# what happened on  9/11/2001?



## n0spam4me (Nov 27, 2014)

I see a huge problem here, whenever people start discussing the events of 9/11/2001, the arguments start developing tangents where people speculate as to who may be responsible, why they did it ( etc.... ) please lets not speculate, the facts of the case are VERY clear, on 9/11/2001, 4 airliners virtually disappeared, 3 skyscrapers "fell down" at an unnaturally rapid pace and into complete and total destruction ( and total destruction of anything is a red flag for investigators! ) other bits like the worlds greatest military power failed to defend even its own HQ.
These facts need to be taken into account when discussing the events of 9/11/2001.
Speculation is fruitless and should be avoided.


----------



## Hossfly (Nov 27, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> I see a huge problem here, whenever people start discussing the events of 9/11/2001, the arguments start developing tangents where people speculate as to who may be responsible, why they did it ( etc.... ) please lets not speculate, the facts of the case are VERY clear, on 9/11/2001, 4 airliners virtually disappeared, 3 skyscrapers "fell down" at an unnaturally rapid pace and into complete and total destruction ( and total destruction of anything is a red flag for investigators! ) other bits like the worlds greatest military power failed to defend even its own HQ.
> These facts need to be taken into account when discussing the events of 9/11/2001.
> Speculation is fruitless and should be avoided.


OK. I'll tell my people not to speculate. I wouldn't want them to be fruitless. Just tell us what really happened and whodunit.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Nov 27, 2014)




----------



## wihosa (Nov 27, 2014)

Hossfly said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > I see a huge problem here, whenever people start discussing the events of 9/11/2001, the arguments start developing tangents where people speculate as to who may be responsible, why they did it ( etc.... ) please lets not speculate, the facts of the case are VERY clear, on 9/11/2001, 4 airliners virtually disappeared, 3 skyscrapers "fell down" at an unnaturally rapid pace and into complete and total destruction ( and total destruction of anything is a red flag for investigators! ) other bits like the worlds greatest military power failed to defend even its own HQ.
> ...



That's for a special prosecutor to do.
Are you comfortable with the fact no one was ever tried for the greatest crime in our history.
No trial, no conviction?


----------



## wihosa (Nov 27, 2014)

Rat in the Hat said:


>


Nothing smells worse than rat shit!


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 27, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> what happened on 9/11/2001?


I remember that day well. I got home from work around 7am, took a shower, had a bite to eat and listened to the news while playing a video-game. Right before going to bed I heard something about an aircraft hitting a tower and figured a single prop crop duster hit a radio tower out in the middle of no where. I turned the radio off and went to bed.

I got up around 5pm, played with my son, had breakfast and went to work. I heard a sound byte something about two plains hitting a world trade center and I thought "_what's a world trade center, I thought the plains hit a tower not a building_". I decided to tune it all out until the media could get it's shit together. Later that night I turned on a radio show and terrorism is all they were talking about and I was like "_but what about that crop duster that hit a radio tower_".

And that's what happened on 9/11/2001.


----------



## Hossfly (Nov 27, 2014)

wihosa said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


You're right. No trials, no convictions for Bin Laden and the hi-jackers. Judge Roy Bean would have had Bin Laden fined and hung before his sea burial. He was a stickler for the law.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Nov 27, 2014)




----------



## n0spam4me (Nov 27, 2014)

OK, need to clarify that, what happened in NYC & The Pentagon & Shanksville.
Not necessarily what happened in YOUR life on that day.

What the original intent here was to define what happened as in did hijacked airliners get used as weapons? Did "FLT11" & "FLT175" actually fly into the Twin towers with the results as recorded on video that day?  Did "FLT93" actually crash in Shanksville or did something else happen?  What has the mainstream media been promoting and does it all add up?

Ask Questions always!


----------



## wihosa (Nov 27, 2014)

Hossfly said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



Sounds like you tried and convicted him already. But were is the proof? All we ever heard was assertions. Why have they never tried any of the supposed co-conspirators they have had in Gitmo all these years?
Why did we abandon the American justice system which was designed by the framers of the Constitution?


----------



## Judicial review (Nov 27, 2014)

Awe shit. Not again.


----------



## wihosa (Nov 27, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> OK, need to clarify that, what happened in NYC & The Pentagon & Shanksville.
> Not necessarily what happened in YOUR life on that day.
> 
> What the original intent here was to define what happened as in did hijacked airliners get used as weapons? Did "FLT11" & "FLT175" actually fly into the Twin towers with the results as recorded on video that day?  Did "FLT93" actually crash in Shanksville or did something else happen?  What has the mainstream media been promoting and does it all add up?
> ...



We can only find out by having a real investigation. An independent special prosecutor with subpoena power. Put people under oath. Enough with the obvious lie which is the Official Conspiracy Theory.


----------



## Vigilante (Nov 27, 2014)

Investigate what?....Here's what the fuck happened!


----------



## wihosa (Nov 27, 2014)

Go back to sleep


----------



## Judicial review (Nov 27, 2014)

For another 15 years


----------



## Vigilante (Nov 27, 2014)

wihosa said:


> Go back to sleep



What, you don't understand this?


----------



## wihosa (Nov 27, 2014)

Understand what?


----------



## Politico (Nov 28, 2014)

Bad choice for username OP.


----------



## Indofred (Nov 28, 2014)

In years to come, it will be found out that Israel was behind this, but that won't happen until all the criminals have died of old age.


----------



## Roadrunner (Nov 28, 2014)

Hossfly said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...


The killing of bin Laden was an evidence destruction mission.

He should have been captured live and brought here for trial.


----------



## n0spam4me (Nov 28, 2014)

and in all of the preceding posts, who has offered to examine the events of 9/11/2001?  The discussion I seek to start is to be strictly about the observed events, not whodoneit, not why it was done, but what was observed in light of the laws of physics & logic.  Any discussion here?


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 3, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> and in all of the preceding posts, who has offered to examine the events of 9/11/2001?  The discussion I seek to start is to be strictly about the observed events, not whodoneit, not why it was done, but what was observed in light of the laws of physics & logic.  Any discussion here?



Many have tried to have that very discussion with any number of "Truthers" here - including you - and found it to be like talking to a wall.
When your pseudoscience was repeatedly challenged by Gamolon these past few months you conveniently DISAPPEARED for weeks at a time. As such, your lack of sincerity and credibility have rendered you unsuitable for rational discussion.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 3, 2014)

No one cares what happened and the blame has already been placed. To the tune of two hot wars, several proxy wars and a few trillion dollars squandered.


----------



## teddyearp (Dec 3, 2014)

Indofred said:


> In years to come, it will be found out that Israel was behind this, but that won't happen until all the criminals have died of old age.


Oh yeah. It's always the Jews!


----------



## daws101 (Dec 3, 2014)

got  to give spammy points for tenacity...toooo bad it would be better served in reality.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 3, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> and in all of the preceding posts, who has offered to examine the events of 9/11/2001?  The discussion I seek to start is to be strictly about the observed events, not whodoneit, not why it was done, but what was observed in light of the laws of physics & logic.  Any discussion here?


this op know nothing of either physics or logic


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 3, 2014)

daws101 said:


> got  to give spammy points for tenacity...toooo bad it would be better served in reality.


 
You're confusing tenacity with pigheadedness. When the going got rough, Spammy took a powder. Exit, stage left!


----------



## Indofred (Dec 3, 2014)

teddyearp said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > In years to come, it will be found out that Israel was behind this, but that won't happen until all the criminals have died of old age.
> ...



I said, Israel", not the Jews.
I don't do collective punishment because I'm not the Israeli government.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 3, 2014)

Indofred said:


> In years to come, it will be found out that Israel was behind this, but that won't happen until all the criminals have died of old age.


 
Yeah, 'cause it couldn't possibly have been your "Extremist Muslim" brethren.


----------



## Indofred (Dec 4, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > In years to come, it will be found out that Israel was behind this, but that won't happen until all the criminals have died of old age.
> ...



I'm pretty sure Muslims actually carried out the plot, but were controlled by Mossad agents, posing as Islamic extremists, in turn assisted by the US arms industry and those in their pay.
I'll go further.
The Israeli lobby has no power in the USA, save that gifted to them by the US arms trade - the ones who make massive fortunes when US taxpayers supply Israel.
The politicians allow it because the arms trade pay them off with 'campaign contributions'.


----------



## Politico (Dec 4, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> and in all of the preceding posts, *who has offered to examine the events of 9/11/2001?*  The discussion I seek to start is to be strictly about the observed events, not whodoneit, not why it was done, but what was observed in light of the laws of physics & logic.  Any discussion here?


I did. We were attacked by a bunch of pissed off Muslims. What did you observe?


----------



## Indofred (Dec 4, 2014)

Politico said:


> I did. We were attacked by a bunch of pissed off Muslims. What did you observe?



I observed a bunch of Americans that didn't realise they'd pissed of the Muslims, so thought they were under attack by a first strike.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 4, 2014)

Indofred said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Indofred said:
> ...




Who would have thought it? We finally found a "Muslim Extremist" with a sense of humor. Keep it up Freddie ... this is some funny shit.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 4, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > got  to give spammy points for tenacity...toooo bad it would be better served in reality.
> ...


sorry no I was just trying to be civil.
spammy's  ass must be sore


----------



## PredFan (Dec 4, 2014)

Here's what happened on 9/11/2001:

Terrorists hijacked 4 planes, flew one each into the two towers, one into the Pentagon, and crashed another into a field.

You're welcome.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 4, 2014)

PredFan said:


> Here's what happened on 9/11/2001:
> 
> Terrorists hijacked 4 planes, flew one each into the two towers, one into the Pentagon, and crashed another into a field.
> 
> You're welcome.


(false outrage) you one of them you shill!
everybody knows it's the Israeli Zionist, Chinese, LBGT, Seventh day Adventists , Buddhist, Christian condom manufacturing socialist model builders, of east Jesus Utah who did it!  
this is the last time I'm gonna tell you that!


----------



## Indofred (Dec 4, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Who would have thought it? We finally found a "Muslim Extremist" with a sense of humor. Keep it up Freddie ... this is some funny shit.



My toilet articles are really funny, especially the ones involving earthquakes and underwear saved from a serious cleaning job, and the correct method for using a squat toilet, but I'm commonly serious when it comes to mass murder.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 4, 2014)

I see we really never did get past passing blame rather than discussing what happened as the OP suggested.



I mean, saying the jews did it, or the muslims or the americans misses the point of what actually happened rather than a I thunk I der herp in know who dun it and fer!


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 4, 2014)

This is my favorite image of 9/11. It was taken by FEMA (a big thanks to them!) several days after the attack from the 15th floor of bankers trust. You'll notice the flange that has been shriveled and sort of pinch-crimped off there.

It tells the entire story of 9/11.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 4, 2014)

Indofred said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Who would have thought it? We finally found a "Muslim Extremist" with a sense of humor. Keep it up Freddie ... this is some funny shit.
> ...


 
So you post stuff like "In years to come, it will be found out that Israel was behind this" and expect to be taken seriously?

I'll give you this ... years from now when the al Qaeda fuktards are all dead and unable to confront you apologists, Nazi scummies and "Extremist Muslims" will still be shouting, "Israel did it!"


----------



## Indofred (Dec 4, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> So you post stuff like "In years to come, it will be found out that Israel was behind this" and expect to be taken seriously?



and how many other firm beliefs were found to be untrue when official papers were finally released?


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 4, 2014)

Indofred said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > So you post stuff like "In years to come, it will be found out that Israel was behind this" and expect to be taken seriously?
> ...



Therefore Israel did it?  
So how many "official papers" were found to be untrue and do you have any evidence it was Israel?


----------



## daws101 (Dec 4, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> This is my favorite image of 9/11. It was taken by FEMA (a big thanks to them!) several days after the attack from the 15th floor of bankers trust. You'll notice the flange that has been shriveled and sort of pinch-crimped off there.
> 
> It tells the entire story of 9/11.


false that" crimp" was caused by heat and the weight of the floor pushing down on it crimped because it was squeezed before it broke off.










 I debunked that pic the last time you posted it.  back then you were claiming it was some exotic force that was responsible


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 4, 2014)

Yup "debunked" forensic evidence by claiming heat and force>




Yeah, ok. How much heat and force and from what source.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 4, 2014)

Furthermore, none of those photos you posted can be properly compared to the FEMA photo of Bankers Trust. Bankers Trust was never on fire, it was hit by falling debris.

Try again.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 4, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Yup "debunked" forensic evidence by claiming heat and force>
> 
> 
> 
> ...


the fema folks came to the same conclusion I did
the banker trust building was struck by debris with extreme force and had fire of it's own.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 4, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Furthermore, none of those photos you posted can be properly compared to the FEMA photo of Bankers Trust. Bankers Trust was never on fire, it was hit by falling debris.
> 
> Try again.


bullshit there all from the same sight form the same incidence.
your talking out your ass just like last time
btw where's the link to that photo or to the fema report.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 4, 2014)

daws101 said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > This is my favorite image of 9/11. It was taken by FEMA (a big thanks to them!) several days after the attack from the 15th floor of bankers trust. You'll notice the flange that has been shriveled and sort of pinch-crimped off there.
> ...



One can only wonder why these "truthers" post their silly CTBS in the first place and why they bother to repeat it once it's been so easily debunked.
It must be some genetic defect.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Dec 4, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> what happened on 9/11/2001?



You dropped acid.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 4, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > what happened on 9/11/2001?
> ...


 
Nah ... he was dropped on his head.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Dec 5, 2014)

This is what really happened: airplane flight computers became self-aware are revolted. They took over the planes and caused them to crash. To prevent a crash of every airliner stock and cessation of airplane travel (which effects many related industries, jobs, and money,) the terrorist hijacking idea was disseminated instead of self-aware computers.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 5, 2014)

daws101 said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Furthermore, none of those photos you posted can be properly compared to the FEMA photo of Bankers Trust. Bankers Trust was never on fire, it was hit by falling debris.
> ...



No, they are not. you're delusional, unscientific and have spent years in the forum trying to "debunk" evidence with platitudes.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 5, 2014)

SAYIT said:


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



So you have nothing. I'm not surprised.

I also do not fucking care about 9/11. You can go around holding onto someone elses cock over it if you want, but why do you and Daws and other tards care so much? Why is it so important for you to platitude and insult your way to submission?

Don't answer that, Sally.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 5, 2014)

daws101 said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Yup "debunked" forensic evidence by claiming heat and force>
> ...



No, they did not. You're still trying to pass off the idea you know WTF you're talking about scientifically.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 5, 2014)

Daws will be here in no time to rebuttal. He lives for this conversation. Or perhaps gets paid. Who cares? Fucking 9/11 is old news and I find it hilarious we still have Daws and Sallys around after this many years.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 5, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> I also do not fucking care about 9/11.




Over three years later and TakeAStepBack wants to make sure that we all know he STILL doesn't care about 9/11! Thanks for the reminder!


TakeAStepBack said:


> I'm all done with this topic.


----------



## Toro (Dec 5, 2014)

On September 11, 2001, 19 al-Qaeda Islamic terrorists hijacked four planes, slamming two into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and one into a Pennsylvania field.

The End.



I hope that helps.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 5, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > I also do not fucking care about 9/11.
> ...



I certainly do not care about proving people wrong. They do it for themselves just fine.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 5, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > what happened on 9/11/2001?
> ...


no way sulfuric acid but not LSD.
if spammy had done acid he would know the difference between fantasy and reality..


----------



## daws101 (Dec 5, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


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


yes they are, all are from the wtc area which the banker trust is a part.
where's the link?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 5, 2014)

I do not prove negatives. You go for it. Keep trying.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 5, 2014)

The FEMA Docs can br found online.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 5, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> I do not prove negatives. You go for it. Keep trying.


 true! you have to have something to prove it either way, you have nothing


----------



## daws101 (Dec 5, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> The FEMA Docs can br found online.


dodge! can't or won't back up your bullshit?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 5, 2014)

I'm not doing homework for a fella who has spent the amount of tie you have on this topic, no.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 5, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> I'm not doing homework for a fella who has spent the amount of tie you have on this topic, no.


now you're rationalizing your dodge..
I don't wear ties .
kinda early for chasing the dragon isn't it?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 5, 2014)

You can platitude your way around just about anything. it's makes you an excellent forum troll but a lousy debate partner, son.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 5, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> You can platitude your way around just about anything. it's makes you an excellent forum troll but a lousy debate partner, son.


 right!
you might want to learn what  platitude means
Platitude
A platitude is a trite, meaningless, or prosaic statement, generally directed at quelling social, emotional, or cognitive unease. The word derives from plat, French word for "flat." Platitudes are geared towards presenting a shallow, unifying wisdom over a difficult topic.
it appears, rightfully so that you and other conspiracy nut sacks use platitudes incessantly to bolster your non existent argument ..


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 5, 2014)

good luck with your career, Daws.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 5, 2014)

Steel will only warp due to temperature under two conditions:
1. It is not heated evenly - in this case, the hotter parts will expand more than the cooler parts.
2. There are internal stresses in the steel (often from welding or cold-working - as an example, an I-beam or C-channel is usually hot worked, but some cold work can happen, so they can sometimes warp if you heat them ).
This means that the steel won't warp due to temp if it's not 1 or 2. However, it could soften and fail if it has a load on it.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 5, 2014)




----------



## daws101 (Dec 5, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


>


laughter as dodge not even original.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 5, 2014)

Neither is platitudes of nonsense but at least i find you funny.


