# WTC-7 Was A Controlled Demolition Inside Job



## Terral (Mar 18, 2009)

Greetings to All:

All of the evidence points directly to inside-job terrorists taking down WTC-7 by Controlled Demolition on 9/11. WTC-7 was designed and built using Compartmentalization of all supporting columns and beams separated by solid concrete slabs horizontally and curtain walls vertically making death by fire an impossibility. A building fire has never destroyed a steel-framed skyscraper in US history before or after 9/11 and WTC-1, WTC-2 and WTC-7 were owned by Larry Pull It Silverstein all suffering the same fate. Many fail to realize the World Trade Center Towers had never been in private hands prior to the summer of 2001, when Mr. Silverstein received possession from the New York Port Authority.

Cooperative Research Website:



> This is the *only time the WTC has ever changed hands since it was opened in 1973* . . . It was previously controlled by *the New York Port Authority, a bi-state government agency* . . . Larry Silverstein, the president of Silverstein Properties, *only uses $14 million of his own money for the deal.* His partners put up *a further $111 million, and banks provide $563 million in loans* . . . . The Port Authority had carried *only $1.5 billion in insurance coverage on all its buildings*, including the WTC, but Silversteins lenders insist on more, *eventually demanding $3.55 billion in cover* . . . After 9/11, Larry Silverstein will claim the attacks on the World Trade Center *constituted two separate events, thereby entitling him to a double payout totaling over $7 billion.*


Watch the [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A"]WTC-7 Collapse Video[/ame] again:

Use your curser to hold the round scrollbar and move WTC-7 up and down repeatedly. The roof section and the center of the building collapse first, then the two sides plummet at *free fall velocity* like any successful controlled demolition. Before looking at the details of how WTC-7 was built using Compartmentalization of all the steel supports, we need to take a look at the massive building itself.







All of the WTC-7 steel columns, beams, girders and bar joists were bolted down and welded together into a single unit creating literally thousands of connections that must be severed to cause the catastrophic failure seen from the aftermath of the attack. 






The melting point of WTC-7 structural steel is 1535 degrees Celsius or 2795 degrees Fahrenheit. The first problem with the *Fire Caused The Collapse* Theory is that building fires burn between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, or about one third the required temperature to melt structural steel. The second problem is that building fires typically burn for only 20 minutes in any given area, because the fuel is depleted and the fire moves in the direction of a fresh fuel source. The third problem is that steel is an excellent conductor of heat and any steel-framed network would disperse the heat much more quickly than any building fire could raise the temperature to *anywhere near steel-softening temperatures*. Another problem is that all supporting columns were coated with *3-hour spray-on fireproofing insulation*, which is nine times more protection needed for the typical building fire; even if the required 2800 degree temperatures were reached.

911Research Website:

The website above is perhaps the best on the internet for discovering the truth about the WTC-7 collapse. Moving down the page, *Figure 5-3* shows the massive steel network and how certain areas (floors 1-7, 22-24) received extra support.






This information is very important, because remember WTC-7 collapsed in one single smooth motion, which means extra attention was paid to placing charges to sever these thicker and stronger steel supports. Try to imagine the amount of energy required to break all of these connections simultaneously and you begin to see *the building fire theory is certainly a hoax*. Below you come to Figure 5.3.3 and descriptions of how WTC-7 was built in many separate compartments eliminating fire as even a remote possibility for causing this collapse.






Even if two or five or ten fires were started, the fuel source within those particular compartments would be consumed LONG before the fireproofing safety countermeasures were compromised; and the fire had no way to pass through solid concrete slabs or curtain walls to invade the neighboring compartments. This does not even account for the fully functional sprinkler system that had to be turned off for these fires to spread any distance at all. Here is a four minute video to help gain a better perspective on how to weigh the evidence in this case:

Four Minute WTC-7 Collapse Video

*Fire has never destroyed a steel building,* but three steel buildings owned by Larry Silverstein were Pulled on 9/11. Pull it is controlled demolition lingo for wiring the building up and pulling it down. Mr. Silverstein was obviously lying about speaking to the New York Fire Chief, as the firemen only entered the scene on 9/11 after the Twin Towers attacks. This Fire Chief had no access to Controlled Demolition charges when he arrived at WTC-7 for Pulling down the 47-story steel-framed skyscraper that could possibly be placed in a single day. Here we have a few small fires burning on a few floors, but the Fire Chief cannot figure any way to extinguish them. Since the firemen had no time to set all the required charges to Pull WTC-7 down in just a few hours, as if firemen even have controlled demolition crews, then Mr. Silverstein just pointed the finger at himself about having prior knowledge of these 9/11 attacks. Now compare our images of WTC-7 and these Pull It videos:

Paris Building

Office Building

Landmark Tower Implosion

Many buildings have been demolished using controlled demolition looking exactly like WTC-7 on 9/11, but again, no steel-framed skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire in the history of this planet. Twenty-first century demolition techniques include the use of Thermite Shaped Charges found all over WTC-1, WTC-2 and WTC-7.

Shaped Charges And The World Trade Center Collapses






The damage from a thermite/thermate shaped charge is exactly what you see above the confused firemans head. Note the size of the massive column and the molten iron residue that flowed *inside and outside the column*.






Thermite burns at a very high 2500 degrees Centigrade or 4532 degrees Fahrenheit, which represents the kind of temperature required to sever these massive red-iron columns. As a demolition supervisor (search "Terral") tearing down buildings for many years, I know of nobody using 45-degree angle cuts to remove any red-iron part of any conventional demolition job. This particular column has molten iron residue, which is a *Controlled Demolition Signature*, as any torch cut would blow the molten iron off the column entirely away from the worker. There is no cut from any torch that would leave molten iron residue on the inside and outside of 'all' the sides of a column this way. The idea that any demolition worker would make a 45-degree cut is ridiculous, because of the danger to other workers and the waste of fuel.

Another problem with the Official Fire Cover Story is these 45-degree angle shaped-charge cuts appear everywhere . . .






. . . even in locations where demolition crew workers could not possibly reach. The common practice is to remove steel debris in an orderly pick and remove manner, which eliminates the possibility of needlessly shifting weight and putting workers in danger. We play this dangerous game like a child plays Pickup Sticks, as any skilled demolition foreman can look at the pile and tell you which debris to remove first. None of the demolition workers in the picture above climbed up any ladder forty or fifty feet in the air to make that 45-degree angle cut, because that was part of the original *Controlled Demolition* (AE911Truth.org) of WTC-7. Note the clean 90-degree cuts labeled *Severed Column End* scattered throughout the debris pile. However, also note these steel members are buried under the debris of the walls collapsing upon them during the controlled demolition process. These cuts could not have been made by this demolition crew, because they still have mountains of debris to remove before even thinking about cutting any structural steel; which would only serve to shift weight in this very dangerous situation. The very best work on these WTC controlled demolition attacks is presented by Dr. Steven E. Jones (Brigham Young University) here:

Liberty Post Website:

WTC-7 was *definitely* (100 percent certainty) brought down using Controlled Demolition techniques also found in WTC-1 and WTC-2. This evidence explains why we have reports on hundreds of explosions taking place throughout the day.

*9/11 Firemen Describe WTC Explosions*

And yet, the keyword sanitized 911Commission Report only uses the term *explosion* six times outside the notation references for all these 9/11 cases combined and never uses the term *explosions* (plural) even once. Guess what? The bogus Arlington County After-Action Report uses the term *explosion* six times in 215 pages and also never uses the term *explosions* even one time the very same way, even though we can hear multiple explosions taking place in this single [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WefPzgxvfS4"]News Video[/ame]. 

9/11 was *definitely an inside-job* and many LIARS are helping the real terrorists get away with murdering thousands of our innocent fellow Americans. Let us see how many Official Cover Story LIARS line up to convince these readers that 9/11 was carried out by people like this (pic) and that building fires and debris took down these WTC skyscrapers . . . 

GL,

Terral


----------



## Godboy (Mar 18, 2009)

> All of the evidence points directly to inside-job terrorists taking down WTC-7 by Controlled Demolition on 9/11.



Great, you open your post with a lie and you never stop after the first one. All of the evidence does NOT point to an inside job, because if it did, everyone on these boards wouldnt think you are crazy.

Its quite apparent that you have no idea what real proof and evidence is.


----------



## Terral (Mar 18, 2009)

Hi Godboy:

  I see the Light now. God is not a man (Num. 23:19), so that means He is a Godboy (far right). :0) 



Godboy said:


> Great, you open your post with a lie and you never stop after the first one. All of the evidence does NOT point to an inside job, because if it did, everyone on these boards wouldnt think you are crazy.
> 
> Its quite apparent that you have no idea what real proof and evidence is.


 
  I have one question, Godboy: 

*Was John the Baptist right or wrong?* 

The fact is that a man can be baptized with the Holy Spirit *in his mother&#8217;s womb* and walk a righteous path his entire life &#8216;and&#8217; people like Godboy cuckoo will still think he has a demon. :0) 

  Just *&#8216;quote >>&#8217; anything that appears off *in my WTC-7 explanation and show us what you have using whatever the Godboy thinks is *&#8216;credible evidence.&#8217;* I am obviously not the only guy on this planet *knowing for A FACT* that WTC-7 was taken down using Controlled Demolition. I have already given mine and now you can give your side of the story. Right? Then everyone can decide if anybody is a *Loyal Bushie Cover Story DUPE* for believing WTC-7 fell down from building fires. :0) 

PS. This is the *Conspiracy Theories Forum*. Right? Am I lost or what? Someone please explain for me why ANYBODY in his right mind gets up in the morning to head out to the *"Conspiracy Theory" Forum* to convince everyone that *'there is no conspiracy?' *That is funny too . . . 

  GL in the debate,

  Terral


----------



## Godboy (Mar 18, 2009)

> Hi Godboy:
> 
> I see the Light now. God is not a man (Num. 23:19), so that means He is a Godboy (far right). :0)



If you are trying to push my buttons by making fun of religion, you are barking up the wrong tree pal.


----------



## Godboy (Mar 18, 2009)

> PS. This is the Conspiracy Theories Forum. Right? Am I lost or what? Someone please explain for me why ANYBODY in his right mind gets up in the morning to head out to the "Conspiracy Theory" Forum to convince everyone that 'there is no conspiracy?' That is funny too . . .
> 
> GL in the debate,
> 
> Terral



Hah! what a fucking dumbass you are. You first try to make the claim that the conspiracy zone is only for like minded people to discuss conspiracies, yet you end by saying "GL with the debtate", so even YOU are aware that its a debate forum.

Priceless.


----------



## Godboy (Mar 18, 2009)

> I am obviously not the only guy on this planet knowing for A FACT that WTC-7 was taken down using Controlled Demolition.



No, you arent the only one, there are plenty of other insane people like you who dont understand what a fact is.

Heres is an absolute fact that any sane person could not refute... 

"You do NOT know for a fact that WTC-7 was taken down using controlled demolition."


----------



## Mad Scientist (Mar 18, 2009)

Terral said:


> Greetings to All: Blah blah blah.


I recently switched from regular peanut butter to soy peanut butter. The natural stuff was ok but kind of bland. Soy has a slight sweet taste to it and it's delicious when spread on multigrain bread. 

You guys should give it a try.


----------



## xotoxi (Mar 18, 2009)

Mad Scientist said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > Greetings to All: Blah blah blah.
> ...


