radar and flight security personnel." As for Bin Laden, Cossiga added that "it is not thinkable that he did everything by himself." (La Stampa 9/14/01, EIR 9/15/01) (p. 36) http://www.indymedia.org


----------



## Big_D (Dec 14, 2008)

Even more expert opinions!

    "*  It was the simultaneous fires, on multiple floors, rather than burning jet fuel (much of which was consumed in the initial fireballs), that weakened the structural steel elements enough to precipitate the collapse.
    * Robust and redundant steel framing, adequate and well-lighted stairways, and emergency training contributed to the towers' resilience and the safe egress of occupants.
    * Lightweight fireproofing, probably blown off of the structural steel, sprinkler supply pipes severed by flying debris, gypsum wallboard around the stairwells, which collapsed and blocked access, and the grouping of stairwells in the buildings' core, which increased their vulnerability to a single impact, may have contributed to the collapse or hindered the escape of occupants above the impact zones."
WPI - Transformations: Why the World Trade Center Towers Fell
Worcester Polytechnic Institute

"In the simulation shown here, there are two mechanisms by which a collapse is retarded. First, as the fastening of each floor is overcome, that fastening provides a force opposite to that of the falling mass. Second, the presence alone of stationary mass in lower floors opposes the momentum of the falling mass. The user may examine these effects by controlling the strength of the fastening and by controlling the extent of mass pulverization. These effects may be controlled by selecting fastening and pulverization which seem natural as well as by raising supplemental factors which weaken fastening and enhance pulverization. It remains for the user to decide whether the pancake collapse theory agrees with the recorded free fall times."
An Interactive Simulation Comparing Models of the Fall of the World Trade Center Towers
-Dr. Stephen Keeling
His credentials more than speak for themselves.
Stephen Keeling's homepage

"It was the fire that killed the buildings - *nothing on Earth could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning* "
-Structural engineer Chris Wise
BBC News | AMERICAS | How the World Trade Center fell

""I think they should not have gone in at all," he said. "If they did decide to take the risk, they should have been pulled out after an hour." "

"But the eventual collapse of the twin towers was so predictable that the order should have been given to withdraw emergency services within an hour... He watched in horror, knowing the building would fall within two hours."
BBC News | AMERICAS | How the World Trade Center fell
-Dr. John Knapton 
his credentials: 
"John Knapton, Professor of Structural Engineering in Newcastle University&#8217;s Department of Civil Engineering, has been asked by St Paul Syndicate Services, a group of Lloyds insurance syndicates, to study the chain of events that led up to the collapse of the towers."
Newcastle University Professor to spearhead World Trade Center insurance investigation - Press Release - Press and Communications - Newcastle University

This is in addition to the following list of individuals who I have noted in the past that agree with me and PLENTY of others I do not have listed below.
Dr. Zden&#283;k P. Ba&#382;ant: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=518768
Dr. Asif Usmani: Fire Safety Engineering
Dr. Jose Torero: Fire Safety Engineering
Dr. Tim Wilkinson: Tim Wilkinson - Civil Engineering - The University of Sydney
Dr. Hassan Astaneh: Engineering News, Date (his credentials are under his photo)
Dr. Ronald Greeley : https://sec.was.asu.edu/directory/person/39261
Dr. W. Gene Corley: W. Gene Corley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dr. Robert L. Parker: Robert L. Parker
Dr. Thomas R. Edwards: Thomas R. Edwards, Jr. Memorial Service
Dr. James G. Quintiere:James G. Quintiere, Faculty, Department of Fire Protection Engineering, University of Maryland
Dr. Mete Sozen: https://engineering.purdue.edu/CE/People/view_person?resource_id=2260
Dr. Fred Culick: GALCIT :: Fred Culick
Dr. Ching S. Chang: The College of Engineering University of Massachusetts | C.S. Chang


----------



## Toro (Dec 15, 2008)

Big_D said:


> I told you in the past that I knew this to be correct.  However, as I have shown you in post number 158 he has admitted to the attacks on a few different occasions.  Again, if 9/11 was an inside job then why is osama bin laden not even exposing the govt? *The biggest enemy this nation agrees that our govt is not responsible for the attacks!* Bin laden is still a powerful man in the middle east. If he would say that our govt did it to ourselves then it would convince many more middle easterners. As a result, more of them would be turned against us.



Yeah, in fact al-Qaeda is pissed off that others are stealing their thunder!

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Al-Qaeda accuses Iran of 9/11 lie

Near as I can tell, most of the academics who support the conspiracists' line of reasoning are from the Arts not the Sciences.


----------



## eots (Dec 15, 2008)

Big_D said:


> Even more expert opinions!
> 
> "*  It was the simultaneous fires, on multiple floors, rather than burning jet fuel (much of which was consumed in the initial fireballs), that weakened the structural steel elements enough to precipitate the collapse.
> * Robust and redundant steel framing, adequate and well-lighted stairways, and emergency training contributed to the towers' resilience and the safe egress of occupants.
> ...



these links are *meaningless *there is no information of any kind attached to most of them that is at all relevant


----------



## del (Dec 15, 2008)

eots said:


> these links are *meaningless *there is no information of any kind attached to most of them that is at all relevant



when it comes to meaningless information, you're the expert.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 15, 2008)

eots said:


> these links are *meaningless *there is no information of any kind attached to most of them that is at all relevant


you mean like most of your links?


----------



## Big_D (Dec 15, 2008)

eots said:


> these links are *meaningless *there is no information of any kind attached to most of them that is at all relevant



What about it is meaningless?  The list of professors are ones that you described as "laughable" when I showed that they believe the true story of 9/11.  Next to each of their names is their credentials that show how respectable they are.  Anyone can see from the links that they are professors at colleges that many young people are very lucky to get into and these professors have many other  EXCELLENT qualifications as well.  *Do you think that these professors of engineering and physics at high universities do not know what they are talking about? *


----------



## eots (Dec 15, 2008)

link 1


> Why the World Trade Center Towers Fell
> 
> W. Gene Corley, left, of the American Society of Civil Engineers, and Jonathan Barnett present the findings of the World Trade Center building performance study to the House Committee on Science on May 1.
> Highlights of the building performance study:
> ...



so who are the experts ??


*link 2*
user may examine these effects by controlling the strength of the fastening and by controlling the extent of mass pulverization. These effects may be controlled by selecting fastening and pulverization which seem natural as well as by raising supplemental factors which weaken fastening and enhance pulverization. *It remains for the user to decide whether the pancake collapse theory agrees with the recorded free fall times.*

no other statement or opinion is offered..



> BBC News | AMERICAS | How the World Trade Center fell



a bbc piece ??


*and it just goes on and on like this*


----------



## Big_D (Dec 15, 2008)

eots said:


> link 1
> so who are the experts ??



 As you can see from the first line in the article you quoted, they are W. Gene Corley and Jonathan Bennett. 

"Dr. W. Gene Corley, P.E. is a structural engineer and "preeminent expert on building collapse investigations and building codes."[1] Corley has been the Vice President of CTLGroup since 1987, where he leads structural engineering projects, including numerous evaluations of buildings and structures damaged by earthquake, explosions, and from terrorist attacks."
W. Gene Corley: W. Gene Corley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Jonathan Barnett is a professor of practice in city and regional planning, and director of the Urban Design Program, at the University of Pennsylvania. He is an architect and planner as well as an educator, and is the author of numerous books and articles on the theory and practice of city design."
Jonathan Bennett: PennDesign :: City & Regional Planning

Two more *experts* who know what they are talking about.



eots said:


> *link 2*
> user may examine these effects by controlling the strength of the fastening and by controlling the extent of mass pulverization. These effects may be controlled by selecting fastening and pulverization which seem natural as well as by raising supplemental factors which weaken fastening and enhance pulverization. *It remains for the user to decide whether the pancake collapse theory agrees with the recorded free fall times.*
> no other statement or opinion is offered..
> a bbc piece ??



Did you even read that article or my post about it?  I was able to find two experts in the post you are quoting.  Here are the two experts quotes from the article:

"It was the fire that killed the buildings - nothing on Earth could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning "
-Structural engineer Chris Wise
BBC News | AMERICAS | How the World Trade Center fell

""I think they should not have gone in at all," he said. "If they did decide to take the risk, they should have been pulled out after an hour." "

"But the eventual collapse of the twin towers was so predictable that the order should have been given to withdraw emergency services within an hour... He watched in horror, knowing the building would fall within two hours."
BBC News | AMERICAS | How the World Trade Center fell
-Dr. John Knapton
his credentials:
"John Knapton, Professor of Structural Engineering in Newcastle University&#8217;s Department of Civil Engineering, has been asked by St Paul Syndicate Services, a group of Lloyds insurance syndicates, to study the chain of events that led up to the collapse of the towers."
Newcastle University Professor to spearhead World Trade Center insurance investigation - Press Release - Press and Communications - Newcastle University



eots said:


> *and it just goes on and on like this*



If "it goes on like this" then you your opinion is only going to look worse as I have clearly shown in this post that these were two very credible articles with great experts.


----------



## eots (Dec 15, 2008)

Big_D said:


> As you can see from the first line in the article you quoted, they are W. Gene Corley and Jonathan Bennett.
> 
> "Dr. W. Gene Corley, P.E. is a structural engineer and "preeminent expert on building collapse investigations and building codes."[1] Corley has been the Vice President of CTLGroup since 1987, where he leads structural engineering projects, including numerous evaluations of buildings and structures damaged by earthquake, explosions, and from terrorist attacks."
> W. Gene Corley: W. Gene Corley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...


----------



## Big_D (Dec 15, 2008)

eots said:


> Big_D said:
> 
> 
> > As you can see from the first line in the article you quoted, they are W. Gene Corley and Jonathan Bennett.
> ...


----------



## eots (Dec 15, 2008)

Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret) &#8211; Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran (two Silver Stars, a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart).  Appointed by President George H.W. Bush to serve on the American Battle Monuments Commission (1990 - 1994), and on the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces.  Military Historian and Deputy Director of Field Operations for the U.S. Marine Corps Historical Center, Washington, D.C. 1990 - 1994. 

Article 7/1/06: "*The former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran *and Colonel has gone on the record to voice his doubts about the official story of 9/11 - calling it &#8216;the dog that doesn't hunt.&#8217;  *&#8216;I'm astounded that the conspiracy theory advanced by the administration could in fact be true and the evidence does not seem to suggest that's accurate,*&#8217; he said." 


*Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) &#8211; Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter.*  U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. (PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Cal Tech).   Former Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology.  22-year Air Force career.  Also taught Mathematics and English at the University of Southern California, the University of Maryland, and Phillips University. 

Video 9/11/04: "A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, *the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash.  It&#8217;s impossible. *&#8230; There&#8217;s a second group of facts having to do with the cover up. &#8230; Taken together these things prove that high levels of our government don&#8217;t want us to know what happened and who&#8217;s responsible.&#8230;




*Raymond L. McGovern &#8211; Former Chairman, National Intelligence Estimates, CIA, responsible for preparing the President&#8217; Daily Brief (PDB) for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.  27-year CIA veteran. Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer. *

Video 7/22/06:  "I think at simplest terms, there&#8217;s a *cover-up. * The 9/11 report is *a joke.* 

The question is: What&#8217;s being covered up?  Is it gross malfeasance, gross negligence, misfeasance? &#8230; Now there are a whole bunch of unanswered questions.  And the reason they&#8217;re unanswered is because this administration will not answer the questions. &#8230; I just want to reassert, what Scott [Ritter, former Major in the U.S. Marines Corps, former Chief Weapons Inspector for the United Nations Special Commission in Iraq] said and this is the bottom line for me, just as Hitler in 1933 cynically exploited the burning of the parliament building, the Reichstag, this is exactly what our President did in exploiting 9/11.  The cynical way in which he played on our trauma, used it to justify attacking, making a war of aggression on a country that he knew had nothing to do with 9/11.  That suffices for me, I think Scott is exactly right, that&#8217;s certainly an impeachable offense

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


----------



## Big_D (Dec 16, 2008)

Can it be?  Even more expert opinions!

"... a preliminary examination shows it was the fire with heat exceeding 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit that caused the steel to fail and the floors to drop, pancaking into mounds of debris, he said.
Astaneh-Asl came across another piece of steel with a slice through part of it, "like a knife on butter."
He suspects that the mark was left by the plane's wing. "Steel doesn't fracture like this unless it's hit by something sharp and fast," he said.
And he found a chunk of solder that had been in a toilet...
Much of his work, though, is mundane: Collecting pieces of glass and weighing them, so that a computer model of the building that he is creating to simulate what happened will be as accurate as possible. "
Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl -*Engineering professor from Berkeley University*
His credentials *MORE *than speak for themselves:
CEE Faculty Page - Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl
Display


"...he and others point to the lack of adequate fireproofing as the reason the structural steel became so hot, causing it to give way. Once the floors around the impact area were destroyed, the top of each building fell, collapsing the floors underneath it like a deck of cards.

But before undertaking further exploration of the lack of fireproofing, the basic design of the twin towers is itself of interest. Media reports often describe it as "innovative," "unusual," or a "technological breakthrough." They point out that far from being a solid steel structure, the towers more resembled 110 stories of spider webs surrounding a tree branch."
The Militant - January 7, 2002 -- World Trade Center builders' greed responsible for massive death toll

Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer -*Engineering Professor at the university of Maryland*
Another expert with *EXCELLENT* credentials:
Frederick W. Mowrer, Faculty, Department of Fire Protection Engineering, University of Maryland

You might have to read the full article to understand the following quote:
""When that part is wiped out, the structure comes down," Irfanoglu said. "We design structures with some extra capacity to cover some uncertainties, but we never anticipate such heavy demand coming from an aircraft impact. If the columns were distributed, maybe, the fire could not take them out so easily."
Purdue study supports WTC collapse findings - USATODAY.com

Dr. Ayhan Irfanoglu- *Engineering professor at Purdue*
Amazing credentials: Ayhan Irfanoglu - Purdue University

Purdue simulation of the World Trade center collapse:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH02Eh44yUg]YouTube - Scientists simulate jet colliding with World Trade Center[/ame]
-Dr. Ayhan Irfanoglu
His credentials are already mentioned.



"The 110-story twin towers of the World Trade Center, which stood at a height of 1,353 feet, were designed to withstand earthquakes as well as impacts like that of a plane. This was evidenced by the fact that the buildings did not fall over on impact., says Brian Markham, a structural engineer with the Ove Arup & Partners engineering firm."
Why Did the World Trade Center Towers Collapse? - Dahlia Lithwick - Slate Magazine


----------



## eots (Dec 16, 2008)

Big_D said:


> > Can it be?  Even more expert opinions!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

A new Standard for Deception by NIST Part 1 of 6

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urs14eAaFcM]YouTube - A new Standard for Deception by NIST Part 1 of 6[/ame]



Steel Facts and WTC Collapse (Part One)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxcucTLkWtY]YouTube - Steel Facts and WTC Collapse (Part One)[/ame]


----------



## eots (Dec 16, 2008)

> Originally Posted by Big_D
> 
> Purdue simulation of the World Trade center collapse:
> YouTube - Scientists simulate jet colliding with World Trade Center
> ...





ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR EXPERTS THAT NEVER READ... nist report rejecting the pancake theory


----------



## Big_D (Dec 16, 2008)

eots said:


> ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR EXPERTS THAT NEVER READ... nist report rejecting the pancake theory



First of all, for another one of my experts to have "never read" would imply that you have made this point in the past-which of course you have not.  You are simply dismissing them all because you cannot argue that they are very qualified people that disagree with you.  
Next, this individual is not saying that the pancaking theory, just like NIST, didnt *cause* the collapse.  It was the result of it.
Towers Collapse - Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and controlled demolition
*
Even though I doubt you will, but answer this question:  Do you really believe that all these physics and engineering professors I have used over and over again do not know what they are talking about?*
Here are my lists again:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...ilding-7-before-it-happens-11.html#post940848
http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...ilding-7-before-it-happens-10.html#post936466
http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...uilding-7-before-it-happens-7.html#post931319
http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...ilding-7-before-it-happens-13.html#post945060
On these occasions I listed countless process from amazingly high institutions.


----------



## eots (Dec 16, 2008)

> Big_D said:
> 
> 
> > First of all, for another one of my experts to have "never read" would imply that you have made this point in the past-which of course you have not.  You are simply dismissing them all because you cannot argue that they are very qualified people that disagree with you.
> ...



no it is a very small group repeated In different studies again and again
AND REPEATING CLAIMS SINCE REJECTED BY nist ..there is no peer review of the work and no subpoena powers for witnesses or evidence

there are many comparable  phds on the patriots site but there is also the very best of the best that have been directly involved in some of the most sensitivecatreas of government ,,research and patriotic service...you simply can not compare the two


----------



## Big_D (Dec 17, 2008)

eots said:


> no it is a very small group repeated In different studies again and again
> AND REPEATING CLAIMS SINCE REJECTED BY nist ..there is no peer review of the work and no subpoena powers for witnesses or evidence



listen to what NIST is stating:
NOVA | Building on Ground Zero | Impact to Collapse | PBS



eots said:


> there are many comparable  phds on the patriots site but there is also the very best of the best that have been directly involved in some of the most sensitivecatreas of government ,,research and patriotic service...you simply can not compare the two



Can not compare the two?  As you can see from my last post there are countless professors from the best engineering schools in the country that support the true story.  Plus, MANY others from different fields as well.  It should also be noted that we cannot even locate some of you vendors on the web meanwhile just about every one of mine have their credentials attached.

My own personal favoriteL
Here is one paper on why the WTC building collapsed:
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf
-Zden&#283;k P. Ba&#382;ant- Professor at Northwestern

his credentials:
"Engineer Zden&#283;k P. Ba&#382;ant is best known as a world leader in scaling research in solid mechanics (1&#8211;6). His research focuses on the effect of structure size on structural strength as it relates to the failure behavior of the structure. He also has made outstanding advances in structural stability (7), fracture mechanics (8), the micromechanics of material damage (8&#8211;10), concrete creep (11&#8211;13), and probabilistic mechanics (6, 8, 14). He was elected to the National Academy of Engineering in 1996 and to the National Academy of Sciences in 2002, 1 of only 153 members with such a dual appointment. In his Inaugural Article (1), published in this issue of PNAS, Ba&#382;ant presents a simple justification of the scaling laws for the fracture of quasibrittle materials such as concrete, rock, fiber composites, and sea ice."
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=518768
*
You avoided the question: Do you really believe that all these physics and engineering professors I have used over and over again do not know what they are talking about?*


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 23, 2008)

Havent had the chance to come on here since my last post cause of my busy work schedule-been REALLY busy heading up into christmas,but I have a bunch of stuff I will be posting when I get back here after christmas.not that it will do any good since you 9/11 apologists will ignore it like you always do,but till then,here are some videos to chew on and watch till then.
http://canadawantsthetruth911videos.blogspot.com
look at those 47 videos where it says 47 videos exposing the 9/11 coverup.If you come back and say your not convinced or whatever,thats just proof that you DONT want to be convinced and are in complete denial.the evidence in those videos is overwhelming.after watching those and you say theres no evidence,well your either in  denial or a complete idiot.I know Editic for one is in complete denial cause I posted this on my welcome thread when I first got here and he proved he is denial by not even looking at the videos.are all you going to do the same?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 23, 2008)

btw the people STILL defending the official version are in complete denial. as i said before,the 9/11 commission portrayed the FAA as being incompetent,well if THAT was the case,there should have been MULTIPLE firings,there were none.Like I said before,General Myers of NORAD -"who blamed the failures on the FAA" in fact was promoted by Bush.Only a fool would STILL believe the official version since NOBODY was fired when there should have been MANY firings.duh.give it up people.you know it,i know it.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 23, 2008)

Big_D said:


> listen to what NIST is stating:
> NOVA | Building on Ground Zero | Impact to Collapse | PBS
> 
> 
> ...



No they arent people that know what their talking about their just lying because they all have government contracts so if they go and say what they REALLY believe,they'll lose their jobs.the TRUE physics and professors who have spoken out against the official version are patriots ,many of them have lost their jobs like judy wood,and steven jones so of course those people you mention are going to defend the official version otherwise they'll lose their jobs like so many have that spoke out like kevin Ryan for instance.you mentioned Thomas Edgar as a source earlier,what they never tell you is that Edgar has contract jobs with the government as I will point out later after christmas when i read through an article that talks about that.someone earlier this year was touting on another thread that the experts have debunked the so called sonspiracy theorists people such as david ray griffith stating professors like gene corley have debunked griffith.what that poster didnt know is that gene corley has government contracts as does thomas edgar so these guys are just participating in the coverup since they have government contracts. also NIST is a government institution,the fact you keep swallowing their lies that Griffith and others have disproved, just shows that you dont want to look at the other side of the coin.Griffith has challenged the government to debate him in the open in public but they wont,they never get back to him cause they know they cant counter Griffith.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 23, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> No they arent people that know what their talking about their just lying because they all have government contracts so if they go and say what they REALLY believe,they'll lose their jobs.the TRUE physics and professors who have spoken out against the official version are patriots ,many of them have lost their jobs like judy wood,and steven jones so of course those people you mention are going to defend the official version otherwise they'll lose their jobs like so many have that spoke out like kevin Ryan for instance.you mentioned Thomas Edgar as a source earlier,what they never tell you is that Edgar has contract jobs with the government as I will point out later after christmas when i read through an article that talks about that.someone earlier this year was touting on another thread that the experts have debunked the so called sonspiracy theorists people such as david ray griffith stating professors like gene corley have debunked griffith.what that poster didnt know is that gene corley has government contracts as does thomas edgar so these guys are just participating in the coverup since they have government contracts. also NIST is a government institution,the fatc you keep swallowing their lies just shows that you dont want to look at the other side of the coin.


ok, so ALL the debunkers are in on the conspiracy
just how many are in on it?
and can you name some of the top level people?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 23, 2008)

one other thing I want to say before christmas of something that you clearly dont understand Big D or DONT want to understand is that here is another example of how if you are a patriot like Judy wood or steven jones and speak out against the official version you WILL get fired like they did and many others have such as Kevin Ryan.aftter the movie JFK came out,I was outraged for YEARS over how the government and the school system had brainwashed me with their lies and propaganda that oswald killed kennedy when it was really the CIA.so years later I approached my american history teacher and said to him-Mr Evans why did you lie to me in american history class? you told me and everybody in my class that Lee Harvey Oswald killed kennedy and was the lone gunman.How come you lied to me back then when it was the CIA that killed him? He then said-Oh I never did believe that.and i said-what,that oswald did it or the CIA was behind it? and he said-That oswald did it and was the lone gunman,no I never did believe that.I always knew the CIA was behind it and Lyndon Johnson had a hand in it.I then said-well if THAT was the case,then how come you never told us that in history class? Guess what his response was? He replied and said-Just between you and me if I ever spoke out what I REALLY thought,I would have gotten fired by the school board and would not have my job that I have now.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 23, 2008)

So do you see a pattern here BIG D? Do you REALLY believe that all these other college professors after seeing how people like jones and wood have been fired by the school boards for speaking out the truth,do you REALLY think THEY are actually going to speak out the truth that it was an inside job and risk their careers? No and i really cant blame them.Nor do I blame my history teacher or have any grudge towards him for not telling me and my classmates back then what he REALLY thought that the CIA killed kennedy.Its the same way today,if american history teachers at many schools say they think the CIA killed kennedy,they'll lose their jobs and if I were them,I would probably do the same thing.I mean were talking about them losing thier careers over something they have worked at for YEARS to attain and dreamed of doing since they were chidren.were not talking about just some rinky dink 7-11 job or working at mcdonalds where if your fired you can get another job immediately with no problem.a career job like THAT,their not going to be able to get another one so easily if they lose that job.is ANY of this registering with you?


----------



## Big_D (Dec 23, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> No they arent people that know what their talking about their just lying because they all have government contracts so if they go and say what they REALLY believe,they'll lose their jobs.  the TRUE physics and professors who have spoken out against the official version are patriots ,many of them have lost their jobs like judy wood,and steven jones so of course those people you mention are going to defend the official version otherwise they'll lose their jobs like so many have that spoke out like kevin Ryan for instance.you mentioned Thomas Edgar as a source earlier,what they never tell you is that Edgar has contract jobs with the government as I will point out later after christmas when i read through an article that talks about that.  someone earlier this year was touting on another thread that the experts have debunked the so called sonspiracy theorists people such as david ray griffith stating professors like gene corley have debunked griffith.what that poster didnt know is that gene corley has government contracts as does thomas edgar so these guys are just participating in the coverup since they have government contracts. also NIST is a government institution,



First of all you seem to be changing your positions.  Initially, you say that my experts are laughable and now you are saying they are not speaking the truth b/c they will lose their jobs.  Here is your quote from post number 144 in this thread, "Oh by the way Bid D,dont worry I'll read your link on professor Bazent and what he says but im sure its as laughable as your OTHER sources such as POPULAR MECHANICS"  So which is it?  Are these people afraid of losing their jobs or are they "laughable"?
By the way you never did say how Professor Bazent was laughable.  *Why don't you do that in your next post?*  I am still waiting for your response how Bazent, who is from the Czech Republic is not a credible expert.  As I have showed you in the past, he has won numerous engineering awards and is clearly one of the best engineers in the world.

It is interesting that *ALL* my professors according to you have govt jobs when *some of them are not even Americans!*  You criticize me for not reading your posts when it appears as if you don't read mine.  I have show a number of different professors from around the world that agree with the official stance of 9/11.  Here is another one:
Masayuki Nakao Engineering professor at the University of Tokyo. 
Here is his paper on why the WTC buildings collapsed:JST Failure Knowledge Database > Case Details > The World Trade Center Collapse
His are his credentials:  Masayuki Nakao

He is an engineering professor from one of the top engineering schools in the world and he also agrees with me.



9/11 inside job said:


> the fact you keep swallowing their lies that Griffith and others have disproved, just shows that you dont want to look at the other side of the coin.


As i have said time and time again, I have read your posts and other information containing your belief.  Just because you have not been convincing doesn't mean that I am ignoring you side.  I have made points and asked questions that have gone unresponded to.  For example, you made the claim that the past two president have collibrated on 9/11.  You also say that Barrack Obama knows that 9/11 is a hoax and he could have even had a hand it it.  I ask for proof and you show is a link for infowars.com.  Sorry, but I need more than that.



9/11 inside job said:


> Griffith has challenged the government to debate him in the open in public but they wont,they never get back to him cause they know they cant counter Griffith.



Because you say Griffith has disproved them doesn't make it true.  As I have shown, I have many different professors from psychics and engineering around the world who disagree with you. I will take their word over a former philosophy teacher (Griffith) any day of the week.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 23, 2008)

Big_D said:


> How do you know that they were not behind?  How do you know that the connection was to the video wasnt simply behind from what the newscasters are getting word?
> If you believe that the newscasters were aware of the attacks beforehand then why dont you just simply supply me information proving it.
> 
> There are also other reports that came out early.  This is not the first time in history this has happened.  For example, Dewey defeating Truman.  People have been report to be dead beforehand.  This would include Gerald Ford, Dick Cheney, Bill Henry (baseball player), Pope John Paul II, and MANY others.  I've made this point beforehand to no response.
> ...




want proof? how 'bout the fact that the first emergency phone call to NYPD emergency for the first 911 attack occurred 1 hr after the initial BBC broadcast - from no less a source than former NY Mayor Ralph giauliani who later questioned Britain's P.M. about the very brroadcast and was later debriefed by MI-6?  You can find the info. in the oct 4 edition of the London  Times!!!


----------



## Big_D (Dec 23, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> one other thing I want to say before christmas of something that you clearly dont understand Big D or DONT want to understand is that here is another example of how if you are a patriot like Judy wood or steven jones and speak out against the official version you WILL get fired like they did and many others have such as Kevin Ryan.aftter the movie JFK came out,I was outraged for YEARS over how the government and the school system had brainwashed me with their lies and propaganda that oswald killed kennedy when it was really the CIA.so years later I approached my american history teacher and said to him-Mr Evans why did you lie to me in american history class? you told me and everybody in my class that Lee Harvey Oswald killed kennedy and was the lone gunman.How come you lied to me back then when it was the CIA that killed him? He then said-Oh I never did believe that.and i said-what,that oswald did it or the CIA was behind it? and he said-That oswald did it and was the lone gunman,no I never did believe that.I always knew the CIA was behind it and Lyndon Johnson had a hand in it.I then said-well if THAT was the case,then how come you never told us that in history class? Guess what his response was? He replied and said-Just between you and me if I ever spoke out what I REALLY thought,I would have gotten fired by the school board and would not have my job that I have now.





9/11 inside job said:


> So do you see a pattern here BIG D? Do you REALLY believe that all these other college professors after seeing how people like jones and wood have been fired by the school boards for speaking out the truth,do you REALLY think THEY are actually going to speak out the truth that it was an inside job and risk their careers? No and i really cant blame them.Nor do I blame my history teacher or have any grudge towards him for not telling me and my classmates back then what he REALLY thought that the CIA killed kennedy.Its the same way today,if american history teachers at many schools say they think the CIA killed kennedy,they'll lose their jobs and if I were them,I would probably do the same thing.I mean were talking about them losing thier careers over something they have worked at for YEARS to attain and dreamed of doing since they were chidren.were not talking about just some rinky dink 7-11 job or working at mcdonalds where if your fired you can get another job immediately with no problem.a career job like THAT,their not going to be able to get another one so easily if they lose that job.is ANY of this registering with you?



So why would all these professors I have shown have written papers on their views on 9/11 when they know that it is a lie?  It is one thing to not speak up while it is another to state the opposite viewpoint.  

Didn't you say in the past that Senator Mark Dayton agreed with you, even though I proved you wrong?  It seems to me that he has a good job.

I have provided a link where Dr. Asif Usmani believed that the fall of the WTC buildings were done by terrorists and he is in fact from India.  According to this link only 2 out of five citizens of India believe 9/11 was done by Al Qaeda.  It would appear as if he could get away with saying that 9/11 was an inside job, but he believes it was done by terrorists.  http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/hot_links/386.php?nid=&id=&pnt=386

Also, there are a number of other people who believe in the conspiracy that still have a job.   Charlie Sheen is still on Two and a Half Men isnt he?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 23, 2008)

Big_D said:


> Stop using popular mechanics as a source?  Did you not read anything in that post you quoted from me?  As I have said a good number of times there are countless number of people that I have used to back up my opinion.
> 
> So what was it that was ridiculous from the collection on from the list I gave? Were the people with PHD's unqualified? How about the people with P.E., S.E., S.B., S.M., or the other degrees listed? How about a professors of engineering? Would those people know anything about a building collapse? Would you think that the director of aviation for the VF Corp would know anything about a plane crash?  Why don't you read Dr. Mlakars paper that I posted about the Pentagon?  Would you think that the the winner of the 2003 Forensic Engineer of the Year know anything about this?www.ascetcfe.org/files/pdf/PaulMlakar_bio.doc
> 
> Also, I have seen Griffins book before I even went on this website.  It is nothing special.  Some of his points can be easily disputed.  For example, he says that the steel on the wtc building couldn't have soften enough to collapse because the temp of the gasoline on a plane in flight will be just slightly lower than what is needed to do so.  He completely ignores the fact that the temp would OBVIOUSLY increase from the friction caused when the plane hit the tower.  Do you know that* Griffin was a professor in philosophy and theology!*  He does not have a P.h.D. in psychics and is not and expert on aviation, engineering, construction, and construction UNLIKE my sources I used.  I don't know why you would take his word, but not he individual who won the Forensic Engineer Award!  It is interesting that you state I do not read your post throughout when it seems conspicuous that your hardly reading any of mine!



No they are not unqualified but like i said, they know if they speak the truth they will lose their jobs as I have proved happens when they do that.


----------



## Big_D (Dec 23, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> want proof? how 'bout the fact that the first emergency phone call to NYPD emergency for the first 911 attack occurred 1 hr after the initial BBC broadcast - from no less a source than former NY Mayor Ralph giauliani who later questioned Britain's P.M. about the very brroadcast and was later debriefed by MI-6?  You can find the info. in the oct 4 edition of the London  Times!!!



Do you care you care to be more specific of what you are talking about and back up your statement?  I went to the london times website and searched for Mayor Rudy and there was no article from October 4th of any year.  What you are saying is not making sense.   "he first emergency phone call to NYPD emergency for the first 911 attack occurred 1 hr after the initial BBC broadcast"  so the first emergency phone call didnt happen till an _hour_ after the report?  I find that hard to believe.