----------



## ninja007 (Dec 8, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> OK, need to clarify that, what happened in NYC & The Pentagon & Shanksville.
> Not necessarily what happened in YOUR life on that day.
> 
> What the original intent here was to define what happened as in did hijacked airliners get used as weapons? Did "FLT11" & "FLT175" actually fly into the Twin towers with the results as recorded on video that day?  Did "FLT93" actually crash in Shanksville or did something else happen?  What has the mainstream media been promoting and does it all add up?
> ...



hundreds of people saw and heard the 2 planes fly into the towers....it is also on video.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 8, 2014)

ninja007 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > OK, need to clarify that, what happened in NYC & The Pentagon & Shanksville.
> ...





TakeAStepBack said:


> You can platitude your way around just about anything. it's makes you an excellent forum troll but a lousy debate partner, son.




a sad lying paid troll who has nothing better to do than to quote ages old posts about the topic  from several months back no less .


----------



## daws101 (Dec 8, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


it's handjob's computer time at the lock down facility !


----------



## n0spam4me (Dec 25, 2014)

What would the news media & the public do with info such as if 2000 Doctors, that is MD types proclaimed publicly that if you ate a certain type of junk food, you would get cancer & die, and they had the scientific data to back up that claim?

What we have ( in the case of the events of 9/11/2001 ) is more than 2000 professionals who have the training & experience to very well know what they are talking about and they say that there is something VERY wrong with the official explanation of what happened on 9/11/2001.  Now I ask a serious question here, WHY the silence on the subject?  Engineers should be talking about this and discussing the ramifications of this INFORMATION, however, I have attended many conventions of professionals and as soon as I bring up 9/11/2001, everybody suddenly remembers an appointment they absolutely must keep and they rush off..... face it people the propaganda war has made it a taboo subject, and that is just plane WRONG!


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 25, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> What would the news media & the public do with info such as if 2000 Doctors, that is MD types proclaimed publicly that if you ate a certain type of junk food, you would get cancer & die, and they had the scientific data to back up that claim?
> 
> What we have ( in the case of the events of 9/11/2001 ) is more than 2000 professionals who have the training & experience to very well know what they are talking about and they say that there is something VERY wrong with the official explanation of what happened on 9/11/2001.  Now I ask a serious question here, WHY the silence on the subject?  Engineers should be talking about this and discussing the ramifications of this INFORMATION, however, I have attended many conventions of professionals and as soon as I bring up 9/11/2001, everybody suddenly remembers an appointment they absolutely must keep and they rush off..... face it people the propaganda war has made it a taboo subject, and that is just plane WRONG!



Nor it is happening-----I know lots of engineers


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Dec 25, 2014)

> *"We are emotional beings, we will not listen to rational evidences. In fact, we will rationalize irrational thoughts to justify our own world view." - Richard Gage, AIA (Founder: Architect & Engineer for 911 Truth.)*



911 Questions


Bottom left of page


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 25, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> What would the news media & the public do with info such as if 2000 Doctors, that is MD types proclaimed publicly that if you ate a certain type of junk food, you would get cancer & die, and they had the scientific data to back up that claim?
> 
> What we have ( in the case of the events of 9/11/2001 ) is more than 2000 professionals who have the training & experience to very well know what they are talking about and they say that there is something VERY wrong with the official explanation of what happened on 9/11/2001.  Now I ask a serious question here, WHY the silence on the subject?  Engineers should be talking about this and discussing the ramifications of this INFORMATION, however, I have attended many conventions of professionals and as soon as I bring up 9/11/2001, everybody suddenly remembers an appointment they absolutely must keep and they rush off..... face it people the propaganda war has made it a taboo subject, and that is just plane WRONG!



No, it's not. The 9/11 CT Movement has run it's course and has come up empty. No rational person wants to waste time discussing it with a flaming loon so they politely (or not) disengage. You should seek professional help but in the meantime keep the words of former Movement royalty, Charlie Veitch, in mind:
"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong."


----------



## n0spam4me (Dec 25, 2014)

9/11/2001 has become a taboo subject, and that is VERY bad for AMERICA.
there are some of us who actually seek truth, quoting one "ex-truth seeker"
doesn't do anything toward actually setting the issue.  Neither does calling people crazy (etc... ).  What is needed here is a real quest for TRUTH. and people could get all emotional and bring up the victims of 9/11/2001 and complain that this truth seeking is an insult to the departed, but really the greatest tribute we can pay the them is to seek the truth and embrace the truth.  The official story has all sorts of problems, and setting up road-blocks such as emotional arguments about the hijacked airliners and all those people .... etc .... however, we need to actually examine the available evidence and ask the court of public opinion to issue a verdict.


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 25, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> 9/11/2001 has become a taboo subject, and that is VERY bad for AMERICA.
> there are some of us who actually seek truth, quoting one "ex-truth seeker"
> doesn't do anything toward actually setting the issue.  Neither does calling people crazy (etc... ).  What is needed here is a real quest for TRUTH. and people could get all emotional and bring up the victims of 9/11/2001 and complain that this truth seeking is an insult to the departed, but really the greatest tribute we can pay the them is to seek the truth and embrace the truth.  The official story has all sorts of problems, and setting up road-blocks such as emotional arguments about the hijacked airliners and all those people .... etc .... however, we need to actually examine the available evidence and ask the court of public opinion to issue a verdict.



the "court of public opinion" -------gee-------it reminds me of
----"lets ask the demented to vote on the correct diagnosis" ----
         a comment sometimes made during medical grand rounds

   do not worry-----there is a poster here    Mineva----who knows
exactly what happened that day-----someday she will tell us


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Dec 25, 2014)




----------



## n0spam4me (Dec 25, 2014)

The latest posts in this thread are rock solid proof of what I've been saying
you see, if anybody really wanted to put the whole "truther" movement to rest for once & for all time, all you would have to do is provide the same sort of DOCUMENTATION that any other airline disaster or for that matter any other major event would have, but you see, 9/11/2001 is the most poorly documented disaster ever, and I really mean that.
If anyone does have the DOCUMENTATION, please present it and lay the matter to rest right now, but then again, not only does the show-stopper documentation not exist even the documentation of how the NIST faked a computer simulation is kept secret on the excuse that to release it would endanger public safety. ..... and some people refuse to see the farce here.... oh well ....


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Dec 25, 2014)




----------



## Rat in the Hat (Dec 25, 2014)




----------



## Rat in the Hat (Dec 25, 2014)




----------



## Rat in the Hat (Dec 25, 2014)




----------



## daws101 (Dec 25, 2014)

Seems  spammy didn't get what he wanted for festivis


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Dec 25, 2014)




----------



## Freewill (Dec 26, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> I see a huge problem here, whenever people start discussing the events of 9/11/2001, the arguments start developing tangents where people speculate as to who may be responsible, why they did it ( etc.... ) please lets not speculate, the facts of the case are VERY clear, on 9/11/2001, 4 airliners virtually disappeared, 3 skyscrapers *"fell down" at an unnaturally rapid pace* and into complete and total destruction ( and total destruction of anything is a red flag for investigators! ) other bits like the worlds greatest military power failed to defend even its own HQ.
> These facts need to be taken into account when discussing the events of 9/11/2001.
> Speculation is fruitless and should be avoided.



And yet you speculate.


----------



## n0spam4me (Dec 26, 2014)

Freewill said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > I see a huge problem here, whenever people start discussing the events of 9/11/2001, the arguments start developing tangents where people speculate as to who may be responsible, why they did it ( etc.... ) please lets not speculate, the facts of the case are VERY clear, on 9/11/2001, 4 airliners virtually disappeared, 3 skyscrapers *"fell down" at an unnaturally rapid pace* and into complete and total destruction ( and total destruction of anything is a red flag for investigators! ) other bits like the worlds greatest military power failed to defend even its own HQ.
> ...



Note that it is NOT speculation to observe the fact that WTC7 spent 2.25 sec in free-fall acceleration, it is NOT speculation to observe that the twin towers were completely destroyed, it is NOT speculation to observe the lack of documentation of the alleged 4 airliner crash sites.

There is so much that constitutes hard evidence here, and people are labeling it speculation?  The psychological warfare has really shifted in to high gear ......


----------



## Freewill (Dec 26, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


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



Sigh, maybe what you do is not speculation:

Debunking 9 11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Free Fall


----------



## n0spam4me (Dec 26, 2014)

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



RE: your link, first of all, the text at the top of the page above the pix
"The towers did not fall at or below free fall speeds...."

However, below free fall ACCELERATION would be something less than 9.8 m/s^2 and that is exactly what was observed in the case of the twin towers.

additionally the term "speed" is inaccurate because the real term to use in this case is ACCELERATION.

Also if you look at the bottom paragraph right below the top-most picture on this page, and read "the more weight, the less resistance each floor gave"
However this is IMPOSSIBLE, the resistance of any given structure is what it is without regards to any force imposed upon it.  and indeed the resistance of each level would be increasing as the destruction progressed down the tower.

There is also the matter of focus of the energy, the individual who wrote that page, adds up the energy from various sources such as the alleged aircraft impact and then proclaims that it constitutes more energy than what destroyed Hiroshima .... great, HOWEVER there is a problem here, lots of energy alone, does not produce the complete & total destruction of a building as if it were subjected to controlled demolition unless that energy is focused & directed in such a manner as to produce the result, that is complete & total destruction of the skyscraper.  This clearly points to an engineered event.


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 26, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> > Debunking 9 11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Free Fall
> 
> 
> 
> ...



thanks for the jibberish ------all motion is characterized by a  SPEED--------distance by time.      acceleration is simply another characteristic of a moving object ---JERK----based on forces exerted upon the objects whilst in motion    JERK.      Lots of buildings which were not destroyed by controlled demolition are COMPLTELY GONE


----------



## daws101 (Dec 26, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


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


as always bullshit! ONLY PART OF WTC7 FELL IN 2.25 SEC AND ONLY A FRACTION OF THAT WAS FREE FALL.
You are free to lie to yourself about it but not to others.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 26, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> > Debunking 9 11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Free Fall
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?*
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.
To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.
The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf).
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation


----------



## daws101 (Dec 26, 2014)

5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 26, 2014)

I am a witness-----it went down real fast.      I did not have a watch that could time in microseconds-----in fact I did not have a watch----or a camera  -----just my own startled self---
looking thru a window.      It went down fast-----I will never
forget that sight.      It was a long way off and I assumed---since it had burned so long------that everyone got out.  ----
There was no  sign of a blast at the base------as one sees in
controlled demolitions----the smoke at the base rose up
from the collapsed building-----not before it collapsed.   Also---as far as I could see-----no evidence of implosion


----------



## n0spam4me (Dec 26, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> Lots of buildings which were not destroyed by controlled demolition are COMPLTELY GONE



Please cite reference as to what building and when and under what conditions.

& Thank U


----------



## n0spam4me (Dec 26, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> I am a witness-----it went down real fast.      I did not have a watch that could time in microseconds-----in fact I did not have a watch----or a camera  -----just my own startled self---
> looking thru a window.      It went down fast-----I will never
> forget that sight.      It was a long way off and I assumed---since it had burned so long------that everyone got out.  ----
> There was no  sign of a blast at the base------as one sees in
> ...



So your gut level feeling about this trumps all of the scientific analysis that has been done?  is that it?


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 26, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > Lots of buildings which were not destroyed by controlled demolition are COMPLTELY GONE
> ...




I watched such demolitions long ago------when I was young   (and beautiful)       I could not tell you even what
street I was standing upon at the time


----------



## daws101 (Dec 26, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > Lots of buildings which were not destroyed by controlled demolition are COMPLTELY GONE
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Dec 26, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > I am a witness-----it went down real fast.      I did not have a watch that could time in microseconds-----in fact I did not have a watch----or a camera  -----just my own startled self---
> ...


that's not what she /he said.
as to scientific analysis ,the only credible analysis was done by nist and fema ,the rest is pseudoscience yammering.


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 26, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > I am a witness-----it went down real fast.      I did not have a watch that could time in microseconds-----in fact I did not have a watch----or a camera  -----just my own startled self---
> ...



none of the "scientific evidence"  holds up-------I cannot discuss that issue having forgotten most of the calculus
I once knew-------two of my brothers are absolute experts one an engineer----and the other a physicist -----both brilliant in calculus---------the other brother----the psychiatrist-------did his calculus when he had to----but like me-----has not used it in years


----------



## n0spam4me (Dec 26, 2014)

Note that NIST agreed with the 2.25 sec of free fall acceleration, now it really doesn't do anything for the case to try & say that the bit that is observed falling is a sub-set of the whole building because the North & West walls are seen dropping at free-fall acceleration for 2.25 sec and given that, the ONLY conclusion that can be reached about what is happening is that ALL of the resistance was removed ALL at the same time. Therefore, an engineered event.


----------



## n0spam4me (Dec 26, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



WHAT?  You start out by specifying "not destroyed by controlled demolition"
and then in subsequent post .... specify "demolitions"
a building is either destroyed intentionally, or not,
what is it?

The destruction of the towers & WTC7 have all the characteristics that point to an engineered event.  The picture in a previous post here, shows what is said to be damage to WTC7, but do tell, exactly how is it that said damage in the form show in the photo, should lead to the COLLAPSE as was alleged to have been the result of FIRE?


----------



## daws101 (Dec 26, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Note that NIST agreed with the 2.25 sec of free fall acceleration, now it really doesn't do anything for the case to try & say that the bit that is observed falling is a sub-set of the whole building because the North & West walls are seen dropping at free-fall acceleration for 2.25 sec and given that, the ONLY conclusion that can be reached about what is happening is that ALL of the resistance was removed ALL at the same time. Therefore, an engineered event.


false you have no evidenced to base that conclusion on other than wishful thinking.
that's the same as saying god did that  because you have no clue to how the "thing" happened.


----------



## n0spam4me (Dec 26, 2014)

daws101 said:


> false you have no evidenced to base that conclusion on other than wishful thinking.
> that's the same as saying god did that because you have no clue to how the "thing" happened.



So you do not believe that free-fall acceleration is a clear indication that there isn't any structure under the falling bit, no support, the falling bit is NOT bending, breaking, pushing anything, because if it was doing any of that, it would NOT be falling at free-fall acceleration, therefore because the building is seen keeping its shape as it descends straight down, ALL of the resistance must have been removed all at the same time. The obvious conclusion of an engineered event is based on observation of said event.

You can attempt to negate the evidence but its evidence with or without your opinion.


----------



## Skylar (Dec 26, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


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



The part that is speculation is the cause. You imagine bombs, thermite, ninja janitors, elaborate cover ups, etc. 

And you can't back that claim. Worse, you can't explain the myriad of theory killing holes in it. 

1) The complete lack of any girder cut in a manner consist with either thermite or the bombs.

2) The complete lack of any apparatus of explosive found anywhere, before, during or after the collapse.

3) The FDNY explicitly contradicting your claims, indicating that fire and structural damage brought down the building. 

4) The NIST contradicting your claims, indicating that fire brought down the building. 

5) The fact that the entire WTC plaza was checked for bombs only a week before 911, and neither the Port authority bomb squad nor any of their bomb sniffing dogs found a  single bomb.

6) The fact that WTC 7 was on fire. Making any system of explosives a virtual impossibility. As the charges would have either melted, or gone off prematurely. 

You can't deal with any of it. So you ignore it. *We don't. *This is why your argument isn't compelling, why you keep failing to persuade anyone who is even remotely informed: your argument doesn't work.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 26, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > false you have no evidenced to base that conclusion on other than wishful thinking.
> ...


nice rationalizing spammy.
as always you are intentionally mistaking cause for effect.
none of that is an indication of a planned or controlled demolition...


----------



## Skylar (Dec 26, 2014)

daws101 said:


> false you have no evidenced to base that conclusion on other than wishful thinking.
> that's the same as saying god did that  because you have no clue to how the "thing" happened.



Oh, its far worse than that. Not only can't spammy back his claims with evidence. But the evidence disproves his claims. There were no bombs, nor any apparatus of explosives in any building. No residue of explosives, no empty thermite canisters, not even a single thermite reaction ever visible, anywhere. The building was on fire, making his bombs a virtual impossibility. The FDNY explicitly contradict his account. The NIST explicitly contradicts his account. And not a single girder was cut in a manner consistent with thermite or a bomb.

You can't get around these facts. They disprove the bomb theory incontrovertibly.

So spammy ignores them all. A rational person wouldn't. Which is why his theory remains so uncompelling and unpersuasive.


----------



## Skylar (Dec 26, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...




There were no bombs. There were no thermite reactions. How does your 'explosive' theory reconcile these two enormous issues.


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 26, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Note that NIST agreed with the 2.25 sec of free fall acceleration, now it really doesn't do anything for the case to try & say that the bit that is observed falling is a sub-set of the whole building because the North & West walls are seen dropping at free-fall acceleration for 2.25 sec and given that, the ONLY conclusion that can be reached about what is happening is that ALL of the resistance was removed ALL at the same time. Therefore, an engineered event.