 

I agree with you about the multigrain bread...but I'm not sure I'd like the soy based peanut butter because of the anaphylaxis that I would experience.

But when it comes to peanut butter, I like creamy over chunky.

Any thoughts?

(I've been waiting for a good debate about peanut butter...now we have it!)


----------



## Toro (Mar 18, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > Terral said:
> ...



Bah!

Bacon and eggs over easy, with a good helping of fried hashbrowns, downed with a pot of coffee.  That's a Man's breakfast!


----------



## xotoxi (Mar 18, 2009)

Toro said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > Mad Scientist said:
> ...


 
Do you like onions with your hashbrowns?  Or just potato?

And which do you read first: the front page or the sports section?


----------



## Toro (Mar 18, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...



Oh, I really like sprinkling my hash browns with salt, pepper and dry onion flakes.  Mmm-mmm, that's good eating.

I don't read a newspaper anymore since I get all my news online.  I used to read four newspapers a day.  But I figuratively read the front page first.

Yourself?  Do you still read a newspaper or do you go online for news and sports?


----------



## xotoxi (Mar 18, 2009)

Toro said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...


 
I get most of my sports online.  And I usually get my office supplies online too.

Staples.  They seem to have the best deals.  And I have a Staples Reward Card that gets me discount coupons after I reach certain purchase totals.

What is really convenient, is that I can attach my Staples Reward account right onto my Busines Credit Card.  I have CapitalOne.

What's in your wallet?


----------



## Toro (Mar 18, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> I get most of my sports online.  And I usually get my office supplies online too.
> 
> Staples.  They seem to have the best deals.  And I have a Staples Reward Card that gets me discount coupons after I reach certain purchase totals.
> 
> ...



Oh, lots of things, except I use a money clip, which makes me look hip and cool.  But its the usual stuff - drivers license, health card, picture of my son, a calling card, a Costco card.

Do you go to Costco?  They have a pretty good selection of wines.  We often go Saturday's at noon and feast on the "Costco buffet."

Oh, and three credit cards.  But I use one most of the time - Amex.  Credit card companies try to screw you but Amex is pretty good IMHO.  Plus, I rack up a lot of sky miles.

I used sky miles to go to Palm Springs last week.  Have you ever been there?  Its nice.


----------



## xotoxi (Mar 18, 2009)

Toro said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > I get most of my sports online. And I usually get my office supplies online too.
> ...


 
I've never actually been to Palm Springs, but I am excited for the start of Spring on Saturday.  This winter has been long and cold and the skin on my hands get so dry and chapped - particularly on my palms.

I prefer Eucerin hand cream which leaves my skin so soft and smooth.

Speaking of hand cream, do you use a laptop or a desktop?


----------



## Toro (Mar 18, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> I've never actually been to Palm Springs, but I am excited for the start of Spring on Saturday.  This winter has been long and cold and the skin on my hands get so dry and chapped - particularly on my palms.
> 
> I prefer Eucerin hand cream which leaves my skin so soft and smooth.
> 
> Speaking of hand cream, do you use a laptop or a desktop?



Desktop!  So much easier to navigate than a laptop.

You should try Aloe Vera.  Its from the desert, a cactus or something. 

Speak of a cactus, did you see the picture of the cactus on WTC-7?  Tell me this, WHERE are there cacti in New York City?  Huh?  Yet, there it was, a cactus right there, just when Silverstein said "pull!"  It proves that this all really happened in Arizona.

Ever had Arizona Ice Tea?


----------



## xotoxi (Mar 18, 2009)

Toro said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > I've never actually been to Palm Springs, but I am excited for the start of Spring on Saturday. This winter has been long and cold and the skin on my hands get so dry and chapped - particularly on my palms.
> ...


 
Yes.

And I was also rooting for the Cardinals to win. But alas...the Steelers pulled it off.

Where do you think the silent "H" in Pittsburgh comes from?

I'm troubled by silent letters.  They seem so sneaky!


----------



## Terral (Mar 19, 2009)

Hi Godboy, Mad Scientist and Toro and *DUPES TV.COM* viewers:

  Well, well. Our resident chat monkeys are loading down this WTC-7 Topic with nonsense and chat monkey stupidity . . . 



Godboy said:


> All of the evidence does NOT point to an inside job . . .  Its quite apparent that you have no idea what real proof and evidence is.





Mad Scientist said:


> I recently switched from regular peanut butter to soy peanut butter. The natural stuff was ok but kind of bland. Soy has a slight sweet taste to it and it's delicious when spread on multigrain bread.
> 
> You guys should give it a try.





Toro said:


> Bah! Bacon and eggs over easy, with a good helping of fried hashbrowns, downed with a pot of coffee. That's a Man's breakfast!
> 
> The empiricist will change his opinion in light of contrary evidence. The ideologue will retain his opinion despite contrary evidence.


 





  While I cannot offer defending arguments to anything these guys have written against my OP explanation, tune in to *DUPES TV.COM* for the next episode of *Chat Monkeys In Denial Of The 911Truth* . . . 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2THs3oNooM"]YouTube - Laugh Out Loud[/ame]

  GL,

  Terral


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 19, 2009)

Once again WHEN did they have time to plan and plant the explosives? Why did no one, in a working building see the massive construction required on several floors to weaken the supports? Why did no one see the explosives wiring and control boxes needed to bring the building down? How did all the explosives wiring and control boxes survive the fire?

Those are the easy questions. QUE the Twilight Zone music.


----------



## Toro (Mar 19, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> Yes.
> 
> And I was also rooting for the Cardinals to win. But alas...the Steelers pulled it off.
> 
> ...



Yes, I was rooting for the Cardinals too.  I'm not a Steelers fan, but after that drive and catch, how can you be upset?

Did you know that the river once caught fire in Pittsburgh?  That's pretty cool, huh?



RetiredGySgt said:


> Once again WHEN did they have time to plan and plant the explosives? Why did no one, in a working building see the massive construction required on several floors to weaken the supports? Why did no one see the explosives wiring and control boxes needed to bring the building down? How did all the explosives wiring and control boxes survive the fire?
> 
> Those are the easy questions. QUE the Twilight Zone music.



Well, you're just not using logic RGS.  They did it by secret stealth, moving tons of dynamite and miles of wire, placing charges throughout both buildings for weeks on end without a single person ever seeing them, culminating in the final "power down" over one single weekend.  Remember, this is the same crew that murdered over 100 people who were supposed to be on two American Airlines flights that Terral has already "proven" never took off, knowing exactly where every single person was and killing every single one within 24 hours of departure without arousing a shred of suspicion of murder by anyone.

Yes, the government is that competent.


----------



## xotoxi (Mar 19, 2009)

Toro said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > Yes.
> ...


 
Speaking of murder...does anyone else like watching Criminal Minds on CBS?  Its one of my favorite shows, along with The Office.

I find Dwight Schrute hilarious!

What does everyone think of beets?


----------



## Terral (Mar 19, 2009)

Hi Retired:

  Retired has an endless supply of questions, but *no &#8220;WTC-7 Building Fires Did It&#8221; Explanation* and no evidence for anything. This represents a very good time to remind *the 'unbiased' third-party reader* that *ONLY &#8216;two&#8217; explanations* exist on this planet for what really brought WTC-7 down into its own footprint on 9/11 in 6.6 seconds:

  1. *Controlled Demolition*.
  2. *Building Fires/Debris*.

  My Opening Post makes the case that* WTC-7 was brought down using Controlled Demolition*, which is *EXACTLY what the evidence says* from start to finish. Mr. Retired Guy here is *&#8216;opposing&#8217;* my interpretations of the evidence in this debate and sits on *the &#8216;opposite&#8217; side of the table* as *my debating &#8216;adversary;&#8217;* like the many Chat Monkeys (pic and pic and pic) filling this thread with their antics. *My &#8220;Controlled Demolition&#8221; Case* is standing in the *Opening Post* just waiting for any of *these cartoon characters* to offer *their &#8216;opposing views.&#8217;* Their problem is that NOBODY on God&#8217;s Green Earth can prove that *a steel-framed skyscraper &#8216;burned down&#8217; from building fires,* because that is very much *IMPOSSIBLE*. Since Retired Guy has NO CASE FOR ANYTHING, then he is trying to *&#8216;flank&#8217; my position* using questions in order to perhaps lead you astray, as if he is willing to accept anything from &#8216;my&#8217; side of the debate anyway. :0) This is funny. BTW, this Opening Post is very similar to the very first thread started at AE911Truth.org in their WTC-7 Forum when I was a member there some time ago. Obviously the registered architects and engineers on that Website received my work much better than my Chat Monkey adversaries on this Board . . . 



RetiredGySgt said:


> Once again WHEN did they have time to plan and plant the explosives?


 
  The three WTC skyscrapers were wired for demolition in the weeks between Larry Silverstein taking possession from the* NY Port Authority on July 24, 2001 *(story from OP) and the 9/11 attacks. That  gave the *51 members* from the* Israeli demolition crew* (related story = one Demo Supervisor and two crews of 25 men each) the end of July, all of August, and the ten days before 9/11 to wire the WTC skyscrapers for demolition. Larry Silverstein was talking to his *'Demolition Supervisor'* and *NOT* the *'fire department commander'* when making these statements: 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100"]Silverstein Talking About The Demolition Supervisor[/ame]

This marks the same time that *&#8216;Blackstone&#8217;* (link = CEO = Peter Peterson = NYC Federal Reserve) bought *the full WTC-7 mortgage* through in-house contractor *Raytheon/TRW* (story*) . This WTC-7 mortgage buyout deal took place at the same exact time that *Larry Silverstein* took possession of WTC-1 and WTC-2, *&#8220;while other Ratheonites refit Sky Warriors as Global Hawks*.&#8221;* The Raytheon missiles on the retrofitted* A-3 Sky Warrior aircraft *(story) were used in *all three related 9/11 attacks* (see my Pentagon thread). That right! A Raytheon missile was even launched to strike the empty hole in the Shanksville case (story = my Flight 93 thread)! The inside-job bad guys *". . . worked hard"* between *July 24, 2001 and September 11, 2001* like Danny Jowenko (Dutch expert) says during this short video (1:21/2:36):

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc"]YouTube - Danny Jowenko on WTC 7 controlled demolition[/ame]



RetiredGySgt said:


> Why did no one, in a working building see the massive construction required on several floors to weaken the supports?


 
  Larry Silverstein controlled the working environments of WTC-1, WTC-2 and WTC-7 under *&#8220;9/11 Security Courtesy of Marvin Bush&#8221;* (story) who just happens to be Senor Bushie&#8217;s younger brother.  The inside-job demolition crew worked day and night disguised as *WTC security, maintenance and fire insulation crews* (story about fireproofing crews) in *plain sight of everyone* during the day and *under the cover of darkness* at night. The Demo Supervisor and a building-full of* Demo Planners* devised the Plan to take the WTC skyscrapers down LONG before July 24, 2001 and broke the many tasks down into two long lists to be implemented by the *two 25-man demolition crews* working like two herds of goats on a mountaintop. 



RetiredGySgt said:


> Why did no one see the explosives wiring and control boxes needed to bring the building down?


 
  The people inside the WTC skyscrapers did see the explosive components installed by the inside-job bad guys, but the demo modules were manufactured to appear like they were supposed to be there with explosives hiding in plain sight. There were few wires involved, because the demo charges were arranged within *a &#8216;wireless network&#8217;* and detonated in sequence by remote control.  