Also, this thread started on how a couple news anchors stated that the WTC 7 building fell seconds before the video showed it collapse raises a red flag in your book.  I was watching my local news and they had a story where a number of zoo animals were given presents for Christmas.  The news anchor said that one lion even poked his head in the box to see what was inside.  The reason why I bring this up is the video showing the lion was shown after the anchor said this!  Does this mean that this is cause for a conspiracy as well?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 23, 2008)

Big_D said:


> First of all you seem to be changing your positions.  Initially, you say that my experts are laughable and now you are saying they are not speaking the truth b/c they will lose their jobs.  Here is your quote from post number 144 in this thread, "Oh by the way Bid D,dont worry I'll read your link on professor Bazent and what he says but im sure its as laughable as your OTHER sources such as POPULAR MECHANICS"  So which is it?  Are these people afraid of losing their jobs or are they "laughable"?
> By the way you never did say how Professor Bazent was laughable.  *Why don't you do that in your next post?*  I am still waiting for your response how Bazent, who is from the Czech Republic is not a credible expert.  As I have showed you in the past, he has won numerous engineering awards and is clearly one of the best engineers in the world.
> 
> It is interesting that *ALL* my professors according to you have govt jobs when *some of them are not even Americans!*  You criticize me for not reading your posts when it appears as if you don't read mine.  I have show a number of different professors from around the world that agree with the official stance of 9/11.  Here is another one:
> ...



thank you for the info. obviously it will take a great deal of time to thoroughly research all of these experts. however, since you previously did the research you know that every single one of the experts cited received literally thousands of dollars in government grant and research dollars thus making them somewhat sympathetic to the official government' position.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 23, 2008)

Big_D said:


> Do you care you care to be more specific of what you are talking about and back up your statement?  I went to the london times website and searched for Mayor Rudy and there was no article from October 4th of any year.  What you are saying is not making sense.   "he first emergency phone call to NYPD emergency for the first 911 attack occurred 1 hr after the initial BBC broadcast"  so the first emergency phone call didnt happen till an _hour_ after the report?  I find that hard to believe.



the website has since been edited but your library should have the hard copy of the article from the London Times.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 23, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> thank you for the info. obviously it will take a great deal of time to thoroughly research all of these experts. however, since you previously did the research you know that every single one of the experts cited received literally thousands of dollars in government grant and research dollars thus making them somewhat sympathetic to the official government' position.


so, all these people are in on it
i assmue you include those ar Purdue University as well
the media(all of them)
of course everyone in government, elected or not

the Government of the UK also

who else?


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 23, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> the website has since been edited but your library should have the hard copy of the article from the London Times.


then it should be in one of the many internet archives


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 23, 2008)

here, take your pick

internet archive - Google Search=


----------



## Big_D (Dec 23, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> No they are not unqualified but like i said, they know if they speak the truth they will lose their jobs as I have proved happens when they do that.



Are you saying that my experts are not unqualified?  I only ask because in post number 144 you said exactly that!  *NOBODY is forcing my experts to write papers on why the WTC buildings collapsed, but they did anyways.*  I am sure that your next step is to say that the govt is forcing them to write lies.  However this would not make sense as 
1) There has been no records of this.
2) They would not put their reputation on the line and take such pride in their work and wouldnt let this happen. 
3) A good number of my experts are not even Americans and therefore our govt cannot control what they say.
4) The experts I have shown could simply flee to another nation and speak the truth.
5) There are a number of people (such as Alex Jones) who says over and over that the govt is responsible and he has not been shot down by our govt.  Meanwhile, the US govt can easily kill him or threaten him to change his opinion when he first started speaking this on the airwaves.  


I also have a hard time believing that all these experts from the top engineering schools in the nation are being quiet b/c they are afraid of losing their jobs.  There is just too many of them that haven't spoken up when more would be willing to put their jobs on their line if this was the case.  If they were looking for money then they could write a book how it is impossible for the WTC buildings to fall w/o explosives such as Griffith and as a result would be set for life.

As I have said, my experts are from around the world.  Engineering professor Asif Usmani could probably get away with saying 9/11 was an inside job but per his paper, he does not believe this.

Also, Bin Laden has admitted to the attacks numerous times on different occasions.  
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Bin Laden video threatens America
Bin Laden says he ordered 9/11 attacks
The Guardian's Timeline of the tapes


----------



## Big_D (Dec 23, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> thank you for the info. obviously it will take a great deal of time to thoroughly research all of these experts. however, since you previously did the research you know that every single one of the experts cited received literally thousands of dollars in government grant and research dollars thus making them somewhat sympathetic to the official government' position.



As Divecon mentioned, how many people are then in on it?  As we know from the Manhattan Project, vice president Truman wasnt even in on it.  However, you and eots claim that MANY people from our govt and a number of others as well, the bbc, fox news, countless professors are in on it and yet I do not know of anyone who has come forth to say that the govt wanted them in on the 9/11 hoax.  Many by now would have done this.  



9/11 inside job said:


> however, since you previously did the research you know that every single one of the experts cited received literally thousands of dollars in government grant and research dollars thus making them somewhat sympathetic to the official government' position.


 
As I have been saying, there are a number of experts that are not Americans.  They will not get a grant from the US if they are not from a US university.


----------



## Big_D (Dec 23, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> the website has since been edited but your library should have the hard copy of the article from the London Times.



Wouldn't someone by now have scanned the article and posted it on the internet?  I also tried the searching for, "october 4th london times rudy" and again came short.  My question to you is how do you know this to be correct?  Do you get the London Times?  If so then please scan and post it so we can see what you are talking about.


----------



## eots (Dec 24, 2008)

it took years for the video of the  bbc reports of wtc 7 to surface...


----------



## eots (Dec 24, 2008)

Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret) &#8211; Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran (*two Silver Stars, a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart).  Appointed by President George H.W. Bush to serve on the American Battle Monuments Commission (1990 - 1994*), and on the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces.  Military Historian and Deputy Director of Field Operations for the U.S. Marine Corps Historical Center, Washington, D.C. 1990 - 1994. 

*Article 7/1/06: "The former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran* and Colonel has gone on the record to voice his doubts about the official story of 9/11 - calling it &#8216;the dog that doesn't hunt.&#8217;  &#8216;I'm astounded that the conspiracy theory advanced by the administration could in fact be true and the evidence does not seem to suggest that's accurate,&#8217; he said." Propaganda Matrix.com: Exposing the 4th Reich of the Elite and Government Sponsored Terrorism 

*ya but dive con says your a moron and it would take thousands of people and all media everywhere to keep it quiet.... so there*



*Capt. Gregory M. Zeigler, PhD, U.S. Army &#8211; Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer *

Statement to this website 9/19/06: "I knew from September 18, 2001, that the official story about 9/11 was false. ... [A]nomalies poured in rapidly: the hijackers' names appearing in none of the published flight passenger lists, BBC reports of stolen identities of the alleged hijackers or the alleged hijackers being found alive, the obvious demolitions of WTC 1 and 2 [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories], and WTC 7, the lack of identifiable Boeing 757 wreckage at the Pentagon ... Link to full statement     [Editor's note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories.  It would have been the tallest building in 33 states.  Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers.  However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks."  Watch the collapse video here.  And six years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.] 

*ya but div3excon says your a moron as well...so your debunked toofer*


*William Christison &#8211; Former National Intelligence Officer and Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis.  29-year CIA veteran.*

Endorsement of Debunking 9/11 Debunking 3/30/07:  "David Ray Griffin&#8217;s Debunking 9/11 Debunking is a superb compendium of the strong body of evidence showing the official U.S. Government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies.  Tragically, the entire course of U.S. foreign and domestic policies since that date has grown out of these almost certain falsehoods.  This single book could (and should) provide the basis for the United Nations&#8218; International Court of Justice, or some specially constituted global body (independent of the U.S.) to investigate with highest priority, and publicly report its findings about, the charge that unknown elements within the U.S. Government, and possibly some individuals elsewhere closely allied to the U.S., caused or contributed to causing the events of September 11 to happen." Amazon.com: Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & more 

*ya but divecon says he read in popular mechanics this was not possible...moron*

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


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 24, 2008)

eots is still a fucking moron because not one of those quotes actually says they agree with what he claims


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 24, 2008)

tell ya what, eots, get those 3 to join here and be open to questions


----------



## Big_D (Dec 24, 2008)

eots said:


> it took years for the video of the  bbc reports of wtc 7 to surface...



That doesnt mean that they were part of a conspiracy.  If you are trying to make the claim the bbc is in on the attacks then you have to provide evidence.  What it seems what you are saying is that since the bbc report the fall of WTC 7 before it happened therefore have to be part of a conspiracy.  It is as if for the equation of 2 +X + Y = 100, X has to be 50 and Y has to be 48.  When in reality many digits could be X and Y.  You have to show your work in how you got from the reporting the fall of a building prematurely to government conspiracy.  Many reasons could occur for why the building was reported as fallen prematurely.  There simply could have been confusion or someone could have misheard someone.  Show your work.


----------



## Big_D (Dec 24, 2008)

eots said:


> Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret)  Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran (*two Silver Stars, a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart).  Appointed by President George H.W. Bush to serve on the American Battle Monuments Commission (1990 - 1994*), and on the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces.  Military Historian and Deputy Director of Field Operations for the U.S. Marine Corps Historical Center, Washington, D.C. 1990 - 1994.
> 
> *Article 7/1/06: "The former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran* and Colonel has gone on the record to voice his doubts about the official story of 9/11 - calling it the dog that doesn't hunt.  I'm astounded that the conspiracy theory advanced by the administration could in fact be true and the evidence does not seem to suggest that's accurate, he said." Propaganda Matrix.com: Exposing the 4th Reich of the Elite and Government Sponsored Terrorism
> 
> ...



As I have shown there are countless engineering professors from the top engineering schools in the world that agree with me.  In order for you to make your point you have to discredit the professors I have used.  However, that is impossible because they are the top minds in this field.  Again, I have engineering professors from Purdue, MIT, Cal Tech, University of Tokyo, Edinburgh, University of Massachusetts, Berkley, and many others.  So please discredit my professors to make your point.


----------



## eots (Dec 24, 2008)

These Are Intel Men...RESPONSIBLE FOR BREIFING PRESIDENTS AND TACTICIAL DIRECTORS OF NORAD..who just happen to have phds


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 24, 2008)

eots said:


> These Are Intel Men...RESPONSIBLE FOR BREIFING PRESIDENTS AND TACTICIAL DIRECTORS OF NORAD..who just happen to have phds


so, get them to join here so we can ask them questions


----------



## eots (Dec 24, 2008)

better Idea..how about we support their petition for a peer reviewed study and investigation with subpoena powers and wittiness protection


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 24, 2008)

eots said:


> better Idea..how about we support their petition for a peer reviewed study and investigation with subpoena powers and wittiness protection


no, because i dont believe they actually said the bullshit you attribute to them


----------



## Big_D (Dec 24, 2008)

eots said:


> These Are Intel Men...RESPONSIBLE FOR BREIFING PRESIDENTS AND TACTICIAL DIRECTORS OF NORAD..who just happen to have phds



My professors from around the world obviously have P.h.D.s as well.  Again, to make the claim that 9/11 is an inside job, you have you have to discredit my professors.  But, as I said, that's impossible as the are the best this world has to offer.


----------



## eots (Dec 24, 2008)

Big_D said:


> My professors from around the world obviously have P.h.D.s as well.  Again, to make the claim that 9/11 is an inside job, you have you have to discredit my professors.  But, as I said, that's impossible as the are the best this world has to offer.



they are far from the best in the world ..and they do not include intel experts and top level aviators ..they are not decorated Americans and it is you that would have to discredit them for your conspiracy theory to have any credibility...and you post piles of bullshit links many that say nothing or rehash popular mechanics posing as something separate ..thinking that proves something ,,*give me your top ten and their statements and lets compare*


----------



## eots (Dec 24, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> no, because i dont believe they actually said the bullshit you attribute to them



but that is simply denial and a crazy conspiracy theory that you have not one shred of evidence to back....and makes you completely unworthy of this discussion


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 24, 2008)

eots said:


> but that is simply denial and a crazy conspiracy theory that you have not one shred of evidence to back....and makes you completely unworthy of this discussion



yep.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 24, 2008)

eots said:


> but that is simply denial and a crazy conspiracy theory that you have not one shred of evidence to back....and makes you completely unworthy of this discussion


to deny lunacy is acknowledging the TRUTH

you prove these guys actually said this bullshit


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 24, 2008)

okay I dont have much more time left in the day to stay on here for the day-only 30 minutes so I am going to post some stuff that I said I was going to and just because I dont get back to you doesnt mean I am avoiding you Big D, its just there is a lot of stuff I need to post that is going to take several posts and up till the new year.I WILL address all your points, its just I wont be able to till AFTER new years since till then, I got some stuff I want to post showing some books written by some very credible people proving there is a 9/11 coverup.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 24, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> to deny lunacy is acknowledging the TRUTH
> 
> you prove these guys actually said this bullshit



thats why me and eots know the truth because we deny your lunacy and bullshit you post.He has proved it,not his fault your afraid of the truth.


----------



## Big_D (Dec 24, 2008)

eots said:


> they are far from the best in the world ..and they do not include intel experts and top level aviators ..they are not decorated Americans and it is you that would have to discredit them for your conspiracy theory to have any credibility...



You are making the claim that 9/11 is an inside job. Therefore you should discredit the people that believe otherwise.  

So you don't think that my experts are the best in the world?  
If the engineering professors at the top engineering college in the world are the best we have to offer?

Don't you think that the 2003 forensic engineer of the year would be 
considered the best in his field?
3rd Forensic Congress
As I have shown in the past, this gentleman agrees with me.

Or how about Professor Bazant?  As I have shown this gentleman agrees with me and check out his credentials:
"Engineer Zden&#283;k P. Baant is best known as a *world leader in scaling research in solid mechanics* (16). His research focuses on the effect of structure size on structural strength as it relates to the failure behavior of the structure. He also has made outstanding advances in structural stability (7), fracture mechanics (8), the micromechanics of material damage (810), concrete creep (1113), and probabilistic mechanics (6, 8, 14). *He was elected to the National Academy of Engineering in 1996 and to the National Academy of Sciences in 2002, 1 of only 153 members with such a dual appointment.* In his Inaugural Article (1), published in this issue of PNAS, Baant presents a simple justification of the scaling laws for the fracture of quasibrittle materials such as concrete, rock, fiber composites, and sea ice."

Civil and Environmental Engineering - Faculty Profile - Zdenek Bazant

Looks like to me this gentleman would be considered the best in the world, wouldn't you?


eots said:


> *give me your top ten and their statements and lets compare*



Sure no problem.  Give me some time to get it together as I am busy at the moment.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 24, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> thats why me and eots know the truth because we deny your lunacy and bullshit you post.He has proved it,not his fault your afraid of the truth.


you gotta be fucking kidding me
you guys post nothing but conspiracy bullshit
not a fact in any of it
sheeesh


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 24, 2008)

Big_D said:


> You are making the claim that 9/11 is an inside job. Therefore you should discredit the people that believe otherwise.
> 
> So you don't think that my experts are the best in the world?
> If the engineering professors at the top engineering college in the world are the best we have to offer?
> ...


dont bother, they will never believe the truth
they are complete fucking morons


----------



## Toro (Dec 24, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> thats why me and eots know the truth because we deny your lunacy and bullshit you post.He has proved it,not his fault your afraid of the truth.



Nothing has been proven. It is all theory and conjecture.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 24, 2008)

Big_D said:


> Stating opinion is not fact.  You posted that according to Zogby, 40% of Americans believe that 9/11 was an inside job and your "proof" is your claim that you read it but never supplied a link.  Meanwhile, I have posted the REAL zogby poll and proved that it was only 4.7% of Americans.



Okay this lays to rest that its NOT an opinion that 40% of americans believe in a 9/11 coverup.that its FACT not opinion.do this,go to google and type this in on your google search.type in 9/11 zogby poll.done that? good.Now do you see that second link there that says The raw story? it says it all right there in black and white as you can see-By Now you hvae probably heard of the results out of the recent poll which claims that 42% of americans believe Bush either caused 9/11 or let it happen.dated tues sept 11th 2007 then the second link as you can see is titled-ALL ZOGBY POLL.42% in  zogby poll believe   US government and 9/11 commission are covering up 9/11. did you see that? those are unbiased facts taken from a aogby poll nationwide. btw,unlike you,I can admit it when I am wrong.the time article i read years ago I went to and looked at recently just said that 48% of new yorkers believe that there is a 9/11 coverup and orchestrated the attacks.thats all time magazine said but that zoby poll i just showed you proves its over 40% nationwide.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 24, 2008)

Big_D said:


> Because the magazine DIDNT say that.  At least not from what i could find.  I have supplied a poll of what I thought you were talking about and never got a response.  Here is the link again: 9/11&#8243; Zogby Poll Commissioned By Iran | Sweetness & Light
> If this is the one you are talking about then you are completely ignorant of the facts.
> FACT: this article is NOT asking if the people believe if they believe 9/11 was an inside job.  They are asking if the govt LET it happen.  Letting something happen isnt the same as making something happen.   A point I have PROVEN to you both COUNTLESS times.
> 
> ...



No YOUR completely ignorant of the facts.its making it crystal clear there they believe a coverup was done by the government.Only in your world do they believe that about bigfoot more so than 9/11.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 24, 2008)

Big_D said:


> You seem to be doing me a favor with that info.  If you are saying that the kennedy assassination is true and that is why 70 percent of the people then the 9/11 conspiracy must NOT be true as it has only 4 percent that agree with you.



okay I only got a couple minutes left before i will be able to have the chance to get on the computer again so since I just want to address the poll at the moment I want to talk about this.see this is what I am talking about.i never said that the kennedy assassination is true.I said that PBS-the corporate controlled media was propagating the lie that oswald was the lone assassian.It was one sided,they never even bothered to look at the other side,they then at the end said despite this-70% of americans believe there was a conspiracy to kill kennedy.that zogby poll I SHOWED clearly shows 42% of american believe in a coverup.thats all for now till friday


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 24, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> okay I only got a couple minutes left before i will be able to have the chance to get on the computer again so since I just want to address the poll at the moment I want to talk about this.see this is what I am talking about.i never said that the kennedy assassination is true.I said that PBS-the corporate controlled media was propagating the lie that oswald was the lone assassian.It was one sided,they never even bothered to look at the other side,they then at the end said despite this-70% of americans believe there was a conspiracy to kill kennedy.that zogby poll I SHOWED clearly shows 42% of american believe in a coverup.thats all for now till friday


do you understand that a "cover up" could also be to cover up for failures and not that they actually believe the government DID IT


----------



## Big_D (Dec 24, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> Okay this lays to rest that its NOT an opinion that 40% of americans believe in a 9/11 coverup.that its FACT not opinion.do this,go to google and type this in on your google search.type in 9/11 zogby poll.done that? good.Now do you see that second link there that says The raw story? it says it all right there in black and white as you can see-By Now you hvae probably heard of the results out of the recent poll which claims that 42% of americans believe Bush either caused 9/11 or let it happen.dated tues sept 11th 2007 then the second link as you can see is titled-ALL ZOGBY POLL.42% in  zogby poll believe   US government and 9/11 commission are covering up 9/11. did you see that? those are unbiased facts taken from a aogby poll nationwide.



What is wrong with you?  I have posted this poll (from a different website) adn asked you if this was the one you were referring to.  You of course gave me no response.  This poll is CLEARLY not saying that over 40% of the US population believe 9/11 was an inside job.  Your quote, "42% of americans believe Bush either caused 9/11 or let it happen."  Yes they believe that Bush either caused it *or let it happen.*  This is NOT saying that 42 percent believe bush caused it.  This is a combination of the people who believe that it was an inside job AND that bush LET it happen.   For the last time, below is the official Zogby poll that clearly states that ONLY 4.6/4.7 % of Americans believe it was an inside job.  I have shown this to you NUMEROUS time and you keep ignoring it.  Amazingly enough this poll was sponsored by the 9/11 truth movement who obviously questions the story of 9/11:

http://www.911truth.org/images/ZogbyPoll2007.pdf

This link is also provided here:
Zogby International
Just scroll down to the bottom of the page and it will be there.



9/11 inside job said:


> btw,unlike you,I can admit it when I am wrong.the time article i read years ago I went to and looked at recently just said that 48% of new yorkers believe that there is a 9/11 coverup and orchestrated the attacks.thats all time magazine said but that zoby poll i just showed you proves its over 40% nationwide.



You haven't admitted you were wrong over the number of times I have shown you this poll.  I can admit when I am wrong, but in this case you are clearly wrong.  Did you not read this poll that I have posted all these times?  You seem to be twisting around your zogby poll and the times poll.  Because 48 % of New Yorkers believe that there is a 9/11 cover up does NOT mean that they believe it was an inside job.  They could very well believe that the govt could be covering up their incompetence in LETTING the attacks happen.  This doesn't mean they believe that the govt MADE it happen.  There is a difference.


----------



## Big_D (Dec 24, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> No YOUR completely ignorant of the facts.its making it crystal clear there they believe a coverup was done by the government.Only in your world do they believe that about bigfoot more so than 9/11.





9/11 inside job said:


> okay I only got a couple minutes left before i will be able to have the chance to get on the computer again so since I just want to address the poll at the moment I want to talk about this.see this is what I am talking about.i never said that the kennedy assassination is true.I said that PBS-the corporate controlled media was propagating the lie that oswald was the lone assassian.It was one sided,they never even bothered to look at the other side,they then at the end said despite this-70% of americans believe there was a conspiracy to kill kennedy.that zogby poll I SHOWED clearly shows 42% of american believe in a coverup.thats all for now till friday


Did you not even read the link that you quoted me on?  As I said previously, it clearly shows that ONLY 4.6/4.7 believe it was an inside job.  Again, your post showed that 40+ percent is a combination of the people who believe that it was an inside job AND that bush LET it happen. Only my poll showed the amount of the population that believe the govt perpetrated the attacks and again it is less than 5%. You have criticized me in the past for not reading your entire posts, even though I do.  Meanwhile, it seems you don't read my posts thoroughly.  Why can't you see this?


----------



## Toro (Dec 24, 2008)

What do polls have to do with anything?  Simply because people believe something happened does not mean it did.


----------



## eots (Dec 24, 2008)

true..polls mean little and have no -place in the investigation of a crime..


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 24, 2008)

eots said:


> true..polls mean little and have no -place in the investigation of a crime..


true, polls are generally meaningless

but you also choose to ignore the facts


----------



## eots (Dec 24, 2008)

you mean facts like Mitchel and Deets ?..and the patriots site ?


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 24, 2008)

eots said:


> you mean facts like Mitchel and Deets ?..and the patriots site ?


they are NOT facts
they also ignore the facts
but i realize you will never admit the truth
you are so fully engaged in the stupidity of the troofers that you would never admit that it was exactly as it has been claimed, a terrorist attack


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 24, 2008)

hell, you cant even prove that Ed Mitchell ever said any of that crap attributed to him


----------



## eots (Dec 24, 2008)

*Capt. Edgar Mitchell, U.S. Navy (ret), BS Industrial Management, BS Aeronautical Engineering, Doctor of Science, Aeronautics and Astronautics from MIT &#8211; Pilot and Astronaut.  Sixth man to walk on the moon (Apollo 14 mission).*  Patrol bomber and attack plane pilot, U.S. Navy.  Test Pilot, Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 5 (VX-5).  Chief of Project Management Division, Navy Field Office for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory Project.  Graduated first in his class from the Aerospace Research Pilot School, and served as an instructor there.  Recipient of many awards and honors including the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the USN Distinguished Medal and three NASA Group Achievement Awards. Inducted to the Space Hall of Fame in 1979 and the Astronaut Hall of Fame in 1998.  Recipient of honorary doctorates in engineering from New Mexico State University, the University of Akron, Carnegie Mellon University, and a ScD from Embry-Riddle University.  Founder of the Institute of Noetic Sciences. 
Endorser of and proposed Commissioner of a New Investigation into 9/11 as described in the New York City Ballot Initiative 11/08: "Petition to Create a NYC Independent Commission with Subpoena Power to Conduct a Comprehensive and Fact-Driven Investigation of All Relevant Aspects of the Tragic Events of September 11, 2001 and Issue a Report. 

WHEREAS, many New York City voters believe that there remain many unanswered questions critical to establishing the truth about all relevant events leading up to, during and subsequent to the tragic attacks occurring on September 11, 2001 (&#8220;9/11&#8221, and 

WHEREAS, no prior investigation by any New York City agency or any other governmental entity has resulted in the citizens being provided with those critical answers or information necessary to establish the truth about those tragic events, ... 

An independent, temporary New York City commission (the &#8220;Commission&#8221 is hereby created to conduct a comprehensive, factdriven investigation into the events that took place on 9/11, as well as to thoroughly examine related events before and after the attacks, including any activities attempting to hide, cover up, impede or obstruct any investigation into these 9/11 events, following wherever the facts may lead. The Commission shall publish one or more reports of their findings." 


Website: http://www.edmitchellapollo14.



*Dwain Deets, MS Physics, MS Eng &#8211; Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center.  Before this appointment, he served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden.  Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988*).  Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics, a distinguished speaking engagement sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) (1986).  Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000.  Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers.  Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology.  37 year NASA career. 
Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:


*"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Center]."  AE911Truth *


Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11, signed by more than 500 Architects and Engineers: 

"On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates  hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7.  We believe that there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore that the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7." Sign the Petition 


Editor's note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories.  It would have been the tallest building in 33 states.  Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers.  However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks."  Watch the collapse video here.  And six years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse. 


Bio: http

*Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, MS Aeronautical Science, U.S. Air Force (ret) &#8211; Retired U.S. Air Force command fighter pilot.  Former instructor; U.S. Air Force Fighter Weapons School and NATO&#8217;s Tactical Leadership Program.  As an Air Force weapons effects expert was responsible for wartime tasking of most appropriate aircraft/munition for target *destruction to include steel and concrete superstructures.  Former aeronautical structures flight test engineer with McDonnell Douglas, working on advanced DC-9 autopilot systems and DC-10 flight envelope expansion stress and flutter analysis.  Tactical aircraft flown: General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark fighter/bomber, McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle, General Dynamics / Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon, McDonnell Douglas F-18 Hornet, Boeing B-1 Bomber, MiG-29 (Russian fighter), and Su-22 (Russian fighter/bomber).  3,000+ fighter hours.  Combat time over Iraq.  20-year Air Force career. 
Statement to this website 3/25/07: "After 4+ years of research since retirement in 2002, I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government.  It is now time to take our country back. 

The "collapse" of WTC Building 7 shows beyond any doubt that the demolitions were pre-planned.  There is simply no way to demolish a 47-story building (on fire) over a coffee break.  It is also impossible to report the building&#8217;s collapse before it happened, as BBC News did, unless it was pre-planned.  Further damning evidence is Larry Silverstein's video taped confession in which he states "they made that decision to pull [WTC 7] and we watched the building collapse." [Editor's note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories.  It would have been the tallest building in 33 states.  Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers.  However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks."  Watch the collapse video here.  And six years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.] 

*We cannot let the pursuit of justice fail.  Those of us in the military took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic".  Just because we have retired does not make that oath invalid, so it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, or how much we have to suffer to do it. *

We owe it to those who have gone before us who executed that same oath, and who are doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan right now.  Those of us who joined the military and faithfully executed orders that were given us had to trust our leaders.  The violation and abuse of that trust is not only heinous, but ultimately the most accurate definition of treason!" 


Member: Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice   Association Statement: "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is a non-partisan organization consisting of independent researchers and activists engaged in uncovering the true nature of the September 11, 2001 attacks." 


Member: Pilots for 9/11 Truth  Association Statement: "Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe that have gathered together for one purpose. We are committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001. Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots. We do not offer theory or point blame. However, we are focused on determining the truth of that fateful day since the United States Government doesn't seem to be very forthcoming with answers." 


Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11, signed by more than 500 Architects and Engineers: 

"On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates  hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7.  We believe that there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore that the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7." Sign the Petition 


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

*....MORON*


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 24, 2008)

you're the moron
that doesnt prove shit


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 24, 2008)

your link for ed mitchell doesnt have ANY of that


----------



## eots (Dec 24, 2008)

OF COURSE NOT BONE HEAD ITS HIS NASA SITE..it is there to confirm his bio..he made his statement and is the proposed head of an independent investigation as stated in the petition..end of story


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 24, 2008)

eots said:


> OF COURSE NOT BONE HEAD ITS HIS NASA SITE..it is there to confirm his bio..he made his statement and is the proposed head of an independent investigation as stated in the petition..end of story


yeah, i'm the bonehead
at least i'm not the one denying the truth


----------



## eots (Dec 24, 2008)

prove that popular mechanics experts say what they said....prove Obama is not a hologram...prove that any link the entire internet is real...prove you are not a ..butterfly.....
.....dreaming all of this...


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 24, 2008)

eots said:


> prove that popular mechanics experts say what they said....prove Obama is not a hologram...prove that any link the entire internet is real...prove you are not a ..butterfly.....
> .....dreaming all of this...


wow
you are really way out there
LOL


----------



## eots (Dec 24, 2008)

Support the new investigation | Justice for 9/11 Heroes and Victims
... thinking of "the victims of 9/11," too many of us focus ... Navy Captain Dr. Edgar Mitchell is a scientist, test pilot, astronaut

Support the new investigation | Justice for 9/11 Heroes and Victims



 Eye on the Future Radio : : Past Shows and Guests ( with host ...
Eye on the Future Radio, with Hehpsehboah is broadcast and webcast on the Eye on the Future Radio Network -, Be in ... 911 - What Really Happened? ... EDGAR MITCHELL. Thursday 5 August. 4 PM to 6 ...
www.eyeonthefutureradio.com/past_shows_2004.htm


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 24, 2008)

eots said:


> Support the new investigation | Justice for 9/11 Heroes and Victims
> ... thinking of "the victims of 9/11," too many of us focus ... Navy Captain Dr. Edgar Mitchell is a scientist, test pilot, astronaut
> 
> Support the new investigation | Justice for 9/11 Heroes and Victims
> ...


your first link is to yet another troofer moron site, so worthless
the second link is broken


----------



## eots (Dec 25, 2008)

your brain is broken and your opinion worthless...spelling and grammar...priceless  !!


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 25, 2008)

eots said:


> your brain is broken and your opinion worthless...spelling and grammar...priceless  !!


yeah, my gammar sucks
who gives a fuck?
but you are the moron that believes totally stupidity


----------



## eots (Dec 25, 2008)

funny you gave me 1 neg rep for this but I gained  2..from others in your fan club


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 25, 2008)

eots said:


> funny you gave me 1 neg rep for this but I gained  2..from others in your fan club


oh i dont doubt it, there are a lot of fucking morons on this forum


----------



## Charles_Main (Dec 25, 2008)

Paulitics said:


> The BBC also reported it pre-maturely.



They all knew it was going to come down Eventually. It was a known fact that all fire fighting efforts had been stopped and the Building was likely to collapse. In light of those facts, and the over all mood of that day. It is not a stretch to imagine that one or even a few News groups might have screwed up and prematurely reported it's collapse as most we monitoring it waiting for it to do so. 

I don't get you nuts. This is something, but when Dan Rather calls the race for Gore prematurely thats nothing


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 25, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> They all knew it was going to come down Eventually. It was a known fact that all fire fighting efforts had been stopped and the Building was likely to collapse. In light of those facts, and the over all mood of that day. It is not a stretch to imagine that one or even a few News groups might have screwed up and prematurely reported it's collapse as most we monitoring it waiting for it to do so.
> 
> I don't get you nuts. This is something, but when Dan Rather calls the race for Gore prematurely thats nothing


and what about the superdome being a killing field during katrina
the media screws things up more than they get right


----------



## sparky (Dec 25, 2008)

_so what?_

so what if Cheney was flying the pentagon flight remote control, or scuba diving those levee's pre-Katrina

so what if the pentagon thought up the gulf of token....

so what if the warren commision whitewashed the Kennedy assasination

so what if MK Ultra, Rex84, or any _'operation kill innocent Americans' _exists

wtf can _anyone_ do about it?

zip, zero, nada....