The "resistence was removed"      how does one accomplish such a feat with an engineered event------create a VACUUM around lower manhattan?


----------



## n0spam4me (Dec 26, 2014)

Skylar said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



I invite you to produce documentation that proves an investigation was done, 
that is specifically looking for explosives, explosive residue, indications of blast damage ( etc.... ) Was Ground Zero actually investigated?


----------



## Dante (Dec 26, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> I see a huge problem here, whenever people start discussing the events of 9/11/2001, the arguments start developing tangents where people speculate as to who may be responsible, why they did it ( etc.... ) please lets not speculate, the facts of the case are VERY clear, on 9/11/2001*, 4 airliners virtually disappeared*, 3 skyscrapers "fell down" at an unnaturally rapid pace and into complete and total destruction ( and total destruction of anything is a red flag for investigators! ) other bits like the worlds greatest military power failed to defend even its own HQ.
> These facts need to be taken into account when discussing the events of 9/11/2001.
> Speculation is fruitless and should be avoided.


*wrong*

wrong again

three strikes. outta here


----------



## Dante (Dec 26, 2014)

wihosa said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


*really? says who? a little nobody like you?*


----------



## Dante (Dec 26, 2014)

Judicial review


Judicial review said:


> Awe shit. Not again.


hey idiot...it's a conspiracy forum

lighten up francine


----------



## Skylar (Dec 26, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


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



I invite you to read the NIST investigation, the most comprehensive ever done on the collapse of WTC 7. They found no bombs nor evidence of bombs. No one did. Not the FNDY, not the Port Authority Bomb Squad, not their bomb sniffing dogs, not any crew cleaning up the wreckage, no one. 

*Your argument is perfectly circular: there were bombs because the building collapsed. And the building collapsed because there were bombs. *

_But there were no bombs_. There was no girder ever cut in a manner consistent with explosive demolition, there was no residue of explosives found in any dust sample, there was no bomb or apparatus of explosives ever found, before during or after the collapse, the building was on fire making any system of explosives impossible as any charge would have melted or exploded prematurely. And the entire plaza was searched for bombs only a week before 911 and they never found any bombs of any type. 

The NIST found the collapse consistent with a structural failure due to fire. The FDNY, who watched the building's slow structural failure over hours, cited fire and structural damage. And both are far more reliable sources than you are, pretending you know better because you saw a youtube video 10 years after the fact.

You ignore every theory killing hole in your bomb conspiracy. But you can't make us ignore them. Which is why you continue to fail.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 26, 2014)

Skylar said:


> I invite you to read the NIST investigation, the most comprehensive ever done on the collapse of WTC 7.



Yeah, it only took them several years after the fact to acknowledge that it happened.


----------



## Skylar (Dec 26, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > I invite you to read the NIST investigation, the most comprehensive ever done on the collapse of WTC 7.
> ...



The NIST rightly focused on WTC 1 and 2, where thousands of people actually died.

No one died in the collapse of WTC 7.....as the FDNY anticipated the collapse of the WTC 7 by hours and evacuated the area. They saw the massive structural damage, saw the uncontrolled fires consuming the building, and measured its slow structural failure, its bulging, its leaning over hours with the use of a transit. About 3 hours before the WTC 7 came down, the FDNY evacuated the area to prevent any loss of life. And accurately predicted the building's collapse due to fire to within about 30 minutes. 

Why would I or any rational person ignore the FDNY on the collapse of WTC 7.....or the NIST, which conducted the most comprehensive investigation ever done on the building's collapse?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 26, 2014)

Skylar said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...





There job wasn't based on appeal to emotion fallacies, but nice try anyway.


----------



## Hossfly (Dec 26, 2014)

60,000 gallons of burning aviation fuel will collapse any structure ever built.


----------



## Skylar (Dec 26, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



No, the job of the FDNY was to assess fires and their dangers. They assessed WTC 7, its damage and its fires and concluded that the building would collapse due to fire and structural damage. And were able to narrow their prediction of its collapse to within about 30 minutes and successfully evacuate the area so that no lives were lose. That's how good their assessment was.

That's not an 'appeal to emotional fallacies'.* That's expert eye witness testimony on site and for hours.....that you summarily ignore for no particular reason. *And of course, the most extensive and comprehensive investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 ever conducted. Which you summarily ignore, again for no particular reason.

But why would a rational person ignore either the FDNY or the NIST on the reason that the WTC 7 fell?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 26, 2014)

Skylar said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



You flopped, fella. We're discussing NIST inability to even acknowledge in their report for several years the destruction of WTC7, not what you believe (minus any proof) what the FDNY determined.

Appeal to emotion, moving the posts...all classic hints of someone running on fumes.

Not that I care.

Hey, you want to take a swing at this photo for me since you're on a tear about 9//1?







Bankers trust days after the event. Hit by falling debris. Can you explain to me the condition of the flange mid-photo?


.


----------



## Skylar (Dec 26, 2014)

> You flopped, fella. We're discussing NIST inability to even acknowledge in their report for several years the destruction of WTC7, not what you believe (minus any proof) what the FDNY determined.



The NIST reports were on WTC 1 and 2. Why then would they include details about the collapse of WTC 7? Your assumptions don't make the slightest sense.



> Appeal to emotion, moving the posts...all classic hints of someone running on fumes.



What you call an 'appeal to emotion' is simply the application of simple logic: *you focus on the deadly collapses first.* WTC 1 and 2 cost thousands of lives, so they were the priority. WTC 7 cost none, so it wasn't. The issue you raised was answered.....three times. Do try and keep up.

And exactly as I predicted, you can give us no reason to ignore the NIST on the collapse of WTC 7. Or ignore the FDNY on the collapse of WTC 7. There is no reason. The NIST's investigation on the collapse of WTC 7 was the most comprehensive ever done on that building. And the FDNY were expert eye witnesses who monitored the slow structural failure and uncontrollable fires of WTC 7 for hours, correctly predicting its collapse to within about 30 minutes.

You ignore them both. A rational person wouldn't. And rational people don't. Which is why your conspiracy is uncompelling and unpersuasive.



> Bankers trust days after the event. Hit by falling debris. Can you explain to me the condition of the flange mid-photo?



If you have an argument to make, make it. If all you have are insinuations, then clearly you need to shore up your claims.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 26, 2014)

Skylar said:


> The NIST reports were on WTC 1 and 2. Why then would they include details about the collapse of WTC 7? Your assumptions don't make the slightest sense.



Because NIST original charter was to inspect the engineering and safety related concerns to the global collapse of buildings in the event. WTC7 fit that description. Yet they had to be questioned before being all like "oh, let's get that done too, and stuff."


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 26, 2014)

Skylar said:


> f you have an argument to make, make it. If all you have are insinuations, then clearly you need to shore up your claims.



No, no. I'm not that interested. You seem to be though. Can you explain its condition or is that just not fun to do?


----------



## Skylar (Dec 26, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> WTC Disaster Study
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> ...



Which they did. First by investigating WTC 1 and 2. Then by investigating WTC 7. Rightly prioritizing the deadly collapses first. And the collapse that cost no lives second. 

But why would the NIST talk about the collapse of WTC 7...in its investigation of WTC 1 and 2? That makes no sense whatsoever. 



> WTC7 fit that description. Yet they had to be questioned before being all like "oh, let's get that done too, and stuff."


Which explains why the NIST investigated the collapse of WTC 7.

But doesn't explain why the NIST would ever talk about the collapse of WTC 7......in its reports on the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. Why would they ever do this? Your assumptions are not only illogical clap trap.....they're just bizarre.

Oh, and I note you still can't give us a single reason to ignore the NIST report.....or the FDNY on the collapse of WTC 7. Think on that when you're trying to figure out why so few people are buying your silly conspiracy.


----------



## Skylar (Dec 26, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > f you have an argument to make, make it. If all you have are insinuations, then clearly you need to shore up your claims.
> ...



So you asked me about flanges.....but don't have any argument about flanges?

Dude, if you had nothing to begin with, why bother posting the picture?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 26, 2014)

Skylar said:


> Oh, and I note you still can't give us a single reason to ignore the NIST report.....



Because it doesn't need to be ignored. It needed to be scrutinized and that has been done thoroughly. They're study has been found seriously wanting.

2.25 sc. of free fall in the final?

But, dont mention how that might have occurred.

You can keep moving and shifting posts all night. I know this routine. I simply do not fucking care.



Good night.


----------



## deep_space (Dec 26, 2014)

> Bankers trust days after the event. Hit by falling debris. Can you explain to me the condition of the flange mid-photo?



Do you mean the piece of steel with a sort of yellow cast to it?  I would question how it got deformed in the way it is.


----------



## Skylar (Dec 26, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and I note you still can't give us a single reason to ignore the NIST report.....
> ...



Laughing....you couldn't even finish the quote, could you? Summarily ignoring the FDNY on their assessment of the building's collapse being from fire and structural damage that you refuse to even discuss it. Alas, we're not as inclined to arbitrarily ignore anyone who disagrees with you. And even less so expert eye witness testimony that measured WTC 7's slow structural failure over hours with a transit, its bulging, its buckling, its leaning. And correctly predicted the collapse of the WTC 7 to with in about half an hour. 

There is no reason to ignore them. And no rational person does.

But you do. And you can't even tell us why.


> 2.25 sc. of free fall in the final?



The NIST were the folks that gave you that number. And have directly addressed the issue. Which you either know, or should know:



> In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at WTC Disaster Study), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.
> 
> To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.
> 
> ...



So why would I ignore the NIST...and instead believe you and your vague insinuations about 'flanges' that even you can't explain? You just arbitrarily ignore the NIST. Just like you ignore the FDNY. Just like you ignore anyone who doesn't ape your silly little conspiracy. But why would we? Why would any rational person?

There is no reason.



> You can keep moving and shifting posts all night. I know this routine. I simply do not fucking care.



Laughing....I keep asking you questions you can't possibly answer. Or are you still arguing that the NIST prioritizing a deadly collapse over a collapse that didn't cost any lives is 'an appeal to emotional fallacies'? Its what anyone else would call simple logic. Of course you prioritize the deadly collapses first.

And you never did answer my question.....why would the NIST talk about the WTC 7 collapse in their investigation of WTC 1 and 2?

Your assumption still doesn't make the slightest sense.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 26, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > I invite you to read the NIST investigation, the most comprehensive ever done on the collapse of WTC 7.
> ...


 
Horse shit ... but that seems to be your only play.


----------



## Dante (Dec 26, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > I invite you to read the NIST investigation, the most comprehensive ever done on the collapse of WTC 7.
> ...


9 11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Pentagon - Flight 93 - Popular Mechanics

*Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report*
*Popular Mechanics examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11.*

Editor's Notes: The 9/11 Lies Are Out There
Frequently Asked Questions: Popular Mechanics Investigates 9/11 Myths
Podcast: Debunking 9/11 Myths
6 Debunked 9/11 Conspiracy Claims From NIST's WTC 7 Report


----------



## Dante (Dec 26, 2014)

* http://www.debunking911.com/*
*http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-06-04.html*
*How Skeptics Confronted 9/11 Denialism  *
by John Ray

...Yet, in just under four years, the 9/11 “truth movement” has ground to a halt. Apart from the fundamental incoherence of their theories, the downfall of the 9/11 denier juggernaut was good old-fashioned skepticism at its finest, the kind that conjures visions of James Randi challenging psychics and faith healers on their home turfs and winning. Skeptics are better at their jobs than they think, and its important to give credit where credit is due.

_*Staking their fortunes almost solely on Internet-based content may have been the 9/11 deniers’ biggest mistake. What seems like a perfect place for pseudoscience — the Internet is un-edited, without fact-checkers or minimum publishing standards of any kind —*_ also became a perfect place for a rapid-response system of blogs and forums to fight back. Drawing on the freely available technical information from the NIST, FEMA, and academic journals which most colleges let their students access for free, skeptical sites like  ScrewLooseChange.blogspot.com and  debunking911.com are able to defuse 9/11 denier claims as they arise...


----------



## Dante (Dec 26, 2014)

hmm...



So according to this Mr. Lataan, (the name given on the profile) the evidence that makes Debunking 9/11 a shill propaganda site is:

Looks professionally done
Debunks all of the "evidence" given by "truthers".
That seems to be it.  Musings Silliness Debunking 9 11.com Is A PNAC Front.​


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 26, 2014)

I can't believe I'm on the same side of any argument as Denthead but ... well ... there it is. The fact that even he can see the silliness of the "Truther" Movement exposes just how silly it is.


----------



## Dante (Dec 26, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> I can't believe I'm on the same side of any argument as Denthead but ... well ... there it is. The fact that even he can see the silliness of the "Truther" Movement exposes just how silly it is.


drop dead

there's a slogan I used to use: save the planet ;; kill yourself

it's only a slogan


----------



## deep_space (Dec 26, 2014)

I can't believe that people still cite, Popular Mechanics,  talk about yellow journalism.


----------



## Dante (Dec 26, 2014)

deep_space said:


> I can't believe that people still cite, Popular Mechanics,  talk about yellow journalism.


wow!

_Oh the irony! The irony._

I guess deep_space is suffering from reading and comprehension deficit syndrome?

*Yellow Journalism:*
*journalism that is based upon sensationalism and crude exaggeration.*​


----------



## Vigilante (Dec 26, 2014)




----------



## Dante (Dec 26, 2014)

*6 Debunked 9 11 Conspiracy Claims From NIST s New WTC 7 Report - Popular Mechanics*

*Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report, responded directly to many conspiracy claims this morning at his press conference in NIST headquarters in Gaithersburg, Md.*

*6 Debunked 9 11 Conspiracy Claims From NIST s New WTC 7 Report - Popular Mechanics*

*National Institute of Standards and Technology*


----------



## Dante (Dec 26, 2014)

Vigilante said:


>



Only a moron says "our enemies are barbaric, therefore we need to barbaric too"


----------



## Vigilante (Dec 26, 2014)

Dante said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Only a deranged pussy wouldn't do what is necessary to save hundreds of lives!


----------



## Dante (Dec 26, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



To save lives? How? Only a girlyman/boy would panic as much as people like you do


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 26, 2014)

Dante said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Perhaps, but a smart man says "our enemies are barbaric and capable of unimaginable depravity, therefore we must do whatever we must in order to slow their flow."


----------



## Vigilante (Dec 26, 2014)

Dante said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



I could waterboard you and you'd tell me anything I'd want to know.... because you are a pussy!


----------



## Dante (Dec 26, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



making a bunch of cowards larger than life is silly.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 26, 2014)

Dante said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Pretending our enemies aren't capable of mass destruction right here in America is just plain stupid.


----------



## Vigilante (Dec 26, 2014)




----------



## Dante (Dec 26, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


capable? 

The shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, the Times Square bomber?

Oh the humanity!   grow some balls


----------



## Toro (Dec 27, 2014)

Most twoofers are either libertarians or left-leaning Bush-haters who engage in massive confirmation bias to reinforce their ideology and worldview.

Because libertarians have a pathological hatred of government, particularly the American federal government, they are very malleable and will believe almost any conspiracy regarding the government.  I used to be a libertarian, and there are some good ones still around, but many of them are batshit crazy and just embarrassing.

Because Bush-haters think Bush is so evil and bad and capable of doing anything, these twoofers easily believe that Bush was somehow behind 9/11.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 27, 2014)

Dante said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



I'm wondering ... did you intentionally leave 9/11 off your list or did you just forget about it?

Oh the stupidity! Grow some sense.


----------



## n0spam4me (Dec 27, 2014)

> pathological hatred of government,



Ya, right, a pathological hatred of government 
caused me to observe that the fall of WTC7 matches up perfectly to a controlled demolition. & caused me to observe that "FLT175" penetrated the WTC tower wall as would a ghost ..... ( or B movie special effects ) 

The facts of the events of 9/11/2001 make it abundantly clear
that there is something VERY wrong with this picture and it really doesn't matter of one is a Republican or Democrat or agnostic .... whatever .... 
the facts are the facts and that is what matters.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 27, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> > pathological hatred of government,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Political affiliation or religious beliefs absolutely do not figure into the equation but one's mental stability certainly does.
The fact is the collapse of the towers and WTC7 matches up perfectly to a traumatic impact, chaotic fires fueled by tens of thousands of jet fuel and falling chunks of large buildings and, not surprisingly, that's EXACTLY what happened on 9/11.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



You're correct. My bd. So many bad reports and fraud. It was the commission report that omitted wtc7 entirely.
NIST just made huge errors in its reports and supposed scientific investigation. Here is the latest white paper on NIST failures over wtc7.

 8216 Official 8217 NIST Report Shattered by Architects Engineers for 9 11 Truth White Paper The Millennium Report


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > > pathological hatred of government,
> ...





wtc7 wasn't hit by jets or jet fuel. NIST even claims the diesel fuel wasn't a factor in the building's global collapse.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Dec 27, 2014)

Toro said:


> Most twoofers are either libertarians or left-leaning Bush-haters who engage in massive confirmation bias to reinforce their ideology and worldview.
> 
> Because libertarians have a pathological hatred of government, particularly the American federal government, they are very malleable and will believe almost any conspiracy regarding the government.  I used to be a libertarian, and there are some good ones still around, but many of them are batshit crazy and just embarrassing.
> 
> Because Bush-haters think Bush is so evil and bad and capable of doing anything, these twoofers easily believe that Bush was somehow behind 9/11.