RetiredGySgt said:


> How did all the explosives wiring and control boxes survive the fire?


 
  What fire? 







  This is a picture of *WTC-7 collapsing at &#8216;freefall speed&#8217;* and you cannot see one fire inside even one of the unbroken windows! Even the initial WTC-1 and WTC-2 blasts shot fire &#8216;outside&#8217; the skyscrapers (pic and pic) . . .  






  . . . and we see the evidence of *&#8216;oxygen-starved&#8217; fires* in the pictures. What fires? :0) 






  Take a good and long hard look inside the little red rectangle and tell us what the Retired Guy sees? That is a woman standing in the very location where* &#8216;you&#8217; want to place *foundry-level temperatures that soften and melt *2800-degree *(read this) *red-iron steel!!!* Let me ask one question of the Retired Guy: 

*How did the woman and her blue jean pants and dark shirt survive the fire? :0) *

That is a very impressive entry hole too. Right? Note how you can even see *the wingtips on both sides* spanning over 125 feet like a real Jetliner came through here and everything. Right? Next 9/11 question: 

*So where is the big hole in the Pentagon wall?*






  See the problem now? :0) The problem is that Senor Bush and Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and Larry Silverstein and Peter Peterson are *all LIARS* and key players in *all of these related 9/11 Inside Jobs* (my blog). Again, WTC-7 was *NOT hit by any Jetliner* and stood* 350 feet away from WTC-1* (pic) and the *other buildings* around WTC-7 remained standing &#8216;as&#8217;* the Silverstein skyscrapers collapsed into their own footprints and WTC-7* (pic again) fell into a neat little pile:






  For those among the readers yet to figure this out: The people running AE911Truth.org took about two months to review my application for membership and called my old employers and other people to verify my worthiness to join their little group, as the only *General Contractor/Demolition Supervisor* (search &#8216;Terral&#8217;) to ever join their ranks. :0) I am currently listed as #3 on the list of *"People with demolition expertise questioning 9/11" *(here) if anybody is interested.



RetiredGySgt said:


> Those are the easy questions. QUE the Twilight Zone music.


 
  Yes. That is the *Retired Guy* sitting between *his partners *(here) using his old *&#8220;Twilight Zone&#8221;* lingo. :0) 

  GL,

  Terral


----------



## elvis (Mar 19, 2009)

The fuel is stored in the wings.  The wings are made of aluminum.  Aluminum burns at a relatively low temperature.  That may be why you don't see the impact from the wings.  WTC 7 was damaged from the falling of one of the towers.


----------



## xotoxi (Mar 19, 2009)

Terral said:


> *So where is the big hole in the Pentagon wall?*


 
Good question, Terral.

There is no big hole in the Pentagon wall.

The wall has been completely repaired because it would be difficult for all of the Pentagon office workers to have been working for the past 8 years with wind and rain blowing into their office.

However, I'm sure when it is a nice day outside, they certainly lament the fact that the hole was repaired!

Speaking of weather, do you think that the average temperature charts on Weather.com are accurate?  I have my doubts.  I was in Florida once and it was significantly colder then the temperature that was advertised by Weather.com.


----------



## Toro (Mar 19, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> Speaking of murder...does anyone else like watching Criminal Minds on CBS?  Its one of my favorite shows, along with The Office.
> 
> I find Dwight Schrute hilarious!
> 
> What does everyone think of beets?



I don't like beets very much, but I do like The Office!

I have seasons 1, 2 and 3, but season 3 has gone missing!  I don't know where it is in my house!    Does anyone know where it is?

I think the show is tailing off, however.  It's not as funny as it once was and it is relying too heavily on the stereotypes of the characters rather than witty writing.  That usually means the show is going downhill.  But I wish they'd write Jan back into the episodes more.  She's hawt!

Has anyone had a bad boss before?  My old boss was an OK guy but was very strange.  He was quiet and kept to himself.  We found out why, recently.  A colleague was walking in a wooded park where gay men cruise one afternoon with her gay friend, and she passed my old boss!  We always sort of suspected, but now we know!  

Anyways, there's enough gay threads on USMB, not to mention silly 9/11 conspiracy threads...


----------



## Terral (Mar 19, 2009)

Hi Elvis:



elvis3577 said:


> The fuel is stored in the wings. The wings are made of aluminum.


 
  No. Stop being silly. Jetliner wings are built very solid to carry *the entire 100-ton Jetliner* and *the thrust* from the *6-ton Rolls-Royce engines *(pic).






  The wing sections are just two components of the *60-ton aluminum/titanium frame* representing the skeleton of the Jetliner like the frame of your car or truck only MUCH larger. You are pretending that a 6-ton engine (like this) can be mounted to your silly aluminum wing, as if nothing is going to carry the engine and the 100-ton Jetliner in flight. :0) This kind of reaction to my information-filled post above is from somebody in *definite DENIAL of the 911Truth* looking you right in the face . . . 






  . . . because I just showed you *the LARGE impact hole* with the wingtips extending *more than 125 feet across* this *steel-framed facade*. What happened to your *wings are made of aluminum claim?* The simple fact is that *we do* have the perfect outline of a real Jetliner in the picture above and *NOTHING* like that at the Pentagon.






  Please elaborate more if you really think that Elvis has one clue about what he is talking about. :0)



elvis3577 said:


> Aluminum burns at a relatively low temperature.


 
  Really? Even if the Jetliner frame was not made from titanium (melts at 3135 degrees F), then what happened to the *two 6-ton engines?* :0) 



elvis3577 said:


> That may be why you don't see the impact from the wings.


 
  Man-o-man. You guys need to GET REAL!! Somebody please *wake Elvis up* and show him *the picture of the BIG HOLE* in the WTC tower (pic) and *the tiny little hole* in the Pentagon wall (pic).  This is silly . . . 



elvis3577 said:


> WTC 7 was damaged from the falling of one of the towers.


 
  Really? That is an interesting hypothesis. In other words, if I want to knock down *a 47-story steel-framed skyscraper* (heh) in just a few hours, then all I have to do is knock down the building 350 feet away and the whole thing will *fall at freefall speed* straight down into its own footprint! 

Methinks a good idea would be to begin making drawings of the Three Stooges rather than Chat Monkeys . . . 

  GL,

  Terral


----------



## xotoxi (Mar 19, 2009)

Toro said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking of murder...does anyone else like watching Criminal Minds on CBS? Its one of my favorite shows, along with The Office.
> ...


 
What was your boss's name?

I like the name "Ted" myself because it rhymes with "Ed", but it starts with the letter "T".

Which do you prefer: "Steven" or "Stephen"?


----------



## elvis (Mar 19, 2009)

during the cleanup, all that was left of the planes were the fusalages.  and I'm not the one that thinks bush brought the buildings down, Rosie.


----------



## Toro (Mar 19, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> What was your boss's name?
> 
> I like the name "Ted" myself because it rhymes with "Ed", but it starts with the letter "T".
> 
> Which do you prefer: "Steven" or "Stephen"?



My boss's name is Scott.

I like "Steven" because I think the letter V is cool.  It is also the first letter in the word "violet" which is kind of like blue, which is my favorite color.

What's your favorite color?


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 19, 2009)

Terral said:


> . . . because I just showed you *the LARGE impact hole* with the wingtips extending *more than 125 feet across* this *&#8216;steel-framed&#8217; facade*. What happened to your *&#8220;wings are made of aluminum&#8221; claim?* The simple fact is that *we &#8216;do&#8217;* have the perfect outline of a real Jetliner in the picture above and *NOTHING* like that at the Pentagon.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


well, one reason why you dont see a hole in that pic is because that isnt of the impact point


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 19, 2009)

Terral said:


> The wing sections are just two components of the *60-ton aluminum/titanium frame* representing the skeleton of the Jetliner like the frame of your car or truck only MUCH larger. You are pretending that a 6-ton engine (like this) can be mounted to your silly aluminum wing, as if nothing is going to carry the engine and the 100-ton Jetliner in flight. :0) This kind of reaction to my information-filled post above is from somebody in *definite DENIAL of the 911Truth* looking you right in the face . . .
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 gee, the shell of WTC was aluminum
not stress hardened concrete like the pentagon
:hmmm: i wonder why the plane wings actually went through aluminum and not concrete


----------



## elvis (Mar 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > The wing sections are just two components of the *60-ton aluminum/titanium frame* representing the skeleton of the Jetliner like the frame of your car or truck only MUCH larger. You are pretending that a 6-ton engine (like this) can be mounted to your silly aluminum wing, as if nothing is going to carry the engine and the 100-ton Jetliner in flight. :0) This kind of reaction to my information-filled post above is from somebody in *definite DENIAL of the 911Truth* looking you right in the face . . .
> ...



I couldn't have said it better.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 19, 2009)

I love how he misleads. The Pentagon wall was REINFORCED CONCRETE. Not a thin Sky scraper wall.

And I love how he pretends that massive construction on pillars and supports can simply be hidden in a working building and be done while the building is occupied and used on a daily basis. Ya no problem there with THOUSANDS of people moving around in the upper floors on weakened supports.

I also love how he just happens to know all about Israeli work crews but has no idea who the "inside guys" were.

Tell me? Was the New York Fire Department and Police Department in on the attack? THEY are the ones that fought the fires in WTC 7 until pulled out? Did they all lie? How many thousands of people were in on this great lie that has never been breathed about in 8 YEARS.

Were the dead fire fighters and police in the two towers part of the great lie and just did not get out in time? Were all the witnesses that survived all in on it, they reported fire and smoke?


----------



## Terral (Mar 20, 2009)

Hi Retired:



RetiredGySgt said:


> I love how he misleads. The Pentagon wall was REINFORCED CONCRETE. Not a thin Sky scraper wall.


 
  LOL! I am willing to bet that the Retired Guy has never built a real commercial building and that he is incapable of reading Architectural, Engineering and Steel-fabricator Steel Drawings and would not even know the difference. Here is little lesson: The architect draws pretty  pictures for the &#8220;A&#8221; section of the blueprints and the engineer makes things work in the &#8220;S&#8221; (structural) drawings that follow. Then both sets of drawings are sent to the Steel Fabricator with a second set of engineers that change things from the A and S drawings again &#8216;before&#8217; the job starts &#8216;and&#8217; throughout the building process using input from the General Contractor actually building the building. My job as a General Contractor is to hold the original architect&#8217;s hand and the original engineer&#8217;s hand while working with the fabricator&#8217;s engineer through RFI requests (request for information) and a constant flow of &#8216;change orders.&#8217; The man with the least amount of real &#8216;knowledge&#8217; about the final product is the pencil-neck architect who started the ball rolling by drawing pretty pictures . . . Now for this WTC case:

WhatReallyHappened.com 


> *[FONT=&quot]WTC Perimeter Wall Construction
> 
> [/FONT]*​ [FONT=&quot]The buildings' signature   architectural design feature was the *vertical   fenestration*, the predominant element of which was *a series of closely spaced built-up box columns*. At typical   floors, a total of *59 of these   perimeter columns* were present along each of the flat faces of the   building. These *columns* were built   up by *welding four plates together*   to form an approximately *14-inch   square section*, spaced at *3 feet 4   inches *on center. *Adjacent   perimeter columns* were interconnected *at each floor level by deep spandrel plates*, typically *52 inches in depth*. In alternate   stories, *an additional column *was   present at the center of each of the *chamfered   building corners*. The resulting configuration of *closely spaced columns* and *deep   spandrels* created *a perforated   steel bearing-wall frame system* that extended continuously around the   building perimeter.
> [/FONT]​



​ 
  Go to the webpage and look at the picture of these massive 14-inch square columns (pic) that the Retired Guy wants to characterize as a &#8220;thin skyscraper wall.&#8221; :0) Open up the (pic) to realize that bar-joists and poured concrete slabs (pic = great article) support these massive columns bolted and welded together into one steel-frame network. 