----------



## eots (Dec 25, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> and what about the superdome being a killing field during katrina
> the media screws things up more than they get right



unless of course if is popular mechanics...and it supports your conspiracy theory


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 25, 2008)

eots said:


> unless of course if is popular mechanics...and it supports your conspiracy theory


yeah, there is no difference between getting an early report wrong and a review of the facts months after


see, its this difference that makes you a fucking MORON


----------



## eots (Dec 25, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> They all knew it was going to come down Eventually. It was a known fact that all fire fighting efforts had been stopped and the Building was likely to collapse. In light of those facts, and the over all mood of that day. It is not a stretch to imagine that one or even a few News groups might have screwed up and prematurely reported it's collapse as most we monitoring it waiting for it to do so.
> 
> I don't get you nuts. This is something, but when Dan Rather calls the race for Gore prematurely thats nothing



why no building ever collapsed due to fire..and how could this possibly result in a free fall collapses into its own footprint in a controlled manner..ludicrous

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng]YouTube - WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)[/ame]


----------



## Big_D (Dec 26, 2008)

eots said:


> why no building ever collapsed due to fire..and how could this possibly result in a free fall collapses into its own footprint in a controlled manner..ludicrous
> 
> WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)
> 
> YouTube - WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)



As I have shown, all these physics experts and professors of engineering at the best engineering schools in the world disagree with you.  Don't you think you could be wrong about this?
&#8226;	Dr. Zden&#283;k P. Ba&#382;ant- Engineering Professor at Northwestern 
www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant.html
&#8226;	Dr. Asif Usmani: Professor of engineering at Edinburgh Fire Safety Engineering
Dr. Jose Torero: Professor of engineering at Edinburgh  Fire Safety Engineering
"This paper uses a finite element model to investigate the stability of the Twin-Towers of the World Trade Center, New York for a number of different fire scenarios."
http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/1216
&#8226;	Dr. Tim Wilkinson: Professor of engineering at The university of Sydney Tim Wilkinson - Civil Engineering - The University of Sydney
o	http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
&#8226;	Dr. Hassan Astaneh: Professor of engineering at Berkley 

&#8226;	 Dr. W. Gene Corley:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Gene_Corley 
&#8226;	Dr. Robert L. Parker: Physics professor at USC mahi.ucsd.edu/parker/
&#8226;	Dr. Mete Sozen: Engineering professor at Purdue https://engineering.purdue.edu/CE/Pe...source_id=2260
&#8226;	Dr. Fred Culick: Engineering professor at Cal tech.  http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/people/faculty/culick.html
&#8226;	Dr. Ching S. Chang: http://www.ecs.umass.edu/index.pl?id=3906
&#8226;	Dr. Ayhan Irfanoglu- Engineering professor at Purdue http://cobweb.ecn.purdue.edu/~ayhan/
&#8226;	Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer -Engineering Professor at the university of Maryland http://www.fpe.umd.edu/faculty-profiles/mowrer.html
&#8226;	Dr Keith Seffen Engineering Professor at Cambridge University http://www-civ.eng.cam.ac.uk/struct/kas/
&#8226;	Masayuki Nakao Engineering professor at the University of Tokyo. http://www.adm.u-tokyo.ac.jp/IRS/IntroPage_E/intro70145484_e.html


----------



## eots (Dec 26, 2008)

you did it again a bunch of links that have no statements or don't work or wikipedia
or the fema reports..post the person thier credentials and their statements in regards to wtc or give it up


----------



## Big_D (Dec 26, 2008)

eots said:


> you did it again a bunch of links that have no statements or don't work or wikipedia
> or the fema reports..post the person thier credentials and their statements in regards to wtc or give it up



Like I said, I have posted what thier views were on 9/11 in the past.  I also have *MANY *more but didnt feel like adding any more at the time I made the list.  
It seems awfully hypocritical of you to criticize my experts since a number of the people you have used we can't anywhere on the web or are not even against the official story of 9/11.  For example, you have used experts who say that they want a new 9/11 investigation. Meanwhile, they might not be saying they believe there is an inside, but you add them in anyhow.

Anyways, I attached my experts statements/papers to their names again:

&#8226;	Dr. Zden&#283;k P. Ba&#382;ant- Engineering Professor at Northwestern 
- His view on 9/11: http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf
- His credentials: Biography of ZdenÄ&#8250;k P. BaÅ¾ant â&#8364;&#8221; PNAS
Civil and Environmental Engineering - Faculty Profile - Zdenek Bazant
&#8226;	Dr. Paul F. Mlakar Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE
- His View on 9/11: http://mceer.buffalo.edu/meetings/AEI/presentations/06Mlakar-paper.pdf
- His credentials: http://mceer.buffalo.edu/meetings/AEI/Mlakar.pdf
&#8226;	Dr. Tim Wilkinson: Professor of engineering at The university of Sydney 
- His view on 9/11: World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects - Civil Engineering - The University of Sydney
- His credentials: Tim Wilkinson - Civil Engineering - The University of Sydney
&#8226;	Dr. Hassan Astaneh: Professor of engineering at Berkley 
- His view on 9/11: Jets hit towers in most vulnerable spots / Killers appear to have known where to strike 
- His Credentials: Engineering News, Date
(located under his photo)
&#8226;	Dr. W. Gene Corley:
- His view on 9/11: Gene Corley | World news | The Guardian
- His Credentials:  W. Gene Corley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
http://www.ctlgroup.com/files/dynamic_resumes/Corley NARRES 0131.pdf
&#8226;	Dr. Robert L. Parker: Physics professor at USC 
- His view on 9/11: Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics 
- His credentials: mahi.ucsd.edu/parker/
&#8226;	Dr. Mete Sozen: Engineering professor at Purdue 
- His View on 9/11: New simulation shows 9/11 plane crash with scientific detail
- His credentials :https://engineering.purdue.edu/CE/Pe...source_id=2260
&#8226;	Dr. Fred Culick: Engineering professor at Cal tech.  						His view on 9/11: Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics													His Credentials :GALCIT :: Fred Culick
&#8226;	Dr. Ching S. Chang: 
- His view on 9/11: Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - The Paper 
- His credentials: http://www.ecs.umass.edu/index.pl?id=3906
&#8226;	Dr. Ayhan Irfanoglu- Engineering professor at Purdue 
- His view on 9/11: https://www.washingtontimes.com/themes/people/ayhan-irfanoglu/
-His credentials: Ayhan Irfanoglu - Purdue University
&#8226;	Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer -Engineering Professor at the university of Maryland 
- His view on 9/11: Collapse of the World Trade Center -Debunk 9/11 Myths
- His Crednetials : Frederick W. Mowrer, Faculty, Department of Fire Protection Engineering, University of Maryland
&#8226;	Dr Keith Seffen Engineering Professor at Cambridge University 
- His view on 9/11: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 9/11 demolition theory challenged
- His Credentials: Keith Seffen
&#8226;	Dr. Asif Usmani: Professor of engineering at Edinburgh 
- His view on 9/11: http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/1216
- His Credentials: Fire Safety Engineering
&#8226;	Dr. Jose Torero: Professor of engineering at Edinburgh  
- His View on 9/11: http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/1216
- His credentials: Fire Safety Engineering 
&#8226;	Arvid Naess: Professor of engineering at Norwegian University of Science and Technology
- His View on 9/11: Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - The Paper
- His Credentials: http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
&#8226;	Masayuki Nakao Engineering professor at the University of Tokyo. 
- His view on 9/11: JST Failure Knowledge Database > Case Details > The World Trade Center Collapse
- His credentials: Masayuki Nakao


----------



## eots (Dec 26, 2008)

ikits a joke a load of broken links..rdf files..and the ones that work are so weak its a complete joke...

*one of your ...experts*

 section added 14 January 2006



> This website generates many queries from people in response to some of the other theories that are put forward relating to the collapse - namely that it was a controlled explosion.
> 
> The initial impact/further weakening by fire reasoning is based on uncontestable knowledge about the behaviour of structures in general, and the weakening of steel under fire conditions, plus video footage of the events and examination of the steel afterwards. The official* FEMA *report written by engineering experts came to this conclusion based on the evidence.
> 
> *However, should additional evidence come to light that supports a different theory, the author is willing to reassess his views.*





> The fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel
> There has never been a claim that the steel melted



*totally false statement*



> the fire before the buildings collapsed, however the fire would have been very hot. Even though the steel didnt melt, the type of temperatures in the fire would have roughly halved its strength.



*again underwriters test show this to be completely false*





> *There would have been variations in the distribution of the temperature both in place in time. There are photos that show people in the areas opened up by the impact, so it obviously wasnt too hot when those photos were taken, but this is not to say that other parts of the building, further inside were not hotter.*



*then how could they all fail at the same time as is required for the building to collapse into its own footprint as opposed to falling over*



> In addition, to make a reasonable conclusion from these photos, it would be important to know when they were taken. It might be possible that just after the impact the area wasnt very hot, but as the fire took hold the area got hotter


.

*is this supposed to be science its just conjecture and opinion backed... with no science or physics of any kind..*


----------



## Big_D (Dec 26, 2008)

eots said:


> ikits a joke a load of broken links..rdf files..and the ones that work are so weak its a complete joke...



Only two of the links didn't open.  One was the Washington times article (which I fixed) and the Edinburgh article (their server is down).  Go into more specifics of why these articles are a joke.  How many engineering professors do I have listed there?  None of these people know what they are talking about?  How about the one man who I have listed that is the 2002 Forensic engineer of the year winner or the person who is the winner of the same award but for the following year?  I can go on and on, but you all can look for yourselves.



eots said:


> *one of your ...experts*


Which one?  Care to be more specific?  



eots said:


> section added 14 January 2006
> *totally false statement*


Perhaps, but that had nothing to do with the fall of the towers.



eots said:


> *again underwriters test show this to be completely false*
> *then how could they all fail at the same time as is required for the building to collapse into its own footprint as opposed to falling over*
> *is this supposed to be science its just conjecture and opinion backed... with no science or physics of any kind..*



Do you care to tell me which article you are talking about and to back up your statement at all?  Even if you are true and this article is not credible then you still have numerous ones that you didn't even touch!  Why don't you inform me how *all* these articles are silly?  

Actually, why don't you only discredit the first one?  The one titled, "Why did the world trade center collapse?-Simple analysis."  *Please discredit this article and back up your statement that this is a joke.*  This time actually do it.  You haven't in the past so try to do it now.  Don't pick and choose which part of this post to refute.  Instead just do this part.  *Do you know that this article passed the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics in their engineering division.  That means 20+ engineering experts from around the globe read this and approved it.* *David Ray Griffin's book didn't do this.  None of the experts you have listed has had articles approved by this group.* *Only this one has passed.*  If you like you can also go on their website and email them stating that the article they approved is such a joke. So again please inform me how this paper is a joke?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 27, 2008)

eots said:


> why no building ever collapsed due to fire..and how could this possibly result in a free fall collapses into its own footprint in a controlled manner..ludicrous
> 
> WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)
> 
> YouTube - WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)



exactly.also many new yorkers were scratching their heads over its collapse cause there were other buildings there damaged far worse with much worse fires that did not collapse.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 27, 2008)

Big_D said:


> Only two of the links didn't open.  One was the Washington times article (which I fixed) and the Edinburgh article (their server is down).  Go into more specifics of why these articles are a joke.  How many engineering professors do I have listed there?  None of these people know what they are talking about?  How about the one man who I have listed that is the 2002 Forensic engineer of the year winner or the person who is the winner of the same award but for the following year?  I can go on and on, but you all can look for yourselves.
> 
> 
> Which one?  Care to be more specific?
> ...




coming from a guy who hasnt even bothered to read Griffiths book obviously.LOL you keep touting people like NIST, gene corley, thomas egar,and popular mechanics  as the ultimate gods on it when their work has been discredited and debunked by kevin ryan of underwriters labs.LOl.the guy who whose company supplied the steel for the trade towers and was fired after he gave critism of the towers collapse.LOL


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 27, 2008)

Big_D said:


> How do you know that they were not behind?  How do you know that the connection was to the video wasnt simply behind from what the newscasters are getting word?
> If you believe that the newscasters were aware of the attacks beforehand then why dont you just simply supply me information proving it.
> 
> There are also other reports that came out early.  This is not the first time in history this has happened.  For example, Dewey defeating Truman.  People have been report to be dead beforehand.  This would include Gerald Ford, Dick Cheney, Bill Henry (baseball player), Pope John Paul II, and MANY others.  I've made this point beforehand to no response.
> ...



the other comment I wanted to make about this post was thats stretching it comparing the BBC collapse to Dewey defeating Truman or people being reported dead beforehand like the people you mentioned.thats comparing apples to oranges,dewey was a prediction,those people being reported beforehand were going on bad information.also you mentioned they were behind in the tape,now where do you come up with THAT idea? if anything,the tape was AHEAD in the reporting of the collapse.maybe you asked it but you only asked it to Eots during your discussions,you never asked it to me.so since you are,here is your answer.the mainstream media is controlled by the government.They got CIA plants in all corners of the world.they got them everywhere in places.the got them in post offices,federal buildings,major news papers,the major tv news outlets,EVERYWHERE.the proof of that is that congress did an investigation into the activities of the CIA back in the 70's and they discovered through the freedom of information act documents of the CIA that they operate that way.so they only report what they want you to hear.that BBC lady was so stupid though in her reporting of what she was told to report that she and the others didnt realise it hadnt collapsed yet.again I say how the hell could they be behind when their reporting it BEFORE it collapsed? thats not being behind.I just proved that there are CIA plants in major media outlets so that proves it right there.its all on record about congress discovering that in the 70's,everybody knows about it.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 27, 2008)

Big_D said:


> First, YOU have made the claim that 9/11 is done by the CFR through the govt and NEVER backed anything up with that.  Never proved that clinton nor bush was responsible NOTHING. I am not making those accusations and therefore do not have to back anything up.  However, I have anyways showed that bin laden admitted to the attacks and had NUMEROUS experts prove they have the same opinion I do.
> 
> 
> Do you really think that?  Go over this thread and see all the questions I asked about this silly theory and never got a response from him or you.
> ...



okay I am going to get to this post now in my next several posts now.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 27, 2008)

First off Clinton was involved in it but not to the extremes that Bush and cheney and his dad were.Clinton was working alongside Bush Sr in the Mena arkansas scandal during the 80's when he was governor of arkansas and Bush was vice president under Regan.Bush and clinton were involved in smuggling drugs into the arkansas airbase strips from nicuragua into arkansas in exchange for weapons to be flown out of arkansas to nicuragua in an illegal contra war in support of the nicuaguas.This has all been documented.clinton and  bush have been long time buddies since the 80's so clinton had to have at least known about it.Terry Reed proved that in his video he has out called The Mena connection and his book called CLINTON,BUSH AND THE CIA,how the presidency was so opted by the CIA.as far as we know,clinton did not profit from the attacks like bush and cheney did-that has been documented that they profited so he wasnt involved near as much as they were,he just knew in advance about the plans.Three different countries offered Bin laden on a platter to clinton while he was president,and clinton refused to go after him.It was all over the news back in the 90's that a high ranking General came on the broadcast and said they had pinpointed Bin ladens whereabouts but Clinton told them to lay off him.Its been talked about in books as well.Clinton didnt go after him cause they needed him as their scapegoat obviously.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 27, 2008)

hmmm, let me guess, you also believe the Clinton Death List is legit, right?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 27, 2008)

Also the evidence is overwhelming that Bush and Cheney orchestrated the attacks and profited from them.Like I said,thats been documented how they profited from the attacks.theres MANY books out there that document it all that I could list for you if you wanted.Also David Schippers a new york lawyer who ironically was the president who tried to impeach clinton in the lewisnsky scandal-that was set to be a failure from the start cause presidents can get away with anything.Schippers found out that the republicans in congress were sellouts as well.He wrote a book about it and matter of fact the book ironically is called SELLOUT.the inside story of president clintons impeachment,cheif counsel investigater for the clinton impeachment.Here is his credintials.


----------



## Big_D (Dec 27, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> coming from a guy who hasnt even bothered to read Griffiths book obviously.LOL you keep touting people like NIST, gene corley, thomas egar,and popular mecahnics  as the ultimate gods on it when their work has been discredited and debunked by kevin ryan of underwriters labs.LOl.the guy who whose company supplied the steel for the trade towers and was fired after he gave critism of the towers collapse.LOL



Corley, Edgar, and the other are just a handful of the people I have used.  As I have shown in post number 260, there are MANY engineering professors from the best engineering schools in the world that agree with me.  There are also countless others that I did not even add!  Do you _really_ believe that none of these people know what they are talking about?  Also, those individuals were not "debunked" by Kevin Ryan and David Ray Griffin.  Those two just have a different opinion of what happened than my experts.  In fact, my experts disagree with one another on how the WTC buildings fell, but they all agree it was done by terrorists.  
Why don't you try to debunk that article I asked Eots to do?   This is the first article listed on that page.  T*his piece was passed by the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics in their engineering division. As I said before, this means that 20+ engineering experts from around the globe read this and approved it. **David Ray Griffin's book didn't do this.*  So which one do you think is more credible?  The one written by a philosophy professor or the article I posted that passed from he Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics?

Also, in post number 144 of this thread (that was over 2 weeks ago) you said that you were going to read this article.  Your exact quote:


9/11 inside job said:


> Oh by the way Bid D,dont worry I'll read your link on professor Bazent and what he says but im sure its as laughable as your OTHER sources ...



So please do inform me how this paper is laughable?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 27, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> hmmm, let me guess, you also believe the Clinton Death List is legit, right?



only an idiot wouldnt.A bunch of arkansas state troopers put their careers on the line and sometimes their lives trying to expose him for it.Many of them were flown into washington and were waiting to give testimony before congress that they had information of all these deaths they knew he was behind-not behind as in comitting them but as in ordering them,but congress never called them in to even testify.thats the ONLY reason Terry Reed who wrote that book is still alive because he went public with it.He tried to bring the lawsuit before the courts but the judge would not allow him to talk about the CIA'S activities or call witneeses he had or anything.Chuck Harders for the people radio show in the days and months leading up to the trial was the ONLY media attention he got out of it.Not surprising,you'll never hear the corporate controlled media report REAL news.the news they consider real is OJ simpson-so much that they put it on the front covers of the newspapers for years,yet terry reeds lawsuit of clinton NEVER makes the news.the media is a joke.also L.D Brown who was clintons closet friend of all the arkansas state troopers,wrote a book called CROSSFIRE.His book is overwhelming proof that Bush sr and bush jr are long time buddies.on the front cover of the book it shows a picture with him next to clinton while clinton is serving as governor in the governors mansion.He also was a CIA asset for them back then like terry reed and can back up terry reeds story.Brown when he found out that he was smuggling drugs for the CIA and clinton lied to him about that,he approached clinton yelling at him about it and clinton said back to him-My buddy Bush knows all about it.L.D Brown testified to clinton and bushs involvement to a judge in arkansas.read the book,he proves it all in the book.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 27, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> only an idiot wouldnt.A bunch of arkansas state troopers put their careers on the line and sometimes their lives trying to expose him for it.Many of them were flown into washington and were waiting to give testimony before congress that they had information of all these deaths they knew he was behind-not behind as in comitting them but as in ordering them,but congress never called them in to even testify.thats the ONLY reason Terry Reed who wrote that book is still alive because he went public with it.He tried to bring the lawsuit before the courts but the judge would not allow him to talk about the CIA'S activities or call witneeses he had or anything.Chuck Harders for the people radio show in the days and months leading up to the trial was the ONLY media attention he got out of it.Not surprising,you'll never hear the corporate controlled media report REAL news.the news they consider real is OJ simpson-so much that they put it on the front covers of the newspapers for years,yet terry reeds lawsuit of clinton NEVER makes the news.the media is a joke.


wow, just WOW


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 27, 2008)

As I was saying before,Clinton has been long time buddies with the Bushs.While governor or arakansas he was working together in the Mena arkansas scandal with Bush Sr in letting the CIA smuggle drugs out of nicuaragua into arkansas.Matter of fact while clinton was president 3 different countries offered Bin Laden up to Clinton on a platter and he had no interest in going after him.It was all over the newscasts back then in the 90's that a high ranking general in the army said on the news that they had information on Bin Ladens whereabouts but Clinton told them to lay off.It was never broadcast again after that though.There have been books written about it documenting that as well.He had no interest in Bin Laden cause they needed him as a patsy obviously.it was long planned.Also its been documented that Bush and cheney made HUGE immense profits from the attacks.thats all been documented in books as well.if you like,I can refer you to some.the evidence is overwhelming on that.


----------



## Big_D (Dec 27, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> the other comment I wanted to make about this post was thats stretching it comparing the BBC collapse to Dewey defeating Truman or people being reported dead beforehand like the people you mentioned.thats comparing apples to oranges,dewey was a prediction,those people being reported beforehand were going on bad information.



Then how do you explain the list of people that were reported dead prematurely?  This included: Gerald Ford, Dick Cheney, Bill Henry (baseball player), Pope John Paul II.  This isn't a prediction.  There are many others, such as:
Will Ferrell 
Bob Hope (a couple of times)
James Earl Jones
Artie Lange
Sharon Osbourne and many more.

You make it seem that when the local newscasters out of Washington DC and the BBC reporting something happened before it did was the first time it has happened in news history.



9/11 inside job said:


> also you mentioned they were behind in the tape,now where do you come up with THAT idea? if anything,the tape was AHEAD in the reporting of the collapse.maybe you asked it but you only asked it to Eots during your discussions,you never asked it to me.so since you are,here is your answer.the mainstream media is controlled by the government.



I do not know that they were behind in the tape, but it seems like a more logical idea than what you are implying.  Have you seen a local news broadcast?  This happens _all _the time.  The reports could have said that the building fell after it did and _then_ the video could have simply been shown.  All what I am saying is that the video could have been delayed than from whom the newscasters were getting their information from.  Or someone could have misheard another along the message line.  Perhaps, the newscasters thought that the word they were getting was that the building had fallen instead of that it was going to fall  Seriously, do you not think these two could at least be a possibility.



9/11 inside job said:


> They got CIA plants in all corners of the world.they got them everywhere in places.the got them in post offices,federal buildings,major news papers,the major tv news outlets,EVERYWHERE.the proof of that is that congress did an investigation into the activities of the CIA back in the 70's and they discovered through the freedom of information act documents of the CIA they they operate that way.so they only report what they want you to hear.that BBC lady was so stupid though in her reporting of what she was told to report that she and the others didnt realise it hadnt collapsed yet.again I say how the hell could they be behind when their reporting it BEFORE it collapsed? thats not being behind.I just proved that there are CIA plants in major media outlets so that proves it right there.its all on record about congress discovering that in the 70's,everybody knows about it.



My point is that it could have been a mistake.  Someone could have misheard another of what happened on what was obviously the most hectic news day in the past 1/2 century.  As said from Bern80:


> Because of your bias you always jump from A to Z without ever looking into the other 24 or so steps you need to go through to plausibly prove Z.


*Since, you seem pretty sure that this wasnt a mistake then please inform me who informed these reports that we were going to be attacked beforehand.  Also, please back up your statement.  *

*So in your opinion it makes more sense for our govt to inform the local newscast and the BBC that they are going to attack us as oppose to someone misheard another or playing a piece of video late?  *I asked this question twice beforehand with no response, but I will do it again:  Why would our govt inform the media that they are going to attack us before it is done?  I have never heard a time in the history of the world that one nation is going to inform the enemy that they are going to attack them beforehand!


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 27, 2008)

Matter of fact you want proof that Bush knew the attacks were going to happen on the towers? Here it is for you.David Schippers a new york lawyer was the cheif invesitgater council for the Clinton lewinsky scandal,was banging on the doors of attorney general john ashcroft demanding him to listen to these FBI agents who had information that there were going to be terrorist attacks against the towers.He called him and wrote and emailed him several times begging him to listen to these agesnt who had the dates,locations and times when the attacks were going to be carried out and he never returned their calls.He was representing them cause when they approached their FBI superiours,their superiours told them to ignore it and these same FBI agents also told schippers who they went to george bush about it telling them they had information and he threatened them with arrest if they tried to stop it.if you would have bothered to llok at those videos I posted on the canadawants the truth llink I gave you would know that.


----------



## Big_D (Dec 27, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> First off Clinton was involved in it but not to the extremes that Bush and cheney and his dad were.Clinton was working alongside Bush Sr in the Mena arkansas scandal during the 80's when he was governor of arkansas and Bush was vice president under Regan.Bush and clinton were involved in smuggling drugs into the arkansas airbase strips from nicuragua into arkansas in exchange for weapons to be flown out of arkansas to nicuragua in an illegal contra war in support of the nicuaguas.This has all been documented.clinton and  bush have been long time buddies since the 80's so clinton had to have at least known about it.Terry Reed proved that in his video he has out called The Mena connection and his book called CLINTON,BUSH AND THE CIA,how the presidency was so opted by the CIA.as far as we know,clinton did not profit from the attacks like bush and cheney did-that has been documented that they profited so he wasnt involved near as much as they were,he just knew in advance about the plans.Three different countries offered Bin laden on a platter to clinton while he was president,and clinton refused to go after him.It was all over the news back in the 90's that a high ranking General came on the broadcast and said they had pinpointed Bin ladens whereabouts but Clinton told them to lay off him.Its been talked about in books as well.Clinton didnt go after him cause they needed him as their scapegoat obviously.





9/11 inside job said:


> Also the evidence is overwhelming that Bush and Cheney orchestrated the attacks and profited from them.Like I said,thats been documented how they profited from the attacks.theres MANY books out there that document it all that I could list for you if you wanted.Also David Schippers a new york lawyer who ironically was the president who tried to impeach clinton in the lewisnsky scandal-that was set to be a failure from the start cause presidents can get away with anything.Schippers found out that the republicans in congress were sellouts as well.He wrote a book about it and matter of fact the book ironically is called SELLOUT.the inside story of president clintons impeachment,cheif counsel investigater for the clinton impeachment.Here is his credintials.





9/11 inside job said:


> As I was saying before,Clinton has been long time buddies with the Bushs.While governor or arakansas he was working together in the Mena arkansas scandal with Bush Sr in letting the CIA smuggle drugs out of nicuaragua into arkansas.Matter of fact while clinton was president 3 different countries offered Bin Laden up to Clinton on a platter and he had no interest in going after him.It was all over the newscasts back then in the 90's that a high ranking general in the army said on the news that they had information on Bin Ladens whereabouts but Clinton told them to lay off.It was never broadcast again after that though.There have been books written about it documenting that as well.He had no interest in Bin Laden cause they needed him as a patsy obviously.it was long planned.Also its been documented that Bush and cheney made HUGE immense profits from the attacks.thats all been documented in books as well.if you like,I can refer you to some.the evidence is overwhelming on that.



Your last point first, you said that this info is documented in a book.  I assume of course that the book is published, right?  Why would the highest officials in our govt let a book be published and sold all over the world if it is exposing as the culprits of the biggest crime in history?  Can you back up anything you are saying, besides reading it in some book?  That is what I asked you to do in the post you quoted from me.  I also asked how those professor in engineering you quoted as laughable were not credible and still have not got an answer.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 27, 2008)

continued-who is david schippers? Ironically like i said,he is a new york lawyer who tried to impeach clinton in the lewinsky scandal.He has a book called SELLOUTsellout.Its a perfect example of how there is one different law for presidents and one different one for us and how they get away with crimes all the time.again its ironically called SELLOUT,the inside story of president clintons impeachment.chief council for the clinton impeachment is what it says on the front cover.the back cover says this.If you ever plan to vote again,you might not want to know what went on behind the scenes on capitol hill leading up to and during the impeachment proceedings against president william jefferson clinton.What I saw,as a chief investigative counsel for the house judiciary committee and therefore the man in charge of compiling the case against the president,was not a pretty sight.Lies,cowardice,hypocricy,cynicism,butt covering,amorality-these all combined to make a mockery of the impeachment process...
when the time came to name this book,one word came immediately to mind SEllOUT.


----------



## Big_D (Dec 27, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> Matter of fact you want proof that Bush knew the attacks were going to happen on the towers? Here it is for you.David Schippers a new york lawyer was the cheif invesitgater council for the Clinton lewinsky scandal,was banging on the doors of attorney general john ashcroft demanding him to listen to these FBI agents who had information that there were going to be terrorist attacks against the towers.He called him and wrote and emailed him several times begging him to listen to these agesnt who had the dates,locations and times when the attacks were going to be carried out and he never returned their calls.He was representing them cause when they approached their FBI superiours,their superiours told them to ignore it and these same FBI agents also told schippers who they went to george bush about it telling them they had information and he threatened them with arrest if they tried to stop it.if you would have bothered to llok at those videos I posted on the canadawants the truth llink I gave you would know that.



You are now making the claim here that Bush knew of the attack beforehand, instead of carrying out the attacks.  Which is it. If what you are saying in this post is true(which I am not saying it is), then this only proves that Bush LET the attacks happen.  He didn't MAKE it happen.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 27, 2008)

the republican leadership in the senate and house sold out the house managers and our investigation.Democrats in both houses sold out basic principles of law and decency for the sake of protecting one of their own.But most distressingly,the president of the united states of america and his white house water boys sold out the american people-not just in a one time spasm of political expedience,but in a deliberate snarl of sophistry and cynical manipulation of public opinion,the singular aim of which was political self-preservation.in the process,he soiled not just himself,but the constitution,the public trust,and the presidency itself.thats what it says there on the back cover about schippers book SEELOUT.


----------



## Toro (Dec 27, 2008)

Big_D said:


> Your last point first, you said that this info is documented in a book.  I assume of course that the book is published, right?  Why would the highest officials in our govt let a book be published and sold all over the world if it is exposing as the culprits of the biggest crime in history?  Can you back up anything you are saying, besides reading it in some book?  That is what I asked you to do in the post you quoted from me.  I also asked how those professor in engineering you quoted as laughable were not credible and still have not got an answer.



Or at least provide a link to the book on Amazon or somewhere.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 27, 2008)

here is what it says on the inside cover of the book.Backward deals,behind the scenes.As a former chicago prosecutor,David Schippers thought he had seen everything -treachery,double crosses,sellouts.But what he saw behind the scenes at the clinton impeachment shocked him to his core.This is his story-the story  from a man who knows more than anyone else about what enet on behind closed doors leading up to the impeachment of president clinton.David Schippers,the former chief investigative counsel of the house judiciary committe and a loyal democrat,went against his party,the press,and public opinion to build a powerful case against the most corrupt president in american history and bring him to justice.Till Bush jr came alone,clinton WAS the most corrupt president in history.But in this starting book,schippers shows how the entire impeachment process was what chicago politicians call a "FIRST WARD election"-a rigged ball game,a sellout.and he tells you who tooks the dives.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 27, 2008)

Toro said:


> Or at least provide a link to the book on Amazon or somewhere.


likely this one

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Sellout-Inside-President-Clintons-Impeachment/dp/0895262436]Amazon.com: Sellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton's Impeachment: David P. Schippers: Books[/ame]


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 27, 2008)

In SELLOUT YOU'LL LEARN- which GOP senator told schippers and the thirteen house impeachment managers -your not going to dump this garbage on us.
which democrats never bothered to examine the evidence-because they simply didnt want to know.
which GOP senator shouted-I dont care if you prove that clinton raped a woman and then stood up and shot her dead-you are not going to get sixty seven votes.
why Democrats and Republicans conspired to conceal the most damning evidence of impeachable,even criminal offences.
How a note handwritten by the president himself offers evidence of perjury.
How clinton tried to keep his women quiet.
how schippers unraveled a criminals for clinton conspiracy involving immigrants hurriedly
naturalized for Democratic votes-a program run from the office of Al Gore.
how republicans cooperated with janet reno's justice department to keep secret the Labella report on possibly impeachable clinton gore fund raising offences.
SELLOUT is a stunning indictment of president clintons corruption-and of the congressional leaders who let him get away.

that right there is an example of how corrupt CLINTON is and I brought that up cause Schippers is an honest man who fights for truth and justice.Despite being a loyal democrat,he tried to get clinton impeached and got constant fire for it.Now he is seeking justice in the 9/11 case.a true patriot.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 27, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> likely this one
> 
> Amazon.com: Sellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton's Impeachment: David P. Schippers: Books




yeah thats the one.


----------



## Big_D (Dec 27, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> here is what it says on the inside cover of the book.Backward deals,behind the scenes.As a former chicago prosecutor,David Schippers thought he had seen everything -treachery,double crosses,sellouts.But what he saw behind the scenes at the clinton impeachment shocked him to his core.This is his story-the story  from a man who knows more than anyone else about what enet on behind closed doors leading up to the impeachment of president clinton.David Schippers,the former chief investigative counsel of the house judiciary committe and a loyal democrat,went against his party,the press,and public opinion to build a powerful case against the most corrupt president in american history and bring him to justice.Till Bush jr came alone,clinton WAS the most corrupt president in history.But in this starting book,schippers shows how the entire impeachment process was what chicago politicians call a "FIRST WARD election"-a rigged ball game,a sellout.and he tells you who tooks the dives.
> 
> In SELLOUT YOU'LL LEARN- which GOP senator told schippers and the thirteen house impeachment managers -your not going to dump this garbage on us.
> which democrats never bothered to examine the evidence-because they simply didnt want to know.
> ...