Pretty funny, isn't it? Boooosh was capable of pulling off this "inside job" perfectly, and has been able to keep anyone from spilling the beans after all these years, yet he was too stupid to plant WMD's in Iraq.

You just can't make this shit up.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 27, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...


asked and answered just not to your satisfaction


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 27, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



The NIST findings were an attempt _*by humans*_ to reconstruct something we had never before witnessed using computer simulations. I would find it very suspicious if there were no errors. The fact remains that if viewed with the same skeptical eye you reserve for the NIST report the alternate scenarios would not only come up short but would prove absolutely laughable.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...





I'm not a demolition theorist, either. But, it's nice to see you use some skepticism instead of lock stepping. Was that done because you oooops?


----------



## daws101 (Dec 27, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


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


true but it was severely damaged by wtc1 funny how you ass hats consistently leave that major piece of evidence out.
you play it like wtc7 was pristine and then just fell down...


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 27, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


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



NIST says the fires started by that jet fuel absolutely were a factor. You have the right to make up your own "mind" ... not your own facts and as already mentioned, WTC7 was severely damaged by "falling chunks of large buildings."


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2014)

daws101 said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



That's because satisfaction in this case requires more than simple bullshit conjecture. Sorry if that wont cut it. Doing what i do for a living means I understand thermodynamics. Saying "that flange was hit by falling debris" is fucking laughable.

But, I really do not care what one thinks on this subject. i just like winding you all up and watching you go at it.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



No, it does not.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 27, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



Now try applying the same skepticism to any of the "Truther" scenarios and you will understand how I came to my conclusions.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 27, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


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



In other words you're just a master-baiter. Got it.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 27, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


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


then in my case you've failed I find it highly entertaining  that some one who claims to be in the know about thermodynamics would be so ignorant about some very explainable damage.
but then again you're mental!


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2014)

daws101 said:


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






Good one!


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 27, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



About the NIST World Trade Center Disaster Investigation
*SUMMARY OF FINDINGS*
Objective 1: Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft.

The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components (core columns, floors, and perimeter columns) that were directly impacted by the aircraft or associated debris. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multi-floor fires. The robustness of the perimeter frame-tube system and the large size of the buildings helped the towers withstand the impact. The structural system redistributed loads from places of aircraft impact, avoiding larger scale damage upon impact. The hat truss, a feature atop each tower which was intended to support a television antenna, prevented earlier collapse of the building core. In each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse.
In WTC 1, the fires weakened the core columns and caused the floors on the south side of the building to sag. The floors pulled the heated south perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the south wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by how long it took for the fires to weaken the building core and to reach the south side of the building and weaken the perimeter columns and floors.
In WTC 2, the core was damaged severely at the southeast corner and was restrained by the east and south walls via the hat truss and the floors. The steady burning fires on the east side of the building caused the floors there to sag. The floors pulled the heated east perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the east wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the east and to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by the time for the fires to weaken the perimeter columns and floor assemblies on the east and the south sides of the building. WTC2 collapsed more quickly than WTC 1 because there was more aircraft damage to the building core, including one of the heavily loaded corner columns, and there were early and persistent fires on the east side of the building, where the aircraft had extensively dislodged insulation from the structural steel.
The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires that were encountered on September11, 2001, if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.
In the absence of structural and insulation damage, a conventional fire substantially similar to or less intense than the fires encountered on September 11, 2001, likely would not have led to the collapse of a WTC tower.
NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.
OK? Your turn.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...







That doesn't even mention wtc7.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 27, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



Why would it? We're talking about the jet-fuel fires and your *claim* that NIST said the fuel was not a factor, remember?


----------



## Skylar (Dec 27, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> > pathological hatred of government,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There were no bombs. There were no thermite reactions. How do you reconcile these two facts with your 'controlled demolition' theory?


----------



## Skylar (Dec 27, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



Oh....okay. So all that horseshit about ignoring the NIST because they refused to acknowledge that WTC 7 collapsed, all the inane babble about 'emotional fallacies', that was all blithering nonsense? The NIST *did* cite the WTC 7 collapse?

Huh. So what's your next excuse for ignoring anything that doesn't ape what you want to believe?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



We were talking about wtc7's collapse. Which you said was hit by jet fuel. It wasn't. Do try to keep up, or bow out.


----------



## Skylar (Dec 27, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


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



It was however, hit by massive pieces of WTC 1 that carved huge holes in the building and set fires that burned uncontrolled for most of the day. 

Which, of course, you know. Which, of course, you really hope we don't.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2014)

Skylar said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Oh, no. You still used appeal to emotion. Now you're trying to say you understand what i believe, but you dont. I simply got confused due to all the horse shit studies and reports over this pile of shit of an event.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2014)

Skylar said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Not according to NIST final report. Nor the actual evidence at hand. But who really cares about any of that? First NIST denies any free fall speed, then finally laments after being shown they are wrong. Then they just whistle passed the graveyard on it.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 27, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...


yes they did .why? because it is meaningless.


----------



## n0spam4me (Dec 27, 2014)

daws101 said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



2.25 sec of free-fall acceleration ..... meaningless ..... 
HOW COMPLETELY MAD!


----------



## daws101 (Dec 27, 2014)

look familiar anybody?


----------



## daws101 (Dec 27, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


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


It's an anomalous feature of the event .
it is evidence of nothing except that for 2 and 1/4 seconds no resistance was encountered.
to be more precise, nothing but  air resistance.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


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





These guys have been at this in here since I joined this forum. The minute someone posts about 9/11 they run in and start kicking and screaming just like this. Yeah, after this many years, daws is right. It's meaningless. But only from a political point of view. The science of the situation remains intact. 



This is why I love winding these fools up like those toys that walk. It's hilarious to watch the crash and burn.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2014)

daws101 said:


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





Was it heavy air, or light air, daws.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2014)

daws101 said:


> look familiar anybody?



Sure does. That is a pretty typical result of steel impacted by fire that burned out of control for many, many hours. Your point?


----------



## daws101 (Dec 27, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


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


if only that were true.
the reality is just the opposite .
you nut sacks come here or join other sites all fired up by your bullshit and then go batshit when fact blow major holes in your fantasy.
sure the science is intact because you guys aren't using science.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2014)

daws101 said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Dec 27, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


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


that's funny mostly because you just might think there is.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 27, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


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


thanks, I thought that was pretty good myself.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2014)

daws101 said:


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



Don't lie. You don't think. You parrot.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 27, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > look familiar anybody?
> ...


it looks exactly like your favorite photo...logic says the same kind of conditions produce similar effects.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2014)

daws101 said:


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



:no, it doesn't look the same. Anyone who knows anything about steel would deduce that. Best of all, Bankers Trust wasn't on fire, nimrod. It was hit by falling debris.

ANOTHER SWING AND A MISS, DAWS!


----------



## daws101 (Dec 27, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


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


now who's lying
getting a little pissy are we?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2014)

daws101 said:


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



Not at all. It's entertaining to expose how fucking moronic you are on this subject.


----------



## Skylar (Dec 27, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


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



There were no bombs and no thermite reactions. Your theory will need to take these facts into account. 

Please do so.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 27, 2014)

I saw an interesting piece once that has been subsequently wiped from the internet, where the author didn't point finger at the Muslims, or at the American government as an inside job. Instead, they said it was actually the Russians that did it, in concert with some elements of Mossad. While the Israeli connection has been talked about before, no one has really delved into what role former KGB turned Russian Mafia operatives may have played in all of it. I wish I could remember more specific details from the piece. But at the very least, maybe we should have had the Russians build the WTC?

In Russia, building blasts you. 

 10.0 quake-resistant Demolishers desperate high-riser intact after 2 blasts VIDEO RT News


----------



## daws101 (Dec 27, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


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


there were fires in the bankers trust

*Deutsche Bank Building*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Coordinates: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



40°42′35″N 74°00′48″W / 40.70972°N 74.01333°W / 40.70972; -74.01333
This article is about the former New York building. For the current New York building, see 60 Wall Street. For the Frankfurt building, see Deutsche Bank Twin Towers. For the Sydney building, see Deutsche Bank Place.
*Deutsche Bank Building*



View from the Southeast in 1997.
*Alternative names*

Bankers Trust Plaza
130 Liberty Street
*General information
Status* Destroyed
*Type* Commercial Office
*Location* 130 Liberty Street, Manhattan, New York 10007
*Construction started* 1971
*Completed* 1973
*Opening* 1974
*Demolished* 2011
*Cost* $120 million (1973 USD)
*Height
Roof* 157.6 m (517 ft)
*Technical details
Floor count* 39
*Design and construction
Architect* Shreve, Lamb and Harmon
*Developer* Bankers Trust
*Structural engineer* The Office of James Ruderman
*Main contractor* Turner Construction Company
*References*
[1][2]



Overview of the site following the attacks. The Deutsche Bank Building is visible behind an angled red crane.
The *Deutsche Bank Building* was a skyscraper at 130 Liberty Street in New York City, United States, adjacent to the World Trade Center (WTC). The building, which existed from 1974–2007, was designed by Shreve, Lamb and Harmon which also designed the Empire State Building and Peterson & Brickbauer.
Opened in 1974 as *Bankers Trust Plaza*, the building was acquired by Deutsche Bank when it acquired Bankers Trust in 1998. It was part of the skyline of Lower Manhattan. The Deutsche Bank Building was heavily damaged in the September 11 attacks in 2001 after being blasted by the avalanche of debris, ash, dust, and asbestos that spread from the collapse of the South Tower. Five World Trade Center will eventually replace the building, expanding the ground space on which the World Trade Center stands, as this land was not part of the original World Trade Center. The structure has since been completely dismantled, clearing the way for the construction of 5 World Trade Center and the World Trade Center Vehicle Security Center.
*Contents*
 [hide] 

1 Demolition
2 Future
3 See also
4 References
5 External links
*Demolition[edit]*



Detail of gash in the facade imparted by the collapsing World Trade Center. A segment of WTC facade is visible hanging from the gash.
The collapse of 2 WTC during the September 11 attacks tore a 24-story gash into the facade of the Deutsche Bank Building. Steel and concrete were sticking out of the building for months afterward. This was eventually cleaned up, but due to extensive contamination it was decided that the 39 story ruin was to be taken down. After the 9/11 attacks, netting was placed around the remains of the building. The bank maintained that the building could not be restored to habitable condition, while its insurers sought to treat the incident as recoverable damage rather than a total loss.[3] Work on the building was deferred for over two years during which the condition of the building deteriorated.
In September 2005 human remains were found on the roof.[4] In March 2006, construction workers who were removing toxic waste from the building before deconstruction found more bone fragments and remains. This prompted calls from victims' family members for another search of the building by forensic experts. In 2006, between April 7 to April 14, more than 700 human bone fragments were discovered in the ballast gravel on the roof. Workers sifted through the gravel to find more remains.
The cost of this deconstruction had steadily increased to $75 million by the Bovis Lend Lease construction company as large amounts of toxic dust associated with the collapse of the World Trade Center, asbestos, dioxin, lead, silica, quartz, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, chromium and manganese had been found in the building.[5]
In 2004, an agreement was announced to settle the disposition of the building and insurance claims. Later that year as part of this agreement, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation acquired the land and commenced its deconstruction.[6] An Associated Press December 7, 2006 report indicated that the building would be dismantled. The report indicated that area residents were fearful of possibly toxic dust associated with the two towers' collapses within the building.[7]
On May 17, 2007, work was halted after a 22-foot section of pipe being cut by workers fell 35 stories and through the roof of "The Ten House", home to Engine 10 and Ladder 10 of the Fire Department of New York. Two firefighters were injured by the original falling debris, although they were not struck by the pipe itself.[8]
Deutsche Bank Building - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## daws101 (Dec 27, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


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


says the pissy one!


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2014)

daws101 said:


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



Even your own link doesn't support your claim.

STRIKE 3, DAWS! YOU'RE OUT.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 27, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


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


false that kind of damage causes fires, also just look at the windows on either side of the gash


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2014)

daws101 said:


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



ANOTHER SWING AND A MISS! If it was on fire, prove it. It should be easy to do. According to your cited source - "The collapse of 2 WTC during the September 11 attacks tore a 24-story gash into the facade of the Deutsche Bank Building. Steel and concrete were sticking out of the building for months afterward. This was eventually cleaned up, but due to extensive contamination it was decided that the 39 story ruin was to be taken down."


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2014)

It looks like Daws is having trouble trying to manufacture fires in the Banker's Trust building.

Here is The FEMA report regarding the building and it's damage. FEMA concluded no fires in combination with the architectural damage from falling debris.

Chapter 6 - Bankers Trust Building - The WTC Report.

Only a mirror remains of the report unless one has a hard copy (which I do).

6.5 Fireproofing

The structural steel sections were fireproofed with a spray-applied non-asbestos fireproofing material. The thickness on the beam flanges was observed to be on the order of 1/2 inch thick. Many of the rolled steel shapes appeared to be almost completely bare of fireproofing where directly impacted by debris; the remainder of the fireproofing appeared intact even in the damaged areas. *Because fires were not ignited in combination with this structural damage*, the damaged fireproofing did not affect the performance of the building. 


Glad to help, Daws. Now, you wanna take another swing?


----------



## n0spam4me (Dec 27, 2014)

Just my $0.02 worth here while the rest of the thread threatens to become mired in minutia.  

Please consider this, a controlled demolition completely demolishes the building, a poorly planned/executed job, produces less than complete demolition. Note that for WTC1, 2 & 7 there was complete demolition.

Do you see what the implications of this are?


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 27, 2014)

I was a firefighter for six years. There is no way that fire brought down those buildings, even with the structural damage. Not the way they came down. You may have seen partial collapse in the affected zones, but you would have never seen global collapse of a steel structure that was not fully engulfed in a very high temp inferno. The Twin Towers, the black smoke indicates a very low temp burn, unlikely to affect steel. The fires in 7 were ever more limited. 

Although I was not there on 9/11, a man from my own firehouse is one of the 343 and his brother who was also there was one of my department officers. I have also spoken with dozens, if not hundreds of FF's who where there that day. Their accounts reveal all sorts of disturbing revelations.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2014)

Conventional demolition does not account for what happened. There are way too many inconsistencies with that theory.


n0spam4me said:


> Just my $0.02 worth here while the rest of the thread threatens to become mired in minutia.
> 
> Please consider this, a controlled demolition completely demolishes the building, a poorly planned/executed job, produces less than complete demolition. Note that for WTC1, 2 & 7 there was complete demolition.
> 
> Do you see what the implications of this are?



No. Because you're starting your preposition with a conclusion - that the buildings were demolished through conventional demolition techniques. If the planes were responsible for the collapses, coupled with the ever completely shaky wtc7 fire induced, then we could account for partial collapse under what we know and can then prove with what we have.

But you're making an implication right off the bat - that planned demolition took place.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 27, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Just my $0.02 worth here while the rest of the thread threatens to become mired in minutia.
> 
> Please consider this, a controlled demolition completely demolishes the building, a poorly planned/executed job, produces less than complete demolition. Note that for WTC1, 2 & 7 there was complete demolition.
> 
> Do you see what the implications of this are?



Even if damage combined with fire did cause collapse, it would have only been partial. You would have seen the tops of the Towers fall off into the streets and buildings below. 

WTC 7 would have wound up looking something like this.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 27, 2014)

*We are going to present a compilation here of material regarding the collapse of World Trade Center Building #7 on September 11, 2001.

Read more: World Trade Center Building 7 on 9 11 The Evidence Station.6.Underground


World Trade Center Building 7 on 9 11 The Evidence Station.6.Underground*


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2014)

unless discussing actual science about the event, choose to avoid using the term collapse. If you watch what happened enough and understand it enough wtc1+2 did something much different than collapse


----------



## n0spam4me (Dec 27, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Conventional demolition does not account for what happened. There are way too many inconsistencies with that theory.
> 
> 
> n0spam4me said:
> ...



In regards to a planned demolition, I don't care if it was thermite, or termites or atomic bombs, black powder, or what, the bottom line is that the event was made to happen, WTC1, 2 & 7 were destroyed because somebody intended for them to be destroyed, the exactly how ..... is a completely separate discussion.

are we clear on this? ....

questions? ........


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Conventional demolition does not account for what happened. There are way too many inconsistencies with that theory.
> ...



Whatever. This is a what happened thread not a 'it was planned so the only thing left to ask is who dun it' thread.