  The Pentagon walls eight inches deep (pic) and veneered using limestone. The columns are 21-inches square and positioned on 10-feet centers (pic). 






  This picture shows the 18-feet 3-inch entry hole (labeled 20-feet) and a broken-off section of concrete slab with the header course of limestone dangling from the standing E-ring wall. Note that the limestone units are knocked &#8216;off&#8217; the wall back in our direction with a large pile to the right of the large cable spools. This limestone was knocked off from the wall section located inside the black circle and note that the massive 21-inch column has been moved to our right from missile detonation &#8216;inside&#8217; the Pentagon. Note also that the fire is burning &#8216;inside&#8217; the second-story window, but these firemen are spraying the &#8216;walls&#8217; and the ground with foam while making no attempt to put the real fire out at all; and the second-story concrete slab is still standing. 

  The Retired Guy&#8217;s argument is ridiculous, even if he decided to offer up one link to one picture in making his silly case. His argument says that the Pentagon wall was too thick or too dense or simply too strong for the 100-ton Jetliner to penetrate going 530 miles per hour. :0) Think about this very carefully to realize that we see no sign of any 100-ton Jetliner on the pristine Pentagon law. If the Retired Guy&#8217;s Pentagon Wall is so strong, then where is the PLANE that obviously did not bounce back to leave this standing E-ring wall?? The simple answer is that you are looking at the aftermath of a &#8216;missile strike&#8217; that came in at 9:31:39 AM from your right-hand side at a 45-degree angle to strike Column Line (CL) 14 behind those cable spools. BTW, this fire would burn for 60 hours (Carol Valentine&#8217;s story), because these guys are doing everything but putting out the cotton-picking fire (my thread).  



RetiredGySgt said:


> And I love how he pretends that massive construction on pillars and supports can simply be hidden in a working building and be done while the building is occupied and used on a daily basis. Ya no problem there with THOUSANDS of people moving around in the upper floors on weakened supports.


 
  Listen here, Retired Guy, either the WTC skyscrapers were taken down using Controlled Demolition (AE911Truth.org) or you can start making a case for *&#8216;building fires did it,&#8217;* because those are the only two options. Go ahead and try to sell that nonsense. :0) 



RetiredGySgt said:


> I also love how he just happens to know all about Israeli work crews but has no idea who the "inside guys" were.


 
  I know a thousand times more about these related 9/11 cases that you will ever see on this website. You are looking at just one of my many 9/11 thesis papers and I have no reason to explain these things in infinite detail to DUPES chit-chatting on these threads in defense of the Official Cover Story LIE. 



RetiredGySgt said:


> Tell me? Was the New York Fire Department and Police Department in on the attack?


 
  Obviously everybody in the PDNY and NYPD was not in on the 9/11 attacks, or the brave men in uniform would never have perished on 9/11. Mayor Giuliani is an inside-job bad guy with full knowledge of these 9/11 attacks. He sent FEMA to Pier 29 to set up command center operations on 9/10 the day &#8216;before&#8217; 9/11, even though they were supposed to set up Tripod2 operations on the 23rd floor of WTC-7 (story). Michael Ruppert gives a great view of the real story (here). I know exactly 51 *Israeli &#8216;spy ring&#8217;* (story) demo ops were used to wire the WTC skyscrapers, because that is the number of illegal exit visas that John Ashcroft coughed up to help them get out of the country. You might want to think about how ALL of the massive steel columns and beams (pic and pic) in the WTC skyscrapers were *&#8216;severed&#8217;* (these things are massive) into such small pieces along with all of the concrete slabs that vaporized into nothing from &#8216;building fires.&#8217; :0)  



RetiredGySgt said:


> THEY are the ones that fought the fires in WTC 7 until pulled out? Did they all lie? How many thousands of people were in on this great lie that has never been breathed about in 8 YEARS.


 
  Including you? :0) The firefighters have known something is WRONG from the beginning.

  [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXD3bAbZCow"]These Guys "Know" CD Is Involved [/ame]

  Now &#8216;you&#8217; can show us a video of firefighters thinking these WTC skyscrapers collapsed from building fires. :0) 



RetiredGySgt said:


> Were the dead fire fighters and police in the two towers part of the great lie and just did not get out in time? Were all the witnesses that survived all in on it, they reported fire and smoke?


 
  Questions, questions and more questions. :0) 

  GL,

  Terral


----------



## xotoxi (Mar 20, 2009)

Toro said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > What was your boss's name?
> ...


 
My favorite color is salmon.

I like to eat trout.

Do you think that Charlie Bass is gay?


----------



## Toro (Mar 20, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> My favorite color is salmon.
> 
> I like to eat trout.
> 
> Do you think that Charlie Bass is gay?



Yes, yes I do.  The most homophobic people usually are.  Maybe he's my ex-boss!

When do you think Terral will trot out the theory that a hologram of a plane, not an actual plane, hit the WTC?  Pretty soon, I'd imagine.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 20, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Retired:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Excellent info, but he and the other apologists will always come back with the same old "but no one saw the demolition crews, and where are all the spools of wires and boxes.. and how could it all be sooo secret blah blah.." 
I think the first hurdle to clear on this topic, is convincing folks that these buildings were brought down by CD, and I beleive it is clear that they were, then we can deal with the rest of the cover up, and the money trail, and all the other dealings and peculiarities. But alas some folks don't want to face the fact that it really happened despite so much evidence staring them in the face that fire did not bring the WTC buildings down.


----------



## Toro (Mar 20, 2009)

Mr. Jones said:


> Excellent info, but he and the other apologists will always come back with the same old "but no one saw the demolition crews, and where are all the spools of wires and boxes.. and how could it all be sooo secret blah blah.."
> I think the first hurdle to clear on this topic, is convincing folks that these buildings were brought down by CD, and I beleive it is clear that they were, then we can deal with the rest of the cover up, and the money trail, and all the other dealings and peculiarities. But alas some folks don't want to face the fact that it really happened despite so much evidence staring them in the face that fire did not bring the WTC buildings down.



Oh, as opposed to _denying what we actually saw!_

Ole Terral here is also making the argument that a plane never actually hit the WTC, even though everyone saw it!  

So before we start trotting out "evidence," perhaps we should first acknowledge what the world witnessed first hand.


----------



## xotoxi (Mar 20, 2009)

Mr. Jones said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > Rogue element, rogue element, rogue element...
> ...


 
I agree that WTC-7 was brought down by controlled explosives and a missile hit WTC-1 & 2 and the Pentagon, and Flight 93 did not crash in Pennsylvania, and all the passengers from the flights were excuted by a Rogue Element.

I believe all that.

But my stance on this is: *WHO CARES?*

It's in the past, it hasn't happened again since, and it is unlikely to happen again.

I think we should just cut our losses and move on.


----------



## eots (Mar 20, 2009)

those in denial of the facts of 911 and wtc..will rarely discuss the facts...they will say secrets cant be kept..or if it was true we would all realise it...or deflect off topic completely.. ..the deniers position can not be argued with facts or logic ..


----------



## Terral (Mar 20, 2009)

Hi Mr. Jones:

  There are far too few voices of reason around here Mr. Jones. :0) 



Mr. Jones said:


> Excellent info, but he and the other apologists will always come back with the same old "but no one saw the demolition crews, and where are all the spools of wires and boxes.. and how could it all be sooo secret blah blah.."


 
  I saw where 9/11 Inside Job mentioned some *&#8216;9/11 apologists&#8217;* in his posts, but no such thing exists in my mind at all. People walking around saying that *Flight 93 *crashed into *this empty hole* (here = my thread) and AA77 crashed into *this standing E-ring wall* (here = my thread) are *DUPES* in my book and nothing more. Can anyone here find us just *one picture* of *a crashed 100-ton Jetliner* at either location (Flight 93, AA77)? No. I have seen practically every picture taken at these two locations on 9/11 and *no such thing exists!* Period. However, to even suggest that *a 47-story modern-day skyscraper can burn down* from a *building fire* or *debris!* Well, that simply takes the DUPE cake . . . 



Mr. Jones said:


> I think the first hurdle to clear on this topic, is convincing folks that these buildings were brought down by CD, and I believe it is clear that they were, then we can deal with the rest of the cover up, and the money trail, and all the other dealings and peculiarities.


 
  We agree. However, I am *not here* to convince Loyal Bushie DUPES of anything. I am happy to put up with their nonsense, and answer questions, for the benefit of *the unbiased third-party reader* searching this topic somewhere down the road. 



Mr. Jones said:


> But alas some folks don't want to face the fact that it really happened despite so much evidence staring them in the face that fire did not bring the WTC buildings down.


 
  We agree again, but with a twist: These 9/11 cases have another dimension common to religious topics where *the &#8216;deluding influence&#8217;* actually forces people to *&#8216;believe what is false&#8217; *(2Thes. 2:11) all of their days on this earth. Therefore, it is not that these people want, or do not want, to face any truth, but they simply *do not have the ability* to overcome *the power* of the *deluding influence *perpetuating *the delusions themselves*. Here is a good picture of the Pentagon wall to make this point:






  Let&#8217;s look at the picture and describe *the things that we &#8216;do&#8217; see* from the left:

  That is *Fort Meyer Foam Unit 331* (from this pic in yellow) facing the impact hole with a handful of firemen facing our direction standing directly in front of the *Column Line* (CL) 14 *location*. Note the tall cable spools blocking the way for anything to crash though here that is almost 50 feet tall. We can see the two windows to the left of the *18-feet 3-inch second-story impact hole* are not even broken, and the distance from the tops of those cable spools to the standing second-story concrete slab is about *seven feet*. Supposedly the 100-ton Jetliner crashed into this little hole very low to the ground going* a whopping 530 miles per hour*, but the pristine Pentagon lawn shows *no signs of damage* from a Jetliner flying so fast and so close to the ground. The firefighters are actually standing on the temporary construction fence (pic) that was blown back in our direction, when you would expect that fence to be dragged into the Pentagon. Note the fence posts and dangling fence section still attacked in front of the two guys carrying the stretcher, which is the corner of *the generator fence* (close-up shot) that was destroyed in the *9:31:39 AM missile strike*. Remember that the missile came in on *a 45-degree angle* to this E-Ring wall from our right (pic), which means the missile passed right through this generator fence at more than the speed of sound. You can see the dangling limestone facade piece near the upper left-side of that generator fence and the fire inside the second-story window telling you that the second-story concrete slab remains intact; like the third-floor fire above the unbroken windows just left of the impact hole. 