What does this have to do with 9/11


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 27, 2008)

Big_D said:


> What does this have to do with 9/11


nothing, but it DOES expose the general mindset of the 9/11 troofers


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 27, 2008)

getting back to your post on page 10 the 13th post.Am I saying the government is making them say this? remember what I posted on how I approached my american history teacher a few  years later over my anger how I had been lied to in american history that oswald killed kennedy how I realised that after I saw the movie JFK?a movie you havent seen obviously cause if you had,you woundn't  be asking all these questions.
remember what I posted how he told me if he had REALLY said what he believed about the kennedy assassination,that he would get fired from the school board for that? you got to ask yourself the question why do others who speak out the truth such as kevin ryan,judy wood and steven jones get fired IMMEDIATELY at universities when they speak out the truth? connect the dots.well I left your thread at that point when you asked if its true why they dont kill alex jones because i figured my response that he has too many people behind him and that would just reinforce everything he has been saying about them to be true sufficient enough.NOW your asking whey they dont threaten his famliy to shut him up or kill them off? same thing,that will just reinforce everything he has been saying about them and that will REALLY wake people up if his family dies mysteriously or they threaten his family.matter of fact the guy HAS had death threats against him but their not going to carry them out cause he has gone public.alex jones hasnt made the same mistake that that one trooper in arkansas did which was trusting his superiours to take action against Clinton.If he had gone public like Terry Reed and L.D Brown did,he wouldnt have been arkansawed by clintons goonsquad.my answer spoke for itself.lie and defend the official version and keep your job,or be a patriot and lose  your job and speak out like kevin ryan, judy wood and steven jones have for example.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 27, 2008)

See you make the mistake of relying on authority and blindly accepting what they say.If pete rose-probably the best hitter in the history of baseball goes and tells you the best way to hit a baseball is to swing at it like your chopping wood are you going to automatically rely on his word that he is telling the truth when the evidence is overwhelming that thats not the way you do it,that you swing at a level way? I posted that canadawantsthe truth link that has over 47 videos that prove it,why do you ignore it and dont watch those videos,why do you not bother to read the evidence at 911truth? why do you ignore what the designers who built the buildings say that griffith quotes in his book? sorry but I will listen to what the people who actually BUILT THE TOWERS had to say before the towers went uo than the experts you like to think are god.LOL and THEY said as i said earlierm,that the towers were designed to take MULTIPLE hits form airliners,that if it DID take a hit,there would be a great loss of human lives and but the structures themselves would remain standing.its all there in Griffiths book.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 27, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> See you make the mistake of relying on authority and blindly accepting what they say.If pete rose-probably the best hitter in the history of baseball goes and tells you the best way to hit a baseball is to swing at it like your chopping wood are you going to automatically rely on his word that he is telling the truth when the evidence is overwhelming that thats not the way you do it,that you swing at a level way? I posted that canadawantsthe truth link that has over 47 videos that prove it,why do you ignore it and dont watch those videos,why do you not bother to read the evidence at 911truth? why do you ignore what the designers who built the buildings say that griffith quotes in his book? sorry but I will listen to what the people who actually BUILT THE TOWERS had to say before the towers went uo than the experts you like to think are god.LOL and THEY said as i said earlierm,that the towers were designed to take MULTIPLE hits form airliners,that if it DID take a hit,there would be a great loss of human lives and but the structures themselves would remain standing.its all there in Griffiths book.


no, they didnt
they were not designed to take "multiple hits"
and they were only designed to take a hit from a 707, and not fully fueled

this is the type of lies that are widespread in the troofer nonsense


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 27, 2008)

I mean come on George Bush and bill clinton are authority figures,but do you believe and trust in everything they say? LOL.btw,I looked at that on what you supplied and those are just internet links.that proves nothing,they can type in anything at those propagation sites.they can type in anything they want on the net at wikepedia or those other sites you listed.those links prove nothing.Well of course you dont believe it because you are clueless about how the CFR group works or operates.Bush Sr used to be the former director of the CIA,the last person you should believe in is someone who served in the CIA.LOL.Boy you are really ignorant if you actually believe this that nobody can tell the president what to do and that they are not puppets.Your hilarious.if you try to run the country by yourself like kennedy did then well you end up being offed by the CIA.kennedy made the mistake of believeing that the president runs the country.thats the way it SHOULD be and thats how it was drawn up,but thats not the way it is anymore.I already addressed that to you before why those experts from popular mechanics of professors here in the states and around the world cant be trusted.I have said this before like 3 times and I'll say it again,READ griffiths book,dont just look at a page in the middle of it and be done with it.He explains in there why you cant believe those experts in popular mechanics.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 27, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> I mean come on George Bush and bill clinton are authority figures,but do you believe and trust in everything they say? LOL.btw,I looked at that on what you supplied and those are just internet links.that proves nothing,they can type in anything at those propagation sites.they can type in anything they want on the net at wikepedia or those other sites you listed.those links prove nothing.Well of course you dont believe it because you are clueless about how the CFR group works or operates.Bush Sr used to be the former director of the CIA,the last person you should believe in is someone who served in the CIA.LOL.Boy you are really ignorant if you actually believe this that nobody can tell the president what to do and that they are not puppets.Your hilarious.if you try to run the country by yourself like kennedy did then well you end up being offed by the CIA.kennedy made the mistake of believeing that the president runs the country.thats the way it SHOULD be and thats how it was drawn up,but thats not the way it is anymore.I already addressed that to you before why those experts from popular mechanics of professors here in the states and around the wold can be trusted.I have said this before like 3 times and I'll say it again,READ griffiths book,dont just look at a page in the middle of it and be done with it.he explains in there why you cant believe those experts in popular mechanics.


just as the moronic sites you guys post can say ANYTHING they want, even if its totally lies


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 27, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> no, they didnt
> they were not designed to take "multiple hits"
> and they were only designed to take a hit from a 707, and not fully fueled
> 
> this is the type of lies that are widespread in the troofer nonsense



there is a video that is out there called MODERN MARVELS made about 11 months before the trade towers destruction,where one of the designers says it could take hits from MULTIPLE airliners,im sure you'll find it if you go to you tube.I've seen it,he says that.Griffith also points out and proves in his book that a 707 would cause more damage to the towers than the 757 would.as I have said to BIG D multiple times,READ THE BOOK,not just one page in the middle or something like that.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 27, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> just as the moronic sites you guys post can say ANYTHING they want, even if its totally lies



911truth.org is devoted to the truth and is backed up with facts,ones like wikipedia and those other laughable links are devoted to propaganda.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 27, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> 911truth.org is devoted to the truth and is backed up with facts,ones like wikipedia and those other laughable links are devoted to propaganda.


LOL if you call "dedicated to truth" the same as propagating the lies of troofers


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 27, 2008)

NOW to address your last post on page 10.Do I take the opinion of a former philosophy professor over physics and engineering experts? like i said before,I dont soley rely on Griiffith.dont know WHERE you got that idea.He interviewed those kinds of experts in those fields is how he came to his conclusions and like eots said,griffith isnt the only one who has this opinion.why dooes EOTS link of over 500 engineers and over 150 pilots he has posted to you multiple times mean nothing to you? you always ignore that link he provides. Egar is corrupt.You have way too much faith in him.Ryan debated him once and ititially Egar replied back to him,but then when Ryan countered him,he never heard back from him in MULTIPLE attempts to get a hold of him on his reply.you have way too much faith in popular mechanics and these internet links.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 27, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> LOL if you call "dedicated to truth" the same as propagating the lies of troofers



the lies of troofers is you and the other 9/11 apologists.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 27, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> the lies of troofers is you and the other 9/11 apologists.


you dont have to apologize for truth
thats why you guys are seen as nuts and morons


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 27, 2008)

oh and like EOTS said before,dont pretend that its just Griffith thats out there and there are no  experts in those fields you mentioned who dont accept the official version BIG D.well thats all I have time for now at the moment I only scratched the surface of some of the things griffith says in his book thats overwhelming proof it was an inside job


----------



## Big_D (Dec 27, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> getting back to your post on page 10 the 13th post.Am I saying the government is making them say this? remember what I posted on how I approached my american history teacher a few  years later over my anger how I had been lied to in american history that oswald killed kennedy how I realised that after I saw the movie JFK?a movie you havent seen obviously cause if you had,you woundn't  be asking all these questions.



It is funny how you seem to know these things about my life.  How do you know what movies I have seen?  You also never answered the question.  I asked if you thought the govt is making my experts create papers they know to be false.  Obliviously, this is hogwash b/c of the following reasons:
1) There has been no records of this.
2) They would not put their reputation on the line and take such pride in their work and wouldnt let this happen.
3) A good number of my experts are not even Americans and therefore our govt cannot control what they say.
4) The experts I have shown could simply flee to another nation and speak the truth.
5) There are a number of people (such as Alex Jones) who says over and over that the govt is responsible and he has not been shot down by our govt. Meanwhile, the US govt can easily kill him or threaten him to change his opinion when he first started speaking this on the airwaves. 



9/11 inside job said:


> remember what I posted how he told me if he had REALLY said what he believed about the kennedy assassination,that he would get fired from the school board for that? you got to ask yourself the question why do others who speak out the truth such as kevin ryan,judy wood and steven jones get fired IMMEDIATELY at universities when they speak out the truth? connect the dots.well I left your thread at that point when you asked if its true why they dont kill alex jones because i figured my response that he has too many people behind him and that would just reinforce everything he has been saying about them to be true sufficient enough.NOW your asking whey they dont threaten his famliy to shut him up or kill them off? same thing,that will just reinforce everything he has been saying about them and that will REALLY wake people up if his family dies mysteriously or they threaten his family.matter of fact the guy HAS had death threats against him but their not going to carry them out cause he has gone public.  alex jones hasnt made the same mistake that that one trooper in arkansas did which was trusting his superiours to take action against Clinton.If he had gone public like Terry Reed and L.D Brown did,he wouldnt have been arkansawed by clintons goonsquad.my answer spoke for itself.lie and defend the official version and keep your job,or be a patriot and lose  your job and speak out like kevin ryan, judy wood and steven jones have for example.



Again, that makes no sense.  First of all, they wouldn't tell the world that they are threatening him or his family.  They would obviously tell them to keep it secret and to stop exposing them.  It is interesting how the govt can pull off the biggest hoax in the history of mankind, but can't keep these people quiet.  Why didn't they shut him up when he first started saying this.  It could have been swept under the rug easily at that point.  If they pulled off the hoax then they could have quietly put his company out of business and therefore he would at least be off the airwaves.

My point is that SOMETHING would have been done by now to Jones if the govt was really responsible for the attacks, but nothing has.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 27, 2008)

Big_D said:


> My point is that SOMETHING would have been done by now to Jones if the govt was really responsible for the attacks, but nothing has.


 this is the thing they dont make sense on

this "group" is willing to kill THOUSANDS to accomplish it's goals, even went so far as to kill JFK because he was going to "expose them"
yet these morons think that a "group" with such a mindset wouldnt think twice about offing ANYONE that was alledgedly "exposing them"


----------



## Big_D (Dec 27, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> See you make the mistake of relying on authority and blindly accepting what they say.If pete rose-probably the best hitter in the history of baseball goes and tells you the best way to hit a baseball is to swing at it like your chopping wood are you going to automatically rely on his word that he is telling the truth when the evidence is overwhelming that thats not the way you do it,that you swing at a level way?



I am not ignoring the opposite side of this view.  I am aware of what they are saying.  You are the one who seems to be ignoring the truth.  Did you not see my list of engineering professors at the top engineering universities in the world at post number 260? Don't forget I have used many others.  All of these individuals believe that 9/11 was done by the terrorists.  They might differ on the specifics.  However, they all agree that the middle eastern terrorists who flew the planes in the buildings were the cause of why those buildings fell.  Do you really believe that _none_ of these people know what they are talking about?  Do you think that all the young adults who go to these schools are getting screwed as their professors just simply do not know what they are talking about?



9/11 inside job said:


> I posted that canadawantsthe truth link that has over 47 videos that prove it,why do you ignore it and dont watch those videos,why do you not bother to read the evidence at 911truth? why do you ignore what the designers who built the buildings say that griffith quotes in his book?



Who's to say I didn't go on that watch those links or ignore those designers?  Again, you ASSUME I didn't.  


9/11 inside job said:


> sorry but I will listen to what the people who actually BUILT THE TOWERS had to say before the towers went uo than the experts you like to think are god.LOL and THEY said as i said earlierm,that the towers were designed to take MULTIPLE hits form airliners,that if it DID take a hit,there would be a great loss of human lives and but the structures themselves would remain standing.its all there in Griffiths book.



Why do you listen to Griffin's book and not the list of professor I listed on post number 260?  How about the article I asked you and Eots to debunk?  Why do you not agree with this professor, especially when he has such excellent credentials?  As I have said, this passed the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics in their engineering division.  Griffin's and Kevin Ryan's articles/books never passed this high society of engineering professors from around the globe.  Why do you take their world of the best engineering minds we have to offer?   Here a link for the best engineering schools in the world:
World's Top 10 Engineering Schools 2008/2009 | SKORCAREER
From the top five listed, I have used engineering professors at _all_ five of them.  Again, they all agree with me.  So my question again is: Do you think that any of these engineering professors know what they are talking about?  Sorry, but I will take their word over a philosophy professor and Ryan.


----------



## Big_D (Dec 27, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> I mean come on George Bush and bill clinton are authority figures,but do you believe and trust in everything they say? LOL.



Of course not.  Who said I did?


9/11 inside job said:


> btw,I looked at that on what you supplied and those are just internet links.that proves nothing,they can type in anything at those propagation sites.



Wow.  Does this mean that on Alex Jones website they are not allowed to type what they want.  NOBODY is forcing those people to write papers on 9/11.  I guess that the engineering professor from the university of Tokyo just felt like making up a story on why the WTC buildings collapse.   Or how about the engineering professors from the University of Sydney, Cambridge University, University of Edinburgh, University of Purdue, so on and so forth?

Those websites must hold some value in your book or you would have refuted the article which I asked you to numerous times now.  You say time and time again that I make assumptions.  Well now I assume that since you did not refute it, this means that you can not refute it.  If you could then it would be done by now.  In post number 144 you said you would refute the article by Bazant, but never did over two weeks later.  Why is that?  



9/11 inside job said:


> they can type in anything they want on the net at wikepedia or those other sites you listed.



I used just ONE link from Wikipedia and that was one professor's credentials that I also backed up with another website.  So you think that they can type in anything they want from these universities websites?  Do you believe these people are even professors?  Are the schools just making web pages for engineering professors that do not exist?  



9/11 inside job said:


> those links prove nothing.Well of course you dont believe it because you are clueless about how the CFR group works or operates.



By those university websites mean nothing while alex jones site and Canada for the truth holds a lot of value in your book.  Do you not see anything wrong with that?



9/11 inside job said:


> Bush Sr used to be the former director of the CIA,the last person you should believe in is someone who served in the CIA.LOL.Boy you are really ignorant if you actually believe this that nobody can tell the president what to do and that they are not puppets.



Why should I not believe that the president is not the most powerful person in the county?  You never proved it otherwise.  You supplied links to alternative websites, but you never proved anything.  So now prove to me why the president isn't powerful.  See what your problem is that you make claims that you do not back up.  As I have said, I have believed in conspiracies in the past when I thought the evidence was there.  I have read your info and the evidence is simply not there.  When you make a claim (like when you state Obama is an awful person, knows that 9/11 was a hoax, and might have even had a hand in creating it) it opens a pandora's box of questions.  Too many that can make you claim reasonable.  Also, Obama was in the Illinois state senate at the time of the attacks.  We all know he did not have a hand in the attacks.  Yet, you think it is possible.  

The next problem is when you instantly dismiss pieces of evidence that oppose your claim.  For example, my list of experts from around the globe and Bin laden claiming responsibility for the attacks.  YOU are the one that is ignorant when you think I should take the word from all these experts who disagree with you.



9/11 inside job said:


> Your hilarious.if you try to run the country by yourself like kennedy did then well you end up being offed by the CIA.kennedy made the mistake of believeing that the president runs the country.thats the way it SHOULD be and thats how it was drawn up,but thats not the way it is anymore.I already addressed that to you before why those experts from popular mechanics of professors here in the states and around the world cant be trusted.



No you did not.  You made an adequate case why more people will not go forward if they believe in the hoax.  Yet, you never said why these professors from around the world agree why 9/11 was not an inside job.



9/11 inside job said:


> I have said this before like 3 times and I'll say it again,READ griffiths book,dont just look at a page in the middle of it and be done with it.He explains in there why you cant believe those experts in popular mechanics.



Why would I trust Griffin if I couldn't trust all those engineering professors?  In Griffins book he doesn't combat the Popular Mechanics article.  He simply says how it is different from other experts.  For example, in the "melted steel" section he says that Thomas Edgar's article on why the towers fell is different from the popular mechanics article.  They state that Edgar says the heat rose to 700 degrees Celsius in the WTC building meanwhile, PM says it is 900.  That is all.  

Again, why would you take the word of a philosophy professor over the list of engineering professors from post # 260?


----------



## Big_D (Dec 27, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> NOW to address your last post on page 10.Do I take the opinion of a former philosophy professor over physics and engineering experts? like i said before,I dont soley rely on Griiffith.dont know WHERE you got that idea.He interviewed those kinds of experts in those fields is how he came to his conclusions and like eots said,griffith isnt the only one who has this opinion.



So you take the word of someone who _interviewed_ experts than you do of the experts themselves?



9/11 inside job said:


> why dooes EOTS link of over 500 engineers and over 150 pilots he has posted to you multiple times mean nothing to you? you always ignore that link he provides.



You apparently know me more than I know myself.  Tell me where i have said that this means nothing to me.  This is where you seem to stretch the truth.  *The 500 engineers and architects who signed the petition are NOT saying they believe 9/11 was an inside job.*  They are saying that they want a new investigation opened.  There are many different reasons why they would want this.  It doesnt mean they believe it was a hoax. You make it seem that all these 500 people agree with you, when they do not.  According to this site there are almost 2 million engineers in the U.S. alone.  http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf02325/
According to this site, there are 132,000 architects in the U.S.  http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos038.htm Yet, only 500 of architects and engineers in the world signed the petition to have the investigation reopened.  *Again, these 500 architects and engineers are NOT saying that 9/11 was an inside job,* they simply want a new investigation.  

You have done this in the past, in other threads.  You claim that Senator Mark Dayton and congressman Dennis Kucinich believe that 9/11 was an inside job because they want a new investigation reopened.  Meanwhile, they have NEVER said this.  As I said before, you jump from one point to the next without showing us how you got to the second point.  It is like you are saying that since A is true then B _has_ to be true.



9/11 inside job said:


> Egar is corrupt.You have way too much faith in him.



I think that I only quoted him once.  You keep bringing his name up because he is an easier target to attack than the other experts I have used.  I put most of my faith on Dr. Zden&#283;k P. Ba&#382;ant's paper.  As I have said countless times, this is the one who you said you would refute and the one I asked you to debunk.  Again, this is the paper that passed the society of engineering professors from around the globe.  *Griffin's book did not, but Ba&#382;ant's did.*  Yet, you think I should agree with Griffin.  That flat out does not make any sense.  *Since you have not refuted it then I again presume you cannot.*  That is another reason why I have a hard time believing you.  If you were right, this would easily be refuted, but never was. Why do I put most of my faith in him?   It is because this passed the society's review and b/c of his credentials:

Engineer Zden&#283;k P. Ba&#382;ant is best known as a world leader in scaling research in solid mechanics (1&#8211;6). His research focuses on the effect of structure size on structural strength as it relates to the failure behavior of the structure. He also has made outstanding advances in structural stability (7), fracture mechanics (8), the micromechanics of material damage (8&#8211;10), concrete creep (11&#8211;13), and probabilistic mechanics (6, 8, 14). *He was elected to the National Academy of Engineering in 1996 and to the National Academy of Sciences in 2002, 1 of only 153 members with such a dual appointment...* Ba&#382;ant's work has spanned several engineering disciplines, and he has been honored with numerous awards in recognition of his accomplishments. *In 1996, he received the Prager Medal from the Society of Engineering Science (SES) and the Newmark Medal from the American Society of Civil Engineers. In 1997, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers awarded him the Warner Medal, which recognizes outstanding contributions to the engineering literature. He has received four honorary doctorates and will be presented with a fifth this fall from l'Institut National des Sciences Appliquées in Lyon, France.* Ba&#382;ant has authored or coauthored six books and more than 450 articles in refereed journals. *In 2001, he received the award of Highly Cited Researcher, which is given by the Institute for Scientific Information to only 250 authors worldwide across all engineering fields.* In addition, he served as president of SES and was founding president of the International Association of Fracture Mechanics and Concrete Structures.
Biography of ZdenÄ&#8250;k P. BaÅ¾ant â&#8364;&#8221; PNAS

Here is his paper on 9/11:http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

So why would I take the word of anyone else over his?


----------



## eots (Dec 27, 2008)

*David L. Griscom, PhD &#8211; Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service.*  Fellow of the American Physical Society.  Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997).  Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003).  Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005).  Winner of the 1993 N. F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers.  Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988. 
Personal blog 1/5/07: "David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True:  This scholarly work, rich in eyewitness accounts, includes 11 separate pieces of evidence that the World Trade Center towers 1, 2 [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories], and 7 were brought down by explosives.  [Editor's note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories.  It would have been the tallest building in 33 states.  Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers.  However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks."  Watch the collapse video here.  And six years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.]

... I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and (ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals like, say, the Journal of Applied Physics. 

The issue of knowing who was really behind the 9/11 attacks is of paramount importance to the future of our country, because the "official" assumption that it was the work of 19 Arab amateurs (1) does not match the available facts and (2) has led directly to the deplorable Patriot Act, the illegal Iraq war, NSA spying on ordinary Americans, repudiation of the Geneva Conventions, and the repeal of habeas corpus (a fundamental point of law that has been with us since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215). 

Surely these Orwellian consequences of public ignorance constitute more than sufficient motivation for any patriotic American physicist or engineer to join the search for 9/11 Truth!" http://impactglassman 


Member: Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice   Association Statement: "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is a non-partisan organization consisting of independent researchers and activists engaged in uncovering the true nature of the September 11, 2001 attacks." 


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


----------



## Big_D (Dec 28, 2008)

eots said:


> *David L. Griscom, PhD  Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service.*  Fellow of the American Physical Society.  Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997).  Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003).  Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005).  Winner of the 1993 N. F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers.  Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988.
> Personal blog 1/5/07: "David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True:  This scholarly work, rich in eyewitness accounts, includes 11 separate pieces of evidence that the World Trade Center towers 1, 2 [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories], and 7 were brought down by explosives.  [Editor's note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories.  It would have been the tallest building in 33 states.  Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers.  However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks."  Watch the collapse video here.  And six years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.]
> 
> ... I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and (ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals like, say, the Journal of Applied Physics.
> ...



Unless you can disprove the credibility of the engineering review dept at the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, you cannot make the case that any of the articles that you have supplied are more reliable than this one:
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf


----------



## garyd (Dec 28, 2008)

It takes six months to rig a 20 story building for controlled Demolition. You nut jobs in the truth movement are trying to make the case That Some one in the Bush administration could rigand aggregate of 267 stories in 7 months. It would be logistically impossible to manage that in seven months It would be all but impossible just to collect together enough explosives to do it.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 28, 2008)

garyd said:


> It takes six months to rig a 20 story building for controlled Demolition. You nut jobs in the truth movement are trying to make the case That Some one in the Bush administration could rigand aggregate of 267 stories in 7 months. It would be logistically impossible to manage that in seven months It would be all but impossible just to collect together enough explosives to do it.


not just the Bush administration


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 30, 2008)

garyd said:


> It takes six months to rig a 20 story building for controlled Demolition. You nut jobs in the truth movement are trying to make the case That Some one in the Bush administration could rigand aggregate of 267 stories in 7 months. It would be logistically impossible to manage that in seven months It would be all but impossible just to collect together enough explosives to do it.



will ignorance ever cease to exist.you clearly have no clue that the government has all the explosives in the world easily capable of pulling this off and are obviously not aware that Bushs brother and cousin were in charge of the security for the towers in the prior months before the explosion.yes it would take a few months to do but when your the president who is the son of a former president who was a former CIA director before becoming president and your two brothers are in charge of the security for the towers,pretty easy to pull off actually.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 30, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> nothing, but it DOES expose the general mindset of the 9/11 troofers



actually it means everything.it was posted to show that david schippers is an honest man who wants to do the right thing.He was on alex jones talking about how it was an inside job once cause of how many attempts he tried to get a hold of ashcroft to listen to him that he had agents in the FBI who knew attacks were immenent on the towers but ashcroft never returned any of his calls.like i said,these FBI agents went to schippers cause their FBI superiours would not look into the information they had that there would be terrorists attacks aganst the towers,they wouldnt look into it cause they wanted it to happen.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 30, 2008)

NIST -a government institution is a laughable source to rely on.NIST has failed to disprove the controlled demolition hypothesis and clings to a gravity-assissted collapse hypothesis.This is a disservice to americans and the world.. as growing numbers of people doubt the 9/11 official myths.The twin towers destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions.
1.Extremely rapid onset of collapse
2.sounds of explosions at planes impact zone-a full second prior to collapse {heard by 118 first responders as well as by media,Dan Rather for one reported-this has to be the work of controlled demolitions.
3.observations of flashes [seen by numerous professionals]
4.squibs or [mistimed] explosions,40 floors below the {collapsing} building seen in all the videos.
5.mid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking,filing cabinets,1000 people mostly to dust.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 30, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> NIST -a government institution is a laughable source to rely on.NIST has failed to disprove the controlled demolition hypothesis and clings to a gravity-assissted collapse hypothesis.This is a disservice to americans and the world.. as growing numbers of people doubt the 9/11 official myths.The twin towers destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions.
> 1.Extremely rapid onset of collapse
> 2.sounds of explosions at planes impact zone-a full second prior to collapse {heard by 118 first responders as well as by media,Dan Rather for one reported-this has to be the work of controlled demolitions.
> 3.observations of flashes [seen by numerous professionals]
> ...


not a single one of your points is correct
but you are too stupid to bother with explaining why


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 30, 2008)

6.massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds.
7.vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves.
8.symmetrical collapse-through the path of greatest resistance -at nearly free fall speed-the columns gave no resistance.
9.the 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris-outside of buillding footprint.
10.blast waves blew out windows in buidings 400 feet away.
11.Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 20-50 ton steel elements-obliterating the steel core structure.The photos show them being blown out and were found several blocks away.Impossible from a mere collapse of a building.
12.total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements obliterating the steel core structure.
13.tons of molten metal found by FDNY under all 3 high rises [no other possible source other than an incendiary cutting charge such as thermite.
14.chemical signiture of thermate [high tech incediary} found in slags,solidified molten metal}and dust samples by physics professor steven jones PHD.
15.FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples.
16.More than 1000 bodies are unacconted for,700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby blds as late as last year and exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 30, 2008)

thanks again for proving your afraid of the truth as always divecon.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 30, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> 6.massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds.
> 7.vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves.
> 8.symmetrical collapse-through the path of greatest resistance -at nearly free fall speed-the columns gave no resistance.
> 9.the 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris-outside of buillding footprint.
> ...


more stupidity


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 30, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> thanks again for proving your afraid of the truth as always divecon.


no
none of that is the truth
its all lies


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 30, 2008)

1.slow onset with large visable deformations
2. a symetrical collapse which follows the path of least  resistance {laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling,intact,from the point of planes impact to the side most damaged by the fires.
3.No evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel.
4.High rise buildings with much larger,hotter and longer lasting fires have never collapsed and as was mentioned before,the towers were designed to take MULTIPLE hitd from airliners as the designers have said.
...helicopter view of north tower looking over bld 7 massive interlaced columns of the north tower are seen falling outward -their ends are severed and glowing white-while streaming smoke from the ends.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 30, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> no
> none of that is the truth
> its all lies



nope,all true,your just in denial frady cat.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 30, 2008)

Gravity? thermate? NIST admits to not testing any WTC debris for explosives/demolition residue.this amounts to criminal negligence and underlies all the debate in this thread.Had NIST done its proper job recognizing that there were over 500 eyewitness reports,many of which were not coincident with the planes crashing or the buildings collapsing.News footage reveals explosions.It took a freedom of information act petition to get to these eyewitness testimonies about explosions.Testimonies that were omitted from the 9/11 commission report.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 30, 2008)

WTC7 is the entry point for many who now know the 9/11 commission report is a farce...a coverup.many explosions occured which are not coincident to the planes crashes before,after,and proceding the collapses.the 9/11 commission report OMITS these.Thats why the people who defend the official version do a disservice to the over 3000 people who lost their lives in the towers.


----------



## Toro (Dec 30, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> 6.massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds.
> 7.vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves.
> 8.symmetrical collapse-through the path of greatest resistance -at nearly free fall speed-the columns gave no resistance.
> 9.the 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris-outside of buillding footprint.
> ...



If it had been an explosion, seismographs would have picked up a spike.  According to seismographs at NYU, there was no spike.  Thus, there was no explosion.


----------



## eots (Dec 30, 2008)

July 16, 2007:  Former California Seismic Safety Commissioner Endorses 9/11 Truth Movement
Prominent Engineer Calls for a New Investigation of 9/11
PDF Version      Article on OpEdNews

Summary: J. Marx Ayres, MS, former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council and former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission called for a new investigation of 9/11, "Steven Jones' call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that the WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fire, but through the use of pre-positioned 'cutter-charges' must be the rallying cry for all building design experts to speak out."

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


----------



## eots (Dec 30, 2008)

New Seismic Data Refutes Official WTC Explanation

Two unexplained "spikes" in the seismic record from Sept. 11 indicate huge bursts of energy shook the ground beneath the World Trade Center's twin towers immediately prior to the collapse. American Free Press has learned of pools of "molten steel" found at the base of the collapsed twin towers weeks after the collapse. Although the energy source for these incredibly hot areas has yet to be explained, New York seismometers recorded huge bursts of energy, which caused unexplained seismic "spikes" at the beginning of each collapse.

http://100777.com/node/245


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 30, 2008)

yeah but the 9/11 coincidence theorists will never bother to read AMERICAN FREE PRESS since they know their an objective newspaper source that reports REALS news and not fairy tales.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 30, 2008)

Toro said:


> If it had been an explosion, seismographs would have picked up a spike.  According to seismographs at NYU, there was no spike.  Thus, there was no explosion.



Read Davidray Griffiths book DEBUNKING THE 9/11 DEBUNKING.it proves that the  9/11 commission report, popular mechanics, and NIST are fairy tales.also look at Eots last two posts as well.it counters that.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 30, 2008)

9/11 Inside Job said:


> obviously Your Another One Of The 9/11 Coincidence Theorists Who Hasnt Read Griffiths Book Debunking The 9/11 Debunking Which Proves The 9/11 Commission Report, Popular Mechanics, And Nist Are Fairy Tales.


Bullshit


----------



## Big_D (Dec 30, 2008)

Why explosives could not have been used:

"Since their inception in the late 1800s, blasting engineers have understood that building implosions work best when the forces of gravity are maximized. This is why blasters always concentrate their efforts on the lowest floors of a structure. While smaller supplemental charges can be placed on upper floors to facilitate breakage and maximize control as the structure collapses, every implosion ever performed has followed the basic model of obliterating structural supports on the bottom few floors first, "to get the structure moving.""

"...for explosives to be considered as a primary or supplemental catalyst, one
would have to accept that either, a) dozens of charges were placed on those exact impact floors in advance and survived the violent initial explosions and 1100+ degree Fahrenheit fires, or b) while the fires were burning, charges were installed undetected throughout the impact floors and wired together, ostensibly by people hiding in the buildings with boxes of explosives. There is no third choice that could adequately explain explosives causing failure at the exact impact points."

&#8220;The chemical properties of explosives and their reaction to heat render scenario A scientifically impossible and scenario B remarkably unlikely, as we know of explosive compound that could withstand such force and/or hear without detaching from the columns or simply burning off prior to detonation.

There are other problems with both scenarios: Given the consistent weight distribution around the outer perimeter of each structure, one would have needed access to a prohibitively large quantity of load-bearing I-beam columns to allow &#8220;cutter charges&#8221; to initiate failure.  Those columns would have needed extensive preparations, also known as &#8220;pre-burning&#8221;, to allow the explosives to perform their function.  And in order to prepare the columns you first had to be able to see the columns, which means at least partially removing the outer-perimeter interior walls of all blast floors, including furniture, plumbing, conduit lines, insulation, etc.

All of this would have been performed within 55 minutes between plane impact and collapse &#8211; working in an environment of unspeakable heat and destruction &#8211; or have been performed completely undetected, in advance, on multiple floors in both buildings while suffering no adverse effects from planes&#8217; impact with these same areas. 

This is impossible.&#8221;

-Brent Blanchard
"Director of field operations at Protec Documentation Services...
Protec is one of the world&#8217;s most knowledgeable independent authorities on explosive demolition, have performed engineering studies, structure analysis, vibration/air events in more than 30 countries.  These include the current world record-holders for documents the work of more than 20 explosives contractors who perform structure blasting as a primary source of revenue&#8230;"
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf

Plus, how could they have placed all those explosives in there without them knowing?

"The demolition of the Washington DC Convention Center in 2004 involved preparations that *went on for months*. Massive crews were at work, placing explosives around ~500 columns and doing other preparation work. The crews and activity were highly noticeable to people in the area."
Wrecking Corp. Razes Washington Convention Center | Construction Equipment Guide Story
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html

And this was on a project MUCH smaller than the WTC buildings!


----------



## Big_D (Dec 30, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> Read Davidray Griffiths book DEBUNKING THE 9/11 DEBUNKING.it proves that the  9/11 commission report, popular mechanics, and NIST are fairy tales.also look at Eots last two posts as well.it counters that.



I have made this point on numerous occasions and it looks like I will never get a response.  Again, why would I take Griffin's word over Dr. Zden&#283;k P. Ba&#382;ant when his book never passed the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics in their engineering division and Ba&#382;ant's has?  Here is his paper again:http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf  That means 20+ engineering experts from around the globe read this and approved it.  Both you and eots insulted this paper and I have been asking for you two to back it up and neither of you will do so.  Also, Griffins book didn't debunk the popular mechanics article. It just simply pointed out the differences with the popular mechanics to other papers.