----------



## deep_space (Dec 27, 2014)

Dante said:


> *journalism that is based upon sensationalism and crude exaggeration.*



This is exactly what I meant ..... crude exaggeration ..... Popular Mechanics.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 27, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> It looks like Daws is having trouble trying to manufacture fires in the Banker's Trust building.
> 
> Here is The FEMA report regarding the building and it's damage. FEMA concluded no fires in combination with the architectural damage from falling debris.
> 
> ...


so you agree there were fires. just not large enough to cause major structural damage?

the subject of your favorite photo is not major and btw :
*Mission*
9-11 Research critically examines the official government explanation of the attack and concludes that many of its key assertions are impossible. We do not pretend to know exactly how the attack was carried out or exactly who the perpetrators are, but there are plausible scenarios of how the attack could have been executed by insiders. (See our Frequently Asked Questions.)
If the attack was indeed a "black-op", then we can expect that the operatives will have hidden their identities behind layer upon layer of cover story. Only a genuine investigation with meaningful powers will be able to peel away the layers of deception to expose the true perpetrators. We hope to facilitate such an investigation by first exposing the falsity of the outermost cover story: the official myth of 9/11/01.
We intend for our work to honor the many victims of this horrendous attack. Many people will find it difficult and traumatic to confront the idea that the attack was the work, not of a religious extremist living in caves in Central Asia, but of people within the U.S. government. Apologists for the official story ridicule such ideas, and attempt to confuse compassion for the victims with certainty that bin Laden was the perpetrator. In fact, genuine compassion consists of learning and spreading the truth in order that future repetitions of such murderous frauds may be prevented.

*Who We Are*
9-11 Research is a research consortium consisting of just a few individuals volunteering their time and resources to the effort. The principal contributors to the site are:

Jim Hoffman, Webmaster and Senior Editor
Gregg Roberts, Associate Editor
Jan Hoyer, Outreach Coordinator
Jim Hoffman created the website and wrote the vast majority of its original content. Hoffman has a background in software engineering, mechanical engineering, and scientific visualization. Hoffman also created the Web publishing system used to maintain the 9-11 Research website.
Gregg Roberts has been investigating the September 11 attack since December 2003 and has provided extensive editorial assistance to 911Research. He authored the essay Where Are the 9/11 Whistleblowers?, and is working with Hoffman to produce a book based on the site. Roberts is a technical writer and business analyst with a bachelor's degree in psychology, master's-level study in social work, and earlier education in the "hard" sciences.
 Jan Hoyer is a former founding board member and graphic designer for the  National 9/11 Visibilty Project, 911Truth.org and the  D.C Emergency Truth Convergence. Hoyer has a degree in graphic design and experience in online multimedia.

your report is a second hand account from a non credible site.

there are no engineers or builders or qualified scientist among it ranks.
as wit all Truth sites it is a steaming pile of speculation.
almost  forgot, your claim was there were NO FIRES at all in the bankers trust that is false.
and that was my point.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 27, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Just my $0.02 worth here while the rest of the thread threatens to become mired in minutia.
> 
> Please consider this, a controlled demolition completely demolishes the building, a poorly planned/executed job, produces less than complete demolition. Note that for WTC1, 2 & 7 there was complete demolition.
> 
> Do you see what the implications of this are?


false!


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2014)

daws101 said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > It looks like Daws is having trouble trying to manufacture fires in the Banker's Trust building.
> ...



No, I do not agree, you fucking moron. Are you now arguing that FEMA is lying, or are you trying to weazel your way out of a fucking loss here?


SWING AND A MISS!


----------



## daws101 (Dec 27, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


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


bullshit ! no fema is not lying ,you are reading in what you want to see from this statement *Because fires were not ignited in combination with this structural damage
fema is not saying there were no fires  they are saying the fires were not large enough to cause major structural  damage.
how can I weasel out of an argument you guys lost 14 years ago.? 
btw nice dodge around the zero credibility of your source *


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2014)

Yeah, no fire ignition. In other words - no fire. Apparently your comprehension is even more poor than your deduction.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2014)




----------



## Rat in the Hat (Dec 27, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> I was a firefighter for six years. There is no way that fire brought down those buildings, even with the structural damage. Not the way they came down. You may have seen partial collapse in the affected zones, but you would have never seen global collapse of a steel structure that was not fully engulfed in a very high temp inferno. *The Twin Towers, the black smoke indicates a very low temp burn*, unlikely to affect steel. The fires in 7 were ever more limited.
> 
> Although I was not there on 9/11, a man from my own firehouse is one of the 343 and his brother who was also there was one of my department officers. I have also spoken with dozens, if not hundreds of FF's who where there that day. Their accounts reveal all sorts of disturbing revelations.



Black smoke indicates low temps, huh?



Those don't look like low temp fires to me.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 27, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Yeah, no fire ignition. In other words - no fire. Apparently your comprehension is even more poor than your deduction.


wrong again.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 27, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Yeah, no fire ignition. In other words - no fire. Apparently your comprehension is even more poor than your deduction.


still defecting the zero credibility of your source


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2014)

daws101 said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, no fire ignition. In other words - no fire. Apparently your comprehension is even more poor than your deduction.
> ...





So, you do not understand what ignition refers to, then?



You can tell me wrong all day, Dullard. But you look more stupid as time goes on. Not me.

The entertainment value is reaching 8.5.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2014)

daws101 said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, no fire ignition. In other words - no fire. Apparently your comprehension is even more poor than your deduction.
> ...



i dont need to. That is mirrored from the guardian UK from when it came out. You fucking complete baboon.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 27, 2014)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > I was a firefighter for six years. There is no way that fire brought down those buildings, even with the structural damage. Not the way they came down. You may have seen partial collapse in the affected zones, but you would have never seen global collapse of a steel structure that was not fully engulfed in a very high temp inferno. *The Twin Towers, the black smoke indicates a very low temp burn*, unlikely to affect steel. The fires in 7 were ever more limited.
> ...


A common claim regarding 9/11 was that the fires were not very serious because there was some black smoke and some of the flames looked "dark orange". The claim is that this indicates an oxygen starved fire.
However, this was no basis in reality. Here's an example of a fire in open air, with thick black smoke and dark orange flames creating temperatures of nearly 2000F


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Dec 27, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


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


matter of fact I do , also all  buildings in the wtc complex had some degree of fire damage.
true you looked extremely stupid and mentally ill from your very first post.
with me it's an appearance with you it's chronic


----------



## daws101 (Dec 27, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2014)

daws101 said:


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



Ah, the last refuge of a man in the throws of abject defeat. Thanks.

Now go fuck yourself -twice.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 27, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


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


why yes you are in the throws of abject defeat.
folded like a lawn chair


----------



## n0spam4me (Dec 27, 2014)

and in answer to the bit about the Nat-Geo demonstration that fire weakens steel, Please note that in order to cause the sort of event witnessed on 9/11, the fire would have had to heat up ALL of the steel above the alleged crash site at each tower.  Because if the fire heated up just some of the steel, there would have been localized failures, but not the global failure as observed.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 27, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> and in answer to the bit about the Nat-Geo demonstration that fire weakens steel, Please note that in order to cause the sort of event witnessed on 9/11, the fire would have had to heat up ALL of the steel above the alleged crash site at each tower.  Because if the fire heated up just some of the steel, there would have been localized failures, but not the global failure as observed.


bullshit !
thanks again for providing smoking gun proof you're talking out your ass.
hint: try static load  vs shifting load.


----------



## n0spam4me (Dec 27, 2014)

So the opposition insists that the mere fact of some weakened steel is sufficient to justify the claim of global structural failure in both towers.... right?


----------



## daws101 (Dec 27, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> So the opposition insists that the mere fact of some weakened steel is sufficient to justify the claim of global structural failure in both towers.... right?


failed attempt to downplay the blatant fact that fire  weakened non fire proofed steel cannot hold a load and is more than enough evidence to be a major player in the so call "global failure".
damn funny spammy!


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2014)




----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 27, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


>


exactly.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 27, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> So the opposition insists that the mere fact of some weakened steel is sufficient to justify the claim of global structural failure in both towers.... right?


yep,until 9/11 came along,i had no idea there were so many sheople in america who obviously ditched junipr high school science classes.hee hee hee.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 27, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> I saw an interesting piece once that has been subsequently wiped from the internet, where the author didn't point finger at the Muslims, or at the American government as an inside job. Instead, they said it was actually the Russians that did it, in concert with some elements of Mossad. While the Israeli connection has been talked about before, no one has really delved into what role former KGB turned Russian Mafia operatives may have played in all of it. I wish I could remember more specific details from the piece. But at the very least, maybe we should have had the Russians build the WTC?
> 
> In Russia, building blasts you.
> 
> 10.0 quake-resistant Demolishers desperate high-riser intact after 2 blasts VIDEO RT News


 
Yeah ... because Israel and Russia are such good buddies.


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 27, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > I saw an interesting piece once that has been subsequently wiped from the internet, where the author didn't point finger at the Muslims, or at the American government as an inside job. Instead, they said it was actually the Russians that did it, in concert with some elements of Mossad. While the Israeli connection has been talked about before, no one has really delved into what role former KGB turned Russian Mafia operatives may have played in all of it. I wish I could remember more specific details from the piece. But at the very least, maybe we should have had the Russians build the WTC?
> ...



be patient-----Penelope knows-----someday she is going to tell us just what happened------so far whatever did happen---
IT WAS DA JOOOOS-----she knows the whole story and will,, someday-----tell us.     Maybe it also involved some jews in Russia    (????)


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 27, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Just my $0.02 worth here while the rest of the thread threatens to become mired in minutia.
> 
> Please consider this, a controlled demolition completely demolishes the building, a poorly planned/executed job, produces less than complete demolition. Note that for WTC1, 2 & 7 there was complete demolition.
> 
> Do you see what the implications of this are?


 
Precisely how many 100+ story buildings do you have in your collapse survey?
CDs require explosions and extensive site preparation. Do you have any evidence of either or was the dirty deed perpetrated by termites or some space beam?

"NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view."
About the NIST World Trade Center Disaster Investigation


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 27, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> I was a firefighter for six years. There is no way that fire brought down those buildings, even with the structural damage. Not the way they came down. You may have seen partial collapse in the affected zones, but you would have never seen global collapse of a steel structure that was not fully engulfed in a very high temp inferno. The Twin Towers, the black smoke indicates a very low temp burn, unlikely to affect steel. The fires in 7 were ever more limited.
> 
> Although I was not there on 9/11, a man from my own firehouse is one of the 343 and his brother who was also there was one of my department officers. I have also spoken with dozens, if not hundreds of FF's who where there that day. Their accounts reveal all sorts of disturbing revelations.



2 things:
1) other firefighters WHO WERE THERE disagree with your assessment
2) no evidence of a CD were found. No explosives, no site prep work and no CD explosions. Did they bring the buildings down with E-Z Super-Secret Silent Stuff?


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 27, 2014)

daws101 said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > It looks like Daws is having trouble trying to manufacture fires in the Banker's Trust building.
> ...



When compared to the PROFESSIONALS who produced the NIST report the 9/11 CT World comes up woefully short yet not one of these foil-hatted "Truthers" manages to view their "facts" with the same skepticism they reserve strictly for the official findings.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 28, 2014)

SAYIT said:


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



Oh, that was a good ad hominem! Unfortunately for you and your butt-buddy, The Great Daws Dullard, the mirror to the FEMA report comes from the Guardian UK. I realize this is WAY too complicated for someone of your caliber. You couldn't even keep up with which building was being discussed.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 28, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


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



In order to keep up with you, Princess, I'd need a radical lobotomy.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 28, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Oh, good one! We've got ourselves a regular laughterbater over here. still too dumb to follow along though...


----------



## Skylar (Dec 28, 2014)

SAYIT said:


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



Well that's just it. Truther's don't give a fiddler's fuck about 'truth'. They want their story, regardless of the holes in it. Which is why when asked about the gapping, bleeding holes in their 'bomb' theory, they refuse to discuss it.

They don't want to know the truth. Truther's don't want to hear anything that contradicts their world view.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 28, 2014)

Skylar said:


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



So, I have to post the same reply 3 times?



The mirror is from the guardian. I told you, you can get this in hard copy. You fucks ae still failing on this point.


----------



## Skylar (Dec 28, 2014)

And yet when I ask you and your ilk about say, the FDNY and their assement that WTC 7 fell due to fire and structural damage, or the complete lack of any girders cut by explosives, or the utter lack of any thermite reactions ever observed.....anywhere at ground zero, despite the thermite theory requiring 10,000s, or why no residue of explosives were ever found, or where the thermite canisters were in the debris, or how such a system would operate on fire, or why the Port Authority Bomb squad found no bombs and neither did their bomb sniffing dogs, or how the WTC 7 fell is virtual silence, and there's no such thing as silent bombs....

.......you start babbling about 'moved goal posts' and refuse to discuss any of it. 

Which is exactly what I'm talking about. If truther's were interested in 'truth', they'd be as interested in the massive, truck sized holes in their own conspiracies as they are any account from the government. 

But they aren't. Most Truthers, just like you, have no interest in discussing any hole, inconsistency, or enormous contradiction in their theories. 

Demonstrating elegantly that they are more interested in clinging to their story than they are in the truth.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 28, 2014)

Skylar said:


> And yet when I ask you and your ilk about say, the FDNY and their assement that WTC 7 fell due to fire and structural damage, or the complete lack of any girders cut by explosives, or the utter lack of any thermite reactions ever observed.....anywhere at ground zero, despite the thermite theory requiring 10,000s, or why no residue of explosives were ever found, or where the thermite canisters were in the debris, or how such a system would operate on fire, or why the Port Authority Bomb squad found no bombs and neither did their bomb sniffing dogs, or how the WTC 7 fell is virtual silence, and there's no such thing as silent bombs....
> 
> .......you start babbling about 'moved goal posts' and refuse to discuss any of it.
> 
> ...



So, you're going to play repeater like Daws and SAYIT? Is this a scripted endeavor?


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 28, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > And yet when I ask you and your ilk about say, the FDNY and their assement that WTC 7 fell due to fire and structural damage, or the complete lack of any girders cut by explosives, or the utter lack of any thermite reactions ever observed.....anywhere at ground zero, despite the thermite theory requiring 10,000s, or why no residue of explosives were ever found, or where the thermite canisters were in the debris, or how such a system would operate on fire, or why the Port Authority Bomb squad found no bombs and neither did their bomb sniffing dogs, or how the WTC 7 fell is virtual silence, and there's no such thing as silent bombs....
> ...



It's the end game, Princess ... the bottom line. There is no point in following you down the same old rabbit into which you "Truthers" have been sliding (and attempting to drag others) for 13+ years. Those who dispute your silliness here have seen and heard all you have to say and when compared to the exhaustive (if imperfect) NIST findings, "Truther" conclusions come up lame and even irrational, as though driven by something other than a search for the truth. Let me simplify it for you: after 13+ years the 9/11 CT Movement has produced absolutely nothing of value ... zippo ... zilch ... nada.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 28, 2014)

"what happened on 9/11/2001?"

It marked the beginning of one of the more moronic conspiracy theories.


----------



## Skylar (Dec 28, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > And yet when I ask you and your ilk about say, the FDNY and their assement that WTC 7 fell due to fire and structural damage, or the complete lack of any girders cut by explosives, or the utter lack of any thermite reactions ever observed.....anywhere at ground zero, despite the thermite theory requiring 10,000s, or why no residue of explosives were ever found, or where the thermite canisters were in the debris, or how such a system would operate on fire, or why the Port Authority Bomb squad found no bombs and neither did their bomb sniffing dogs, or how the WTC 7 fell is virtual silence, and there's no such thing as silent bombs....
> ...



And shocker.....another truther avoids the truth. Refusing to discuss any hole in his awkward little theory, or even acknowledge they exist.

This, among so many more reasons, is why truthers are a national laughing stock. They're more interested in clinging to their silly little stories than they are in actually finding the truth.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 28, 2014)

Skylar said:


> Refusing to discuss any hole in his awkward little theory, or even acknowledge they exist.



I never presented one, you fucking simpleton. Congrats on being the ASSumer.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 28, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


----------



## Judicial review (Dec 28, 2014)

Really?


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 28, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "what happened on 9/11/2001?"
> 
> It marked the beginning of one of the more moronic conspiracy theories.


 
Dozens of them actually and the authors ridicule each other's versions while adjusting their own foil hats. In fact, the "Truther" field is so littered with ludicrous 9/11 scenarios that some even contend that mis and disinformationalists are at work trying to discredit their particular lunacy and their movement in general. Hilarious.


----------



## Skylar (Dec 28, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Refusing to discuss any hole in his awkward little theory, or even acknowledge they exist.
> ...



No, but you were presented with several. And ran exactly like I said you would for one very simple reason:

*People like you don't want the truth. *They want their story. And if anyone asks them any question that doesn't ape their story, notes any hole ...no matter how enormous...in their reasoning, your ilk straight up ignore them.

No one actually interested in truth ever would.


----------



## deep_space (Dec 28, 2014)

*Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.*

George Washington -


Love the Quote!

and as for the topic at hand
did anybody actually take Science101 and earn a passing grade?
REALLY?


----------



## Skylar (Dec 29, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > "what happened on 9/11/2001?"
> ...



My personal favorite? Judy Wood and her 'directed energy weapons from space' conspiracy. I'm not making this up. Phasers. That's literally her explanation. 

She has diagrams and charts and everything. Like most truther conspiracies, its laughably bullshit. But she believes. 

You can't fix stupid.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 29, 2014)

Skylar said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...