  The problem for *the bogus Official Cover Story* is *&#8220;Where Is The Cotton-picking 100-ton Jetliner?&#8221;* :0)   How did the thing fly over that massive generator and leave the second-story still intact? Remember again that *the attack came at the 45-degree angle* from our right and there is simply too much generator, standing fence, and cable spools for this to be the picture *of a real 100-ton Jetliner crash site*. The Bush Administration faked this attack to look like a Jetliner crash in order to give jurisdiction to *the Bushie-controlled FBI* that helped plan and carry out the attacks in the first place (my letter to FBI Internal Affairs). That is the reason that none of the inside-job bad guys have been brought to justice and the reason that *our 911Truth Investigation must treat this crime scene as an inside-job attack*. No sir. Anyone looking at this picture (like this one) and concludes that *a real 100-ton Jetliner *crashed there is a DUPE and the WTC-7 case is more *&#8216;cut and dry&#8217; *and* easy-to-see* from the OP evidence than the 911Truth for this Pentagon Case. That *&#8216;deluding influence&#8217;* is obviously very powerful indeed . . . 

  GL, 

Terral


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 20, 2009)

Godboy said:


> > All of the evidence points directly to inside-job terrorists taking down WTC-7 by Controlled Demolition on 9/11.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



wrong.all the evidence points to an inside job its just your all in denial and dont want to see the evidence.you all have proven that in spades by running off with your tails between your legs NEVER taking me up my challenge to watch those 47 canada wants the truth videos i have asked you all to debunk countless number of times.you NEVER  address what they say,further proof you never take the time to watch them,further proof you  only see what you all want to see.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 20, 2009)

eots said:


> those in denial of the facts of 911 and wtc..will rarely discuss the facts...they will say secrets cant be kept..or if it was true we would all realise it...or deflect off topic completely.. ..the deniers position can not be argued with facts or logic ..



Boy you can say that again.Like I said,everytime I ask them to address what those 47 videos from that canada wants the truth site that I have posted the link to countless numbers of times before in the past,I have never had ONE person comment on what they talked about in the videos.Thats overwhelming proof that they dont want to see the evidence or hear the facts cause they never watch those videos.anytime I ask people like mr jones or terral to watch them,THEY do and THEY comment about them.You could show these Bush dupes videos of Bush and Cheney confessing to it all saying-heh heh,we sure got we wanted didnt we dick? we got our CIA operatives to plant those explosives in the towers and bring them down and we got everybody to believe it was muslins and Bin Laden behind it just like we wanted them to believe.we sure fooled them.Yeah we sure did George.Lets go out and celebrate.you could show them a video like that and they would come up with some kind of an excuse to still defend the official version.They would say something like-Those are imposters,thats not really Bush or Cheney.I guarantee they would have some kind of ready made excuse like that ready to go.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 20, 2009)

terral likes to throw a ton of shit against the wall in every post
but totally ignores any debate about individual points made against them


----------



## Godboy (Mar 20, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> > > All of the evidence points directly to inside-job terrorists taking down WTC-7 by Controlled Demolition on 9/11.
> ...




HAHA!!!! How many times are you bozos going to start your posts out with this line about..."all of the evidence points to an inside job"? If there was any truth to that statement, the rest of the world wouldnt think you guys are batshit crazy. The fact is, all the evidence points to it being a terrorist attack. 

You can cut and paste those neat little pictures from your conspiracy sites all you want, but it wont change the fact that you are wrong, stupid, and insane.


----------



## xotoxi (Mar 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> terral likes to throw a ton of shit against the wall in every post
> but totally ignores any debate about individual points made against them


 
A queefbag says what a queefbag thinks.

But a queefbag doesn't think.

Therefore, a queefbag doesn't say anything.


----------



## elvis (Mar 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> terral likes to throw a ton of shit against the wall in every post
> but totally ignores any debate about individual points made against them



He thinks spending an hour on the internet qualifies him as an expert on why the towers collapsed.  Even though structural engineer after structural engineer and physicist after physicist has claimed there is NO way it could have been a controlled demolition because it didn't fall in the right manner to be one.  He ignores the fact that in a controlled demolition, the debris would not have travelled several blocks down the street.


----------



## manu1959 (Mar 20, 2009)

Terral said:


> LOL! I am willing to bet that the Retired Guy has never built a real commercial building and that he is incapable of reading Architectural, Engineering and Steel-fabricator Steel Drawings and would not even know the difference. Here is little lesson: The architect draws pretty  pictures for the A section of the blueprints and the engineer makes things work in the S (structural) drawings that follow. Then both sets of drawings are sent to the Steel Fabricator with a second set of engineers that change things from the A and S drawings again before the job starts and throughout the building process using input from the General Contractor actually building the building. My job as a General Contractor is to hold the original architects hand and the original engineers hand while working with the fabricators engineer through RFI requests (request for information) and a constant flow of change orders. The man with the least amount of real knowledge about the final product is the pencil-neck architect who started the ball rolling by drawing pretty pictures . . . Now for this WTC case:



yea contractors are brilliant....describe the structrual system of the WTC towers....and tell me who conceptualized it wand why it was conceptualized that way....

then tell me why you can see an outline of a plane in that wall and what outline you would see on a concrete wall if a plane hit it....


----------



## xotoxi (Mar 20, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > terral likes to throw a ton of shit against the wall in every post
> ...


 
That is just ridiculous!  

Can you imagine the amazing coincidence that the airplane hijackers happened to fly their planes into two buildings wired for controlled demolition?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 20, 2009)

Godboy said:


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



AGAIN you just put your tail between your legs and run off when i ask you to debunk those 47 videos from the canda wants the truth site.,how pathetic.AGAIN many people around the world like you,automatically accept what the government and the media tells tham as the gospel truth and only see what they want to see.yeah their like you,stupid,wrong and insane and brainwashed as well.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 20, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


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


who the fuck is gonna waste HOURS of their time watching bullshit videos that YOU support when it has been demonstrated that you have no fucking sense at all


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 20, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > terral likes to throw a ton of shit against the wall in every post
> ...



Its funny how you 9/11 apologists think you know everything about Terrel.First you guys go and make the claim that he thinks just because HE said it happened,that its automatically true,when he never made a statement like that,NOW your claiming that if he spends an hour on the internet,he thinks that qualifys him as an expert on why the towers  collapsed when he never said anything like that.great job showing you have no crediblity as always. There you go again ignoring the fact that that there are over 500 structural engineers and physicists that many people here like Eots has posted the link to countless numbers of times with names of structural engineers and physicists who dont accept the official version of the collapse.you do that everytime cause you only see what you want to see.

oh and when in the hell has body parts been found several blocks away and on rooftops due to a mere collpase of a tower? you also conviently ignore the fact that some witnesses were seen coming out of the towers on fire before the plane struck,saying there were explosions going off from below cause it doesnt suit your version of events.Not to mention its impossible for steel girders weighing several tons to be throw several blocks away from just a mere collapse of a tower.give it up.


----------



## xotoxi (Mar 20, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> Its funny how you 9/11 apologists think you know everything about Terrel.First you guys go and make the claim that he thinks just because *HE* said it happened...


 
Did you capitalize "HE" because you consider Terral your god?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 20, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



accept they werent highjackers,they were remote controlled plane drones.All you got to do to see that is look at the photos of the one that hit the second tower and the underbelly of it,and you can see something attached to it.Besides witnesses,many pilots have said that it wasnt a commerical airliner,that no commerical airliner would have anything like that on its underbelly.They used the remote controlled drones-Believe it or not,they have that technology now.

Of course they were not going to admit explosives went off in the towers,they couldnt,that would reveal that it was an inside job,so they crashed the drone planes into the towers and set off the explosions at the same time.Only like i said,they screwed up,and set them off BEFORE the planes even struck the towers.we know that from witness testimony and video footage which shows smoke coming from the ground and sounds of explosions going off BEFORE the towers have collapsed.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 20, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Terral said:
> ...



thats real logical.just let the real terrorists such as Bush,Cheney,Rice,Rumsfield,Clinton,Silverstein,ect ect, go scott free and not be held accountable for their actions?  besides from reading your previous posts its obvious that your being sarcastic here.


----------



## xotoxi (Mar 20, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > That is just ridiculous!
> ...


 
And are you saying that terrorists posed as cab drivers and just controlled the drones from inside the cabs?

DIABOLICAL!!!


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 20, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Its funny how you 9/11 apologists think you know everything about Terrel.First you guys go and make the claim that he thinks just because *HE* said it happened...
> ...



See its because of posts like this I know your not serious on what you said in that last post of mine I just quoted you on.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 20, 2009)

xotoxi said:


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



There you 9/11 apologists go again putting words in our mouths of something we never said.I would say that the evidence points to it that they used bld 7 to remote control the drones to bring down the twin towers.as far as bringing building 7 down,that we can only guess at,who knows? thats not really important where they were when they did that,what is is putting Bush,cheney and the others behind all of this in prison where they belong.


----------



## xotoxi (Mar 20, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> thats real logical.just let the real terrorists such as Bush,Cheney,Rice,Rumsfield,Clinton,Silverstein,ect ect, go scott free and not be held accountable for their actions? besides from reading your previous posts its obvious that your being sarcastic here.


 
You win some, you lose some.

Sometimes people get away with crimes...you can't do anything about it.

As long as I sit and shit in piece, I'll be happy.


----------



## xotoxi (Mar 20, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


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


 
You said that the drones were controlled remotely.  

What better place for Arab men to not be noticed in Manhattan disguised as a taxidriver?

I suppose a sidewalk kebab dealer would work as well.


----------



## xotoxi (Mar 20, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


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


 
Are you saying that you are a non-believer?


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 20, 2009)

xotoxi said:


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


no no no

Dick Cheney did it all from the whitehouse

:shhhh:


----------



## xotoxi (Mar 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


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


 
REALLY!!!

So the old lady at the McCain rally who was afraid of Obama because "he's an Arab"...she actually should have been afraid of Cheney?

How ironical!


----------



## Toro (Mar 20, 2009)

"My Pet Goat" was actually the operations manual for 9/11.  

Bush was going over it to make sure he had all the bases covered.


----------



## xotoxi (Mar 20, 2009)

Toro said:


> "My Pet Goat" was actually the operations manual for 9/11.
> 
> Bush was going over it to make sure he had all the bases covered.


 
That makes sense...

And we all know why he was holding the American History book upside down...he was signalling ANARCHY!!!


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 20, 2009)

snopes.com: Bush's Upside-Down Book


----------



## eots (Mar 21, 2009)

Toro said:


> "My Pet Goat" was actually the operations manual for 9/11.
> 
> Bush was going over it to make sure he had all the bases covered.



it was clearly a staged event..with prior knowledge of the impending attacks...it was a photo op to create the image our great leader was so kind and good and all-American he was readin a book ..._to the lil colored school children _...while _evil doers _wanted only to kill and hate our goodness ...and you fell for it...suckers


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 21, 2009)

eots said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > "My Pet Goat" was actually the operations manual for 9/11.
> ...





seriously, seek out professional help


----------



## eots (Mar 21, 2009)

seriously go fuck yourself you mind controlled sheep

century of self part 1 - Google Video


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 21, 2009)

eots said:


> seriously go fuck yourself you mind controlled sheep
> 
> century of self part 1 - Google Video


no, thats what you do

asshole


you need serious professional help
you and the rest of your troofer buddies
you have to be lacking something, i dont know if its hormonal or something lacking in your diet, but you are clearly lacking something that allows morons like Alex Jones to control you like he does


----------



## eots (Mar 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > seriously go fuck yourself you mind controlled sheep
> ...