----------



## eots (Dec 30, 2008)

Danny Jowenko on WTC 7 controlled demolition

*this man says a day*

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc[/ame]


[ame=http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=iB0uxfnwgm0&feature=related]YouTube - 9/11 Conspiracy - Crash Course #4 of 4[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 30, 2008)

eots said:


> Danny Jowenko on WTC 7 controlled demolition
> 
> *this man says a day*
> 
> ...


who gives a rats ass what he says, hes WRONG


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 30, 2008)

eots said:


> These Are Intel Men...RESPONSIBLE FOR BREIFING PRESIDENTS AND TACTICIAL DIRECTORS OF NORAD..who just happen to have phds



yeah I would say those people of yours are far more of a better source to listen to than his.matter of fact,I have seen you list in the past Ray Mcgovern who was a former CIA analysis op for BUSH SR listed before.I know he believes 9/11 is an inside job cause not only does david ray griffith list him as someone who thinks so but I was fortunate enough to meet him at a 9/11 truth movement once and got to talk with him and he told me he goes through the same thing we do all the time when he tries to tell people 9/11 was an inside job.that he gets called a wacko conspiracy theorist even though the evidence is overwhelming.sorry but i will believe high level intel people who actually served under BUSH sr in the CIA over BIG D'S people anyday of the year.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 30, 2008)

Big_D said:


> So why would all these professors I have shown have written papers on their views on 9/11 when they know that it is a lie?  It is one thing to not speak up while it is another to state the opposite viewpoint.
> 
> Didn't you say in the past that Senator Mark Dayton agreed with you, even though I proved you wrong?  It seems to me that he has a good job.
> 
> ...



read my post again,i just explained it and no you did not prove me wrong.Also charlie sheen is a poor example.He is an actor.they cant control what actors say,only people in universitys and I would check that guys bank account in India after he started saying that to see how much richer he got.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 30, 2008)

Big_D said:


> I didnt answer this b/c I thought it was just a hypothetical question nor is it relevant.  To be honest, I have not researched this at all.  However, I did see a documentary of this on the history channel and they went through all the points in the movie one by one.  They dismissed all the points thoroughly.  However, I am sure that you do not believe them at all.  Other than this I have not heard anything else on the topic. If you want to start a new thread or have one to show me otherwise then please do so.



another perfect example of how you fall for the propaganda by the government.I have seen that documentary you are talking about and it is complete B.S.they didnt disprove anything.watch the video sometime called The "MEN" who killed kennedy.it has far more truth to it than the propaganda YOU saw.it IS relevent because like i said,if you STILL believe in THAT fairy tale which has been proven to be a fairy tale over the years,you'll live in denial on THIS one as well.Like i said,I only attempt to reason with people who tell me they can believe that the kennedy assassination was done by elements in the government but not 9/11.those kinds of people can handle kennedy being killed off cause it was so long ago,they just cant handle 9/11 cause its so more recent.I usually can reason with THOSE kinds of people.


----------



## Big_D (Dec 30, 2008)

eots said:


> Danny Jowenko on WTC 7 controlled demolition
> 
> *this man says a day*
> 
> ...



I saw both youtube clips and I didn't see where he said that.  In fact at the end of the first clip, danny jowenko describes how they would have to bring down the fall of the building. He states, "You need to have experienced people.  But, if you had thirty or forty men...Two with a cutting torch.  Others clearing the walls, others hooking up det cords and boosters.   All that has to be coordinated. And another hooks up the electronic system..."
The individual interviewing him states that the building was on fire.  Danny's reply is, "They didn't extinguish it?"  To which the interviewer says, "No. So they would have had to do it while on fire."  Then Danny says, "Yes.  That's odd.  *I cannot explain it.*"  This is taken from the youtube clip you provided and it shows that these people would have had to be working _while_ the building was on fire.

Here are some other articles that show that it is long process to demolish a building:
"The button to bring down the 30-story office tower at Seventh and Houston streets, one of the tallest buildings ever to be imploded, will be pushed at 8 a.m., said John Angelina president of D.H. Griffin of Texas, a Houston company that has served on the demolition team, which also includes Midwest Wrecking in Fort Worth.

Crews have been working feverishly this week on the final preparations on work that began in November.

"We'll work as hard today as we have *in the last four months*," Brian Choate, Midwest Wrecking's chief executive, said Thursday."
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/14122036.htm
WTC Power Down

"In *24 days*, CDI's 12 person loading crew placed 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on 9 levels of the structure. Over 36,000 ft. of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay devices were installed in CDI's implosion initiation system. As the implosion required the detonation of a total of 2,728 lb. of explosives, CDI implemented 36 "primary delays" and an additional 216 micro-delays" in the implosion initiation sequence in an attempt to keep detonation overpressure to a minimum."
Controlled Demolition, Inc. | Press Release
WTC Power Down


----------



## Big_D (Dec 30, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> yeah I would say those people of yours are far more of a better source to listen to than his.matter of fact,I have seen you list in the past Ray Mcgovern who was a former CIA analysis op for BUSH SR listed before.I know he believes 9/11 is an inside job cause not only does david ray griffith list him as someone who thinks so but I was fortunate enough to meet him at a 9/11 truth movement once and got to talk with him and he told me he goes through the same thing we do all the time when he tries to tell people 9/11 was an inside job.that he gets called a wacko conspiracy theorist even though the evidence is overwhelming.sorry but i will believe high level intel people who actually served under BUSH sr in the CIA over BIG D'S people anyday of the year.



So why is it that you would take these people's opinion over my experts?  As I have PROVED,(from post number 260 in this thread) I have engineers professors from the top engineering schools in the world!  Here is a list of the top 10 engineering schools in the world: http://skorcareer.com.my/blog/worlds-top-10-engineering-schools-20082009/2008/12/11/ From the top five listed, I have used engineering professors at all five of them. Again, they all agree with me. Why would you take the word of anyone else over theirs?  Who would know better on why the WTC buildings collapsed?  Yet, you will take the word of an *EX* CIA agent at the time of the attacks and has NO engineering experience at all.  Also, I have had trouble finding somewhere that McGovern actually says he believes 9/11 was an inside job.  He thinks that the 9/11 investigation left open many questions and wants a new one.  However, I cannot find where he says he believes it was done by our govt.  I have been able to find that McGovern signed a petition that he believes Bush purposely allowed the attacks to happen.  He didnt say that bush made it happen.  When you met him, he could have been referring that people call him a conspiracy theorist because he believes that Bush let the attacks to occur, not perpetrating it.


----------



## Toro (Dec 30, 2008)

eots said:


> New Seismic Data Refutes Official WTC Explanation
> 
> Two unexplained "spikes" in the seismic record from Sept. 11 indicate huge bursts of energy shook the ground beneath the World Trade Center's twin towers immediately prior to the collapse. American Free Press has learned of pools of "molten steel" found at the base of the collapsed twin towers weeks after the collapse. Although the energy source for these incredibly hot areas has yet to be explained, New York seismometers recorded huge bursts of energy, which caused unexplained seismic "spikes" at the beginning of each collapse.
> 
> http://100777.com/node/245



This is what the site says



> Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N. Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded strange seismic activity on Sept. 11 that has still not been explained.



This is what Protec, the demolition experts, say



> Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, recorded the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7.  This data was later released to the public and currently appears on their website.  Additionally, on 9/11 Protec field technicians were utilizing portable field seismographs to continuously record ground vibrations on several construction sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn for liability purposes.
> 
> In all cases where seismographs detected the collapses, waveform readings indicate a single, gradually ascending and descending level of ground vibrations during the event.  At no point during 9/11 were sudden or independent vibration "spikes" documented by any seismograph, and we are unaware of any entity possessing such data.
> 
> This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition.  The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses.  However, a detailed analysis of all available data reveals no presence of any unusual or abnormal vibration events.



http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf

From Lamont



> [Won-Young Kim] led the effort at Lamont to document and interpret seismic signals from the tragedies of 2001 September 11, finding detections up to 400 km from Ground Zero in Manhattan, and supplying numerous investigators with the times of the two plane impacts in Manhattan and the one crash in Pennsylvania.  He also showed that claims of a seismic detection of the attack on the Pentagon were false.  His work here has been an important part of the official U.S. government report on what actually happened in this tragedy.



Won-Young Kim Wins Eastern Section SSA Award | Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

More



> On Sept. 11, 2001, the Lamont network recorded the impacts of two jets hitting the twin towers of the World Trade Center, and their subsequent collapses. "I just cried," Kim told The New York Times. Then, he went to work, leading the effort to analyze the data. Initially, there were mistaken reports about the exact times of the attacks, but Kim and his colleagues pinpointed them through the seismic recordings: 8:46:26 a.m. and 9:02:54 a.m. Their analysis also clarified the time when a third hijacked plane crashed in Shanksville, Pa.: 10:06:05 a.m. The findings became part of the official government report on the tragedy.



Urban Earthquakes, Nuclear Bombs And 9/11: New York Seismologist Honored For Work Local And Global

So the guy who did the seismic tests at Lamont contributed to the official report - which the conspiracists say is false - did not say that an explosion caused the WTC to fall.  

From Popular Mechanics



> Claim: Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded the events of 9/11. "The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before falling debris struck the earth," reports the Web site WhatReallyHappened.com.
> 
> A columnist on Prisonplanet.com, a Web site run by radio talk show host Alex Jones, claims the seismic spikes (boxed area on Graph 1) are "indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down" the towers. The Web site says its findings are supported by two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Each "sharp spike of short duration," says Prisonplanet.com, was consistent with a "demolition-style implosion."
> 
> ...



Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics

Of course, the conspiracists resort to ad hominem attacks against Popular Mechanics.  Its an old tactic - discredit your opponent and divert attention from the argument. I would too if I were them, given their good work rebutting the conspiracists.  However, Popular Mechanics comes to the same conclusion as Protec, who are world-renowned experts in demolition.


----------



## Big_D (Dec 30, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> another perfect example of how you fall for the propaganda by the government.I have seen that documentary you are talking about and it is complete B.S.they didnt disprove anything.watch the video sometime called The "MEN" who killed kennedy.



That doesnt mean anything.  They could have simply misspoke.  



9/11 inside job said:


> it has far more truth to it than the propaganda YOU saw.it IS relevent because like i said,if you STILL believe in THAT fairy tale which has been proven to be a fairy tale over the years,you'll live in denial on THIS one as well.Like i said,I only attempt to reason with people who tell me they can believe that the kennedy assassination was done by elements in the government but not 9/11.those kinds of people can handle kennedy being killed off cause it was so long ago,they just cant handle 9/11 cause its so more recent.I usually can reason with THOSE kinds of people.



Did you even read the words you quoted from me?  I CLEARLY said that I had no opinion on the JFK assassination as I never researched it before.  Yet again, you jump to conclusions.As I said, the history channel show did seem to provide an adequate rebuttal for the movie but that was the only info I saw on the subject.


----------



## Big_D (Dec 30, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> read my post again,i just explained it and no you did not prove me wrong.



Again, you made an adequate reason why someone wouldnt step forward, you NEVER made an argument why someone would take the time and write a well thought out paper on how the planes brought down the WTC buildings.  Again, NOBODY is forcing them to write these papers.




9/11 inside job said:


> and I would check that guys bank account in India after he started saying that to see how much richer he got.



Give me proof of this and I will believe you.  Don't you think that this professor is already well off financially wise?  Why would go against what he knows is the truth to support a government that is not even his own?  If he believed it was brought down by demolition then he could have simply created a paper explaining this and nobody would be able to combat it, as it would be the truth.  Next, the paper he wrote is barely known.  If the govt paid him off then it would be well acknowledged by now.  Furthermore, this professor actually disagrees with the NIST findings!  He believes the planes still brought down the towers, but he disagrees on the specifics.  The paper is in fact has not been loading in the past few days.  If the govt did pay him off, then it is now in vain.  In addition, They would not put their reputation on the line and take such pride in their work and wouldn't let this happen.   Also, if our govt is buying people off then wouldn't some trustworthy individual have spoken up by now?  I had many other experts as well from different countries and they all disagree with you.  For example, the engineering professor from the University of Tokyo (rated one of the top 10 engineering universities in the world) also agrees with me.
His paper: http://shippai.jst.go.jp/en/Detail?fn=0&id=CA1000265
The professors credentials: http://www.adm.u-tokyo.ac.jp/IRS/IntroPage_E/intro70145484_e.html
Like I said in the past, your points opens up a pandora's box of questions that are just too many for your point to hold weight.


----------



## eots (Dec 30, 2008)

Toro said:


> This is what the site says
> 
> 
> 
> ...



popular mechanics is in direct conflict with the findings of nist and is not a credible source yet it is directly and indirectly the voice of the official conspiracy theory and if protec wishes to keep lucrative government contracts they b3etter pull the party line..


----------



## Toro (Dec 30, 2008)

eots said:


> popular mechanics is in direct conflict with the findings of nist and is not a credible source yet it is directly and indirectly the voice of the official conspiracy theory and if protec wishes to keep lucrative government contracts they b3etter pull the party line..



Rather than engage in ad hominem attacks, explain this graph from Lamont and why your link excluded it.


----------



## Toro (Dec 30, 2008)

You know, this argument that everyone is tainted because they have contracts to defend / employment to consider is taken to extremes by the conspiracists.  Perhaps we should ask, who the hell was Alex Jones before 9/11?  How much money has he made from feeding all these conspiracy theories?  How much money have guys made from writing books?  Who the hell were the Loose Change guys, besides some unemployed drop-outs living in the woods before 9/11?  Do they not have a vested financial in keeping this going?  Perhaps all conspiracists who have made a dime off 9/11 should be disqualified as sources entirely.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 30, 2008)

Toro said:


> You know, this argument that everyone is tainted because they have contracts to defend / employment to consider is taken to extremes by the conspiracists.  Perhaps we should ask, who the hell was Alex Jones before 9/11?  How much money has he made from feeding all these conspiracy theories?  How much money have guys made from writing books?  Who the hell were the Loose Change guys, besides some unemployed drop-outs living in the woods before 9/11?  Do they not have a vested financial in keeping this going?  Perhaps all conspiracists who have made a dime off 9/11 should be disqualified as sources entirely.


troofers dont like truth


----------



## eots (Dec 30, 2008)

why did yours exclude this ..do you belive this man cant read your chart ?? 


Former California Seismic Safety Commissioner Endorses 9/11 Truth Movement



SAN FRANCISCO, CA July 16, 2007 -- San Francisco architect Richard Gage, AIA, founder of the group, 'Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth,' announced today the statement of support from J. Marx Ayres, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council. 



J. Marx Ayres 

&#8220;We are proud to have the support of Marx Ayres, a nationally recognized expert in building energy systems and earthquake damage to building nonstructural systems, in our search for the truth about the events of 9/11.&#8221;, said Mr. Gage. &#8220;He has signed our petition requesting a reinvestigation of those tragic events and he has now gone even further by providing his personal statement of support for a new investigation of 9/11.&#8221;

OpEdNews » Former California Seismic Safety Commissioner Endorses 9/11 Truth Movement


----------



## Big_D (Dec 30, 2008)

eots said:


> why did yours exclude this ..do you belive this man cant read your chart ??
> 
> 
> Former California Seismic Safety Commissioner Endorses 9/11 Truth Movement
> ...



He asked you to disprove his post, not to give opinion.  On the popular mechanics site there are seismologist, engineers, geophysics, fire experts, and aviation experts. 
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=9


----------



## Toro (Dec 30, 2008)

eots said:


> why did yours exclude this ..do you belive this man cant read your chart ??



How do you know he has seen the seismic graphs produced by Lamont?  

The individual _who recorded the seismic waves at Lamont_ rebuts the link (which excluded a critical piece of data) that _*you*_ provided and testified _for_ the government.

You'll have to do better than that.


----------



## eots (Dec 30, 2008)

because if you have seen it and I have seen it....I am sure given his profession and bold statement he has fully informed himself


----------



## eots (Dec 30, 2008)

Big_D said:


> He asked you to disprove his post, not to give opinion.  On the popular mechanics site there are seismologist, engineers, geophysics, fire experts, and aviation experts.
> Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics



if your going to push the official conspiracy theory you should at least quote NIST...which has recanted much of what popular mechanics still attributes to them...


----------



## Toro (Dec 30, 2008)

eots said:


> because if you have seen it and I have seen it....I am sure given his profession and bold statement he has fully informed himself



Well, since you and I have seen it, and since we do not see a sharp spike as claimed







but instead is a wave pattern over a few dozen seconds as explained by both Popular Mechanics and Protec, and since the scientist at the referenced seismic lab concluded that it was not caused by an explosion, the onus is on the good professor in California to actively refute the evidence, which is either not shown or he has not done.


----------



## eots (Dec 30, 2008)

I Can Post Ones That Show It...but Whats The Point


----------



## eots (Dec 30, 2008)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDqIZZR_nn8]YouTube - 911 Eyewitness - Seismic data shows explosive peaks and 3D s[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 30, 2008)

eots said:


> YouTube - 911 Eyewitness - Seismic data shows explosive peaks and 3D s


they take the same chart and LIE about it


----------



## Toro (Dec 31, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> they take the same chart and LIE about it



Exactly.  They take the same chart that the professor at Lamont gave to the government as evidence and completely turn it around saying it supports their position.  That's pretty sad.


----------



## Big_D (Dec 31, 2008)

eots said:


> if your going to push the official conspiracy theory you should at least quote NIST...which has recanted much of what popular mechanics still attributes to them...



They are two different reports so they are not going to come to the exact same result.  Even if they did change their story that doesnt mean it is incorrect.  My point of the post was to show that there are seismologist, engineers, geophysics, fire experts, and aviation experts that disagree with you.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 31, 2008)

Toro said:


> Exactly.  They take the same chart that the professor at Lamont gave to the government as evidence and completely turn it around saying it supports their position.  That's pretty sad.


thats what most troofers do
lie
thats why no one calls them truthers anymore, they have been caught lying so many times it doesnt fit to call them truthers


----------



## Big_D (Dec 31, 2008)

eots said:


> YouTube - 911 Eyewitness - Seismic data shows explosive peaks and 3D s



You are putting your faith in youtube clips that could have come from anywhere.  

"The demolition contractor, Mark Loizeaux says the timing of when the explosions on the columns are set off is critical. He cannot see how thermite or any derivative of thermite could have been used to deliberately demolish Tower 7. "I've never seen anyone use a material, which melts steel for demolition purposes. I don't see how you could possibly get all of the columns to melt through at the same time." "

BBC NEWS | Programmes | Conspiracy Files | Q&A: The collapse of Tower 7

Info on Mark Loizeaux:

"Mark Loizeaux is a demolition expert, and his company, Controlled Demolition Inc. in Phoenix, Md., has taken down more than 7,000 structures around the world by imploding them with explosive charges."
Survival Guide: Mark Loizeaux demolition expert


----------



## eots (Dec 31, 2008)

Big_D said:


> You are putting your faith in youtube clips that could have come from anywhere.
> 
> "The demolition contractor, Mark Loizeaux says the timing of when the explosions on the columns are set off is critical. He cannot see how thermite or any derivative of thermite could have been used to deliberately demolish Tower 7. "I've never seen anyone use a material, which melts steel for demolition purposes. I don't see how you could possibly get all of the columns to melt through at the same time." "
> 
> ...



your putting yours in the BBC ? LOL...

OpEdNews » Former California Seismic Safety Commissioner Endorses 9/11 Truth Movement


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

I TRUST THESE PEOPLE .. and their unparalled expertise and service


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 31, 2008)

From Popular Mechanics



Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics

Of course, the conspiracists resort to ad hominem attacks against Popular Mechanics.  Its an old tactic - discredit your opponent and divert attention from the argument. I would too if I were them, given their good work rebutting the conspiracists.  However, Popular Mechanics comes to the same conclusion as Protec, who are world-renowned experts in demolition.[/QUOTE]

Ah the old laughable popular mechanics source AGAIN you coincidence theorists always retreat to try and win an argument when your losing.the warren commission report of the kennedy assassination.this always goes ignored, but here goes again for the hundreth time- read david ray griffiths book DEBUNKING THE 9/11 DEBUNKING.an answer to popular mechanics and other defenders of the official conspiracy theory.He interviews demolition experts in that book that prove popular mechanics is a fairy tale.


----------



## Big_D (Dec 31, 2008)

eots said:


> your putting yours in the BBC ? LOL...



No. I would put my faith in the demolition expert they quoted and Dr. Baant.  The latter is of course the author of the paper I have asked you to refute countless times and flat out have not addressed it. http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

OpEdNews » Former California Seismic Safety Commissioner Endorses 9/11 Truth Movement[/QUOTE]

"Those machines documented the tremors of the falling towers, but captured no ground vibrations before the collapses from demolition charges or bombs, according to a separate report by Brent Blanchard, the director of field operations for Protec."
"...Mr. Blanchard of Protec said that if there had been any molten steel in the rubble, it would have permanently damaged any excavation equipment encountering it. ''As a fundamental point, if an excavator or grapple ever dug into a pile of molten steel heated to excess of 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, it would completely lose its ability to function,'' Mr. Blanchard wrote. ''At a minimum, the hydraulics would immediately fail and its moving parts would bond together or seize up.''"
U.S. Counters 9/11 Theories Of Conspiracy - New York Times

-Brent Blanchard
"Director of field operations at Protec Documentation Services...
Protec is one of the worlds most knowledgeable independent authorities on explosive demolition, have performed engineering studies, structure analysis, vibration/air events in more than 30 countries. These include the current world record-holders for documents the work of more than 20 explosives contractors who perform structure blasting as a primary source of revenue"
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf

More from the times article:
"Moreover, a demolition project would have required the tower walls to be opened on dozens of floors, followed by the insertion of thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms, all sneaked past the security stations, inside hundreds of feet of walls on all four faces of both buildings. Then the walls presumably would have been closed up.

All this would have had to take place without attracting the notice of any of the thousands of tenants and workers in either building; no witness has ever reported such activity. Then on the morning of Sept. 11, the demolition explosives would have had to withstand the impacts of the airplanes, since the collapse did not begin for 57 minutes in one tower, and 102 minutes in the other. "
U.S. Counters 9/11 Theories Of Conspiracy - New York Times



eots said:


> Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
> 
> I TRUST THESE PEOPLE .. and their unparalled expertise and service



That's interesting because some of these people do not believe that 9/11 is an inside job!  Wesley Clark is on that page and he NEVER said that the govt was behind it.  How many engineering professors do you have on that page?  I have about 15 in post number 260 in that thread alone and I have many others. A number of these experts are professors the top engineering colleges in the world!

So why is it that you trust the people on the site and not the 2002 or 2003 Forensic engineer of the year?  Wouldn't the individuals who win this know something about engineering?  Why dont you trust Dr. Baant's paper that has passed the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics in their engineering division. That means 20+ engineering experts from around the globe read this and approved it.  *NOBODY* from your site has had a paper about 9/11 passed from this society.  Yet, you expect me to take the people from your website over Dr. Baant.


----------



## Big_D (Dec 31, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> Ah the old laughable popular mechanics source AGAIN you coincidence theorists always retreat to try and win an argument when your losing.the warren commission report of the kennedy assassination.this always goes ignored, but here goes again for the hundreth time- read david ray griffiths book DEBUNKING THE 9/11 DEBUNKING.an answer to popular mechanics and other defenders of the official conspiracy theory.He interviews demolition experts in that book that prove popular mechanics is a fairy tale.



Looks like Griffins book has been debunked: http://www.911myths.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

Griffins book doesn't debunk popular mechanics, it shows it's differences to other papers.  

As I have shown there are demolition experts that agree with the true story of 9/11.  
Again, why would I take Griffin's word over Dr. Zden&#283;k P. Ba&#382;ant when his book never passed the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics in their engineering division and Ba&#382;ant's has? Please inform me why?

Again, you are doing exactly what Toro said you would.  You are taking the high road and insulting popular mechanics instead of proving what they say is incorrect.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 31, 2008)

Big_D said:


> Looks like Griffins book has been debunked: http://www.911myths.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf
> 
> Griffins book doesn't debunk popular mechanics, it shows it's differences to other papers.
> 
> ...


OMG, this Griffin guy isn't even a scientist
hes a theologian



> Dr. David Ray Griffin is an emeritus professor of theology and religious philosophy at
> 
> the Claremont Colleges in Southern California.​


----------



## eots (Dec 31, 2008)

*David L. Griscom, PhD &#8211; Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service.*  Fellow of the American Physical Society.  Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997).  Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003).  Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005).  Winner of the 1993 N. F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (*Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL.* Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers.  Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988. 
*Personal blog 1/5/07: "David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of The Destruction of the World Trade Center*: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True:  This scholarly work, rich in eyewitness accounts, includes 11 separate pieces of evidence that the World Trade Center towers 1, 2 [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories], and 7 were brought down by explosives.  [Editor's note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories.  It would have been the tallest building in 33 states.  Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers.  However, *no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 *terrorist attacks."  Watch the collapse video here.  And six years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.]

... I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and (ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals like, say, the Journal of Applied Physics. 

The issue of knowing who was really behind the 9/11 attacks is of paramount importance to the future of our country, because the "official" assumption that it was the work of 19 Arab amateurs (1) does not match the available facts and (2) has led directly to the deplorable Patriot Act, the illegal Iraq war, NSA spying on ordinary Americans, repudiation of the Geneva Conventions, and the repeal of habeas corpus (a fundamental point of law that has been with us since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215). 

Surely these Orwellian consequences of public ignorance constitute more than sufficient motivation for any patriotic American physicist or engineer to join the search for 9/11 Truth!" http://impactglassman 


Member: Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice   Association Statement: "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is a non-partisan organization consisting of independent researchers and activists engaged in uncovering the true nature of the September 11, 2001 attacks." 


Bio: David L Griscom PhD Physicist bio 







Dwain Deets, MS Eng 

*Dwain Deets, MS Physics, MS Eng &#8211; Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center.  Before this appointment, he served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden.  Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988).  *Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics, a distinguished speaking engagement sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) (1986).  Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000.  Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers.  Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology.  37 year NASA career. 
Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Center]."  AE911Truth 


*Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11, signed by more than 500 Architects and Engineers:* 

"On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates  hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7.  We believe that there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore that the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7." Sign the Petition 


Editor's note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories.  It would have been the tallest building in 33 states.  Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers.  However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks."  Watch the collapse video here.  And six years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse. 


Bio: NASA - Dryden Flight Research Center


----------



## Toro (Dec 31, 2008)

9/11 inside job said:


> Ah the old laughable popular mechanics source AGAIN you coincidence theorists always retreat to try and win an argument when your losing.the warren commission report of the kennedy assassination.this always goes ignored, but here goes again for the hundreth time- read david ray griffiths book DEBUNKING THE 9/11 DEBUNKING.an answer to popular mechanics and other defenders of the official conspiracy theory.He interviews demolition experts in that book that prove popular mechanics is a fairy tale.



Ad hominem attack, again.  You deflect the issue, again.  

Popular Mechanics merely recited what the Lamont Lab at NYU concluded on 9/11 - that the seismic graphs showed a wave pattern inconsistent with an explosion.  

The conspiracists' irrationality has gotten such that they would deny that the earth revolved around the sun if Popular Mechanics said so.


----------



## eots (Dec 31, 2008)

Toro said:


> Ad hominem attack, again.  You deflect the issue, again.
> 
> Popular Mechanics merely recited what the Lamont Lab at NYU concluded on 9/11 - that the seismic graphs showed a wave pattern inconsistent with an explosion.
> 
> The conspiracists' irrationality has gotten such that they would deny that the earth revolved around the sun if Popular Mechanics said so.



no its the Truth the Hearst owned dictionary definition of yellow journalism .. popular mechanics and their co-horts implosion world and protec..have clearly been chosen to be the governments disinformation agents..there is no peer review or power of subpeona..it is a joke..

Please Take Notice That: 

On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7. 

Sincerely, 

The Undersigned 
Sign the Petition


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 31, 2008)

eots said:


> no its the Truth the Hearst owned dictionary definition of yellow journalism .. popular mechanics and their co-horts implosion world and protec..have clearly been chosen to be the governments disinformation agents..there is no peer review or power of subpeona..it is a joke..
> 
> Please Take Notice That:
> 
> ...


so, now we add implosion world and protec to the members of this conspiracy


----------



## Toro (Dec 31, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> so, now we add implosion world and protec to the members of this conspiracy



And you too, DiveCon!


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 31, 2008)

Toro said:


> And you too, DiveCon!


oh, i was added YEARS ago
LOL


----------



## Big_D (Dec 31, 2008)

eots said:


> *David L. Griscom, PhD  Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service.*  Fellow of the American Physical Society.  Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997).  Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003).  Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005).  Winner of the 1993 N. F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (*Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL.* Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers.  Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988.
> *Personal blog 1/5/07: "David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of The Destruction of the World Trade Center*: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True:  This scholarly work, rich in eyewitness accounts, includes 11 separate pieces of evidence that the World Trade Center towers 1, 2 [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories], and 7 were brought down by explosives.  [Editor's note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories.  It would have been the tallest building in 33 states.  Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers.  However, *no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 *terrorist attacks."  Watch the collapse video here.  And six years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.]
> 
> ... I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and (ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals like, say, the Journal of Applied Physics.
> ...



Unless you can disprove the credibility of the engineering review dept at the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, you cannot make the case that any of the articles that you have supplied are more reliable than this one:
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf
This article has passed, yet Griffins book did not.  Neither did any other article written by any other conspiracy believer.


----------



## Big_D (Dec 31, 2008)

eots said:


> no its the Truth the Hearst owned dictionary definition of yellow journalism .. popular mechanics and their co-horts implosion world and protec..have clearly been chosen to be the governments disinformation agents..there is no peer review or power of subpeona..it is a joke..
> 
> Please Take Notice That:
> 
> ...



First of all there are over two million engineers and over a hundred thousand architects in this nation alone.  (http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf02325/, http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos038.htm) Only five hundred in the world signed that petition.  Secondly, from the link you provided it does NOT say that all of those people believe 9/11 was an inside job.  It says that they doubt the official story and want a new investigation, but nowhere does it say they believe it was an inside job.  I believe that they phrased it the way they did in order to gain more signatures.  There are many reasons why they would want a new investigation, it doesnt have to mean they believe it is a hoax.  Lastly, as I proved in post number 260 of this thread, there are many experts that believe me.  Again, this website ranks the top engineers schools in the world and I have engineering professors from every school in the top five. 10 World's Top Engineering Universities 2007 | SKORCAREER


----------



## eots (Dec 31, 2008)

yellow journalism 


Inflammatory, irresponsible reporting by newspapers. The phrase arose during the 1890s, when some American newspapers, particularly those run by *William Randolph Hearst,* worked to incite hatred of Spain, thereby contributing to the start of the Spanish-American War. Newspapers that practice yellow journalism are called yellow press.

yellow journalism definition | Dictionary.com


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 31, 2008)

eots said:


> yellow journalism
> 
> 
> Inflammatory, irresponsible reporting by newspapers. The phrase arose during the 1890s, when some American newspapers, particularly those run by *William Randolph Hearst,* worked to incite hatred of Spain, thereby contributing to the start of the Spanish-American War. Newspapers that practice yellow journalism are called yellow press.
> ...


yeah, you troofers do a lot of that
and Alex Jones is your king


----------



## eots (Dec 31, 2008)

Big_D said:


> First of all there are over two million engineers and over a hundred thousand architects in this nation alone.  (How Large is the U.S. S&E Workforce?, Architects, Except Landscape and Naval) Only five hundred in the world signed that petition.  Secondly, from the link you provided it does NOT say that all of those people believe 9/11 was an inside job.  It says that they doubt the official story and want a new investigation, but nowhere does it say they believe it was an inside job.  I believe that they phrased it the way they did in order to gain more signatures.  There are many reasons why they would want a new investigation, it doesnt have to mean they believe it is a hoax.  Lastly, as I proved in post number 260 of this thread, there are many experts that believe me.  Again, this website ranks the top engineers schools in the world and I have engineering professors from every school in the top five. 10 World's Top Engineering Universities 2007 | SKORCAREER




so how many astronauts that have walked on the moon are there how many tac directors of NORAD ?..how many NASA research directors..how many heads of the depleted uranium program,how many top gun flight instructors 


*Dwain Deets, MS Physics, MS Eng &#8211; Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center.  Before this appointment, he served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden.  Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service*




*Larry L. Erickson, BS Aeronautical Eng, MS Aeronautical Eng, PhD Eng Mechanics &#8211; Retired NASA Aerospace Engineer and Research Scientist.  Conducted research in the fields of structural dynamics, aerodynamics, aeroelasticity and flutter.  Recipient of NASA's Aerodynamics Division Researcher-of-the-Year Award. *

*Capt. Daniel Davis, U.S. Army &#8211; Former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director.  Decorated with the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal for bravery under fire and the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam.*


*Major Douglas Rokke, PhD 

Major Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army (ret) &#8211; Former Director U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Project.  30-year Army career*. 



Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) &#8211; Director of Advanced *Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter.  U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. (PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Cal Tech).   Former Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology.  22-year Air Force career.  Also taught Mathematics and English at the University of Southern California, the University of Maryland, and Phillips University*. 