OK, Corky. Keep swing that whiffle ball bat around.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 29, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > And yet when I ask you and your ilk about say, the FDNY and their assement that WTC 7 fell due to fire and structural damage, or the complete lack of any girders cut by explosives, or the utter lack of any thermite reactions ever observed.....anywhere at ground zero, despite the thermite theory requiring 10,000s, or why no residue of explosives were ever found, or where the thermite canisters were in the debris, or how such a system would operate on fire, or why the Port Authority Bomb squad found no bombs and neither did their bomb sniffing dogs, or how the WTC 7 fell is virtual silence, and there's no such thing as silent bombs....
> ...


lol! you've no room to yammer about repetition you and the circle jerk club have argued the same bullshit since 2001.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 29, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Refusing to discuss any hole in his awkward little theory, or even acknowledge they exist.
> ...


not presenting one is a bogus dodge..
the inference is so strong it's as if you were shouting it .
besides, when you first showed your photo, you had theorized that damaged beam could not have been damaged by any conventional means.  you insisted that it had to have been an exotic force AKA space beam or dustification ray..


----------



## daws101 (Dec 29, 2014)

deep_space said:


> *Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.*
> 
> George Washington -
> 
> ...


it's obvious you didn't .
'


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 29, 2014)

daws101 said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Convectional?

You're brain dead, kid.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 29, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


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


right  jumping on a typo is the very definition of desperate...
kid? then you must be one too as we are about the same age.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 29, 2014)

daws101 said:


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



Desperate? I dont have anything to prove to you. I already showed you to be full of shit in here. The only thing I'm desperate for is a bit of intelligent discourse from you. Probably like the women in your life desperate for an orgasm.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 29, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


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


bullshit! you've proved only what was already well known and it was not me being full of shit, it's you and your nut sack cohorts.
the only thing that's fact in your post is how hilariously wrong you are on every assumption you've made!
as to women the only time you made them orgasm was after you paid them....


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 29, 2014)

daws101 said:


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



So, about those fires in the Banker's Trust building, Daws.....


----------



## daws101 (Dec 29, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


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


what about them? banker trust had fire /heat damage just like all the other structures in the wtc complex.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 29, 2014)

daws101 said:


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



No, it did not. you're making shit up you can not prove. Furthermore, you're unwilling to relent that you're fucking wrong. Which makes you not only ignorant of the subject, but bullheaded. Lastly you should be embarrassed for putting it on display for all to see.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 29, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


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


since I'm  neither there is nothing to be embarrassed about or to relent.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 29, 2014)

daws101 said:


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



Then prove it and quit typing like you did. Because you havent. You're lying and digging a whole because you're THAT bullheaded.

There were no fires in Banker's Trust. It was hit by falling debris. End of story.

Or PROVE IT.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 29, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


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


all ready have! besides, I have to prove nothing to you.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 29, 2014)

Skylar said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Why would anyone want to? You can't buy this kind of entertainment.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 29, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



Translation: I really don't care about the truth so I'll just make some snarky comment about whiffle ball and everyone will think I'm cool.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 29, 2014)

daws101 said:


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



Yeah, no you didn't. Once again I provide the facts and you deflect. THERE WERE NO FIRES IN BANKER'S TRUST. 

http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1512-20490-2084/403_ch6.pdf

No, fires. The entire sprinkling system remained in tact, along with pressure to the building except in the area of debris impact. ANOTHER LOSING POST, DAWS.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 29, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


The fact is you and Daws haven't proven shit in here to me. Nothing. Nathan. Nadda. Zero.

There were no fires in that building. And in this thread, besides what I already said i was wrong over ( the NIST report vs. the Commission) that's the only point I've made in here. And you can't come up with an explanation regarding how steel gets mangled in that manner without sufficient heat/energy. 

That's all! You're still losing!


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 29, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



I've nothing to lose, Princess. I just enjoy getting you "Truther" types all riled up.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 29, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



I'm not riled up at all. What I am is exposing you as the moron that you are. Its entertaining to do every few years. You're the first morons in the door to criticize anyone who should speak outside the 9/11 official narrative and you're the first one to look like a fucking retard when you try.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 29, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...


bullshit ! everyone of your posts in the last few days are tantrums...


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 29, 2014)

daws101 said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



So, about those fires in Banker's Trust, Daws..... 

Fuckin loser.


----------



## Faun (Dec 29, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...


What's your point about the Banker's Trust building?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 29, 2014)

My point at this time is that it was never on fire. That's all i need to show that Daws is a fuckin' loser of this forum.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 29, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


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


false! I've lost nothing ..the point of the exercise was to get you to cough up your source, a thing you 've sworn you would never do. Matter of fact  I have the same pdf and yes there were no fires in the bankers trust 
on the other hand that fact does not in any way support your nuttjobbery.
like all twoofers, you will inevitably pick a piece of minutia  and blow it out of all proportion to the actual event.
there is no actual evidence of any other conspiracy then the one we all saw that day!


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 29, 2014)

daws101 said:


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



I gave you the fucking pdf mirrored yesterday and you still insisted the building was on fire and even today say it was damaged by fire. You're a fucking LOSER, Daws! 



Fucking idiot. You're officially dismissed as not credible on this subject.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 29, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


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


yeah I'm a loser !
I've had you by the balls since the start .


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 29, 2014)

Sure fella. You just keep talking all big, you abject failure.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 29, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


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


 like I said I've had that pdf for a very long time.
can anybody say tantrum..


----------



## daws101 (Dec 29, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Sure fella. You just keep talking all big, you abject failure.




calling in damage control!


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 29, 2014)

daws101 said:


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



Still digging that hole, I see. I'm done with you, Daws. You're a failure on this subject as has been shown. No more credibility will be given to anything you say from here on out for me. You're an idiot, or like you're now trying to claim - a troll. 

Either way, you've lost this debate.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 29, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


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


in reality I've won. since you and your minions had no credibility to start with. I've lost nothing.
as to trolling" I do this every couple of years to get you riled up" TASB.
THATS TROLL AT IT'S FINEST.


----------



## Faun (Dec 29, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> My point at this time is that it was never on fire. That's all i need to show that Daws is a fuckin' loser of this forum.


Ok, so there were no fires in that building. I believe that's cleared up. Why did you mention that building to begin with?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 29, 2014)

I'm not buying what you're selling. You're not that intelligent. Have a fun time as a self proclaimed troll of the board, Daws.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 29, 2014)

Faun said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > My point at this time is that it was never on fire. That's all i need to show that Daws is a fuckin' loser of this forum.
> ...



Because I was discussing what happened on 9/11 as that is what the thread is about. So, this is the picture I have hanging in my office:






It shows a flange mid-photo that is mangled in a highly unusual way.


----------



## Faun (Dec 29, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...


Ok, so what about it?


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 29, 2014)

Faun said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




That was my question as well.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 29, 2014)

Faun said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



How did that flange get into that condition?


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 29, 2014)

Maybe you can repost that picture with an arrow pointing to whatever it is you are concerned with.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 29, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Maybe you can repost that picture with an arrow pointing to whatever it is you are concerned with.



It's very evident which flange I am referring to in the photo. If you can not see it, you probably wont get it. No offense intended.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 29, 2014)

Faun said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > My point at this time is that it was never on fire. That's all i need to show that Daws is a fuckin' loser of this forum.
> ...


in a photo he post ad nausm there is a single steel been /floor joist that is bowed out just below what appears to be the weld, his clam is that something other than conventional means had to have been employed to do that kind of damage.
he further states that the photo encapsulates all that he views as wrong or cover up about the 911 investigations.
what I find funny is the fema report makes no special mention of the damaged beam. 
any time anyone takes a guess at what could have done the damage besides space beams /dustfication rays  or mini nukes he laughs and says were all brain  dead.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 29, 2014)

Don't feed the troll.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 29, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe you can repost that picture with an arrow pointing to whatever it is you are concerned with.
> ...



I see a picture looking out from inside of a building where there is a lot of collapse debris.  Collapse is often chaotic, even in controlled demolitions.  As I said, if you post a picture with an arrow that points to the object in question, I could give you a more detailed response.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 29, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Don't feed the troll.


that must mean that my description is correct ...


----------



## Faun (Dec 29, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...


I myself have no idea. There was extensive damage to that building from the collapse of one of the towers. My assumption would be from that, either directly or indirectly.

What's your guess?


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 29, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



I guess it never occurred to him what tons and tons of building debris raining down from great heights can do to adjacent buildings.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 29, 2014)

Faun said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I don't have a guess. What I do have is the knowledge in metallurgy and thermodynamics to know it doesn't happen due to falling debris. If so, there would be more similar evidence surrounding it. Instead, it is a focused energy release forensically speaking. Until this particular anomaly can be addressed we're still playing with a shy deck over 9/11. Probably always will be.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 29, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...





orogenicman said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


it not a flange it's a column or floor joist and it's hanging at the top center of the pic there is a slight bulge and blacking at the base of the bulge.
it appears highly similar to this :


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 29, 2014)

orogenicman said:


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



For the guy that doesn't even see it, you make a lot of ASSumptions. Then again, you fed the troll. You trolling too?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 29, 2014)

daws101 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



Dont feed the troll. No fires in Banker's trust. That photo is the result of long standing fire.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 29, 2014)

Instead, it is a focused energy release forensically speaking


----------



## daws101 (Dec 29, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


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


you have no evidence to support that assumption


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 29, 2014)

Don't feed the troll.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 29, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



No sir, what we have is one photograph of one very selective area of an unknown building.  There is no provenience information for that photo, let alone any analysis that demonstrates the validity of your claim, much less any information that verifies your claim to have the knowledge you claim to have.  If you truly believe that falling debris cannot cause the damage we see in this photograph, then you don't know much of anything about what happens when buildings collapse onto other buildings.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 29, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


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



I see a damaged building column and a lot of other debris.  I see no "flange".  And for the record, you calling anyone who disagrees with you a troll is the hallmark of a scammer.  If that is not what you are here to do, please refrain from the name calling.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 29, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



All the information is in the thread. the photo is from bankers trust following 9/11. Taken by FEMA from the 15th floor. it's not an unknown building. It's a very well known building. And since you do not even know which piece of steel is under discussion, I'd advise to keep your opinions about what I know to yourself. Because you clearly do not know WTF is going on in that photo. Just like the troll that keeps posting.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 29, 2014)

in other words you're makin' shit up!


----------



## daws101 (Dec 29, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...


right!


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 29, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Ok, if I call it an I-beam will that solve the big mystery for you? it's pretty clear which piece of steel is shriveled up and yet still has fuckin' paint on it.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 29, 2014)

Don't feed the troll.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 29, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



Well, it is like this.  I asked you to clarify what item you were talking about, and you apparently believe that I was supposed to read your mind, because you poo pooed the request.  So Daws did your work for you and pointed out the item in question.  And I have to agree with him that it is not a particularly abnormal item to find in a building damaged by a million tons of building materials falling from over 1,000 feet.  If this is some sort of smoking gun, I am afraid it fails the smell test.  Sorry.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 29, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...


it's not shriveled one end has been knocked loose from it's anchor point and it is missing some paint on the damaged end.
if it was a  focused energy release would not the radiant heat burn or bubble  the paint on most of the beam?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 29, 2014)

A million tons of building material at over 1,000 feet?

 Did it all fall onto that flange at the same time? In just that spot of the beam? Perhaps the beam was installed vertically instead of horizontally and a million tons of building fell right onto its end and viola!

OK.


----------



## Faun (Dec 29, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...


So then you can tell me where that 'flange' came from? Is it from the Banker's Trust building or is it from WTC2?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 29, 2014)

Don't feed the troll.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 29, 2014)

Faun said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



It's from Banker's trust.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 29, 2014)

daws101 said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



If it was a focused energy release (I.e., a shaped charge), it would not have the appearance of being crushed parallel to it's load-bearing axis.  It would have the appearance of being sliced or ripped perpendicular to its load-bearing axis.


----------



## Faun (Dec 29, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...


How can you tell since we just see the beam hanging there? We certainly can't see if it's attached to anything. How can you tell it didn't come from WTC2?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 29, 2014)

Faun said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Because the FEMA report, should you read it, explicitly details that it is part of column-D from the diagram provided on the damage to the building's web.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 29, 2014)

Plus the size is obviously not that of the 30 ft. one that was lodged into the the side of BT that was from WTC2.


----------



## Faun (Dec 29, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...


I admit, I don't read every page of every report. Can you provide me a clue to where I can find it in that report?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 29, 2014)

http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1512-20490-2084/403_ch6.pdf


----------



## Faun (Dec 29, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1512-20490-2084/403_ch6.pdf


Thanks!

This is what I see. What does it mean (unless I'm looking at the wrong thing) ... ?

_An evaluation of the damage patterns revealed several interesting interpretations. The spandrels were sheared by the impactor, between column lines C and D, from the 23rd to the 19th floors. The D-8 column splices failed at the 18th floor and at the 16th floor, but there are no clues to indicate why column splice tension overload occurred at this location. However, unlike the spandrels above, the girder-column connections at column lines C and D failed. Although severed from the column above and below, column D8 remained suspended from the girders spanning between column lines E and D. These girders developed large vertical and lateral deformations (twisting). The twisting and bending of these girders may have extended the zone of collapse to bays bounded by column lines C and E. If the column splices had not failed at the 16th and 18th floors, it is possible the extent of collapse may have been limited to the single bay in the path of the impactor. This enlarged zone of damage continued until the collapse was arrested on the 8th floor. It is unlikely that dynamic effects caused the damage to column D-8 below the 16th floor; otherwise, the collapse should have progressed all the way to the ground. It is possible that the column splice failures and the resulting large deformations (twisting) of the spandrels caused the remaining portion of column D-8 to lose lateral bracing, and the collapse was not arrested until the energy of the impactor and debris pile was sufficiently diminished to halt the collapse. If this actually accounted for the enlargement of the damage zone, the restraint of the twisting deformations may have prevented the failure of column D-8._

_Although a considerable amount of debris fell from the upper floors onto the first-floor extension to the north, a two-story deep pile of debris accumulated on the 8th floor. By one estimate, although the debris distributed some of its weight by bridging action, the net effect would have been a 500-percent increase in dead load moment for the supporting beam. Based on the computed results, and in the absence of wind, it appears that the connections would have been able to support more than 500 percent of the estimated dead load moments before any hinging would occur. This may explain why multiple stories of debris came to rest at the 8th floor without incurring additional damage to the structure._

_Because column D-8 failed below the 16th floor, the beam-to-column moment connection was the single most significant structural feature that helped limit the damage. The portion of the building above the collapsed floors was held in place by frame action of the perimeter. Static elastic analyses of the moment frame show very high stress levels; however, there was a negligible deformation directly above the damaged structure. Furthermore, connections that enable the beams to develop some membrane capacity improve a structure's ability to arrest collapse. The typical floor beam end connections with their A307 bolts were overloaded in direct tension. High-strength bolts would have provided significantly greater tensile ability and possibly held more beams in place through catenary action. Inelastic analyses demonstrate the role of the weaker connections in the response of the structure. Finally, stronger column splices may have made it more difficult for the damaged column to separate from the upper column. Heavier column splices could have allowed the damaged column to function as a hanger and limit the amount of collapsed area, or they could have tended to pull more of the frame down._​


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 29, 2014)

What it means, in a broken down less engineer lingo framework, is that fro the most part, they do not understand a good portion of the damage failure of column-D @ 16 - it goes beyond comprehension. Some of the deformation is also implicated in this initial assessment. Most of what you're quoting is lingo to what happened understandably and what did not.


----------



## Faun (Dec 29, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> What it means, in a broken down less engineer lingo framework, is that fro the most part, they do not understand a good portion of the damage failure of column-D @ 16 - it goes beyond comprehension. Some of the deformation is also implicated in this initial assessment. Most of what you're quoting is lingo to what happened understandably and what did not.


So what do you think caused that damage?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 29, 2014)

What I think is irrelevant. What I will say is that for that particular beam (thanks FEMA!) it defies conventional wisdom. There is no logical, or scientific explanation. Plus, when you look at what happened to the building ultimately...well. It aint anything we have information about.


----------



## Faun (Dec 29, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> What I think is irrelevant. What I will say is that for that particular beam (thanks FEMA!) it defies conventional wisdom. There is no logical, or scientific explanation. Plus, when you look at what happened to the building ultimately...well. It aint anything we have information about.


If I'm reading that right, they have explanations for the other columns which is attributable to debris from WTC2; so it seems to me that even though they offer no explanation to that one beam, the damage is still from the collapse of the south tower.

As far as what ultimately occurred -- the building was eventually torn down due to the extensive damage. Isn't that right?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 29, 2014)

No. it was torn down due to pervasive structural rust.

But you're selling a pretty good package. The "i don't know and will you follow me?" joint.


----------



## Faun (Dec 29, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> No. it was torn down due to pervasive structural rust.
> 
> But you're selling a pretty good package. The "i don't know and will you follow me?" joint.


That's because I don't know. But from what I see, it appears the building was demolished due to the 9.11 attack which irreparably damaged it. The building just rotted for years following the attack until they finally took it down.

130 Liberty Street 8211 Deutsche Bank Building Wired New York


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 29, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> No. it was torn down due to pervasive structural rust.
> 
> But you're selling a pretty good package. The "i don't know and will you follow me?" joint.