*William Christison &#8211; Former National Intelligence Officer. Former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, a 250-person unit responsible for political analysis of every country and region in the world.  29-year CIA veteran.*

Endorsement of Debunking 9/11 Debunking 3/30/07:  "David Ray Griffin&#8217;s Debunking 9/11 Debunking is a superb compendium of the strong body of evidence showing the official U.S. Government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies.  Tragically, the entire course of U.S. foreign and domestic policies since that date has grown out of these almost certain falsehoods.  This single book could (and should) provide the basis for the United Nations&#8218; International Court of Justice, or some specially constituted global body (independent of the U.S.) to investigate with highest priority, and publicly report its findings about, *the charge that unknown elements within the U.S. Government, and possibly some individuals elsewhere closely allied to the U.S., caused or contributed to causing the events of September 11 to happen."* 
*Essay Stop Belittling the Theories About September 11  8/14/06: "I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. &#8230; An airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon. &#8230; The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them." *Dissident Voice 


Article 9/7/06: "David Griffin believes this all was totally an inside job - I've got to say I think that it was too. &#8230; I have since decided that....at least some elements in this US government had contributed in some way or other to causing 9/11 to happen or at least allowing it to happen. &#8230; The reason that the two towers in New York actually collapsed and fell all the way to the ground was controlled explosions rather than just being hit by two airplanes. &#8230; All of the characteristics of these demolitions show that they almost had to have been controlled explosions." Alex Jones' Prison Planet.com 


Member: Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven  Association Statement: "We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations." 


*Audio interview 9/29/06: "We very seriously need an entirely new very high level and truly independent investigation of the events of 9/11.  I think you almost have to look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a joke and not a serious piece of analysis at all.  It gave the administration what it wanted to support their official story on what happened on the date of September 11 and that's all they cared about. ... It's a monstrous crime. Absolutely a monstrous crime."* Electric Politics 


Bio: Amal Press


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 21, 2009)

eots is just spamming now


----------



## eots (Mar 21, 2009)

spam is that shit between your ears ..you call a brain

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


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


Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11, signed by more than 600 Architects and Engineers: 

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


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


Bio: NASA - Dryden Flight Research Center


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 21, 2009)

no, spam is what you are doing


----------



## eots (Mar 21, 2009)

no spam is definitely more similar to that jellied meat in your head


*Capt. Eric H. May, U.S. Army (ret) &#8211; Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer. Former inspector and interpreter for the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty team.* 

Essay 9/11 and Non-investigation: "As a former Army officer, my tendency immediately after 911 was to rally 'round the colors and defend the country against what I then thought was an insidious, malicious all-Arab entity called Al-Qaida.  In fact, in April of 2002, I attempted to reactivate my then-retired commission to return to serve my country in its time of peril. ... 

Now I view the 911 event as Professor David Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor, views it: as a matter that implies either 

A)  passive participation by the Bush White House through a deliberate stand-down of proper defense procedures that (if followed) would have led US air assets to a quick identification and confrontation of the passenger aircraft that impacted WTC 1 and WTC 2, or worse ... 

B) active execution of a plot by rogue elements of government, starting with the White House itself, in creating a spectacle of destruction that would lead the United States into an invasion of the Middle East ..."  Captain Eric May 


Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11:     
"We want truthful answers to question. &#8230;  As Americans of conscience, we ask for four things: 
An immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer 
Immediate investigation in Congressional Hearings. 
Media attention to scrutinize and investigate the evidence. 
The formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry." http://www.911truth.org/article 


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


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 21, 2009)

your just posting the same crap you have already posted at least a hundred times before
thats spamming


----------



## eots (Mar 21, 2009)

The Definition of Spam 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 The word "Spam" as applied to Email means Unsolicited Bulk Email ("UBE").

Unsolicited means that the Recipient has not granted verifiable permission for the message to be sent. Bulk means that the message is sent as part of a larger collection of messages, all having substantively identical content.

 A message is Spam only if it is both Unsolicited and Bulk.


*sorry your wrong again  my little retarded friend.....*


----------



## xotoxi (Mar 21, 2009)

eots said:


> The Definition of Spam
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The word "Spam" as applied to Email means Unsolicited Bulk Email ("UBE").


 
The Definition of Cowbell 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Something of which you need more.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 21, 2009)

eots said:


> The Definition of Spam
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The word "Spam" as applied to Email means Unsolicited Bulk Email ("UBE").
> ...


no, moron
to spam a message board is also to repeatedly post the same crap over and over and over
especially when its not even your original work, its just comething you copy & paste from another site


THAT is SPAM


----------



## Terral (Jun 14, 2009)

Greetings to All:

This is a very good video with evidence that bombs were used in the WTC Controlled Demolition Implosions.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvyBY8d554I]Decide For Yourself[/ame]

GL,

Terral


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 14, 2009)

Terral said:


> Greetings to All:
> 
> This is a very good video with evidence that bombs were used in the WTC Controlled Demolition Implosions.
> 
> ...


no, that video is a piece of crap
more lies from the troofer morons


----------



## Terral (Sep 12, 2009)

Greetings to All:

Dr. Bill Deagle and his guests provide explanations on how the WTC skyscrapers were taken down using 21st Century Technology on the GCN Radio Network.

Nutrimedical Report: 9/11 Special Presentation Hour 1

Nutrimedical Report: 9/11 Special Presentation Hour 2

Nutrimedical Report: 9/11 Special Presentation Hour 3

GL,

Terral


----------



## Liability (Sep 12, 2009)

Oh.  Good.  Another troofer.

If there is one thing an internet political message board, like USMB, needs it is another troofer and another troofer thread.


----------



## Zona (Sep 12, 2009)

I understand Jet fuel and how hot it got to down the twin towers but (and excuse my ignorance) how far away was this tower from the twin towers? 

From what I understand it simply caught fire right?  Why this building?  Was it that close to the twin towers?


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 12, 2009)

Zona said:


> I understand Jet fuel and how hot it got to down the twin towers but (and excuse my ignorance) how far away was this tower from the twin towers?
> 
> From what I understand it simply caught fire right?  Why this building?  Was it that close to the twin towers?


one of the towers fell on top of WTC7
there was massive damage caused by that as well as fires


----------



## Toro (Sep 12, 2009)

Liability said:


> Oh.  Good.  Another troofer.
> 
> If there is one thing an internet political message board, like USMB, needs it is another troofer and another troofer thread.



Terral is the pre-eminent conspiracy theorists on USMB.  No one comes close.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...iracies-compilation-thread-5.html#post1337511


----------



## Terral (Sep 12, 2009)

Hi Princess Lia:



Liability said:


> Oh.  Good.  Another troofer.



Wake the hell up already. This topic was started before you joined the US Message Board. Perhaps Lia wants to explain how WTC-7 collapsed Demo-style in 6.6 seconds, after being hit by nothing at all. :0) 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A]Watch The Clip Again[/ame]



Liability said:


> If there is one thing an internet political message board, like USMB, needs it is another troofer and another troofer thread.



No. We need more idiots that cannot even spell 911Truther.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2THs3oNooM"]Lia Is Whining About Troofers . . . :0)[/ame]

GL,

Terral


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 12, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Princess Lia:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you idiots are called troofers because you dont want the truth


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 12, 2009)

Toro said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Oh.  Good.  Another troofer.
> ...


he's being given a run for his money by christophera


----------



## Terral (Sep 12, 2009)

Hi Zona:



Zona said:


> I understand Jet fuel and how hot it got to down the twin towers but (and excuse my ignorance) how far away was this tower from the twin towers?



The jet fuel is 'kerosene' and has *nothing* to do with any WTC skyscraper collapsing Demo-style into its own footprint. WTC-7 is across the street and 350 feet away from the north tower (pic). 



Zona said:


> From what I understand it simply caught fire right?  Why this building?  Was it that close to the twin towers?



WTC7 was taken down using Controlled Demolition (AE911Truth.org), just like WTC-1 and WTC-2. If you really want to know what happened to WTC-7, then start at the Opening Post and ask your questions.

GL,

Terral


----------



## Terral (Sep 12, 2009)

Hi DiveBomb:



DiveCon said:


> he's being given a run for his money by christophera



Bullony. Chris is spreading disinformation about 911 to beat the band and We The Sheeple eat that crap up. The guy does not know enough about 911 to carry on a good conversation . . . :0)

GL,

Terral


----------



## Liability (Sep 12, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Princess Lia:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hi Princess Turd:

Ok.  Let's pretend that you have even one scintilla of expertise in physics.  Nah.  That's dumber than even you are.

I don't know the mechanics and physics involved for why a large building adjacent to two massive towers that had been attacked and which had collapsed -- and which was itself also partly on fire -- shortly thereafter itself collapsed.  But I do know that you don't know the mechanics or physics involved either.

You look at the 9/11 Troofer video images and say to yourself "musta been an inside job."  That alone is proof that you are an imbecile.

And the Troofers are known as Troofers and not as "truthers" because that would indelibly stain the meaning of the very word "truth."   Truth is something to which you Troofer morons are immune. 

Imbeciles such as you are incapable of addressing (coherently) any of the necessary implications of the libelous garbage you forever spew.  But, that's ok.  Since you have no regard for truth, nobody expects you to have any ability to employ logic.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 12, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi DiveBomb:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


of course he is spreading disinfo, just like you do
only you have a slightly different take on the disinfo
you are BOTH wrong


----------



## eots (Sep 12, 2009)

the one thing that is no theory is that the Bush/Cheney version of the events of 9/11 and the NIST explanations for the collapse are not true...and are an intentional attempt to obscure the truth


----------



## Terral (Sep 12, 2009)

Hi Lia:



Liability said:


> Ok.  Let's pretend that you have even one scintilla of expertise in physics.  Nah.  That's dumber than even you are.



Let's stop pretending and simply examine the evidence. A short list of my demo experience is provided *here* (#3).



Liability said:


> I don't know the mechanics and physics involved for why a large building adjacent to two massive towers that had been attacked and which had collapsed -- and which was itself also partly on fire -- shortly thereafter itself collapsed.  But I do know that you don't know the mechanics or physics involved either.



Please forgive, but I understand the physics and mechanics FAR better than anyone here. Simply go to the *Opening Post* (click here) and *'quote >>' from 'my work'* and try to write a serious rebuttal using whatever Lia considers credible evidence. This Opening Post was the very first paper posted in the AE911Truth.org WTC-7 Forum 'and' has withstood the test of debate on 911Truth Boards like LooseChange, PilotsForTruth, Let's Roll and other pretender 911Truth Boards. Good luck in the debate . . . 



Liability said:


> You look at the 9/11 Troofer video images and say to yourself "musta been an inside job."  That alone is proof that you are an imbecile.



No. I have been running my own 911Truth Investigation for years 'and' know for a FACT that *9/11 Was DEFINITELY An Inside Job* (my blog). Lia has a case for NOTHING and would rather embarrass himself by calling me names. :0)



Liability said:


> And the Troofers are known as Troofers and not as "truthers" because that would indelibly stain the meaning of the very word "truth."   Truth is something to which you Troofer morons are immune.



Let's get the story straight right now: Lia stands with George Bush in pretending that a band of Bearded Jihadist Radicals . . . 







. . . planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks 'and' have been running the Cover-up Operation for eight long years. Go right ahead and make your case for a 100-Ton Jetliner crashing into this empty hole:

My Flight 93 Topic:






I say 'imbeciles' believe a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed into this empty hole. What say you? :0)



Liability said:


> Imbeciles such as you are incapable of addressing (coherently) any of the necessary implications of the libelous garbage you forever spew.  But, that's ok.  Since you have no regard for truth, nobody expects you to have any ability to employ logic.