*Capt. Edgar Mitchell, U.S. Navy (ret), BS Industrial Management, BS Aeronautical Engineering, Doctor of Science, Aeronautics and Astronautics from MIT &#8211; Pilot and Astronaut.  Sixth man to walk on the moon *(Apollo 14 mission).  Patrol bomber and attack plane pilot, U.S. Navy.  Test Pilot, Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 5 (VX-5).  Chief of Project Management Division, Navy Field Office for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory Project.  Graduated first in his class from the Aerospace Research Pilot School, and served as an instructor there.  Recipient of many awards and honors including the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the USN Distinguished Medal and three NASA Group Achievement Awards. Inducted to the Space Hall of Fame in 1979 and the Astronaut Hall of Fame in 1998.  Recipient of honorary doctorates in engineering from New Mexico State University, the University of Akron, Carnegie Mellon University, and a ScD from Embry-Riddle University.  Founder of the Institute of Noetic Sciences. 
Endorser of and proposed Commissioner of a New Investigation into 9/11 as described in the New York City Ballot Initiative 11/08: "Petition to Create a NYC Independent Commission with Subpoena Power to Conduct a Comprehensive and Fact-Driven Investigation of All Relevant Aspects of the Tragic Events of September 11, 2001 and Issue a Report. 

WHEREAS, many New York City voters believe that there remain many unanswered questions critical to establishing the truth about all relevant events leading up to, during and subsequent to the tragic attacks occurring on September 11, 2001 (&#8220;9/11&#8221, and 

WHEREAS, no prior investigation by any New York City agency or any other governmental entity has resulted in the citizens being provided with those critical answers or information necessary to establish the truth about those tragic events, ... 

An independent, temporary New York City commission (the &#8220;Commission&#8221 is hereby created to conduct a comprehensive, factdriven investigation into the events that took place on 9/11, as well as to thoroughly examine related events before and after the attacks, including any activities attempting to hide, cover up, impede or obstruct any investigation into these 9/11 events, following wherever the facts may lead. The Commission shall publish one or more reports of their findings." 


Website
Video 9/11/04: "A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash.  It&#8217;s impossible. &#8230; There&#8217;s a second group of facts having to do with the cover up. &#8230; Taken together these things prove that high levels of our government don&#8217;t want us to know what happened and who&#8217;s responsible.&#8230; 

Who gained from 9/11?  Who covered up crucial information about 9/11?  And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place?  When you take those three things together, I think the case is pretty clear that it&#8217;s highly placed individuals in the administration with all roads passing through Dick Cheney. 

I think the very kindest thing that we can say about George W. Bush and all the people in the U.S. Government that have been involved in this massive cover-up, the very kindest thing we can say is that they were aware of impending attacks and let them happen.  Now some people will say that&#8217;s much too kind, however even that is high treason and conspiracy to commit murder."  http://video.go 



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


----------



## eots (Dec 31, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> yeah, you troofers do a lot of that
> and Alex Jones is your king



yellow journalism was a term coined for _your king _..Hearst.. publisher of popular mechanics... your getting confused again


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 31, 2008)

eots said:


> yellow journalism was a term coined for _your king _..Hearst.. publisher of popular mechanics... your getting confused again


i have no king
and PM does not do yellow journalism
Alex Jones DOES


----------



## Big_D (Jan 1, 2009)

eots said:


> so how many astronauts that have walked on the moon are there



I have as many used experts that walk on moon as you have.  *Capt. Edgar Mitchell, the sixth person to walk on the moon, NEVER said 9/11 was an inside job.*  He might want a new 9/11 investigation but never said it was an inside job.  It is right on that patriots question 9/11 website.  You all assume that someone who wants a new investigation thinks it is an inside job.  There are MANY reasons why someone might want a new investigation.  Maybe he believes there was information that out govt could have known to stop the attacks beforehand.  _That_ is what he might want exposed.  Again, it doesn't mean he believes it was an inside job.



eots said:


> how many tac directors of NORAD ?..how many NASA research directors..how many heads of the depleted uranium program,how many top gun flight instructors



The same seems true for some of these individuals as well.  They might want a new investigation but that doesn't mean they believe it was an inside job. 

Even if they did why would you take their word over the top engineering experts I have used in post number 260 and the experts in the engineering division of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics who reviewed and approved Dr. Ba&#382;ant's article on 9/11?  The people you list area of expertise is not engineering.  Why would I take their word over actual engineering experts?  Who would know why a building collapsed through demolition or from the planes better than the top engineering experts from around the world?  Here is a list of the engineering professors that would have reviewed and approved Dr. Ba&#382;ant's article:
ASCE-EMD - ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEES
ASCE: Journal of Structural Engineering <br> Editorial Board
Now the list might have changed in the past seven years or so, but you get the idea.  *There are over 60 + engineering of the world's top professors that approved this paper.*  Do you seriously believe that none of these people know what they are talking about?  None of your experts had papers about 9/11 that were approved by this group, yet you want me to take their word of the professor who did!  This makes no sense.

Also, Ryan Mackey, the one who wrote the article that combats David Ray Griffins article works for NASA.  So did people who worked on the popular mechanics article.  Ryan Mackey has many different experts that he quoted in his article as well.  David Ray Griffin is a former philosophy professor and you want me to take his word over these people.  Again, doesn't make sense.


----------



## Big_D (Jan 1, 2009)

eots said:


> yellow journalism
> 
> 
> Inflammatory, irresponsible reporting by newspapers. The phrase arose during the 1890s, when some American newspapers, particularly those run by *William Randolph Hearst,* worked to incite hatred of Spain, thereby contributing to the start of the Spanish-American War. Newspapers that practice yellow journalism are called yellow press.
> ...



Are you criticizing me on this?  That is amazingly hypocritical of you. Yellow journalism of course means to distort the news.  You claim that the sixth person who walked on the moon agrees with you when he NEVER said that 9/11 is an inside job.  He wants a new 9/11 investigation but that doesnt mean he believes it was an inside job.  Again, maybe he believes there was information that out govt could have known to stop the attacks beforehand.  It doesnt mean he believes it was an inside job.  _That_ is a clear case of yellow journalism. 
I am saying that 60+ engineering experts from around the globe approved an article stating how the planes caused the WTC buildings to fall.  This obviously proves it couldn't have been done by explosives planted by the govt.  This is not yellow journalism, this is fact.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 1, 2009)

Big_D said:


> Are you criticizing me on this?  That is amazingly hypocritical of you. Yellow journalism of course means to distort the news.  You claim that the sixth person who walked on the moon agrees with you when he NEVER said that 9/11 is an inside job.  He wants a new 9/11 investigation but that doesnt mean he believes it was an inside job.  Again, maybe he believes there was information that out govt could have known to stop the attacks beforehand.  It doesnt mean he believes it was an inside job.  _That_ is a clear case of yellow journalism.
> I am saying that 60+ engineering experts from around the globe approved an article stating how the planes caused the WTC buildings to fall.  This obviously proves it couldn't have been done by explosives planted by the govt.  This is not yellow journalism, this is fact.


see what i have been telling you
troofers are some of the biggest liars you will find


----------



## Toro (Jan 1, 2009)

Big_D said:


> Are you criticizing me on this?  That is amazingly hypocritical of you. Yellow journalism of course means to distort the news.  You claim that the sixth person who walked on the moon agrees with you when he NEVER said that 9/11 is an inside job.  He wants a new 9/11 investigation but that doesnt mean he believes it was an inside job.  Again, maybe he believes there was information that out govt could have known to stop the attacks beforehand.  It doesnt mean he believes it was an inside job.  _That_ is a clear case of yellow journalism.



Like leaving out a graph of seismic data, or interpreting it wrong.  That's yellow journalism.

Re: new investigation.  You would have to be a fool to believe the government told you everything about 9/11 in their official report, given national security priorities and other reasons, or that they properly assigned responsibility for the tragedy, given the national trauma it induced.  Heck _I_ would like a new investigation, just to get the conspiracists to go away.  But even if they did, and still came to the same conclusion, they would just keep going on about conspiracies.  They would never accept any other conclusion.


----------



## eots (Jan 1, 2009)

Big_D said:


> Are you criticizing me on this?  That is amazingly hypocritical of you. Yellow journalism of course means to distort the news.  You claim that the sixth person who walked on the moon agrees with you when he NEVER said that 9/11 is an inside job.  He wants a new 9/11 investigation but that doesnt mean he believes it was an inside job.  Again, maybe he believes there was information that out govt could have known to stop the attacks beforehand.  It doesnt mean he believes it was an inside job.  _That_ is a clear case of yellow journalism.
> I am saying that *60+ engineering experts from around the globe* approved an article stating how the planes caused the WTC buildings to fall.  This obviously proves it couldn't have been done by explosives planted by the govt.  This is not yellow journalism, this is fact.



I have not misrepresented anyone nor has the patriots web site Mitchel has signed a petition  and is proposed as the chairmen of a real investigation the petition also calls for considering explosives may have been used and many of those that have signed the petition are already of the belief and state an inside job

Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11, *signed by more than 500 Architects and Engineers: *
"On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates  hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7.  We believe that there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore that the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7." Sign the Petition 


Website: MySpace


----------



## eots (Jan 1, 2009)

Youtube
Tuesday, Dec 30, 2008

9/11 Truth responds to NIST with HARD FACTS & Evidence!


NIST Report on WTC7 debunked and exposed!
YouTube - NIST Report on WTC7 debunked and exposed!


----------



## Big_D (Jan 2, 2009)

eots said:


> I have not misrepresented anyone nor has the patriots web site Mitchel has signed a petition  and is proposed as the chairmen of a real investigation the petition also calls for considering explosives may have been used and many of those that have signed the petition are already of the belief and state an inside job



You asked me how many astronauts that have walked on the moon were on my side.  Then you list Capt. Edgar Mitchell and give his credentials.  Anyone would believe that you are at the very least implying that he agrees with you in the fact that 9/11 was an inside job.  However, according to that website where you quote his credentials it* NEVER said he believed it was an inside job*.  He wants a new investigation, but that certainly does not mean he believes it was a hoax.  As I have shown in the past, there could be MANY reasons why someone would want a new investigation.  Senator Mark Dayton wants a new one and he NEVER said the govt was behind the attacks.



eots said:


> Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11, *signed by more than 500 Architects and Engineers: *
> "On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates  hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7.  We believe that there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore that the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7."



Same thing with this one.  The 500 engineers and architects are signing for a new investigation.   Read the quote that you provided.  *NOWHERE* does it say that they are signing a petition that says, "9/11 was a hoax and our govt is responsible."   Secondly, here are over two million engineers and over a hundred thousand architects in this nation alone. (How Large is the U.S. S&E Workforce?, Architects, Except Landscape and Naval) Only five hundred *in the world* signed that petition.


----------



## Big_D (Jan 2, 2009)

eots said:


> Youtube
> Tuesday, Dec 30, 2008
> 
> 9/11 Truth responds to NIST with HARD FACTS & Evidence!
> ...



There you go putting your faith into youtube clips instead of the actual experts.  BBC NEWS | Programmes | Conspiracy Files | Q&A: The collapse of Tower 7
"The demolition contractor, Mark Loizeaux says the timing of when the explosions on the columns are set off is critical. He cannot see how thermite or any derivative of thermite could have been used to deliberately demolish Tower 7.

"I've never seen anyone use a material, which melts steel for demolition purposes. I don't see how you could possibly get all of the columns to melt through at the same time."

People who think thermite was used to demolish Tower 7 have also claimed that the one section of steel from the building that was kept reveals that it was melted by some strange substance. The half inch (1.3cm) steel beam has been entirely dissolved in parts. "

"Professor Sisson determined that the steel was attacked by a liquid slag which contained iron, sulphur and oxygen.

However, rather than coming from thermite, the metallurgist Professor Sisson thinks the sulphur came from masses of gypsum wallboard that was pulverised and burnt in the fires. He says:

"I don't find it very mysterious at all, that if I have steel in this sort of a high temperature atmosphere that's rich in oxygen and sulphur this would be the kind of result I would expect." "

BBC NEWS | Programmes | Conspiracy Files | Q&A: The collapse of Tower 7

Here are the two experts credentials: 
*Mark Loizeaux*
"Mark Loizeaux is a demolition expert, and his company, Controlled Demolition Inc. in Phoenix, Md., has taken down more than 7,000 structures around the world by imploding them with explosive charges."

Survival Guide: Mark Loizeaux demolition expert
*
Richard Sisson*
"Richard D. Sisson Jr., George F. Fuller Professor of mechanical engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) and director of WPI's Manufacturing Engineering and Materials Science and Engineering programs, has been named to the Academy of Engineering Excellence at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech). Sisson received a B.S. in materials engineering from the Institute in 1969...After graduating from Virginia Tech, Sisson worked briefly in industry before earning a master's (1971) and a Ph.D. (1975) in metallurgical engineering from Purdue University. He then spent two years as a research metallurgist for E. I. DuPont at the Savannah River Laboratory in Aiken, S.C., where he developed plutonium dioxide that acted as a heat source for nuclear batteries. In 1976, he joined the WPI faculty as Morgan Distinguished Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering.

He returned to Virginia Tech in 1979 as assistant professor of materials engineering, conducting research in the Institute's environmental degradation of engineering materials laboratory. After two years, he headed north to take a position as staff engineer for Exxon Chemical Co. in Florham Park, N.J. A year later, deciding that he preferred the challenges and rewards of academia, he rejoined the WPI faculty, where he was named a full professor in 1986. In addition to directing the Manufacturing Engineering and Materials Science and Engineering programs, Sisson served as interim head of WPI's Mechanical Engineering Department from 1999 to 2000."
Metal Processing Institute - Richard Sisson Named to Virginia Tech Academy of Engineering Excellence




*So there you go.  You have a demolition experts and an engineering expert that disagrees with you.  Your youtube clip could have came from anyone.  Here is an expert that clearly disagrees with your opinion and you believe the youtube clip.*


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2009)

those guys are in on it, didnt you know that
anyone that doesnt believe the conspiracy that 9/11 was an inside job is clearly a part of the conspiracy


----------



## eots (Jan 2, 2009)

Big_D said:


> There you go putting your faith into youtube clips instead of the actual experts.  BBC NEWS | Programmes | Conspiracy Files | Q&A: The collapse of Tower 7
> "The demolition contractor, Mark Loizeaux says the timing of when the explosions on the columns are set off is critical. He cannot see how thermite or any derivative of thermite could have been used to deliberately demolish Tower 7.
> 
> "I've never seen anyone use a material, which melts steel for demolition purposes. I don't see how you could possibly get all of the columns to melt through at the same time."
> ...




911 and the British Broadcasting Conspiracy - 141 - Jun 25, 2007 
Official Confusion - bbc5.tv 

911 and the British Broadcasting Conspiracy - new documentary by Adrian Connock and David Shayler about the BBC's selective and distorted 911...

911 and the British Broadcasting Conspiracy


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 2, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> so, now we add implosion world and protec to the members of this conspiracy



No not members of the conspiracy,just participants in the coverup.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> No not members of the conspiracy,just participants in the coverup.


isnt being part of the "cover up" also being part of the conspiracy?


----------



## Big_D (Jan 2, 2009)

eots said:


> 911 and the British Broadcasting Conspiracy - 141 - Jun 25, 2007
> Official Confusion - bbc5.tv
> 
> 911 and the British Broadcasting Conspiracy - new documentary by Adrian Connock and David Shayler about the BBC's selective and distorted 911...
> ...



What does this have to do with anything?  Even if the BBC is corrupt, then they still couldn't force those two experts I listed in my last post to say what they did.  Again, you put your faith into silly clips that could have been made up by anyone instead of actual experts who have spent their lives researching and working in the fields of demolition and engineering.  If you will not take their word then take the word of the following who agree with the people from the BBC article:

"Those machines documented the tremors of the falling towers, but captured no ground vibrations before the collapses from demolition charges or bombs, according to a separate report by Brent Blanchard, the director of field operations for Protec."
"...Mr. Blanchard of Protec said that if there had been any molten steel in the rubble, it would have permanently damaged any excavation equipment encountering it. ''As a fundamental point, if an excavator or grapple ever dug into a pile of molten steel heated to excess of 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, it would completely lose its ability to function,'' Mr. Blanchard wrote. ''At a minimum, the hydraulics would immediately fail and its moving parts would bond together or seize up.''"
U.S. Counters 9/11 Theories Of Conspiracy - New York Times

-Brent Blanchard
"Director of field operations at Protec Documentation Services...
Protec is one of the worlds most knowledgeable independent authorities on explosive demolition, have performed engineering studies, structure analysis, vibration/air events in more than 30 countries. These include the current world record-holders for documents the work of more than 20 explosives contractors who perform structure blasting as a primary source of revenue"
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf

More from the times article:
"Moreover, a demolition project would have required the tower walls to be opened on dozens of floors, followed by the insertion of thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms, all sneaked past the security stations, inside hundreds of feet of walls on all four faces of both buildings. Then the walls presumably would have been closed up.

All this would have had to take place without attracting the notice of any of the thousands of tenants and workers in either building; no witness has ever reported such activity. Then on the morning of Sept. 11, the demolition explosives would have had to withstand the impacts of the airplanes, since the collapse did not begin for 57 minutes in one tower, and 102 minutes in the other. "
U.S. Counters 9/11 Theories Of Conspiracy - New York Times


----------



## Toro (Jan 2, 2009)

I still don't understand why lowly broadcast reporters would be told that WTC 7 was about to be blown up.  I really don't understand the logic of that one.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2009)

Toro said:


> I still don't understand why lowly broadcast reporters would be told that WTC 7 was about to be blown up.  I really don't understand the logic of that one.


most people with logic and reason could understand that a report that the WTC7 was about to fall, could get messed up to say it HAD fallen
especially on the exact day of it happening


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 2, 2009)

thats because you dont understand or want to understand how the media is controlled by large corporations in the government.that they are told which kinds of storys to report.as i stated earlier,its a known fact that before the kennedy assasination took place,it was already being reported in the newspapers that he had already been assassinated and that oswald did it before he had even been assassinated yet or that oswald had even been officially charged with the crime yet.thats how I knew from the very get go,this was an inside job by the government cause i have researched the kennedy assassination for years and know how the media operates and why they never report real news.the similiarities in the two events are mind boggling.as i said before,the CIA has plants in forms of government.especially news outlets.Like i said before,that was documented and proved by congress when they did an investigation into their activities in the 70's.the CIA is no different now than they were then,they still operate the same way.also there was a book written by a former CIA director who even said so himself called THE CIA AND THE COLT IN THE INTELLIGENCE.YYOU GOING TO IGNOREWHAT a CIA director says.


----------



## Toro (Jan 2, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> thats because you dont understand or want to understand how the media is controlled by large corporations in the government.that they are told which kinds of storys to report.as i stated earlier,its a known fact that before the kennedy assasination took place,it was already being reported in the newspapers that he had already been assassinated and that oswald did it before he had even been assassinated yet or that oswald had even been officially charged with the crime yet.thats how I knew from the very get go,this was an inside job by the government cause i have researched the kennedy assassination for years and know how the media operates and why they never report real news.the similiarities in the two events are mind boggling.as i said before,the CIA has plants in forms of government.especially news outlets.Like i said before,that was documented and proved by congress when they did an investigation into their activities in the 70's.the CIA is no different now than they were then,they still operate the same way.also there was a book written by a former CIA director who even said so himself called THE CIA AND THE COLT IN THE INTELLIGENCE.YYOU GOING TO IGNOREWHAT a CIA director says.



First of all, I have invested in large media companies for years, and have had meetings with most of the top executives of the major media corporations, so I have a fairly good idea about how they operate.

But what you are saying makes no sense.  Why must they be _told_ to report on an event when they can just see it being broadcast with their eyes?  Do you honestly believe that it would escape the newscasters attention that another building in the WTC was collapsing?  Do you think _every single member of the news media_ would just blithely sit there, blissfully unaware of what was happening around them without being told what was going on?  It still makes no sense.  Why tell them what was going to happen when you can just put them in front of a monitor and let them report what was happening as they see it?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 3, 2009)

Toro said:


> First of all, I have invested in large media companies for years, and have had meetings with most of the top executives of the major media corporations, so I have a fairly good idea about how they operate.
> 
> But what you are saying makes no sense.  Why must they be _told_ to report on an event when they can just see it being broadcast with their eyes?  Do you honestly believe that it would escape the newscasters attention that another building in the WTC was collapsing?  Do you think _every single member of the news media_ would just blithely sit there, blissfully unaware of what was happening around them without being told what was going on?  It still makes no sense.  Why tell them what was going to happen when you can just put them in front of a monitor and let them report what was happening as they see it?



i got an article i plan on posting that answers all that for you.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 3, 2009)

Big_D said:


> Looks like Griffins book has been debunked: http://www.911myths.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf
> 
> Griffins book doesn't debunk popular mechanics, it shows it's differences to other papers.
> 
> ...



Griffiths book has only been debunked in your fairy tale land.I already answered that question for you,not my fault if you have a poor memory.as i said before,griffith has challenged the government to debate him,they wont,Matter of fact he has a new book out just recently released called   CHALLENGE TO THE MEDIA AND THE 9/11 COMMISSION challenging the commission and the media to go public with him and his experts.they wont do it cause they know they cant debunk him.no not taking the high road,not my fault you guys wont read his book and want to believe in fairy tales.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 3, 2009)

Big_D said:


> I have made this point on numerous occasions and it looks like I will never get a response.  Again, why would I take Griffin's word over Dr. Zden&#283;k P. Baant when his book never passed the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics in their engineering division and Baant's has?  Here is his paper again:http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf  That means 20+ engineering experts from around the globe read this and approved it.  Both you and eots insulted this paper and I have been asking for you two to back it up and neither of you will do so.  Also, Griffins book didn't debunk the popular mechanics article. It just simply pointed out the differences with the popular mechanics to other papers.



for the freaking hundreth time lik we have told you before,stop pretending that griffith is the only expert out there who believes it was an inaide job.for the hundreth time,read griffiths entire book-not just one page or so where he shows in the book that he ihas nterviewed these kinds of experts in the fields you have mentioned and look at his footnotes in the back where he shows where he got them from.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> Griffiths book has only been debunked in your fairy tale land.I already answered that question for you,not my fault if you have a poor memory.as i said before,griffith has challenged the government to debate him,they wont,Matter of fact he has a new book out just recently released called   CHALLENGE TO THE MEDIA AND THE 9/11 COMMISSION challenging the commission and the media to go public with him and his experts.they wont do it cause they know they cant debunk him.no not taking the high road,not my fault you guys wont read his book and want to believe in fairy tales.


griffith isnt even a scientist



hes a theologian


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 3, 2009)

Big_D said:


> So why is it that you would take these people's opinion over my experts?  As I have PROVED,(from post number 260 in this thread) I have engineers professors from the top engineering schools in the world!  Here is a list of the top 10 engineering schools in the world: World's Top 10 Engineering Schools 2008/2009 | SKORCAREER From the top five listed, I have used engineering professors at all five of them. Again, they all agree with me. Why would you take the word of anyone else over theirs?  Who would know better on why the WTC buildings collapsed?  Yet, you will take the word of an *EX* CIA agent at the time of the attacks and has NO engineering experience at all.  Also, I have had trouble finding somewhere that McGovern actually says he believes 9/11 was an inside job.  He thinks that the 9/11 investigation left open many questions and wants a new one.  However, I cannot find where he says he believes it was done by our govt.  I have been able to find that McGovern signed a petition that he believes Bush purposely allowed the attacks to happen.  He didnt say that bush made it happen.  When you met him, he could have been referring that people call him a conspiracy theorist because he believes that Bush let the attacks to occur, not perpetrating it.



of course not EVERYTHING Mcgovern says is going to make it to print.you didnt talk to him personally like I did.He spoke there at the meeting that he believes it was an inside job and got a standing ovation after his speech about it from over 200 people there at the event.this event I went to isnt going to be broadcast everywhere.No he told me he believes they perpetrated it.I already answered your question at LEAST twice  before about in your first paragraph,,yet you STILL keep asking it.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 3, 2009)

Big_D said:


> Why explosives could not have been used:
> 
> "Since their inception in the late 1800s, blasting engineers have understood that building implosions work best when the forces of gravity are maximized. This is why blasters always concentrate their efforts on the lowest floors of a structure. While smaller supplemental charges can be placed on upper floors to facilitate breakage and maximize control as the structure collapses, every implosion ever performed has followed the basic model of obliterating structural supports on the bottom few floors first, "to get the structure moving.""
> 
> ...



well you have arrogantly and blantantly ignored those last posts of mine right before yours on this page that proves overwhemling it was an inside job,havent bothered to look at those videos I posted that prove it so I am now done with you.I will reply to your previous posts from this but after that I am done with you.I thought you were different from dive con and toro since you dont call people names like they do when losing a debate but as I said,its tiresome having to keep repeating myself when I have given you the answers many times before.its so obvious you havent looked at that those videos on the candawants the truth site cause if you did,you would see the evidence is overwhelming in those videos that bombs went off in the towers and was an inside job.I thought you were different than divecon since unlike him,you dont call people names when losing a debate and you were asking questions,i thought you has a sincere interest in learning but you dont,so dont expect anymore replies from me over quesitons of yours because its the same ones over and over again that I have already answered.Now I am going to post the stuff i have been wanting to post for a long time but cant cause you wont admit the obvious that it was an inside job and keep asking the same questions in half your posts that I have already answered many times before.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 3, 2009)

okay to talk more about the fake bin laden video.the governments 2007 photo that they say if him where he has the black beard is OBVIOUSLY fake.you can see the 2004 photo of him where he has the grey beard,that they are not the same people.its against muslims religion to dye their beard so that guy is obviously not him in that first video EOTS showed.Thats a good point BIG D but there is another video out there where we see in more detail of him writing where they say thats him but its clearly a fake cause it shows him in more detail,writing right handed when he its known that he is left handed and in that video,the guy acts and sounds nothing like the real bin laden they say.as for that last video,No his son doesnt say that exactly that the video is fake,but he clearly made it clear {in his own way} that he didnt think that video was his dad just cause they told him so.same thing.There is also a video out there that they say is him  where he is wearing a ring and the muslims religion FORBIDS them to wear rings.


----------



## AmericaFirst (Jan 3, 2009)

The fire was not enough to bring down 7. Silverstein (the guy that had the insurance on the building)  said it was PULLED. He made BILLIONS. In order for it to free fall like it did it required explosives. In order to bring it down with such precision it requires weeks of planning. In order to place the explosives in the building it would require someone would have had to plan the implosion weeks in advance and had access to the building.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 3, 2009)

all you got to do to find the proof that Bin Laden SAID he didnt do it,is google in ummat pakistani newspaper sept 28th 2001 issue bin laden and you can see for yourself where he says he DIDN'T do it.in the interview as you can see he starts out to say-I have already said that I am not involved in the sept 11th attacks in the united states.As a muslim,I try my best to avoid telling a lie.I had no knowledge of these attacks,nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act.Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people.such a practice is forbidden even in the course of battle.It is the united states,which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women,children,and uncommon people.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 3, 2009)

In this interview,largely unreported in the united states,Bin Laden unsurprisingly blamed the attacks on Isreal,claiming "all that is going on in Palestine for the last 11 months is sufficient to call the wrath of god upon the united states and isreal and what had earlier been done to the people of Iraq,chechnya and Bosnia.Bin Laden then went on to state-"we are not hostile to the united states,we are against the [US GOVERNMENT] system which makes other nations slaves to the united states or forces them to mortgage their political and economic freedom.all of this went unreported by the united states fortunately,the European media DID report it.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 3, 2009)

ALSO Bin ladens mother,alia Ghanem,told a british newspaper "There are too many gaps and the statements are unlike him.Osama is too good a muslim and too good a person to say or do what the script of the video suggests.Ghanem who still lives in Saudi Arabia,said the tape was "doctored" some days later,his mothers claim was supported by Arabic language experts,who claimed that the pentagons translation of the tape was incorrect and taken out of context.also as well,2 independent  translators and an expert  on arabic culture reported their findings on the german state tv program-MONITOR.which was broadcast dec 20th 2001 over germanys DAS ERST,often compared to NBC or the BBC Dr Abdel Husseini stated-I have carefully examined the pentagons translation.this translation is very problomatic.at the most important places which have been presented as "PROOF" OF bIN LADENS guilt,it is not identical with the arabic.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 3, 2009)

so that lays to rest right there that there is NO EVIDENCE that Bin Laden ever said he did it.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 3, 2009)

AmericaFirst said:


> The fire was not enough to bring down 7. Silverstein (the guy that had the insurance on the building)  said it was PULLED. He made BILLIONS. In order for it to free fall like it did it required explosives. In order to bring it down with such precision it requires weeks of planning. In order to place the explosives in the building it would require someone would have had to plan the implosion weeks in advance and had access to the building.



Great to FINALLY see someone else come on here besides me and EOTS not afraid of the truth who can think for themselves and outside the box and not fall for the propaganda of the governments POPULAR MECHANICS B.S.welcome aboard my friend,your a true patriot.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 3, 2009)

Big_D said:


> So if bin laden would say he had more no part in it then the number would be much higher.
> 
> I am not sure about the entire middle east, but according to WorldOpinionPoll.org only 12 % of the people of egypt believe it was done by our govt.  Also, according to the same website only 15% of the world believe it was an inside job.  Here are the polls that were posted on wikipedia from WorldOpinionPoll.org. 9/11 opinion polls - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



WIKIPEDIA is a horrible source to rely on.its world know facts around the globe that it was an inside job.Most of the people polled in russia,italy,japan,and canada as examples know it was.Its only here in america where most people in the country are ignorant about it being an inside job.Its not anywhere near as suppressed around the world in other media outlets like japan and canada like it is here.matter of fact,the populations of the world have not onl hated the government of the united states for years cause the CIA makes the third reich look like a bunch of choir boys and their the reason the world is in such a mess with wars.They not only hate our government but they are now starting to hate us americans as well cause people are too afraid to take action here and do something about it and I dont blame them for hating us.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 3, 2009)

Big_D said:


> He asked you to disprove his post, not to give opinion.  On the popular mechanics site there are seismologist, engineers, geophysics, fire experts, and aviation experts.
> Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics



for the hundreth time,Griffith quoted these kinds of experts from his book that HAS disproved his posts.not his fault your in denial.


----------



## Big_D (Jan 3, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> Griffiths book has only been debunked in your fairy tale land.



How compelling you are to insult me and ignore the link I provided. I think I know why you decided on insulting me instead of actually refuting the point. It is because Griffins book is one of the few arguments that you have left.  If it is discredited, as it looks like it has in the following link, the you really do not have many points remaining.  Face it, Griffins book flat out cannot compare to the experts I have in the following post in this thread (#406).  

http://www.911myths.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf
This link goes through the points in Griffins book that you keep promoting.   



9/11 inside job said:


> I already answered that question for you,not my fault if you have a poor memory.



If it is the question of why I should trust Griffin, a philosophy professor, instead of Dr. Ba&#382;ant, an engineering professor/expert, then you have not made an adequate answer.  I have said numerous times and gave you a list why you response was silly to which I got no answer.  This is also after you changed your story.  In post number 144 of this thread you said you were going to read Dr. Ba&#382;ant's paper.  You said you were sure that is was laughable.  Well, it has been over three weeks.  Why don't inform me how laughable it was?



9/11 inside job said:


> as i said before,griffith has challenged the government to debate him,they wont,Matter of fact he has a new book out just recently released called   CHALLENGE TO THE MEDIA AND THE 9/11 COMMISSION challenging the commission and the media to go public with him and his experts.they wont do it cause they know they cant debunk him.no not taking the high road,not my fault you guys wont read his book and want to believe in fairy tales.



It's interesting how you call the official story of 9/11 a fairy tale when you have said in the past that Barack Obama might have even conspired on perpetrating it.  He was in his state's legislator at the time.  He obviously didn't have any authority in attacking his own country.  Why doesn't Griffin ask Dr. Ba&#382;ant and the 60+ engineering experts at the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics in their engineering division who approved his paper about the official story of 9/11?  I bet those 60+ engineering experts know more why the WTC buildings fell than that philosophy teacher.


----------



## AmericaFirst (Jan 3, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> Great to FINALLY see someone else come on here besides me and EOTS not afraid of the truth who can think for themselves and outside the box and not fall for the propaganda of the governments POPULAR MECHANICS B.S.welcome aboard my friend,your a true patriot.



When the you look at what happened and then read the 9/11 Commission report then go back and look what happened it's pretty obvious the rats have invaded our Great Nation.

It's still going on. Not a single law suit from the victims has made it to trial. Not ONE. All paid off so REAL evidence can't be brought into court.

Look at Bin Laden - He has NEVER been charged by the FBI or the USA for the crime.

There is too much evidence to even discuss here IMO. The sheep that follow the official story will never except anything but what the zionist occupied government  and media has told them. To try and convince any one that's still believes the official story is a waste of time. I don't know if you know it or not but there are people on the internet hired to either argue with you endlessly with their script or hired to point you toward the wrong discussion. 

Some of the biggest 'truthers' are FAKE. Look at Alex Jones for example. He only goes so far then starts his 'new world order', 'black pope', bilderbergs' ect. script, rather then naming the real murderers.

Christopher Bollyn has pretty much solved the crime. He had some bones broke along the way but he's identified the criminals.

Christopher Bollyn

http://www.bollyn.info/home/


----------



## Big_D (Jan 3, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> for the freaking hundreth time lik we have told you before,stop pretending that griffith is the only expert out there who believes it was an inaide job.