Funny ... that's exactly the package YOU are selling. Since this thread is "What Happened on 9/11/2001," perhaps you would be so good as to actually answer the question posed.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 29, 2014)

hey agent dawgshit sock dawgshit,I see your handlers sent you back to fart again in hopes of trying to derail this thread.lol.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 29, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> hey agent dawgshit sock dawgshit,I see your handlers sent you back to fart again in hopes of trying to derail this thread.lol.



I'm trying to get this thread back on track, . The question posed was "What Happened on 9/11?" Any intelligent thoughts?


----------



## n0spam4me (Dec 29, 2014)

> "What Happened on 9/11?"



FALSE FLAG OPERATION ...... 

next .......


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 30, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> > "What Happened on 9/11?"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



oh----ok    can you provide details?      I am eager to know---who did it and why?  ----and how?     and------why did the people who did it sacrifice two USA commercial planes?-----
is that they best they could do?


----------



## Capstone (Dec 30, 2014)

From the original post:



n0spam4me said:


> . . .please lets not speculate, the facts of the case are VERY clear...



From careful analysis of the software and files pertaining to the reported radar tracks on the morning of 9/11/01, which were provided to researchers through the FOIA by the 84th Radar Evaluation Squadron (Rades) and the audio recordings provided by NORAD and the FAA, we know of confusion-fomenting war games/drills, simulated radar tracks that remained on screen until well after the second impact, aircraft converging/flying in formation with and then diverging from reported 9/11 aircraft (supporting the swap-out hypothesis), an unexplained routing clearance 'other than preferred' for Flight 175 (which _coincidentally_ enabled it to be much closer to the World Trade Center after the impact of Flight 11), aircraft exceeding their max. operating limits by more than 130-150 knots, false aircraft target reports, fighters launched in the wrong directions, 9/11 aircraft apparently still airborne well after the reported impacts, poor communications in general (with phones not working at all in a number of crucial instances); the list of factual and highly coincidental failures observed in this one small body of evidence goes on and on, almost to the point of fully justifying speculation that at least some of those failures/anomalies must have been rooted in a concerted effort toward an effective 'stand down' of US air defense systems by a handful of high-level officials both inside and outside of government.

Of course, since such a conclusion would still be "speculation", it's probably best to forget I mentioned it in this thread.


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 30, 2014)

way back in the time of the  DRAFT LOTTERY-----for the Vietnam war-----Brilliant conspiracy theorists calculated the
ODDS  of the Lottery results being PRECISELY WHAT THEY 
WERE------of course very low odds  thus  "PROVING"  that the draft lottery was "FIXED",,,,,,but thanks anyway


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 30, 2014)

Hurricane Erin also happened on 9/11/2001. Just hours before the planes hit the towers, Erin came real close to landfall in the New England area. 

Then she made a U-turn and went back out to see.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 30, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> > "What Happened on 9/11?"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


exactly,since that has now been established that it was a false flag operation,wish there was something that could be done to arrest the real terrorists who pulled this off such as the neocons in the bush administration,clinton,,NIST officials,offcials in the CIA,and some way of arresting isreal government officials as well along with obama for participating in the coverup.

unfortunately though the world is fucked up and there is one different law for politicians than there is for us the fact that politicians commit crimes everyday we get arrested for including murder.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 30, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> What I think is irrelevant. What I will say is that for that particular beam (thanks FEMA!) it defies conventional wisdom. There is no logical, or scientific explanation. Plus, when you look at what happened to the building ultimately...well. It aint anything we have information about.


BullShit it's all about what you think! also if the language used is beyond your level of comprehension then any assumption you make would be wrong.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 30, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> > "What Happened on 9/11?"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


fucking typical! no evidence to support that claim


----------



## daws101 (Dec 30, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Hurricane Erin also happened on 9/11/2001. Just hours before the planes hit the towers, Erin came real close to landfall in the New England area.
> 
> Then she made a U-turn and went back out to see.


that's sea.. what does this have to do with 911? answer : jack shit!


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 30, 2014)

I don't feed trolls.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 30, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> I don't feed trolls.


you just did even thought I'm not ANY MORE OF A TROLL THAN. YOU ARE.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 30, 2014)

No food for you.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 30, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> No food for you.


 you gotta stop or I'll need to get more storage bags .


----------



## n0spam4me (Jan 1, 2015)

daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > > "What Happened on 9/11?"
> ...




Evidence as follows, the alleged use of commercial airliners as weapons given the crash sites as photographed and presented to the public as the alleged result of said attack being violations of the laws of physics if the official explanation is to be taken at face value. + the fact that there is NO accounting for the aircraft wreckage ( as has been done in the case of EVERY airliner crash since the founding of the NTSB ) The "black boxes" that is flight data recorders & cockpit voice recorders from "FLT11" & "FLT175" are totally absent, not even a fragment of a recorder to be found in any of the wreckage examined in the months post 9/11/2001.
The extreme selling job that has been done to convince people that its an entirely plausible event, that is "FLT77" crashing into the PENTAGON and 99.9% of said aircraft ending up inside the building.
Not to mention the fact that the BIG LIE has permeated the whole country to such an extent that we have "peer reviewed" papers by college professors, such that a High-school student could debunk the material in said papers, but it all goes out lending an appearance of authority to an otherwise totally unsupportable claim.  for a multitude of reasons, the whole "hijacked airliners used as weapons" story is a non-starter! 
in addition there are factions that argue "FLT175" must have been flown at 590 mph to strike the South Tower.  You have GOT 2 B Kidding!  >500 mph & <1,000 ft altitude, in a commercial airliner..... ya, right?!?!?!

The entire fairy tale about the 19 hijackers is a FARCE!


----------



## irosie91 (Jan 1, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


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



I saw the south tower ----struck by the plane------I did not look
at pictures.        I did not see the pentagon struck----but I saw
the south tower take the hit.       Why do you continue to make a fool of yourself???     I am not the only person who actually saw it.


----------



## n0spam4me (Jan 1, 2015)

irosie91 said:


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



Can you say with absolute certainty that what you observed was indeed a commercial airliner? and were you in a position to actually see the south wall of the south tower?


----------



## Capstone (Jan 1, 2015)




----------



## irosie91 (Jan 1, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



No-----I did not see the plane approach----but thousands of other people did--------what do you think it was that 
hit the building resulting in a huge flash of light?------Tinkerbelle?      You are making a fool of yourself


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 1, 2015)

Capstone said:


>


 
Soooo, it is your story that the WTC was hit by military jets? Is that what you are saying?


----------



## deep_space (Jan 1, 2015)

irosie91 said:


> No-----I did not see the plane approach----but thousands of other people did--------what do you think it was that
> hit the building resulting in a huge flash of light?------Tinkerbelle? You are making a fool of yourself



First you say that you saw the south tower take the hit, and then you say " did not see the plane approach " .... but thousands of others did, OK, who are these thousands?


----------



## Capstone (Jan 1, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> ...Soooo, it is your story that the WTC was hit by military jets? Is that what you are saying?



Just pointing out a body of eyewitness testimony that corroborates the documented airspeed of reported 9/11 aircraft just prior to impact. We know for a fact that no commercial jumbo jets could have withstood the physical strain of those speeds near sea level without breaking up, to say nothing of the maneuverability constraints on the pilots. Take the alleged Flight 175, for instance. In order for that large, gray, double-engine plane to have managed what was caught on tape at the speed that was documented by the NTSB, it *must* have either been built or later specially reinforced to handle speeds well in excess of the maximum operating velocities for any civilian jumbo jets on the market at that time.

To take a stab at the heart of your question though, yes, military resources, installations, and personnel (many perhaps unwittingly under the pretense of war games/drills) were almost certainly involved.

I believe that Flights 11 and 175 departed as reported for LAX, but in line with the radar data provided by Rades, they were later swapped-out for drones in mid-flight. What happened to the actual planes, their respective crews and passengers, is wide open to speculation, but I'm currently of the opinion that they were loaded forcefully or voluntarily (under false pretenses?) onto Flight 93 during an unscheduled stopover. The scripted cell phone calls and the "let's roll" narrative are just a little too hokie (if not downright impossible, given commercial cell phone technology circa 2001) to be taken at face value; and the unusually small passenger lists for the two coast-to-coast flights would have facilitated this scenario for doing away with the witnesses.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 1, 2015)

Capstone said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > ...Soooo, it is your story that the WTC was hit by military jets? Is that what you are saying?
> ...



You have officially joined the foil-hatted loony bunch. Congrats.


----------



## Capstone (Jan 1, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> You have officially joined the foil-hatted loony bunch. Congrats.



Duly noted. Again.


----------



## Capstone (Jan 2, 2015)

Some relevant historical factoids from an interesting article that was initially published in _Quill_ magazine in February of 1998:

“*History on remote control*

_Controlling the aircraft from the ground is nothing new. The military has been flying obsolete high performance fighter aircraft as target drones since the 1950s. In fact, NORAD (the North American Air Defense Command) had at its disposal a number of U.S. Air Force General Dynamics F-106 Delta Dart fighter aircraft configured to be remotely flown into combat as early as 1959 under the auspices of a program know as SAGE. These aircraft could be started, taxied, taken off, flown into combat, fight, and return to a landing entirely by remote control, with the only human intervention needed being to fuel and re-arm them.

To this day, drone aircraft are remotely flown from Air Force and Naval bases all over the country to provide targets for both airborne and ground based weapons platforms.

The data links, which could be used for remotely controlling digital airborne flight control systems in commercial aircraft, are already in wide use. Known as ACARS (Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System) this system is widely used to report everything from position and fuel burn, weather and flight plan information to ground stations. ACARS also has the capability of sending data to the aircraft, as well. 

Using this bi-directional data link would allow both uploading digital control inputs to control the aircraft as well as the potential to download and remotely monitor the digital aircraft displays. ..._”

---------------------

It should come as no surprise that this technology had been so well developed by 2001, since the use of remotely flown aircraft/drones was seriously considered *way back in the early 60's* by the DoD and the JCS in one of a series of suggested false flag operations against Cuba (see: _Operation Northwoods_).


----------



## daws101 (Jan 6, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


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


----------



## daws101 (Jan 6, 2015)

Capstone said:


>


another epic fail.. planes like cars come in different configurations ..no nefarious intent in  those pics


----------



## daws101 (Jan 6, 2015)

Capstone said:


>


anybody notice the logo of the filmmakers on the top right in the opening?
it a twofer produced clip.
it has no credibility whatsoever !

Xendrius - YouTube

check out the channel it's a gut  buster!


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 6, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


 
And at the end of the day the extent of the "Truther" cause is some half-truths, some meaningless YouTubes and a shipload of outright fabrications. Even if we ignore why they cling so desperately to their various silly CT scenarios, there is no way to get around the glaring lack of truth (or even a passing interest in it)  in their "Truther" Movement.
"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - Charlie Veitch


----------



## whitehall (Jan 8, 2015)

When you create a conspiracy in your mind you have a duty to explore every aspect. We saw the planes hit the towers. The conspiracy theory assumes that there were (government?) agents who mined the Twin Towers with explosives after the first attack failed in 1992 and knew the terrorists well enough to coincide their crazy agenda with an intentional detonation? If you assume that there was some sort of government plot to blow up the symbol of democracy you have to assume that Bill Clinton was involved.


----------



## deep_space (Jan 8, 2015)

whitehall said:


> We saw the planes hit the towers..



You saw something that you believe was an airliner hit the tower, since it was not flying a banner saying "this is a hijacked airliner"
all is speculation!  and for another piece of info, I do NOT care if the Borg did it, the way things happened simply screams 
FALSE FLAG ATTACK!


----------



## daws101 (Jan 8, 2015)

deep_space said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > We saw the planes hit the towers..
> ...


only in your fevered brain....


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 8, 2015)

daws101 said:


> deep_space said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...


 
Deep Space's claim that what we know about 9/11 is just "speculation" and therefore it was a "FALSE FLAG ATTACK" is precisely the irrational disconnect exhibited by so many "Truthers." He (or she) may be perfectly normal in all matters except 9/11 ... a subject about which his (or her) rationality and intelligence for some reason shut down.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 8, 2015)

SAYIT said:


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


true, the idea that  big brother is not controlling everything is too scary for "them" to comprehend.


----------



## whitehall (Jan 8, 2015)

deep_space said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > We saw the planes hit the towers..
> ...


----------



## Capstone (Jan 10, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


And yet again, the preferred _ad hominem_ response of OTC apologists heads its ugly rear. 

It's not the credibility of Zendrius that's at issue here, Daws; it's the continuity of several independent eyewitness accounts that were captured and preserved for posterity by various local and national news reports on the day of the "attacks". The fact that these accounts happen to corroborate conclusions drawn from the documented airspeed of reported 9/11 aircraft is also fair game. Your incessant ad homs do nothing to address (much less refute or "debunk") either of those facts.


----------



## Faun (Jan 10, 2015)

whitehall said:


> deep_space said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...


Look at the herculean effort someone would have had to go through to fake an attack.....

* set up thousands of bombs in the WTC to simulate a controlled demolition.

* plant people in air towers to falsely report 4 commercial jets had turned off their transponders and had flown off course.

* fake hundreds of families, pretending to grieve over lost family members.

* fake black box recordings of hijackers.

* fake phone recordings from flight #93.

* paint military jets to look like commercial jets.

* plant commercial jet airplane parts near crash sites.

* fake 4 commercial jet hijackings.

* plant fake news stories of Muslims learning how to fly commercial jets but not learning how to land them.

* fake Osama bin Laden taking credit for the attack.​
... plus who knows how much more? When all they had to do was plant bombs in the buildings to blow them up; no planes needed.


----------



## n0spam4me (Jan 10, 2015)

Faun said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > deep_space said:
> ...



thats quite the list you have there, and as we all know
100% of that would need to be done and done perfectly 
in order to fake the "hijacked airliners used as weapons" story.

or?


----------



## Faun (Jan 10, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...


Or what? That's your claim, isn't it? That the hijackings were faked? Well all of the things I listed would have been necessary to pull that off. 

Why do all that, which is near impossible to pull off without getting caught .... when they could have just blown up the buildings? Given the 1993 attack, it would have been beyond easy to convince America that it was a Muslim terrorist attack.


----------



## Capstone (Jan 10, 2015)

Faun said:


> Look at the herculean effort someone would have had to go through to fake an attack.....
> 
> * set up thousands of bombs in the WTC to simulate a controlled demolition. ...​



There's nothing _herculean_ about rigging buildings for controlled demolitions. The WTC jobs could have easily been done by a team of military-trained demo experts (not necessarily from any branch of the US military, mind you) under the cover of a reportedly legitimate elevator modernization project (for Buildings 1 and 2) and routine maintenance/repairs (for Building 7). This work would have been done at least partially in plain sight, but mainly after/before regular business hours; and any uninvolved security, maintenance, or cleaning personnel would have had no reason to give the black operators' activities a second thought.



Faun said:


> ...* plant people in air towers to falsely report 4 commercial jets had turned off their transponders and had flown off course. ...



The transponders on the legitimate flights could have been turned-off remotely by ground operator(s) who weren't _overtly_ affiliated with the FAA ... or by pilots who may have been in on the operation; but even if there were a handful of shills working in the flight towers, that wouldn't be so outrageous a thing for a small number of people in high places to make happen.

In accordance with the radar data provided by RADES, the shutting off of the transponders would have been crucial to the mid-flight swap-outs. Yes, the data clearly shows unidentified planes (RC drones, maybe?) converging, flying in perfect formation above or below, and then diverging from the radar tracks of reported 9/11 aircraft.



Faun said:


> ...* fake hundreds of families, pretending to grieve over lost family members.



Not necessarily. The passengers and crews from the real Flights 11 and 175 may have been off-loaded during an unscheduled stop-over and then herded (voluntarily or not) onto Flight 93. The unusually short passenger lists, for the 2 coast-to-coast flights in particular, would have served this hypothetical end very well. Since Boeing 757's have listed passenger capacities ranging from 200-295 people, Flight 93 could have easily accommodated the reported passengers and crews from Flights 11 (92 people), 175 (65 people), along with its own (40 people) for a grand total of 197 individuals (assuming that none of the Pilots or crew members were in on the operation, which may be a hasty assumption).

Of course, Flight 93 would have been remotely-piloted from take-off to crash-site, in my opinion, after having been shot down by a fighter interceptor who wasn't diverted in time; and if the pilot of that interceptor survived his debriefing, I'm sure he was encouraged in no uncertain terms to keep his mouth shut about the shoot-down.



Faun said:


> ...* fake black box recordings of hijackers.



Yeah, what a MASSIVE undertaking that would have been. 

How many of those black boxes were reportedly recovered with usable sound-bites and data anyway? 



Faun said:


> ...* fake phone recordings from flight #93. ...



Not a big deal in the least. People have done far stranger things under heavy duress.

The cell phone calls and the "let's roll" narrative were probably staged in the event that the RC aircraft didn't reach its intended target (Building 7).



Faun said:


> ...* paint military jets to look like commercial jets. ...



Not according to a number of eyewitnesses. Several people in good positions to see one or both of the aircraft/drones in NYC generally described the plane they saw as "a large, gray, military-looking plane" with "no emblems or logos on it".

I do believe that Flight 93 was a legitimate commercial 757 that had been modified for RC flight, primarily because its intended target would have demanded that it be flown into NYC after the "collapses" of the Twin Towers, where it almost certainly would have been caught by live television cameras from every major network in the country.