So, Lia really thinks that calling me names is going to make 'his' case for 19 Bearded Jihadist Radicals planning and carrying out the 9/11 attacks. This is funny. Here is my challenge to Liability: Click on any of my 911Truth Topics and write your rebuttal/counterproposal using 'your' version of credible evidence:

Flight 93/Shanksville
Flight 77/Pentagon
WTC-7 Controlled Demolition
9:31
Pentagon Timeline
DoD Manipulated Fire And Firemen
Flight 77 Never Crashed Near The Pentagon
April Gallop Was Injured During 9:31:39 AM Missile Strike
9:31 AM Missile Strike: Answers To Bill Veale's Questions
"9/11 Press For Truth" Continues: The Video 
Secret Bush-Clinton-FED Pakistani Accounts Linked To 9/11 Attacks
Dick Cheney, Karl Rove And Donald Rumsfeld Have Been Murdering Americans
Rebuttal To CIT Claims About What "Did Not" Hit The Pentagon
Poll: Who Supports The Official 9/11 Cover Stories

Princess Lia will remain silent, or, will prepare himself to eat a ton of crow. :0)

GL in the 911Truth debates,

Terral


----------



## Liability (Sep 12, 2009)

Terral said:


> * * * *




Experience in blasting is not knowledge of physics.


----------



## Terral (Sep 12, 2009)

Hi Lia:



Liability said:


> Experience in blasting is not knowledge of physics.



Just go ahead and admit to everyone here that Lia confused is NOT qualified to debate me on these 911Truth Topics. Simply "quote >>" from my work and do your very best to write something that sounds intelligent . . . if you cuckoo can.

GL,

Terral


----------



## eots (Sep 12, 2009)

Liability said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > * * * *
> ...



what a meaningless,,pointless statement


----------



## Liability (Sep 12, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Lia:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You have yet to back up any of the crap you have vomited over the internet on the 9/11 Troofer "topic."  Thus, there is nothing really to respond to.

WTC7 collapsed.  You can offer not one bit of evidence that it was due to any insidious traitorous conspiracy to cause a collapse.  And you haven't.

And you cannot even BEGIN to explain HOW that could have been accomplished.


----------



## Liability (Sep 12, 2009)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Terral said:
> ...



No, id-eot.  It is neither.  But you are too simplisitic to grasp why.


----------



## Terral (Sep 12, 2009)

Hi Lia:



Liability said:


> You have yet to back up any of the crap you have vomited over the internet on the 9/11 Troofer "topic."  Thus, there is nothing really to respond to . . .














Just as I thought: Lia can whine, cry and call people names cuckoo, but has a case for NOTHING. :0) 

GL,

Terral


----------



## Liability (Sep 12, 2009)

Terral said:


> * * * *



Princess Turd:

It would be easier to just admit that you've got nothing.

But since truth is a matter of zero concern to you, you resort to the tripe you post, instead.  

When  did the conspirators who had to have wired the trade towers (or maybe just WTC7) do that, exactly?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 12, 2009)

How can termites bring down a building?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 12, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Lia:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah you should look at the JFK thread.He does the same exact same thing there.Posts a bunch of B.S to try and save face,whines and calls people names cause he knows he cant refute the facts and has NOTHING to back up his crap he posts.


----------



## Liability (Sep 12, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Lia:
> ...



No no, you sub-imbecile.  Nobody wired JFK's head with thermite.

Man are you goofy or what?


----------



## Liability (Sep 12, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> How can termites bring down a building?




Termites use thermite.

Well, it may have just been a speech impediment.

Difficult to pin that one down.


----------



## eots (Sep 12, 2009)

posting the same five word denials  again and again thats spam


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 12, 2009)

eots said:


> posting the same five word denials  again and again thats spam


why should we continue to waste time giving you well thought out replies when you continue to deny the truth over and over again??


----------



## eots (Sep 12, 2009)

don't pretend you have ever given a  well thought out reply...spammer


----------



## publicprotector (Sep 12, 2009)

Look I will say this one last time, everyone on the planet know's 9/11 was an inside job, even the south American indians who live in the rain forests and don't have TV know that. Thats not the problem, the problem is , is who did it, and what are you going to do about it?


----------



## Liability (Sep 12, 2009)

publicprotector said:


> Look I will say this one last time, everyone on the planet know's 9/11 was an inside job, even the south American indians who live in the rain forests and don't have TV know that. Thats not the problem, the problem is , is who did it, and what are you going to do about it?




Look, I will say this again.  NOBODY on Earth "knows" any such thing.

Only mutants with no functioning brains or vestige of common sense can even begin to "think" such stupid crap.

The problem is: troofers are beyond stupid.


----------



## eots (Sep 12, 2009)

keep pushing for an investigation..with subpoena power


----------



## Liability (Sep 12, 2009)

eots said:


> don't pretend you have ever given a  well thought out reply...spammer



Don't pretend you ever bother with truth, moron.


----------



## eots (Sep 12, 2009)

Liability said:


> publicprotector said:
> 
> 
> > Look I will say this one last time, everyone on the planet know's 9/11 was an inside job, even the south American indians who live in the rain forests and don't have TV know that. Thats not the problem, the problem is , is who did it, and what are you going to do about it?
> ...



it is clearly not the case...a fact you simply cant deal with...you just go into denial and cant face the fact that many top level ex military and government researchers with distinguished and honored service believe elements of the government where involved in 9/11 and wtc was a controlled demolition...and your only response is this denial and made up nonsense


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


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 12, 2009)

eots said:


> keep pushing for an investigation..with subpoena power


they had one


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 12, 2009)

eots said:


> don't pretend you have ever given a  well thought out reply...spammer


look whos talking, mr copy and paste


----------



## eots (Sep 12, 2009)

look whos talking mr 5 word denier


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 12, 2009)

eots said:


> look whos talking mr 5 word denier


LOL
you arent worth much more than 5 words


----------



## eots (Sep 12, 2009)

I KNOW YOU ARE... BUT WHAT AM I...hey this debating the issues divecon style is ez


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 12, 2009)

eots said:


> I KNOW YOU ARE... BUT WHAT AM I...hey this debating the issues divecon style is ez


stop lying
you know i have fully engaged you on this many times and all you do is copy and paste a ton of shit from your troofer sites that never actually answer the questions asked


----------



## eots (Sep 12, 2009)

no you stop lying...all questions have been answered...but all you do is repeat the debunked popular mechanics theory...from your denial site


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 12, 2009)

lying again
not to worry, i've come to expect that from troofer morons


----------



## eots (Sep 12, 2009)

responses of no substance
come to expect that from divecon...


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 12, 2009)

eots said:


> responses of no substance
> come to expect that from divecon...


LOL
very funny guy


----------



## Liability (Sep 12, 2009)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > publicprotector said:
> ...



That last word was believe.  To "believe" is not the same as to "know."

I am not disputing that some folks believe it.

They might believe you make sense, too.

They'd be wrong.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 12, 2009)

eots said:


> responses of no substance
> come to expect that from divecon...


i'm still waiting for something other than your usual copy & paste crap


----------



## Liability (Sep 12, 2009)

I'm still waiting for one of these idiot Troofers to answer just one of the many obvious questions regarding their illogical belief that the buildings got taken down via controlled demolition.

In fact, I have recently asked one of those questions to be greeted only by stoney silence.

So, I'll ask again.

For the 9/11 Troofer nonsense to be true, there HAD to have been a conspiracy of pretty massive proportions.  The conspirators had to have SOME of the co-conspirators set the demo charges and wire the buildings.   

The first question, therefore, is "pursuant to this conspiracy theory of the troofers, *WHEN exactly did the demo-expert subset of co-conspirators set the charges and wire the buildings?"*


----------



## Liability (Sep 12, 2009)

Liability said:


> * * * *
> For the 9/11 Troofer nonsense to be true, there HAD to have been a conspiracy of pretty massive proportions.  The conspirators had to have SOME of the co-conspirators set the demo charges and wire the buildings.
> 
> The first question, therefore, is "pursuant to this conspiracy theory of the troofers, *WHEN exactly did the demo-expert subset of co-conspirators set the charges and wire the buildings?"*



Quoted and edited just to bump it for a higher visibility for our Troofer friends.

They were around in force today.

Suddenly, the big-mouths seem a bit reticient to open their yaps.

Can the troofers answer that first question?

Sure, there can be more, but let's just start with the FIRST question.  Maybe they need it clearly repeated?

*WHEN exactly did the demo-expert subset of co-conspirators set the charges and wire the buildings?*


----------



## eots (Sep 12, 2009)

Liability said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > * * * *
> ...



the details of the operation are not known with certainty..there are only indications and theory..to ever have the answers to why they did this ..instead of that...etc ..a real and independent criminal investigation with subpoena powers and wittiness protection would need to be established...it is the commission that has failed the burden of proof and to provide  resonable answers...this fact is with out question


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 12, 2009)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


ok, where is the evidence of the demolition?
where are the miles and miles of demo wire that would have been needed?
the rescue crews and the cleanup crews would have seen it
or are all of the first responders in on it as well?


----------



## Liability (Sep 12, 2009)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Nope.

One doesn't get a criminal investigation for the mere asking.  One must have a rational theory that a crime has even been committed, first.

To present a rational theory worthy of the name that any crime was committed (other than the enemy's acts of war, which is another matter entirely) you would have to be able to articulate:

*HOW it could even possibly be that anybody got into WTC Tower 1, WTC Tower 2 and/or WTC7 to WIRE the building for a controlled demolition in addition to planting those alleged explosives when the buildings were occupied and in use during the time period of early September 2001 -- all without getting so much as noticed?*

{Not to even begin to worry about one of the first most obvious corollary questions:  how did they manage to do that with foreknowledge that the explosives would come in handy when the al qaeda scum happened to have planned the crashing of civilian jetliners into WTC Tower 1 and WTC Tower 2?}


----------



## Liability (Sep 12, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




I don't believe all the people who got slaughtered would have blithely walked into the twin towers that day having noticed that bombs had been planted and that there were those miles and miles of detonator cord.  

I mean, this question for all of us:

raise your hand if YOU would walk into a building that appeared to have been wired with explosives without -- spitballing a bit here -- oh, I dunno, maybe SAYING something about the suspicious detonator cord?

Yet, nobody did that.

How long would it TAKE to do all that wiring?

WHERE exactly would the explosives have had to have been planted in order to properly account for the implosion we saw as the buildings collapsed?  That wouldn't take a bit of destruction to surrounding walls to GET the explosives there?  Yet nobody saw any of THAT, either?  Or, having seen it, nobody bothered to report that minor suspicious problem, either, but they nevertheless DID blithely all report to their offices?

Could it have been done not weeks and weeks ahead of 9/11/2001?  But just the night before?  How many people would be required to accomplish that?

Oh man. The questions keep on coming and there's not ONE stinking rational answer to ANY of them that doesn't require a MASSIVE suspension of reason.


----------



## eots (Sep 12, 2009)

> [
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 this is all based on assumptions it was conventional explosives and visable ..people are ingenues and i believe that with access to military technology that setting explosives in stealth is achievable



> How long would it TAKE to do all that wiring?
> 
> WHERE exactly would the explosives have had to have been planted in order to properly account for the implosion we saw as the buildings collapsed?  That wouldn't take a bit of destruction to surrounding walls to GET the explosives there?  Yet nobody saw any of THAT, either?  Or, having seen it, nobody bothered to report that minor suspicious problem, either, but they nevertheless DID blithely all report to their offices?
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE]

the official story requires suspension of reason...the rational answer is 6 out of 10 ..911 commission members call the investigation a sham and support a new independent investigation with subpoena powers...