I do not pretend that Griffin is the only expert that agrees with your opinion, as I know that he is not an expert at all!  Like we have been saying, he is a former philosophy professor.  



9/11 inside job said:


> for the hundreth time,read griffiths entire book-not just one page or so where he shows in the book that he ihas nterviewed these kinds of experts in the fields you have mentioned and look at his footnotes in the back where he shows where he got them from.



Again, you tout someone who has interviewed experts, instead of the experts themselves.  Here is a list of experts that agree with me:

	Dr. Zden&#283;k P. Baant- Engineering Professor at Northwestern 
His view on 9/11: http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf
His credentials: Biography of ZdenÄk P. BaÅ¾ant â PNAS
Civil and Environmental Engineering - Faculty Profile - Zdenek Bazant
	Dr. Paul F. Mlakar Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE
o	His View on 9/11: http://mceer.buffalo.edu/meetings/AEI/presentations/06Mlakar-paper.pdf
o	His credentials: http://mceer.buffalo.edu/meetings/AEI/Mlakar.pdf

	Dr. Tim Wilkinson: Professor of engineering at The university of Sydney 
o	His view on 9/11: World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects - Civil Engineering - The University of Sydney
o	His credentials: Tim Wilkinson - Civil Engineering - The University of Sydney
	Dr. Hassan Astaneh: Professor of engineering at Berkley 
His view on 9/11: Jets hit towers in most vulnerable spots / Killers appear to have known where to strike 
His Credentials: Engineering News, Date
(located under his photo)
	Dr. W. Gene Corley:
His view on 9/11: Gene Corley | World news | The Guardian
His Credentials:  W. Gene Corley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
http://www.ctlgroup.com/files/dynamic_resumes/Corley NARRES 0131.pdf
	Dr. Robert L. Parker: Physics professor at USC 
o	His view on 9/11: Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics 
o	His credentials: mahi.ucsd.edu/parker/
	Dr. Mete Sozen: Engineering professor at Purdue 
o	His View on 9/11: New simulation shows 9/11 plane crash with scientific detail
o	His credentials :https://engineering.purdue.edu/CE/Pe...source_id=2260
	Dr. Fred Culick: Engineering professor at Cal tech.  						His view on 9/11: Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics													His Credentials :GALCIT :: Fred Culick
	Dr. Ching S. Chang: 
o	His view on 9/11: Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - The Paper 
o	His credentials: The College of Engineering University of Massachusetts | C.S. Chang
	Dr. Ayhan Irfanoglu- Engineering professor at Purdue 
o	His view on 9/11: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/jun/21/911-simulation32supports-report/s
o	His credentials: Ayhan Irfanoglu - Purdue University
	Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer -Engineering Professor at the university of Maryland 
His view on 9/11: http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center
His Crednetials : Frederick W. Mowrer, Faculty, Department of Fire Protection Engineering, University of Maryland
	Dr Keith Seffen Engineering Professor at Cambridge University 
o	His view on 9/11: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 9/11 demolition theory challenged
o	His Credentials: Keith Seffen
	Dr. Asif Usmani: Professor of engineering at Edinburgh 
o	His view on 9/11: http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/1216
o	His Credentials: Fire Safety Engineering
	Dr. Jose Torero: Professor of engineering at Edinburgh  
o	His View on 9/11: http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/1216
o	His credentials: Fire Safety Engineering
	Arvid Naess: Professor of engineering at Norwegian University of Science and Technology
o	His View on 9/11: Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - The Paper
o	His Credentials: http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
o	Professor Arvid Naess
	Masayuki Nakao Engineering professor at the University of Tokyo. 
o	His view on 9/11: JST Failure Knowledge Database > Case Details > The World Trade Center Collapse
o	His credentials: Masayuki Nakao
	Mark Loizeaux: Demolition expert, owner of Controlled Demolition Inc.
o	His views on 9/11: BBC NEWS | Programmes | Conspiracy Files | Q&A: The collapse of Tower 7
o	His credentials: Survival Guide: Mark Loizeaux demolition expert

None of these people knwo what they are talking about?


----------



## Big_D (Jan 3, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> for the hundreth time,Griffith quoted these kinds of experts from his book that HAS disproved his posts.not his fault your in denial.



Here is an expert for you:
"Mr Loizeaux also told the BBC that you would need to place hundreds of explosive charges along with miles of initiating cable and miles more detonating cord. And you would find evidence left behind of all these explosive charges, blasting caps and tubes.

Furthermore says Loizeaux, when you are dealing with charges big enough to bring down a building like Tower 7: "The amount of air that's displaced will break windows easily.

"There were a lot of broken windows mainly through impact debris. But I didn't see windows broken on the backs of building, only where debris falling from the Towers struck it.

"But come round the back side, no windows were broken there.

"*They were shielded from debris falling. If explosives of the magnitude necessary to cut the columns in a big building, were detonated the windows all the way round would have been shattered. No way round it*." "

Loizeaux has set world records for the largest building that was brought down through controlled demolition.  Yet again, you think I should trust someone that isn't an expert.


----------



## Big_D (Jan 3, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> WIKIPEDIA is a horrible source to rely on.its world know facts around the globe that it was an inside job.Most of the people polled in russia,italy,japan,and canada as examples know it was.Its only here in america where most people in the country are ignorant about it being an inside job.Its not anywhere near as suppressed around the world in other media outlets like japan and canada like it is here.matter of fact,the populations of the world have not onl hated the government of the united states for years cause the CIA makes the third reich look like a bunch of choir boys and their the reason the world is in such a mess with wars.They not only hate our government but they are now starting to hate us americans as well cause people are too afraid to take action here and do something about it and I dont blame them for hating us.



Wikipedia back up what it was saying there sources they used at the bottom of the page.  Also, that is irrelevant if the polls are correct or not.  As I said in the post you quoted me, if Bin Laden would say that the American govt perpetrated it then more people in those nations would agree with him.



9/11 inside job said:


> for the hundreth time,Griffith quoted these kinds of experts from his book that HAS disproved his posts.not his fault your in denial.



I don't know why you put so much credibility in Griffin's book.  It makes not sense to trust a philosophy professor if I cannot trust all the engineering, psychics, and demolition experts in post number 406 of this thread. In Griffins book he doesn't combat the Popular Mechanics article. He simply says how it is different from other experts. For example, in the "melted steel" section he says that Thomas Edgar's article on why the towers fell is different from the popular mechanics article. They state that Edgar says the heat rose to 700 degrees Celsius in the WTC building meanwhile, PM says it is 900. That is all.  His book does not debunk popular mechanics, it just shows the differences between that articles and others written about 9/11.  Different people are going to come to different conclusions.  Also, when Griffin supposedly debunks popular mechanics, he never said how the building could stand if the heat rose to 700 degrees.  Dr. Thomas Edgar's article said that the heat would bring down the buildings at 700 degrees, but Griffin thinks that since Popular Mechanics experts said the heat could have risen to 900, then it is worthless.  

Also for the hundredth time, Dr. Ba&#382;ant's article (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf) passed the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics in their engineering division. That means engineering experts from around the globe read this and approved it. David Ray Griffin's book didn't do this. None of the experts you have listed has had articles approved by this group.  Therefore it makes no sense to take their word's INCLUDING GRIFFIN'S over Dr. Ba&#382;ant's.

Furthermore, Griffins book has apparently been debunked as well: http://www.911myths.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf


----------



## eots (Jan 3, 2009)

*Richard Gage, AIA, Architect &#8211; Member, American Institute of Architects.  A practicing Architect for 20 years who has worked on most types of building construction including numerous fire-proofed steel-framed buildings.  Founding member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. 
Speech at Sonoma State University 4/20/07*: 

"Another 2006 poll by Scripps Howard, Ohio University, which found that a shocking 16% believe that the World Trade Center's Twin Towers were brought down by explosives.  Unfortunately, my research has also concluded that this is true.  Tonight I will present to you the very clear evidence that all three World Trade Center high-rise buildings, the Twin Towers and Building 7 were destroyed not by fire as our government has told us, but by controlled demolition with explosives." About Us 


Frank A. DeMartini &#8211; WTC victim.  Architect and WTC Construction Manager, North Tower, 88th floor.  Demartini first worked at the World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the terrorist truck bombing in 1993. 

Video interview 1/25/01: "The [Twin Tower] building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door. This intense grid * and the jet-plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting." Google Video 




*
Scott C. Grainger, BS CE, PE &#8211; Licensed Professional Civil Engineer and/or Fire Protection Engineer in the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming*.  Owner of Grainger Consulting, Inc., a fire protection engineering firm (23 years).  Former Chairman, Arizona State Fire Code Committee.  Former President of the Arizona Chapter of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers.  Current Member of the Forensic Sciences Committee and the Fire Standards Committee of ASTM International (formerly American Society for Testing and Materials ).  Senior Member, National Academy of Forensic Engineers. 
Editor's note: The Boeing 767-200s that impacted the Twin Towers on 9/11 were only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated.  The maximum takeoff weight of the 707 is 15% less than the 767. 


Bio: Obituaries | Death Notices | Newspaper Obituaries | Online Obituaries | Newspaper Death Notices | Online Death Notices 

\
Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition: 
*
"Approximately 50% of my work is forensic. I am licensed in 9 States. In addition to my forensic work, a good portion of my work is in the design of structural fireproofing systems.* 

All three [WTC] collapses were very uniform in nature. Natural collapses due to unplanned events are not uniform."  AE911Truth 



*Keller, BS CE, MS Irrigation Eng, PhD* Agricultural and Irrigation Eng, PE, F.ASCE &#8211; Professor Emeritus, Agricultural and Irrigation Engineering, Utah State University.  Member, National Academy of Engineering.  Elected Fellow of the American Society of Civil Engineers.  *Selected by Scientific American magazine as one of the world's 50 leading contributors to science and technology benefiting society (2004*). 

Through his public and private activities, Dr. Keller has provided advisory services in irrigated agricultural development and water management in more than 60 countries.  Serves as an advisor to the CALFED Water Use Efficiency Program and former member CALFED Independent Science Board.  Serves on the US and International Boards of International Development Enterprises, an NGO that focuses on rural poverty alleviation.  Licensed and practicing Professional Engineer, State of Utah.  Awarded State of Utah Governor's Medal for Science and Technology (1988).  2006 Recipient of the American Society of Civil Engineers - Environmental & Water Resources Institute Royce J. Tipton National Career Achievement Award.  Author of more than 90 technical papers, 50 major consulting reports, 9 handbooks and 2 textbooks in the areas of agricultural water resources planning and engineering. 
Endorsement of 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press by David Ray Griffin: "This book describes in very straightforward and non-technical terms some major inconsistencies in the government's official story about the events on September 11, 2001.  It points out many attempts in the 9/11 Commission's report to cover up evidence. ... As an engineer, I am especially troubled by the cover-up of evidence relevant to the collapse of the three major World Trade Center buildings.  I hope that Congress and the public will heed this call for a full and impartial investigation to determine what really did happen on that fateful day." Interlink Books 



*Danny Jowenko &#8211; Proprietor, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie B.V., a European demolition and construction company*, with offices in the Netherlands.  Founded 1980, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie is certified and holds permits to comply with the Dutch Explosives for Civil Use Act and the German Explosives Act.  Jowenko's explosives engineers also hold the German Certificate of Qualifications and the European Certificate for Shotfiring issued by The European Federation of Explosive Engineers.

*Danny Jowenko:  When the FEMA makes a report that it came down by fire, and you have to earn your money in the States as a controlled demolition company and you say, "No, it was a controlled demolition", you're gone.  You know*? 



*Michael Armenia, BS EE &#8211; Former Project Engineer, Safety and Test Engineering, Underwriters Laboratories 1988 - 1997. *
Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
"Common sense, the laws of physics, and all publicly available evidence (video, expert and eyewitness testimony, etc.) indubitably indicates controlled demolition of all 3 WTC buildings that collapsed on 9-11.  Official explanations are unsound and unacceptable as they lack any credible evidence. 

I'd like to add that I was watching CNN and NBC broadcasts from Germany on 9-11 as events unfolded.  I recall reports of possible controlled demolition of WTC 7 and anticipated as much in advance of the event."  AE911Truth 
Patriots Question 9/11 - Engineers and Architects Question the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## Big_D (Jan 3, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> of course not EVERYTHING Mcgovern says is going to make it to print.you didnt talk to him personally like I did.He spoke there at the meeting that he believes it was an inside job and got a standing ovation after his speech about it from over 200 people there at the event.this event I went to isnt going to be broadcast everywhere.No he told me he believes they perpetrated it.I already answered your question at LEAST twice  before about in your first paragraph,,yet you STILL keep asking it.



From your own statement, you didn't say he believed it was an inside job.  I couldn't find anything that says he supports your claim this whatsoever.


----------



## eots (Jan 3, 2009)

*Raymond L. McGovern &#8211;* Former Chairman, National Intelligence Estimates, CIA, responsible for preparing the President&#8217; Daily Brief (PDB) for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.  27-year CIA veteran. Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer. 

Video 7/22/06:  *"I think at simplest terms, there&#8217;s a cover-up. * The 9/11 report is a joke.  The question is: What&#8217;s being covered up?  Is it gross malfeasance, gross negligence, misfeasance? &#8230; Now there are a whole bunch of unanswered questions.  And the reason *they&#8217;re unanswered is because this administration will not answer the questions. &#8230; I* just want to reassert, what Scott [Ritter, former Major in the U.S. Marines Corps, former Chief Weapons Inspector for the United Nations Special Commission in Iraq] said and this is the bottom line for me, just as Hitler in 1933 cynically exploited the burning of the parliament building, the Reichstag, this is exactly what our President did in exploiting 9/11.  The cynical way in which he played on our trauma, used it to justify attacking, making a war of aggression on a country that he knew had nothing to do with 9/11.  That suffices for me, I think Scott is exactly right, that&#8217;s certainly an impeachable offense." http://video.google 


Endorsement of 9/11 and American Empire (Vol I) &#8211; Intellectuals Speak Out: "It has long been clear that the Bush-Cheney administration cynically exploited the attacks of 9/11 to promote its imperial designs. But the present volume confronts us with compelling evidence for an even more disturbing conclusion:* that the 9/11 attacks were themselves orchestrated by this administration precisely so they could be thus exploited. If this is true, it is not merely the case, as the Downing Street memos show,* that the stated reason for attacking Iraq was a lie. It is also the case that the whole 'war on terror' was based on a prior deception." Interlink Books 


Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11:     
"We want truthful answers to question. &#8230;  As Americans of conscience, we ask for four things: 
An immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer 
Immediate investigation in Congressional Hearings. 
Media attention to scrutinize and investigate the evidence. 
The formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry." http://www.911truth.org/article 



Bio: Ray McGovern - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 





*William Christison &#8211; Former National Intelligence Officer and Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis.  29-year CIA veteran.*

Endorsement of Debunking 9/11 Debunking 3/30/07:  "David Ray Griffin&#8217;s Debunking 9/11 Debunking is a superb compendium of the strong body of evidence showing the official U.S. Government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies.  Tragically, the entire course of U.S. foreign and domestic policies since that date has grown out of these almost certain falsehoods.  This single book could (and should) provide the basis for the United Nations&#8218; International Court of Justice, or some specially constituted global body (independent of the U.S.) to investigate with highest priority, and publicly report its findings about, the charge that unknown elements within the U.S. Government, and possibly some individuals elsewhere closely allied to the U.S., caused or contributed to causing the events of September 11 to happen." Amazon.com: Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & more 


Essay Stop Belittling the Theories About September 11  8/14/06: "I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. &#8230; An airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon. &#8230; The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them." Dissident Voice 


Article 9/7/06: "*David Griffin believes this all was totally an inside job *- *I've got to say I think that it was too. &#8230; I have since decided that....at least some elements in this US government had contributed in some way or other to causing 9/11 to happen *or at least allowing it to happen. &#8230; The reason that the two towers in New York actually collapsed and fell all the way to the ground was controlled explosions rather than just being hit by two airplanes. &#8230; All of the characteristics of these demolitions show that they almost *had to have been controlled explosions*." Alex Jones' Prison Planet.com


----------



## Big_D (Jan 3, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> well you have arrogantly and blantantly ignored those last posts of mine right before yours on this page that proves overwhemling it was an inside job,havent bothered to look at those videos I posted that prove it so I am now done with you.



How do you know that I didn't do this?  Again, you ASSUME I didn't read this info, b/c when I say I do this and still disagree with you, it weakens your argument.  You have made this claim numerous times.  I have supplied experts from the demolition field that state it was impossible to have taken down these buildings.  



9/11 inside job said:


> I will reply to your previous posts from this but after that I am done with you.I thought you were different from dive con and toro since you dont call people names like they do when losing a debate but as I said,its tiresome having to keep repeating myself when I have given you the answers many times before.



The reason why you repeat yourself is that since you think that anyone that supports your claim is right and anyone who says the opposite is wrong, you will say the same info over again to everything I bring forward.  For example, you inform me to read Griffins book over and over, as it is an adequate response to all the experts that I have brought to the table.  His book is just ONE piece of info on this topic, yet when I bring up different experts, you just say to read his book.  Not very compelling.

Another example is when we will be having a discussion back and forth and I will supply new info for my opinion and you will just simply avoid the issue next time you post.  

Or you will insult me instead of refuting my point.  When you say for me to read Griffins book, I supplied a link that refuted it.  Your response is that I am living in a fantasy land. Because anyone who disagrees with you lives in a fantasy land, right?

You also make claims that you do not back up.  You state that in the London times had an article that stated that the first emergency phone call on 9/11 was made by Guilaini.  According to you, this also occurred one hour after the BBC reported the attacks.  I promptly went on the London Times website and couldn't find this article in their archives.  DiveCon then asks you to find the article on google via their archive newspaper search.  We have not heard back from you on the subject.

Also, I do not know why you are complaining about have to repeat yourself.  *I have asked you countless time you refute to back up your statement from post number 144 in this thread where you said that Dr. Ba&#382;ant's paper was laughable to which I get no reply*. As I said, This was over *three weeks ago.*  As a result, I expected you to back it up.  To which you never did.  Anyone can go on that post in this thread and see for themselves.  You always make assumptions about myself so now I will make the assumption that since you haven't backed up your statement, then you *cannot.*  This alone ruins your argument of 9/11 being an inside job.  



9/11 inside job said:


> its so obvious you havent looked at that those videos on the candawants the truth site cause if you did,you would see the evidence is overwhelming in those videos that bombs went off in the towers and was an inside job.



Again, how do you know this?  You are saying that anyone who looks at information and comes to  a different conclusion is wrong.  



9/11 inside job said:


> I thought you were different than divecon since unlike him,you dont call people names when losing a debate and you were asking questions,i thought you has a sincere interest in learning but you dont,so dont expect anymore replies from me over quesitons of yours because its the same ones over and over again that I have already answered.  Now I am going to post the stuff i have been wanting to post for a long time but cant cause you wont admit the obvious that it was an inside job and keep asking the same questions in half your posts that I have already answered many times before.



In the first thread where we first had this discussion (title Bill clinton and Barrack Obama believe terrorists are responsible for 9/11) I asked you numerous questions that went unanswered.  That is one of the many reasons why I also had trouble agreeing with you.  Many questions would go unanswered.  I would ask you to back up statements that went upon deaf ears.

I also have had trouble believing you when after I would prove you wrong on an issue, you just kept going on about your point of view.  When you said that 40% of Americans believe 9/11 was an inside job, I proved that this was incorrect and provided a link that said it was only 4.7%.   Of course you provided no link and after I said this, you just kept going on how the number was 40.  You even said for me to get my facts straight as you have proved me wrong.  Even though I had the link to back it up and you had nothing.


----------



## eots (Jan 3, 2009)

so the D stands for denial ?


----------



## Big_D (Jan 3, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> okay to talk more about the fake bin laden video.the governments 2007 photo that they say if him where he has the black beard is OBVIOUSLY fake.you can see the 2004 photo of him where he has the grey beard,that they are not the same people.its against muslims religion to dye their beard so that guy is obviously not him in that first video EOTS showed.Thats a good point BIG D but there is another video out there where we see in more detail of him writing where they say thats him but its clearly a fake cause it shows him in more detail,writing right handed when he its known that he is left handed and in that video,the guy acts and sounds nothing like the real bin laden they say.as for that last video,No his son doesnt say that exactly that the video is fake,but he clearly made it clear {in his own way} that he didnt think that video was his dad just cause they told him so.same thing.There is also a video out there that they say is him  where he is wearing a ring and the muslims religion FORBIDS them to wear rings.



Two issues with this statement:
1) You are not backing up anything that you are saying.
2) Even if what you are saying is true, then you are not talking about the tapes I have been referring to.



9/11 inside job said:


> all you got to do to find the proof that Bin Laden SAID he didnt do it,is google in ummat pakistani newspaper sept 28th 2001 issue bin laden and you can see for yourself where he says he DIDN'T do it.in the interview as you can see he starts out to say-I have already said that I am not involved in the sept 11th attacks in the united states.As a muslim,I try my best to avoid telling a lie.I had no knowledge of these attacks,nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act.Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people.such a practice is forbidden even in the course of battle.It is the united states,which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women,children,and uncommon people.In this interview,largely unreported in the united states,Bin Laden unsurprisingly blamed the attacks on Isreal,claiming "all that is going on in Palestine for the last 11 months is sufficient to call the wrath of god upon the united states and isreal and what had earlier been done to the people of Iraq,chechnya and Bosnia.Bin Laden then went on to state-"we are not hostile to the united states,we are against the [US GOVERNMENT] system which makes other nations slaves to the united states or forces them to mortgage their political and economic freedom.all of this went unreported by the united states fortunately,the European media DID report it.



First of all that is not proof.  Secondly, this article was written shortly after the attacks in 2001.  You may or may not remember that he said in a press conference type forum that he did not have a hand in the attacks a few days after they occurred.  It wasn't until later on when he would admit to the attacks.




9/11 inside job said:


> ALSO Bin ladens mother,alia Ghanem,told a british newspaper "There are too many gaps and the statements are unlike him.Osama is too good a muslim and too good a person to say or do what the script of the video suggests.Ghanem who still lives in Saudi Arabia,said the tape was "doctored" some days later,his mothers claim was supported by Arabic language experts,who claimed that the pentagons translation of the tape was incorrect and taken out of context.also as well,2 independent translators and an expert on arabic culture reported their findings on the german state tv program-MONITOR.which was broadcast dec 20th 2001 over germanys DAS ERST,often compared to NBC or the BBC Dr Abdel Husseini stated-I have carefully examined the pentagons translation.this translation is very problomatic.at the most important places which have been presented as "PROOF" OF bIN LADENS guilt,it is not identical with the arabic.



The Key part in this statement is when you said it was broadcasted on December 20th 2001.  Bin Laden only admitted to the attacks once at that point in time.  Even if it is true that leave at least three more times when he claimed responsibility.


----------



## eots (Jan 3, 2009)

*FBI Declares Lack of Evidence to Connect Bin Laden to 9/11* 

TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- Despite all hues and cries by the US officials and media as well as those of the west that the Al-Qaeda and its leader Osama Bin Laden are the most wanted people for their direct role in September 11th terrorist attacks, the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) says that it has no evidence in this regard, raising more suspicion over all the speculations the US tried to forge in the world public opinion. 


Fars News Agency :: FBI Declares Lack of Evidence to Connect Bin Laden to 9/11


Bin Laden, Most Wanted For Embassy Bombings?

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 28, 2006; Page A13

Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is a longtime and prominent member of the FBI's "Ten Most Wanted" list, which notes his role as the suspected mastermind of the deadly U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa on Aug. 7, 1998.

But another more infamous date -- Sept. 11, 2001 -- is nowhere to be found on the same FBI notice.The curious omission underscores the Justice Department's decision, so far, to not seek formal criminal charges against bin Laden 

Bin Laden, Most Wanted For Embassy Bombings?


----------



## Big_D (Jan 3, 2009)

eots said:


> *FBI Declares Lack of Evidence to Connect Bin Laden to 9/11*
> 
> TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- Despite all hues and cries by the US officials and media as well as those of the west that the Al-Qaeda and its leader Osama Bin Laden are the most wanted people for their direct role in September 11th terrorist attacks, the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) says that it has no evidence in this regard, raising more suspicion over all the speculations the US tried to forge in the world public opinion.
> 
> ...



We all know that there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict Bin Laden with the attacks.  It doesn't mean that it was an inside job. Al Qeada could have very well perpetrated it without him.  He has though admitted to it on numerous occasions:
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Bin Laden video threatens America
Bin Laden says he ordered 9/11 attacks
The Guardian's Timeline of the tapes
Osama claims responsibility for 9/11-Rest of World-World-The Times of India
I would have to see proof that _all_ of these are fakes in order to not believe them.


----------



## Big_D (Jan 3, 2009)

AmericaFirst said:


> Some of the biggest 'truthers' are FAKE. Look at Alex Jones for example. He only goes so far then starts his 'new world order', 'black pope', bilderbergs' ect. script, rather then naming the real murderers.



Just out of curiosity, why do you think this?

Also out of curiosity, who do you think was responsible for the attacks?  Was it only Bush?  Was it the last few presidents?

I disagree that 9/11 was an inside job, yet I am willing to change my position if you can convince.  Mainly, why should I agree with anyone over Dr. Baant and his paper?  (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf) Do you know that this article passed the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics in their engineering division? That means 20+ engineering experts from around the globe read this and approved it. David Ray Griffin's book didn't do this. None of the experts you have listed has had articles approved by this group. Only this one has passed.  It flat out would not make sense to take anyone's word over his because of this reason.


----------



## Big_D (Jan 3, 2009)

eots said:


> *Richard Gage, AIA, Architect &#8211; Member, American Institute of Architects.  A practicing Architect for 20 years who has worked on most types of building construction including numerous fire-proofed steel-framed buildings.  Founding member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
> Speech at Sonoma State University 4/20/07*:
> 
> "Another 2006 poll by Scripps Howard, Ohio University, which found that a shocking 16% believe that the World Trade Center's Twin Towers were brought down by explosives.  Unfortunately, my research has also concluded that this is true.  Tonight I will present to you the very clear evidence that all three World Trade Center high-rise buildings, the Twin Towers and Building 7 were destroyed not by fire as our government has told us, but by controlled demolition with explosives." About Us
> ...



So why exactly should I take their word over the follow experts:


&#8226;	Dr. Zden&#283;k P. Ba&#382;ant- Engineering Professor at Northwestern 
His view on 9/11: http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf
His credentials: Biography of ZdenÄ&#8250;k P. BaÅ¾ant â&#8364;&#8221; PNAS
Civil and Environmental Engineering - Faculty Profile - Zdenek Bazant
&#8226;	Dr. Paul F. Mlakar Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE
o	His View on 9/11: http://mceer.buffalo.edu/meetings/AEI/presentations/06Mlakar-paper.pdf
o	His credentials: http://mceer.buffalo.edu/meetings/AEI/Mlakar.pdf

&#8226;	Dr. Tim Wilkinson: Professor of engineering at The university of Sydney 
o	His view on 9/11: World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects - Civil Engineering - The University of Sydney
o	His credentials: Tim Wilkinson - Civil Engineering - The University of Sydney
&#8226;	Dr. Hassan Astaneh: Professor of engineering at Berkley 
His view on 9/11: Jets hit towers in most vulnerable spots / Killers appear to have known where to strike 
His Credentials: Engineering News, Date
(located under his photo)
&#8226;	Dr. W. Gene Corley:
His view on 9/11: Gene Corley | World news | The Guardian
His Credentials:  W. Gene Corley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
http://www.ctlgroup.com/files/dynamic_resumes/Corley NARRES 0131.pdf
&#8226;	Dr. Robert L. Parker: Physics professor at USC 
o	His view on 9/11: Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics 
o	His credentials: mahi.ucsd.edu/parker/
&#8226;	Dr. Mete Sozen: Engineering professor at Purdue 
o	His View on 9/11: New simulation shows 9/11 plane crash with scientific detail
o	His credentials :https://engineering.purdue.edu/CE/Pe...source_id=2260
&#8226;	Dr. Fred Culick: Engineering professor at Cal tech.  						His view on 9/11: Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics													His Credentials :GALCIT :: Fred Culick
&#8226;	Dr. Ching S. Chang: 
o	His view on 9/11: Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - The Paper 
o	His credentials: The College of Engineering University of Massachusetts | C.S. Chang
&#8226;	Dr. Ayhan Irfanoglu- Engineering professor at Purdue 
o	His view on 9/11: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/jun/21/911-simulation32supports-report/s
o	His credentials: Ayhan Irfanoglu - Purdue University
&#8226;	Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer -Engineering Professor at the university of Maryland 
His view on 9/11: Collapse of the World Trade Center -Debunk 9/11 Myths
His Crednetials : Frederick W. Mowrer, Faculty, Department of Fire Protection Engineering, University of Maryland
&#8226;	Dr Keith Seffen Engineering Professor at Cambridge University 
o	His view on 9/11: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 9/11 demolition theory challenged
o	His Credentials: Keith Seffen
&#8226;	Dr. Asif Usmani: Professor of engineering at Edinburgh 
o	His view on 9/11: http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/1216
o	His Credentials: Fire Safety Engineering
&#8226;	Dr. Jose Torero: Professor of engineering at Edinburgh  
o	His View on 9/11: http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/1216
o	His credentials: Fire Safety Engineering
&#8226;	Arvid Naess: Professor of engineering at Norwegian University of Science and Technology
o	His View on 9/11: Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - The Paper
o	His Credentials: http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
o	Professor Arvid Naess
&#8226;	Masayuki Nakao Engineering professor at the University of Tokyo. 
o	His view on 9/11: JST Failure Knowledge Database > Case Details > The World Trade Center Collapse
o	His credentials: Masayuki Nakao
&#8226;	Mark Loizeaux: Demolition expert, owner of Controlled Demolition Inc.
o	His views on 9/11: BBC NEWS | Programmes | Conspiracy Files | Q&A: The collapse of Tower 7
o	His credentials: Survival Guide: Mark Loizeaux demolition expert
&#8226;	Jeremy Abraham Kirk: MIT professors
o	His views on 9/11: http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/31114/61145960.pdf?sequence=1
o	His credentials: 

*The majority of my experts are engineers professors from around the world and they have explanations why the buildings fell and it wasn't through controlled demolition.  Do NONE of these professors know what they are talking about?*

As I have said numerous times, only ONE paper has passed peer review and that was the first one I listed here.  It clearly makes no sense to agree with anyone else?

Also, some of your people didnt say the believe it was an inside job.  For example, as I covered with 9/11 inside job Ray McGovern didnt say this.  Furthermore, Danny Jowenko is someone we covered as well.  He said on a youtube clip that you showed of him that he couldnt explain how the WTC building 7 fell through controlled demolition if it was on fire.  As I showed, he said they would have to plant the explosives while the building was on fire.


----------



## eots (Jan 3, 2009)

Big_D said:


> We all know that there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict Bin Laden with the attacks.  It doesn't mean that it was an inside job. Al Qeada could have very well perpetrated it without him.  He has though admitted to it on numerous occasions:
> BBC NEWS | Middle East | Bin Laden video threatens America
> Bin Laden says he ordered 9/11 attacks
> The Guardian's Timeline of the tapes
> ...



yes I am glad you agree the bin laden story is a unproven *conspiracy..theory* and not a substantiated fact


----------



## Big_D (Jan 3, 2009)

eots said:


> yes I am glad you agree the bin laden story is a unproven conspiracy..theory and not a substantiated fact



Sure it is unproven.  I cannot prove that he is behind it as you cannot prove that he is not.  And again, if Bin Laden didn't have a hand in it, it still doesnt mean that Al Qaida wasn't behind it.  To me the following is compelling evidence that Bin laden is behind it, but it is not proof:
"June 19 2001
A video is released by al-Qaida showing Osama bin Laden and his supporters training at their al-Farouq base in Afghanistan. Their leader, who is already the US's most wanted man for his role in the 1998 east Africa embassy bombings, is filmed kneeling down in flowing white robes and squeezing the trigger of an AK-47.

April 15 2002 
Al-Jazeera shows excerpts from a forthcoming documentary made by a pro-al-Qaida production company featuring previously unseen footage of Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri sat by a stream.
*The package also includes what appears to be a video message from Ahmed al-Haznawi, one of the Flight 93 hijackers* in a segment called The Wills of the New York and Washington Battle Martyrs. The 22-year-old Saudi pledges to give his life to "martyrdom" and swears to send a "bloodied message" to Americans by attacking them in their "heartland". 

June 23 2002
An audio cassette that purports to be from Abu Ghaith says that Bin Laden is alive and planning fresh attacks. He claims responsibility for the April truck bombing of Africa's oldest synagogue, on the Tunisian island of Djerba, in which 21 people, mostly German tourists, were killed. 