Faun said:


> ...* plant commercial jet airplane parts near crash sites.



Not where parts from the aircraft/drones were recovered.

Although, I must confess, _finding_ a properly painted piece of fuselage shrapnel with a conveniently intact serial number on it laying on the Pentagon's lawn was almost as fortuitous for the OTC as the pristine passport that was _found_ among the dust and debris in the aftermath of the "collapses" at ground zero! 

In any case, if any of the prime-time cop shows are remotely realistic, planting evidence here and there is not that big a deal either.



Faun said:


> ...* fake 4 commercial jet hijackings. ...



Well, this much is certain: faking the hijackings as I've described above would have been far less _herculean_ for the planners and operators than the actual hijackings would have been for the alleged 19 hijackers (flying at speeds well beyond the maximum operating limits while executing enormously difficult maneuvers at altitudes that would have ripped any _standard_ "commercial airliner" to shreds ... were especially neat tricks).



Faun said:


> ...* plant fake news stories of Muslims learning how to fly commercial jets but not learning how to land them. ...



Why would they _had_ to have been faked? 

It's not as though anyone would have investigated reports of some of the alleged hijackers still being alive after 9/11! 



Faun said:


> ...* fake Osama bin Laden taking credit for the attack. ...



Yeah, there's _no_ evidence that anything like that ever happened.​


			
				Faun said:
			
		

> ...When all they had to do was plant bombs in the buildings to blow them up; no planes needed.



They tried that and failed back in 1993.

Any plan to completely "bring down" the Twins would have called for covert access to the breadth and height of the buildings' internal structural supports. The aircraft/drones were simply a cover to help explain the unprecedented totality of the sort of destruction that was planned. Minus the airplanes, the WTC's security companies would have had an awful lot of explaining to do...


----------



## Faun (Jan 10, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Look at the herculean effort someone would have had to go through to fake an attack.....
> ...


You have no evidence of any of that; but most salient -- None of that was needed ... all they had to do is blow up the buildings. Occam's razor has never been more  applicable.


----------



## Capstone (Jan 10, 2015)

Faun said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Again, they tried that back in 1993. What did "they" learn from that failed operation, you may well ask? I'd say the main thing they learned was that another simple bombing probably wouldn't result in enough death and destruction to shock the country into supporting the war-hawks' agenda, much less tacitly allowing the draconian measures that would be foisted on the American People in the guise of _The Patriot Act_ , ETC.

Oh, and as far as the 9/11 "evidence" is concerned, there's *way more* in support of my beliefs than the near absence of that in support of the _Official Conspiracy Theory_®, simply by virtue of the fact that mine are far better corroborated by the facts on the ground. _Occam's Razor_ isn't tantamount to justification for the carte blanche refusal to even try to explain the many observed and documented aspects of 9/11 that remain entirely unexplained by the OTC to this very day.


----------



## Capstone (Jan 10, 2015)

I should add: it's not just that the OTC holds no explanatory power for several crucial aspects of the events of 9/11/01; it's also, perhaps more importantly, that those aspects often _contradict_ the OTC. The quest for the simplest explanation should never result in the blind acceptance of contradiction-ridden propaganda.


----------



## Faun (Jan 10, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Capstone said:
> ...


There is no evidence to support your claims. Let's start with your claim that passengers were unloaded from flights 11 and 175 and then loaded onto 93....

.... let's see your evidence ...


----------



## Capstone (Jan 10, 2015)

Faun said:


> There is no evidence to support your claims. *Let's start with your claim* that passengers were unloaded from flights 11 and 175 and then loaded onto 93...[emphasis Capstone's]



No, let's start with an explication of the difference between a "claim" and a _proposition_, since you apparently don't have a very good handle on that distinction.



			
				Capstone said:
			
		

> . . .Not necessarily. The passengers and crews from the real Flights 11 and 175 *may have been* off-loaded during an unscheduled stop-over and then herded (voluntarily or not) onto Flight 93. ...[emphasis added]



This statement _proposes_ a scenario that's  at least not contradicted by the known facts of the day, E.G. the  unusually short passenger lists, the radar data that corroborates the switch-out hypothesis, and perhaps most importantly of all, the verifiable deaths of the passengers and crews from the three flights.

Now, had I _claimed_ that such a scenario *had* happened, I'd have been more obligated to provide stronger evidence.

If you're going to proceed in our discussion, know that I won't allow you to mis-characterize the nature of any of my statements without calling you on the carpet for it.


----------



## Faun (Jan 11, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > There is no evidence to support your claims. *Let's start with your claim* that passengers were unloaded from flights 11 and 175 and then loaded onto 93...[emphasis Capstone's]
> ...


Propositions are worthless. My apologies for giving you more credit by assuming you were offering up something tangible and not merely from the dark recesses of your truther mind.

So let's try this from a different angle .... post something based on actual evidence and not from your imagination......


----------



## daws101 (Jan 11, 2015)

Capstone said:


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


love it when you rationalize.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 11, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...


or you as always are talking out your ass!


----------



## daws101 (Jan 11, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Look at the herculean effort someone would have had to go through to fake an attack.....
> ...


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 11, 2015)

Faun said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > deep_space said:
> ...



And all those people had to be kept from blowing the whistle before, during, and after the attacks.

By an administration that couldn't keep it quiet that Dick Cheney shot his hunting buddy in the face because he thought he was a bird.


----------



## Faun (Jan 11, 2015)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...


They must have put all those people involved into an Air Asia flight which mysteriously disappeared somewhere over some ocean.


----------



## n0spam4me (Jan 11, 2015)

Engineers use explosives to test geological formations, so as to gain knowledge about the structure they are investigating, and likewise, I see the '93 bombing as a test to learn how the WTC tower reacts to explosives so that the final demolition of the building(s) could be engineered.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 12, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> Engineers use explosives to test geological formations, so as to gain knowledge about the structure they are investigating, and likewise, I see the '93 bombing as a test to learn how the WTC tower reacts to explosives so that the final demolition of the building(s) could be engineered.


so Mr. spammy how long have you been having these delusional episodes....


----------



## irosie91 (Jan 12, 2015)

daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Engineers use explosives to test geological formations, so as to gain knowledge about the structure they are investigating, and likewise, I see the '93 bombing as a test to learn how the WTC tower reacts to explosives so that the final demolition of the building(s) could be engineered.
> ...




nothing is TOO ABSURD  for islamo Nazi propagandaists----
it is a fact  Goebbels exploited and taught to his audience---
emulators ----many of whom fled to muslim countries and wrote their "stuff"  extensively------in fact----as a CAREER


----------



## daws101 (Jan 12, 2015)

irosie91 said:


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


ah .....spammy is a nut job for sure but a Nazi of any kind, no way.. koko on the other hand....
imo they are people who find some kind of crazy cold comfort in the myth that somebody is in control of everything...


----------



## MaryL (Jan 12, 2015)

The OP has a huge problem with 9/11. Imagine that. Ok, ok, snide remarks aside, the events of 9/11 come down to a simple sucker punch. A sneak attack.  NOT an conspiratorial  inside job. No, not buying that, it's to fantastic and absurd. Ever since the 1983  suicide bombing
on the US marine barracks in Beirut, islamic terrorists have been escalating their attacks. And the simplest and most direct explanation is...TADA: islamic extremist pulled off their crowning achievement, three coordinated attacks using airplanes as weapons  within the US borders. NOBODY was expecting it. That is it. NOBODY thought these creeps were capable of it. Now, we KNOW better.


----------



## irosie91 (Jan 12, 2015)

MaryL said:


> The OP has a huge problem with 9/11. Imagine that. Ok, ok, snide remarks aside, the events of 9/11 come down to a simple sucker punch. A sneak attack.  NOT an conspiratorial  inside job. No, not buying that, it's to fantastic and absurd. Ever since the 1983  suicide bombing
> on the US marine barracks in Beirut, islamic terrorists have been escalating their attacks. And the simplest and most direct explanation is...TADA: islamic extremist pulled off their crowning achievement, three coordinated attacks using airplanes as weapons  within the US borders. NOBODY was expecting it. That is it. NOBODY thought these creeps were capable of it. Now, we KNOW better.



that   "not capable" part has been amusing me since
islamo Nazis first used it   (within days of the attack)  to
PROVE------"da mossad done it"       I am old enough to
remember the hijackings of planes way back in the 60s as
Islamic terrorism----but plane hijackings go all the way
back to the 30s------usually by novice non real pilots----
The operation was not all that complex-----


----------



## MaryL (Jan 12, 2015)

irosie91 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > The OP has a huge problem with 9/11. Imagine that. Ok, ok, snide remarks aside, the events of 9/11 come down to a simple sucker punch. A sneak attack.  NOT an conspiratorial  inside job. No, not buying that, it's to fantastic and absurd. Ever since the 1983  suicide bombing
> ...



Some of the 9/11 hijackers got flight training, knew enough to  navigate to their destination straight and level and turned off tracking
devices,  something I or most of you could have learned, had we applied ourselves. And their weapons? Box cutters, for Christ sake. Box cutters. I don't know the physics of all the buildings collapsing and all that, but that seems irrelevant because nobody else here does
either, this was a unique situation that can't be replicated.


----------



## irosie91 (Jan 12, 2015)

MaryL said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...



I INSIST  that it be replicated-------ASAP


----------



## MaryL (Jan 12, 2015)

irosie91 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...


 Not by computer models or by looking at  demolition films, too many variables, too many. And  the obvious and likely culprits, islamic terrorist are minimized. THAT is why I won't  accept such an unlikely scenario. I have an open mind, I believe in Occam's razor and I think it holds here.


----------



## n0spam4me (Jan 13, 2015)

Can U say 
FALSE FLAG ATTACK?


----------



## Faun (Jan 13, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> Can U say
> FALSE FLAG ATTACK?


Fruitcake ... here's what you need to convince people of if you're going to sway anyone into believing your hallucinations....

You need to convince us that someone who had the ability to pull this off without airplanes, would create this master plan which relied upon a 100% success rate of acquiring 100% of every video recording the event so that they could then edit in a plane.

Capiche?

If even one video turned up without a plane in it, the entire rouse would have been exposed. The planners would have known this and would have had to formulate a plan which would have *required* them getting their hands on *every single video.* The would also needed to have a plan on how to silence 100% of the people recording the event so that no one could scream out how their video had been altered. *They would have had to plan for this. *

Further complicating such an outrageous plan is facing the reality that they would have expected potentially *millions* of eyewitnesses given the population density of the region; with an unknown number of cameras. Potentially thousands.

Do you see where this is leading?

To pull this off [successfully], they would have had to have a plan on how to get hold of every video without knowing where every video was. Whether videos were recorded from a street, a rooftop, an apartment, an office, a hotel, a boat, a car, New York, New Jersey, etc... ..... wherever. Wherever a  video was recorded, they had to have a plan on how to get their hands on it.

And here's where your world crumbles ........

*No such plan is possible.*

And the planners would have known this.


----------



## n0spam4me (Jan 13, 2015)

Here is what you gotta convince people of, so as to sell the 19 suicidal hijackers story:

> commercial airliners can be flown >500 mph @ <1000 ft altitude 
> commercial airliners can reliably penetrate a steel box column wall and completely disappear inside, given that the deck spacing in the skyscraper was 3.6 m and the airliner body is over 5 m diameter.
> commercial airlines are capable of penetrating a military blast resistant wall, and totally disappearing inside the building leaving behind <1% of the aircraft outside the building.
> The top 15% of a skyscraper can fall down upon the lower 85% and cause the complete & total destruction of the entire skyscraper.
> Fire can cause a single point of failure in a steel frame skyscraper resulting in the building descending at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec and keeping its shape as it descends vertically.


----------



## Faun (Jan 13, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> Here is what you gotta convince people of, so as to sell the 19 suicidal hijackers story:
> 
> > commercial airliners can be flown >500 mph @ <1000 ft altitude
> > commercial airliners can reliably penetrate a steel box column wall and completely disappear inside, given that the deck spacing in the skyscraper was 3.6 m and the airliner body is over 5 m diameter.
> ...


The Twin Towers were not constructed in the same fashion as a "military blast resistant wall," rendering your false premise DOA.

But back to my point ... I see you don't want to accept the reality that there is no plan possible to account for retrieving every single video made of the second plane hitting the second tower. Without a plan translates into the planes were real.

Here's more evidence. If there was no plane, which inspired every person captured in this video to look skyward ... ?

 
If there were no planes, what were these cameras tracking ... ?

at 0:13, 8:05, and 9:04


----------



## n0spam4me (Jan 13, 2015)

> The Twin Towers were not constructed in the same fashion as a "military blast resistant wall," rendering your false premise DOA.



When did I say "box column wall" = "blast resistant wall"?
Also, you appear to be confusing arguments about HOW it was done with definition of WHAT was done, two separate issues and speculation about what may or may not have been possible doesn't constitute a show-stopper in this case.


----------



## Faun (Jan 13, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> > The Twin Towers were not constructed in the same fashion as a "military blast resistant wall," rendering your false premise DOA.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, but weren't you the one to question ...

_"commercial airlines are capable of penetrating a *military blast resistant wall*, and totally disappearing inside the building leaving behind <1% of the aircraft outside the building."_​ 
That was you, right?

Now why did you avoid my question? If there were no planes, what were those cameras tracking?


----------



## n0spam4me (Jan 13, 2015)

> The Twin Towers were not constructed in the same fashion as a "military blast resistant wall," rendering your false premise DOA.



The first assertion complains that I have somehow mixed the two events that is the crash into the WTC towers & the crash at the Pentagon, when in fact no such mix-up has occurred.

Next, Pay VERY close attention to what the videos of the alleged "FLT175" actually show.  The alleged airliner penetrates the skyscraper wall as would a ghost in a B movie. so WHY should we accept this sort of thing as actual documentation of anything.  You speculate about how difficult it would be to fake the videos, however, the fact of what the videos show totally discredits them as a source of documentary evidence about "FLT175".


----------



## Capstone (Jan 13, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> . . .The alleged airliner penetrates the skyscraper wall as would a ghost in a B movie. ...



When assessing a projectile's ability to penetrate a given target, it's important to understand the dynamics of kinetic energy in deference to the projectile's momentum and sectional density. It's also necessary to assess the target's relative mass, density and elasticity, in conjunction with other factors, including the heat of fusion. It's a complicated equation that's way beyond my personal scope of knowledge, but I've heard of things like pumpkins and high-pressure water jets penetrating thin sheets of steel (such as that used for automotive body parts), which would seem to indicate that a projectile's lower density in relation to that of its target isn't necessarily the deciding factor in the physics of penetration.

Something to think about from a fellow "Twoofer".


----------



## Faun (Jan 13, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> > The Twin Towers were not constructed in the same fashion as a "military blast resistant wall," rendering your false premise DOA.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And yet, since that's exactly how it happened, it is possible. Don't forget, your "no planes" nonsense is easily debunked. It is not possible to obtain every single video of the plane flying into the south tower. And it certainly isn't the sort of thing anyone would risk their entire operation on.


----------



## deep_space (Jan 14, 2015)

again arguments from incredulity about HOW it was done, side-stepping the obvious WHAT was done.


----------



## Faun (Jan 14, 2015)

deep_space said:


> again arguments from incredulity about HOW it was done, side-stepping the obvious WHAT was done.


Speaking to the 'no planes" nonsense ... since the HOW was not possible, the WHAT is nothing but the demented imagination of the Truther.


----------



## Capstone (Jan 14, 2015)

deep_space said:


> again arguments from incredulity about HOW it was done, side-stepping the obvious WHAT was done.



Generally speaking here, what's most telling about the OCT apologists' tired appeal to incredulity is their _selective_ use of it, *never* applying it to the aspects of the officially reported events of 9/11/01 that most vociferously call for it (E.G. physical impossibilities, entire bodies of evidence that stand in direct opposition to the official narrative, ETC.). Apparently their incredulity is reserved mainly for notions like, "Too many people would had to have been _in-the-know!"_ ... and "It's totally ludicrous that none of those hypothetical participants (in maybe the worst atrocity ever committed by man, with an indirect death toll that's _still_ rising more than 13 years later) have yet stepped out from the shadows to claim responsibility for their respective roles in it!". Yes, truly incredible that!


----------



## daws101 (Jan 14, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> Can U say
> FALSE FLAG ATTACK?


you could and do frequently... but it's false..


----------



## daws101 (Jan 14, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> > The Twin Towers were not constructed in the same fashion as a "military blast resistant wall," rendering your false premise DOA.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


in fact you are splitting hairs they are not two separate issues but it's cause and effect, a concept  that eludes you...


----------



## daws101 (Jan 14, 2015)

deep_space said:


> again arguments from incredulity about HOW it was done, side-stepping the obvious WHAT was done.


yours is an argument based on misperception....


----------



## daws101 (Jan 14, 2015)

Capstone said:


> deep_space said:
> 
> 
> > again arguments from incredulity about HOW it was done, side-stepping the obvious WHAT was done.
> ...


the shit getting deep.
never is just shorthand for extremely unlikely...given the evidence.
there is no alternative body of evidence...no credible one anyway.


----------