September 9 2002
A voice attributed to Bin Laden praises the hijackers as "great men who deepened the roots of faith in the hearts of the faithful" on an al-Jazeera screened video showing the men in a Kandahar house preparing for the attack. Items on a table included an air chart of the US, and a flight instruction manual.
*"As we talk about the conquests of Washington and New York," the voice says, "we talk about those men who changed the course of history and cleaned the records of the nation from the dirt of the treasonous rulers and their followers". There is nothing to indicate the recording was made after the attack on Afghanistan.* "

The Guardian's Timeline of the tapes


----------



## AmericaFirst (Jan 3, 2009)

Big_D said:


> Just out of curiosity, why do you think this?
> 
> Also out of curiosity, who do you think was responsible for the attacks?  Was it only Bush?  Was it the last few presidents?



It was an inside outside job. Bush Jr. may not have actually known when it was going to happen, but he is covering it up now. I know who did it. The crime has been solved. 



> I disagree that 9/11 was an inside job, yet I am willing to change my position if you can convince.  Mainly, why should I agree with anyone over Dr. Baant and his paper?  (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf) Do you know that this article passed the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics in their engineering division? That means 20+ engineering experts from around the globe read this and approved it. David Ray Griffin's book didn't do this. None of the experts you have listed has had articles approved by this group. Only this one has passed.  It flat out would not make sense to take anyone's word over his because of this reason.



I don't want to change your position. I have researched, argued, gone round and round with people on this for seven years. If you still don't know who did it you probably never will.


----------



## Toro (Jan 3, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> In this interview,largely unreported in the united states,Bin Laden unsurprisingly blamed the attacks on Isreal,claiming "all that is going on in Palestine for the last 11 months is sufficient to call the wrath of god upon the united states and isreal and what had earlier been done to the people of Iraq,chechnya and Bosnia.Bin Laden then went on to state-"we are not hostile to the united states,we are against the [US GOVERNMENT] system which makes other nations slaves to the united states or forces them to mortgage their political and economic freedom.all of this went unreported by the united states fortunately,the European media DID report it.



Nope.



> Al-Qaeda's deputy leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has blamed Iran for spreading the theory that Israel was behind the 11 September 2001 attacks.
> 
> In an audio tape posted on the internet, Zawahiri insisted al-Qaeda had carried out the attacks on the US.
> 
> He accused Iran, and its Hezbollah allies, of trying to discredit Osama Bin Laden's network.



BBC NEWS | Middle East | Al-Qaeda accuses Iran of 9/11 lie


----------



## eots (Jan 3, 2009)

Toro said:


> Nope.
> 
> 
> 
> BBC NEWS | Middle East | Al-Qaeda accuses Iran of 9/11 lie



is This supposed to relevant ? or believable..can you really trust _all- cia -duh_


----------



## Toro (Jan 3, 2009)

eots said:


> is This supposed to relevant ? or believable..can you really trust _all- cia -duh_



I'm still waiting for an explanation why lowly reporters would be told in advance that a building was about to be demolished when all that had to be done was just put them in front of a monitor and let them report what they see.  It's the topic of this thread and 29 pages later, I see no explanation.


----------



## eots (Jan 3, 2009)

the questions I have is why did BBC deny it ever happened for 7 years ? and call it a urban legend and why has no one supplied a name of who exactly put it out on Reuters early and ask where he received the information...are these not reasonable question ??


----------



## eots (Jan 3, 2009)

but the government totally omitted building 7 as if it didn't even exist and also considered who financed 911 as unimportant.


----------



## Big_D (Jan 3, 2009)

eots said:


> the questions I have is why did BBC deny it ever happened for 7 years ? and call it a urban legend and why has no one supplied a name of who exactly put it out on Reuters early and ask where he received the information...are these not reasonable question ??



I would think that it would be because they wouldn't want the world to know of their blunder.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2009)

Big_D said:


> I would think that it would be because they wouldn't want the world to know of their blunder.


gee, tough choice

who to believe
the BBC, or Alex Jones

LOL


----------



## eots (Jan 3, 2009)

Big_D said:


> I would think that it would be because they wouldn't want the world to know of their blunder.



and if you where investigating this crime that that assumption would suffice for you ?


----------



## eots (Jan 3, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> gee, tough choice
> 
> who to believe
> the BBC, or Alex Jones
> ...



well Alex spoke of the incident years before it surfaced and the BBC denied it ..so who was the more reliable source ?...its not question who to believe


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2009)

eots said:


> and if you where investigating this crime that that assumption would suffice for you ?


the BBC would not be under investigation, for any SANE person
so yes


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2009)

eots said:


> well Alex spoke of the incident years before it surfaced and the BBC denied it ..so who was the more reliable source ?...its not question who to believe


see, thats the difference between us
you would trust one and not the other
i trust neither


----------



## eots (Jan 3, 2009)

its not a matter of trust ..it is a mater of fact..the BBC reported on the collapse before it happened..then denied it until the tape surfaced


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2009)

eots said:


> its not a matter of trust ..it is a mater of fact..the BBC reported on the collapse before it happened..then denied it until the tape surfaced


Occam's Razor
someone took a report that it was expected to colapse and changed it to it had colapsed
then it actually did what was expected
no conspiracy


----------



## eots (Jan 4, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Occam's Razor
> someone took a report that it was expected to colapse and changed it to it had colapsed
> then it actually did what was expected
> no conspiracy



that is a assuption..and it does not explain the denial.. a proper investigation would want to determine who put it on the wire and from who they sourced the information..


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 4, 2009)

eots said:


> that is a assuption..and it does not explain the denial.. a proper investigation would want to determine who put it on the wire and from who they sourced the information..


again, the correct story could have been put on the wire
and it got messed up


----------



## eots (Jan 4, 2009)

again a assumption,,no explanation as to the denial..no names or statements from  those involved..not good enough


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 4, 2009)

eots said:


> again a assumption,,no explanation as to the denial..no names or statements from  those involved..not good enough


do you remember during Katrina, the super dome was called a killing zone and that people were being killed left and right

and the truth was that ONE person died from a heart attack and one other guy got stabbed


in situations where things are sketchy the media tends to run with what they have without making sure what they have is actually CORRECT
after time, when the facts come out, they make correction, but they tend to hide em cause it makes them look like idiots for being so wrong in the first place


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 4, 2009)

btw eots, this is called using common sense and not seeing a conspiracy behind everything you find


----------



## eots (Jan 4, 2009)

with a crime of the magnitude of 9-11 a proper investigator would want to determine who at Reuters put it put on the wire.. from who they sourced the information.. and why this fact was later denied and the facts withheld..and don't even bother to tell me they wouldn't ..I grew up with detectives..


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 4, 2009)

eots said:


> with a crime of the magnitude of 9-11 a proper investigator would want to determine who at Reuters put it put on the wire.. from who they sourced the information.. and why this fact was later denied and the facts withheld..and don't even bother to tell me they wouldn't ..I grew up with detectives..


so, you really think detectives would be tracking down an errant news report?



REALLY?!?!?!?!?!


----------



## eots (Jan 4, 2009)

yes ..they would indeed.. if  where examining .. did this building collapse due to fire or was foul play  involved ..


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 4, 2009)

eots said:


> yes ..they would indeed.. if  where examining .. did this building collapse due to fire or was foul play  involved ..


no, they would examine the BUILDINGS debris
and they did and found ZERO evidence of explosives


so, why would they then waste time following up on an errant news report that was meaningless


hint: they WOULDNT


----------



## eots (Jan 4, 2009)

no the evidence was quickly disposed of.. cleared out.. sold as scrape..


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 4, 2009)

eots said:


> no the evidence was quickly disposed of.. cleared out.. sold as scrape..


no, it wasnt
not "quickly" like you guys claim
and investigators had full access to it for months
they took samples and ran their tests


----------



## eots (Jan 4, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm1u6qZyQ4w[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 4, 2009)

eots said:


> YouTube - This is an Orange


too bad it lies


----------



## Big_D (Jan 4, 2009)

eots said:


> and if you where investigating this crime that that assumption would suffice for you ?



It makes much more sense than the alternative.  Would it really make sense to you that Bush and company actually _told_ the BBC that they were going to attack themselves?  I never heard of an instance in the history of the world when someone informed their enemy that they were going to attack them.  Wouldn't you admit that this doesn't make any sense at all?  

As I said, this is not the first time in history where the media made a mistake.  Again, Pope John Paul II, Joe dimaggio, Will Farrell, Fidel Castro, Dick Cheney, Ronald Reagan and many others were reported dead while they were still alive.


----------



## Toro (Jan 4, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> no, it wasnt
> not "quickly" like you guys claim
> and investigators had full access to it for months
> they took samples and ran their tests





> May 29 2002: As the last steel column of the demolished World Trade Center was removed Tuesday, construction workers at the site were honored for their work there since September 11th.



http://www.wndu.com/news/052002/news_14322.php



> "There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures".



http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full02/mar06/corley.htm


Recycled Steel


Also



> "I think the Bush administration would have had to be utterly insane to try anything like what is alleged, for their own narrow interests, and do not think that serious evidence has been provided to support claims about actions that would not only be outlandish, for their own interests, but that have no remote historical parallel.



Noam Chomsky
http://blog.zmag.org/node/2779


----------



## Big_D (Jan 4, 2009)

eots said:


> YouTube - This is an Orange



Again, you put your faith in youtube videos that could have came from anyone instead of what the experts think.  http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf
This paper gives their reasoning why all of the WTC buildings fell and it was written by an engineering expert. 

Look at this photo here:
http://www.kolumbus.fi/av.caesar/wtc/wtc7_2.jpg
As you can clearly see there has been significant damage to the building.  *Anyone can see from this that the damage should be enough to bring down the structure.  
*
What I do not understand is if the govt is behind 9/11 why would they have brought down WTC 7 at all?  Most people didn't even know of the building until these conspiracy theories started popping up.  It would seem that they were just simply putting a target on their back if they decided for no reason at all to bring down third building.  Again, there was NO reason to bring down this building.


----------



## eots (Jan 4, 2009)

Big_D said:


> Again, you put your faith in youtube videos that could have came from anyone instead of what the experts think.  http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf
> This paper gives their reasoning why all of the WTC buildings fell and it was written by an engineering expert.
> 
> Look at this photo here:
> ...



from this photo it is clear the building would fall to one side if anything
not evenly in the controlled manner in which it did..that is not possible from the damage shown in the picture


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 4, 2009)

eots said:


> from this photo it is clear the building would fall to one side if anything
> not evenly in the controlled manner in which it did..that is not possible from the damage shown in the picture


it DID
it didnt fall straight down
it fell away from the camera in MOST of the vid clips you use
if you look for one from another angle you will see


----------



## eots (Jan 4, 2009)

it fell into its own footprint at free fall speed..


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 4, 2009)

eots said:


> it fell into its own footprint at free fall speed..


it did not
it fell over into WTC6


----------



## eots (Jan 4, 2009)

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)

YouTube - WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 4, 2009)

eots said:


> WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)
> 
> YouTube - WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)


more bullshit and lies


----------



## Big_D (Jan 4, 2009)

eots said:


> from this photo it is clear the building would fall to one side if anything
> not evenly in the controlled manner in which it did..that is not possible from the damage shown in the picture



It didn't fall in an exact controlled manner.  If it did, it would have damaged the surrounding buildings: "Fiterman Hall, located at 30 West Broadway between Barclay and Park Place, was damaged in the September 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center (WTC) when falling debris from 7 World Trade Center left it with significant damage in its south façade."
Lower Manhattan : Fiterman Hall

"The 32-story Verizon Building at 140 West St. was one of the victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. It suffered damage when a 60-ft.-tall pile of rubble collapsed against it from the fall of 52-story Seven World Trade Center office building, which stood across the street. "

Verizon Building Restoration

Can you inform me of the logic to bring down WTC 7?  It does not make sense to have brought this building down for no apparent reason at all.


----------



## eots (Jan 4, 2009)

it fell in a manner which would of required a failure of all trusses  at the exact same instance ...even tho the  damage and fire was unevenly distributed

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ-VcQKN7FY]YouTube - NIST manipulated parameters[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvZxBnHF_YY&feature=related]YouTube - Patriots and Veterans for 9/11 Truth[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 4, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> it did not
> it fell over into WTC6


uh, no, eots


----------



## Big_D (Jan 4, 2009)

eots said:


> WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)
> 
> YouTube - WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)



"The demolition contractor, Mark Loizeaux says the timing of when the explosions on the columns are set off is critical. He cannot see how thermite or any derivative of thermite could have been used to deliberately demolish Tower 7.

"I've never seen anyone use a material, which melts steel for demolition purposes. I don't see how you could possibly get all of the columns to melt through at the same time."

People who think thermite was used to demolish Tower 7 have also claimed that the one section of steel from the building that was kept reveals that it was melted by some strange substance. The half inch (1.3cm) steel beam has been entirely dissolved in parts. "

"Professor Sisson determined that the steel was attacked by a liquid slag which contained iron, sulphur and oxygen.

However, rather than coming from thermite, the metallurgist Professor Sisson thinks the sulphur came from masses of gypsum wallboard that was pulverised and burnt in the fires. He says:

"I don't find it very mysterious at all, that if I have steel in this sort of a high temperature atmosphere that's rich in oxygen and sulphur this would be the kind of result I would expect." "
BBC NEWS | Programmes | Conspiracy Files | Q&A: The collapse of Tower 7

Here are the two experts credentials:
Mark Loizeaux
"Mark Loizeaux is a demolition expert, and his company, Controlled Demolition Inc. in Phoenix, Md., has taken down more than 7,000 structures around the world by imploding them with explosive charges."
Washington Technology

Richard Sisson
"Richard D. Sisson Jr., George F. Fuller Professor of mechanical engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) and director of WPI's Manufacturing Engineering and Materials Science and Engineering programs, has been named to the Academy of Engineering Excellence at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech). Sisson received a B.S. in materials engineering from the Institute in 1969...After graduating from Virginia Tech, Sisson worked briefly in industry before earning a master's (1971) and a Ph.D. (1975) in metallurgical engineering from Purdue University. He then spent two years as a research metallurgist for E. I. DuPont at the Savannah River Laboratory in Aiken, S.C., where he developed plutonium dioxide that acted as a heat source for nuclear batteries. In 1976, he joined the WPI faculty as Morgan Distinguished Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering.

He returned to Virginia Tech in 1979 as assistant professor of materials engineering, conducting research in the Institute's environmental degradation of engineering materials laboratory. After two years, he headed north to take a position as staff engineer for Exxon Chemical Co. in Florham Park, N.J. A year later, deciding that he preferred the challenges and rewards of academia, he rejoined the WPI faculty, where he was named a full professor in 1986. In addition to directing the Manufacturing Engineering and Materials Science and Engineering programs, Sisson served as interim head of WPI's Mechanical Engineering Department from 1999 to 2000."
Metal Processing Institute - Richard Sisson Named to Virginia Tech Academy of Engineering Excellence


----------



## eots (Jan 4, 2009)

funny he cant see how all the columns could _melt all at the same time_ yet believes that random  low temperature fires could _weaken them all at the same time_...


----------



## eots (Jan 4, 2009)

and if the fire was rich in oxygen it would not be bellowing black smoke...


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 4, 2009)

eots said:


> and if the fire was rich in oxygen it would not be bellowing black smoke...


i take it you've never seen rubber or plastic burn


----------



## eots (Jan 4, 2009)

I have seen fully engaed building fires and there is very little black smoke


----------



## Big_D (Jan 5, 2009)

eots said:


> funny he cant see how all the columns could _melt all at the same time_ yet believes that random  low temperature fires could _weaken them all at the same time_...



He never said this.


eots said:


> and if the fire was rich in oxygen it would not be bellowing black smoke...





eots said:


> I have seen fully engaed building fires and there is very little black smoke



"While it is true that flammable liquids produce black smoke, so does any petroleum-based product. The color of the initial flame and smoke might have been important in the 1940s and 1950s when our furniture was made of cotton and wood, but most furniture today is made of nylon, polyester, and polyurethane. Even wood fires, deprived of oxygen, will produce black smoke. According to NFPA 921, Paragraph 3.6:

*Smoke color is not necessarily an indicator of what is burning.* While wood smoke from a well ventilated or fuel controlled wood fire is light colored or gray, the same fuel under low-oxygen conditions, or ventilation-controlled conditions in a post-flashover fire can be quite dark or black. Black smoke can also be produced by the burning of other materials including most plastics or ignitable liquids.

Light smoke may indicate that there are no petroleum products burning. Black smoke
indicates nothing meaningful."
http://www.atslab.com/fire/PDF/IndicatorsOfTrouble.pdf
Black Smoke

"Large fires involving plastics produce copious quantities of black smoke.. "
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/hsl_pdf/2004/hsl0414.pdf
Black Smoke


----------



## glockmail (Jan 5, 2009)

eots said:


> I have seen fully engaed building fires and there is very little black smoke


 When you see black smoke it is an indication that a portion of the fuel is unburned.


----------



## eots (Jan 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> When you see black smoke it is an indication that a portion of the fuel is unburned.



yet somehow hot enough to simultaneously weaken all columns and trusses to the point of failure

underwriters kevin ryan

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urs14eAaFcM]YouTube - A new Standard for Deception by NIST Part 1 of 6[/ame]


----------



## glockmail (Jan 5, 2009)

eots said:


> yet somehow hot enough to simultaneously weaken all columns and trusses to the point of failure
> 
> underwriters kevin ryan
> 
> YouTube - A new Standard for Deception by NIST Part 1 of 6


 I see that you lost one argument so switched to another.


----------



## eots (Jan 5, 2009)

no not at all..


----------



## glockmail (Jan 5, 2009)

If you can't admit a simple, obvious thing like ignoring an argument and changing the subject a rational debate cannot possibly take place.


----------



## Big_D (Jan 5, 2009)

eots said:


> yet somehow hot enough to simultaneously weaken all columns and trusses to the point of failure
> 
> underwriters kevin ryan
> 
> YouTube - A new Standard for Deception by NIST Part 1 of 6



Not according to this article The Towers Lost and Beyond

This was edited by
Eduardo Kausel: Engineering professor at MIT
His credentials:
MIT - Faculty | Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, MIT

He is a professor at engineering at the top engineering school in the nation according to the following sites: 
Top Ranked Engineering Colleges/Universities, Best Colleges Engineering
MIT 4th Best College, Top Engineering School

And the best engineering school in the world according to the following sites:
Latest University Rankings: World University Rankings - Engineering Schools - 2007
World's Top 10 Engineering Schools 2008/2009 | SKORCAREER

There you go, an engineering professor from the top engineering school in the world took part in that paper and he believes 9/11 was done by terrorists, not explosives planted by our government.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 9, 2009)

okay finally have a LITTLE time to post something now.I dont know why you even bother with Bid D EOTS.at first I thought he was interested in the truth but only wants to see his own point of view by the way he blatantly and arrogantly ignores ours points  and how he ignored my posts on page 21 post number 10 and 11 and the first post on page 22.Those posts prove beyond a doubt that it was an inside job besides the videos I posted from the canadawantsthe truth link.anybody who watchs those videos and still says there is no evidence it was an inside job has either not read those posts I mentioned on page 21 and 22 and not watched those videos and is in denial or a complete idiot.Diva con we know is the latter cause of his name calling he engages in when losing a debate and how he said those points I brought up were not true which all have been from  page 21 and 22,I'll give Big D the former as a benefit of the doubt. those posts i made on those pages and the videos from the candawants the truth link pretty much prove whatever these professors are saying as a bunch of lies which ends this debate.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 9, 2009)

Okay now that it has been laid to rest that those vidoes of Bin Laden saying he did it are fake after i proved he said he didnt do it,now to move on to something really quick i wanted to post.In reality,the US government spent more money investigating Bill Clintons sexual escapades than it did investigating 9/11.That seems fundamentally wrong from any perspective.the fact they spent more time and money investigating Bill Clintons blow job he recieved from monica lewinsky than 9/11 proves what a joke of an investigation it was from the 9/11 coverup commission.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 9, 2009)

9/11 Inside Job said:


> okay Now That It Has Been Laid To Rest That Those Vidoes Of Bin Laden Saying He Did It Are Fake After I Proved He Said He Didnt Do It,now To Move On To Something Really Quick I Wanted To Post.in Reality,the Us Government Spent More Money Investigating Bill Clintons Sexual Escapades Than It Did Investigating 9/11.that Seems Fundamentally Wrong From Any Perspective.the Fact They Spent More Time And Money Investigating Bill Clintons Blow Job He Recieved From Monica Lewinsky Than 9/11 Proves What A Joke Of An Investigation It Was From The 9/11 Coverup Commission.


Wrong


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 9, 2009)

this is why I wont go any further in this debate.i have posted this before but I'll post it again. all you got to do to see the overwhelming evidence that it was an inside job is just look at these videos here at 
Canada 9/11 Truth - Videos
its all there in black and white it proves it all.like i said anybody who has watched those videos and STILL defends the official version would have to be  a complete idiot in denial.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 9, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> this is why I wont go any further in this debate.i have posted this before but I'll post it again. all you got to do to see the overwhelming evidence that it was an inside job is just look at these videos here at
> Canada 9/11 Truth - Videos
> its all there in black and white it proves it all.like i said anybody who has watched those videos and STILL defends the official version would have to be  a complete idiot in denial.


you have already proven you are a moron
your links have also been exposed as bullshit
why should i bother to follow any link you post?


----------



## Charles_Main (Jan 9, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> you have already proven you are a moron
> your links have also been exposed as bullshit
> why should i bother to follow any link you post?



Common tactic of these fucking loons is to just claim they have proven beyond a doubt It was an inside job. Then they say if you watch these videos you have to agree with me. 

Then when a bunch of people watch them, and not all of them agree with them, they label all those who do not agree as stupid, or maybe in on it


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 9, 2009)

Charles_Main said:


> Common tactic of these fucking loons is to just claim they have proven beyond a doubt It was an inside job. Then they say if you watch these videos you have to agree with me.
> 
> Then when a bunch of people watch them, and not all of them agree with them, they label all those who do not agree as stupid, or maybe in on it


oh yeah, i have already been accused of being a part of it

LOL
and i have seen several others as well


----------



## Big_D (Jan 9, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> okay finally have a LITTLE time to post something now.I dont know why you even bother with Bid D EOTS.at first I thought he was interested in the truth but only wants to see his own point of view by the way he blatantly and arrogantly ignores ours points  and how he ignored my posts on page 21 post number 10 and 11 and the first post on page 22.  Those posts prove beyond a doubt that it was an inside job besides the videos I posted from the canadawantsthe truth link.anybody who watchs those videos and still says there is no evidence it was an inside job has either not read those posts I mentioned on page 21 and 22 and not watched those videos and is in denial or a complete idiot.



I keep getting the impression that I am ignoring your side of the argument because because you dont have many points left that haven't been refuted.  Again, you ASSUME I am ignoring those points because when I go to the links that you say proves 9/11 is an inside job and still am not convinced, it ruins your argument.  I don't know why you are complaining that I am ignoring your points when I have asked you to back up your statement that you have made in post number 144 of this thread when you state that Dr. Ba&#382;ant's paper (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf) was laughable.  This is the article that passed the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics in their engineering division, yet somehow it is laughable. I have since asked you to back up your statement and you have not.  *That was over a MONTH ago and I still have not got a response.*

Your posts in you are referring to did not prove anything why the buildings fell.   Again, Dr. Ba&#382;ant's paper showed why the buildings collapsed and since you have not responded to it, then I prove you cannot. 
Also, the following is an article about the demolition of the former J.L. Hudson Department Store in Detroit: Controlled Demolition, Inc. | Press Release  According to this article, "In *24 days*, CDI's 12 person loading crew placed 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on 9 levels of the structure."  There you go, it took them 24 days to place the explosives on a empty building.  Yet, somehow the govt could have placed explosives along the WTC buildings without anyone noticing.  If it took them 24 days to plant the explosives along an empty 33 story building then how long would you think it would have taken them to plant the explosives on two 110 story buildings?  No matter how long you think that it would have taken wouldn't you think that it would have noticed this happening?

Here is another expert that says why demolition could not have been used:
""There were a lot of broken windows mainly through impact debris. But I didn't see windows broken on the backs of building, only where debris falling from the Towers struck it...They were shielded from debris falling. If explosives of the magnitude necessary to cut the columns in a big building, were detonated the windows all the way round would have been shattered. No way round it.""
BBC NEWS | Programmes | Conspiracy Files | Q&A: The collapse of Tower 7
-Mark Loizeaux
His credentials: Survival Guide: Mark Loizeaux, demolition expert -- Washington Technology

Again, I have asked you questions about your belief that you did not touch and it weakens your argument even more.  Just one example of this is when you stated that in the London times had an article that stated that the first emergency phone call on 9/11 was made by Guilaini. According to you, this also occurred one hour after the BBC reported the attacks. I promptly went on the London Times website and couldn't find this article in their archives. DiveCon then asks you to find the article on google via their archive newspaper search. We have not heard back from you on the subject.




9/11 inside job said:


> Diva con we know is the latter cause of his name calling he engages in when losing a debate and how he said those points I brought up were not true which all have been from  page 21 and 22,I'll give Big D the former as a benefit of the doubt. those posts i made on those pages and the videos from the candawants the truth link pretty much prove whatever these professors are saying as a bunch of lies which ends this debate.



Again, you have decided to insult us rather than defend your opinion.   Not a good path to take if you are trying to convince someone of your beliefs.  You state that I only want to hear from my point of view when you state right here that websites links that could have came from anyone are more credible than the engineering profess that I have used that show why the buildings collapsed.  Again, it wasn&#8217;t through demolition.  That doesn&#8217;t make any sense.


----------



## Big_D (Jan 9, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> Okay now that it has been laid to rest that those vidoes of Bin Laden saying he did it are fake after i proved he said he didnt do it,now to move on to something really quick



You did not lay it to rest.  Did you not even see my response?  In your statement I will admit that you brought up some good points but it doesn't prove anything.  It was just speculation.  In fact, you did not even cover all the videos that bin laden has taken credit for the attacks, just some of them.  

Also, Al Qaeda not just bin laden has taken credit for 9/11:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2429415.ece

Therefore, even if the Bin laden tapes are fakes then Al Qaeda still has taken credit for it as well.



9/11 inside job said:


> this is why I wont go any further in this debate.i have posted this before but I'll post it again. all you got to do to see the overwhelming evidence that it was an inside job is just look at these videos here at
> Canada 9/11 Truth - Videos
> its all there in black and white it proves it all.like i said anybody who has watched those videos and STILL defends the official version would have to be a complete idiot in denial.



This is not proof.  This just shows one side of the argument.  Their points have been refuted on other sides of the argument.  As I have been saying, there are experts who disagree with you.
Dr. Ba&#382;ant has very high credentials (Biography of ZdenÄ&#8250;k P. BaÅ¾ant â&#8364;&#8221; PNAS
Civil and Environmental Engineering - Faculty Profile - Zdenek Bazant) and he disagrees with you: (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf)

So does Eduardo Kausel(The Towers Lost and Beyond) and he is an Engineering professor at MIT (MIT - Faculty | Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, MIT).

As I showed this is regarded as the best engineering school in the world:
World's Top 10 Engineering Schools 2008/2009 | SKORCAREER
Latest University Rankings: World University Rankings - Engineering Schools - 2007

I also have many other professors from post number 406 in this thread.  Yet, for some reason you trust website that could have come from anyone.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> you have already proven you are a moron
> your links have also been exposed as bullshit
> why should i bother to follow any link you post?



thanks AGAIN for proving how your afraid of the truth MORON by confessing you dont want to look at them.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 10, 2009)

Charles_Main said:


> Common tactic of these fucking loons is to just claim they have proven beyond a doubt It was an inside job. Then they say if you watch these videos you have to agree with me.
> 
> Then when a bunch of people watch them, and not all of them agree with them, they label all those who do not agree as stupid, or maybe in on it



thats cause only an idiot WOULDNT agree after watching the videos that it was an inside job.people like you and diva are in so much denial that a video could be shown with george bush confessing to dick cheney-yeah are CIA men did a great job of planting those explosives in those buildings and bringing them down and fooling the american people that the jets and fires caused it we now can get our war we wanted out of it,yeah hoo!! you two fools would STILL say theres no hard evidence as proven just now,that the videos dont prove nothing.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 10, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> thanks AGAIN for proving how your afraid of the truth MORON by confessing you dont want to look at them.


your links are devoid of truth


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 10, 2009)

AS I said BIG D,your just wasting your time addressing anymore posts to me.This is FURTHER proof how you never remember anything said to you half the time.I already said i am done with reading your posts,that I will eventually -when i have the time-address all the points you brought up prior to the posts I made about 4 pages back,but the ones you make AFTER that,i will not address or read cause you keep asking the SAME questions over and over again after the answers were already given to you previously by me and EOTS earlier many times, and then like I said,blatently ignore facts and proof in the videos that proves to ANYBODY who has a brain,it was an inside job.I'll eventually address your previous posts from pages back.None from my last one where I said I am done with you.you critisized EOTS earlier,for not responding to questions you asked him saying thats no way to debate.well its ALSO no way to debate by asking the SAME questions over and over again after they were already answered to you before and ignoring proof either.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 10, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> thanks AGAIN for proving how your afraid of the truth MORON by confessing you dont want to look at them.


 


9/11 inside job said:


> AS I said BIG D,your just wasting your time addressing anymore posts to me.This is FURTHER proof how you never remember anything said to you half the time.I already said i am done with reading your posts,that I will eventually -when i have the time-address all the points you brought up prior to the posts I made about 4 pages back,but the ones you make AFTER that,i will not address or read cause you keep asking the SAME questions over and over again after the answers were already given to you previously by me and EOTS earlier many times, and then like I said,blatently ignore facts and proof in the videos that proves to ANYBODY who has a brain,it was an inside job.I'll eventually address your previous posts from pages back.None from my last one where I said I am done with you.you critisized EOTS earlier,for not responding to questions you asked him saying thats no way to debate.well its ALSO no way to debate by asking the SAME questions over and over again after they were already answered to you before and ignoring proof either.


 

WOW, what irony


----------



## Big_D (Jan 10, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> AS I said BIG D,your just wasting your time addressing anymore posts to me.



Apparently not as you just responded to my previous post.



9/11 inside job said:


> This is FURTHER proof how you never remember anything said to you half the time.I already said i am done with reading your posts,that I will eventually -when i have the time-address all the points you brought up prior to the posts I made about 4 pages back,but the ones you make AFTER that,i will not address or read cause you keep asking the SAME questions over and over again after the answers were already given to you previously by me and EOTS earlier many times, and then like I said,blatently ignore facts and proof in the videos that proves to ANYBODY who has a brain,it was an inside job. I'll eventually address your previous posts from pages back.None from my last one where I said I am done with you.you critisized EOTS earlier,for not responding to questions you asked him saying thats no way to debate.well its ALSO no way to debate by asking the SAME questions over and over again after they were already answered to you before and ignoring proof either.



You are awfully hypocritical stating that I have a bad memory and ignorant when you have done the exact same thing that you accuse me of doing. As I have said countless times, I am not ignoring your posts. I have gone on sites that you have posted and because I still not convinced you believe that I must be ignoring you.

One of the reasons I have asked the same questions is because I am NOT getting a response. As I have asked COUNTLESS times was for you to back up your statement that you made in post number 144 of this thread. You said that one of my engineering experts were laughable. This is the one who wrote a paper on why the WTC buildings fell and of course he said it was because of the planes that hit the towers, not explosives. I have asked you to back it up and since then you have not. As I said in my previous post to you, that was over a month ago and we still have not heard back from you. This alone ruins your argument. I get the impression that if this expert wrote an article stating our govt brought down the buildings then you would be proclaiming it as proof for you theory. Yet, since he has a difference of opinion as yours then you believe it is useless info. It is conspicuous by now that you cannot refute the article or it would have been done a month ago. It really seems pointless for me to keep saying it as you are the one ignorant of it and choose not to respond to it. It is just easier for you to say that you have to save face.

Another instance when I continually ask the same questions is when I refute your response to it and we do not hear back from you. In other words, I would make a statement and you wouldn't give an adequate reply. I then easily defeat your argument and expect you to give me a decent answer. I repeat it again expecting a real answer to which I get nothing in reply.

An additional instance would be when you chose to insult me rather than refuting my argument. An example would be post # 391 in this thread.


----------



## Big_D (Jan 10, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> thats cause only an idiot WOULDNT agree after watching the videos that it was an inside job.people like you and diva are in so much denial that a video could be shown with george bush confessing to dick cheney-yeah are CIA men did a great job of planting those explosives in those buildings and bringing them down and fooling the american people that the jets and fires caused it we now can get our war we wanted out of it,yeah hoo!! you two fools would STILL say theres no hard evidence as proven just now,that the videos dont prove nothing.



You need to separate opinion from fact. Because you believe these videos to be the truth does not mean everyone else would. Again, you put your faith in internet sites that could have come from anywhere than you do from the engineering professors and other experts I have shown in post number 406 of this thread. Next, this is not proof. It is speculation. That is also something you need to speculate. Here is another peer reviewed paper: http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf This also passed peer review from the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics in their engineering division. To go along with the article that you said was laughable and I have been asking you to back up in the past month, that is now two article that I have that passed peer review from that society. That means when this article was reviewed it would have been approved from all these experts: http://www.ce.jhu.edu/emd/excom.html
http://www.ce.jhu.edu/emd/admin.html
So again that is two articles that I have that passed peer review and your side still has none.


----------