----------



## Toro (Sep 12, 2009)

Liability said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



That's a good question which, of course, has gone unanswered by the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

For a point of reference, let's take a look at what it took to blow up the largest building ever demolished.  Well, of course, that is the largest building _before_ 9/11.



> CDI&#8217;s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI&#8217;s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.



Controlled Demolition, Inc. | Buildings

And yet _nobody_ saw _anyone_ planting _anything_ in a building five-times as large as the Hudson Store in Detroit.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 12, 2009)

eots said:


> the official story requires suspension of reason...the rational answer is 6 out of 10 ..911 commission members call the investigation a sham and support a new independent investigation with subpoena powers...


the question to ask on that is, what exactly are they calling for an investigation of

i have a feeling it has much more to do with the fact that things were covered up in the 9/11 commission, i don't doubt that
but that's NOT saying it was a controlled demolition and the government did it

but they sure did play political CYA


----------



## Liability (Sep 12, 2009)

eots said:


> * * * *
> this is all based on assumptions it was conventional explosives and visable ..people are ingenues and i believe that with access to military technology that setting explosives in stealth is achievable



That's precious.  Some people may be ingenious, but you are the one making the claim that the buildings went down for reasons other than the terrorist attacks and their after-effects.  Thus, YOU have assumed a burden of persuasion (even if it bugs you) to make out SOME case for your really inflammatory and presently unsupported libelous claims.  Accordingly, your "belief" in some unindentified possible super-secret military type explosives that would not require wiring to set-off in a controlled implosion demolition is *not QUITE* on par with anything even remotely akin to meeting that burden you have assumed.



eots said:


> > How long would it TAKE to do all that wiring?
> >
> > WHERE exactly would the explosives have had to have been planted in order to properly account for the implosion we saw as the buildings collapsed?  That wouldn't take a bit of destruction to surrounding walls to GET the explosives there?  Yet nobody saw any of THAT, either?  Or, having seen it, nobody bothered to report that minor suspicious problem, either, but they nevertheless DID blithely all report to their offices?
> >
> ...



Pure dodge.  I didn't ask you what anybody else supposedly "believes."  I don't much care, either.  What you just said is actually just the fallacy of an appeal to "authority."

What I put to you is a pretty obvious (and really only preliminary) set of questions to JUSTIFY any "investigation" with or without subpoena powers.


----------



## eots (Sep 12, 2009)

yet the buildings all three fell at near free fall speed

yet first responders report molten metal and explosions

yet NORAD failed

yet the flight recorders where not found but the terrorist passport was

yet both the NIST and the commission say the government was not forthcoming with information

yet all other footage of the pentagon strike are still classified...

yet there were prior warnings

yet hundreds of witnesses have been excluded
from the report


----------



## Liability (Sep 12, 2009)

eots said:


> yet the buildings all three fell at near free fall speed
> 
> yet first responders report molten metal and explosions
> 
> ...




yet nothing you just reiterated answers the actual questions which you clearly feel the need to duck.


----------



## eots (Sep 12, 2009)

Liability said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > * * * *
> ...



 the Crime itself ..the omissions and admitted failure of the commission  and NIST is all the justification required


----------



## Liability (Sep 12, 2009)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...




(A) You urgently need a course in using the incredibly simple QUOTE function.

(B)  No.  I don't care if you accept "the" report or not.  Have a blast.  Don't accept it.  THAT will show ME!  Ya.  But, your reluctance to accept a report you deem flawed is NOT a valid ground for any new "investigation," much less one that might entail a "subpoena" power.  You presume too much.  We get back to my earlier point.  You DO NOT GET it for the mere asking.  The BURDEN remains entirely on YOU to establish that so much as a CRIME has been committed.  Your speculation fails to qualify.

(C)  You refer to "the crime."  But -- at least in logic -- you are not permitted to assume your desired conclusion as your premise.  There has been no demonstration of any crime.  There is clear evidence of horrible acts of war by enemy aliens.  But that's not the same thing.

(D) Your "theory" still defies logic and you remain totally and glaringly unable to answer the simplest of obvious questions which  your "theory" instantly causes to be asked.  Since you cannot identify ANY military super top secret new explosive which can account for a building's implosion without the need for wiring of detonator cord and all that it entails, that whacky sci-fi *speculation* in support of your still unsupported and illogical theory does not suffice to  support your theory on even the most basic of preliminary levels.


----------



## eots (Sep 13, 2009)

Liability said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



and nothing in the report explains molten metal and free fall collapse


----------



## Liability (Sep 13, 2009)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...




You STILL need to learn how to use the quote function.  Unless you are doing this intentionally to obscure the glaring deficiencies in all the blather you are spewing.

I repeat.  I don't give a shit if *you* find the "report" illogical or not.  That is an opinion only and of no importance to me.  That others may share your opinion is of pretty much the same interest.  It still doesn't matter.

To OBTAIN, _as you desire_, some new or re-opened "investigation" would STILL require *a reasonable basis to claim that a "crime" has been committed.  You have none.*

On that latter topic, your reiteration of your empty opinion is beside the point.  Lots of behavior by the enemy in war would qualify -- in non-war times frames -- as "criminal."  But their actions still don't actually meet the definition of "crime."  They committed acts of war.  You are bootstrapping their acts of war onto your irrational claim that the buildings were taken down by OTHER means.  Thus, YOUR actual claim is a claim that a _crime_ was committed.  It is THAT which, therefore, requires a rational basis to justify an "investigation."  And you have yet to offer any such rational basis.  

Where  were the MILES AND MILES the detonator cord?  How come none of it was seen?  Why did nobody balk at going into either of the towers or the building 7 on 9/11/2001?  Why dd nobody report it at all, but all of them went to work, instead?  How many people would (minimally) have HAD to have been involved to commit the crime contemplated in your claimed conspiracy?  When did they get the planting of ALL of that the invisible super-secret miltary sci-fi explosives accomplished all without being seen by anybody?


----------



## eots (Sep 13, 2009)

it is the opinion of the majority of the 9/11 commission and ex -directors of NIST that the official story is not credible and the findings of NIST questionable to simply ignore this fact and support the findings is illogical...and in your esoteric ramble you can call it an act of war but in reality and legally it was a crime of hijacking and murder


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 13, 2009)

eots said:


> it is the opinion of the majority of the 9/11 commission and ex -directors of NIST that the official story is not credible and the findings of NIST questionable to simply ignore this fact and support the findings is illogical...and in your esoteric ramble you can call it an act of war but in reality and legally it was a crime of hijacking and murder


source for that claim?
i know SOME do, but not for the reasons you want to think


----------



## Liability (Sep 13, 2009)

eots said:


> it is the opinion of the majority of the 9/11 commission and ex -directors of NIST that the official story is not credible and the findings of NIST questionable to simply ignore this fact and support the findings is illogical...and in your esoteric ramble you can call it an act of war but in reality and legally it was a crime of hijacking and murder




Both of these so-called points of yours have already been made by you and have already been addressed.  Repeating a failed point, as you just did, does nothing to further your argument.

I don't CARE that you and others (with or without the semblence of officialdom) "believe" that the report is invalid.

And no.  An act of war by an enemy is an act of war, not a crime.  BESIDES WHICH, I have to remind you yet again, what we know THEY did is NOT the topic.  The TOPIC is YOUR unsupported contention that some Americans engaged in a massive conspiracy to commit mass murder and destroy major pieces of property, to the harm of the entire national and world economies, by deliberately causing the destruction of inhabited skyscrapers in NYC.  THOSE *would* be crimes.  

To support your request or demand for some new investigation or re-opening of the prior investigation (sith or without subpoena power) STILL would require the articulation of some REASONABLE basis that might warrant this kind of investigation.  

Since you remain unable and unwilling to even attempt to offer ANY answer to the unavoidable questions your "theory" immediately raises, it is perfectly established that you are NOT able to support your conspiracy/crime contention by way of any REASONABLE BASIS.

You just dodged a few of the questions yet again.

I have pointed out before when you have dodged those question.

Why do you imagine that repeating your already refuted pointlesses will help you out any better after that?


----------



## eots (Sep 13, 2009)

[





> quote=Liability;1512182]
> 
> 
> 
> ...



you should be asking yourself this question...because you point something out does not mean you have a point...your the one dodging the fact that NIST AND THE 911 COMMISION have not provided adequate answers for the crimes that occurred on 9/11..all I can offer is theory's it would require a real investigation with subpoena powers..like any criminal trial to prove the case


----------



## Liability (Sep 13, 2009)

eots said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Another ducking of the question.  Typical behavior of id-eots.

Try to justify your request for a new or a re-opened investigation.

Try to focus on addressing the obvious questions of who planted the explosives, laid all the wiring, where, when and how -- all without being noticed.

Until you can do that and do it in a rational coherent manner, you remain a braying jackass.  Nothing more.


----------



## eots (Sep 13, 2009)

knowing the exact methods of how the demolition occurred is not the required justification for a real criminal investigation into the events of 9/11...the failure of the commission to answer the questions and the omission of building 7 is the only justification required


----------



## Si modo (Sep 13, 2009)

eots said:


> knowing the exact methods of how the demolition occurred is not the required justification for a real criminal investigation into the events of 9/11...the failure of the commission to answer the questions and the omission of building 7 is the only justification required


Purdue Engineers are in on it with the NIST engineers.  It's a sure sign of an engineer conspiracy.

WTC I Engineering Perspective

Purdue creates scientifically based animation of 9/11 attack


----------



## eots (Sep 13, 2009)

the ex-director of NIST has called for a new investigation and calls NIST report questionable and expressed frustration that the government was not forthcoming with information.....computer simulations with tweaked data is the only place NIST data can be recreated


----------



## Terral (Sep 13, 2009)

Hi Lia:



Liability said:


> yet nothing you just reiterated answers the actual questions which you clearly feel the need to duck.



Asking a billion questions makes a case for NOTHING. Try again when you 'do' have evidence to support the Official Cover Story. The problem is that you do *not* know enough about what really happened on 9/11 to even begin drafting a good argument, so the USMB inherited yet another chat monkey . . .  












GL,

Terral


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 13, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Lia:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you're such a schmuck


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 13, 2009)

Si modo said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > knowing the exact methods of how the demolition occurred is not the required justification for a real criminal investigation into the events of 9/11...the failure of the commission to answer the questions and the omission of building 7 is the only justification required
> ...


clearly they MUST be part of the conspiracy


----------



## Liability (Sep 13, 2009)

eots said:


> knowing the exact methods of how the demolition occurred is not the required justification for a real criminal investigation into the events of 9/11...the failure of the commission to answer the questions and the omission of building 7 is the only justification required



Completely wrong and rather imbecilic of you.  

YOU seek a new or renewed "investigation."  The BURDEN remains on you to justify it.

That the prior report leaves _you_ unsatisfied is not a valid justification.

YOU are claiming that conspirators actually perpetrated a massive crime, rather than allowing for the prospect that terrorists conductied atrocities which caused the destruction.  

IF conspirators had actually been involved in the fantasy-crime, and going with your ridiculous assumption that the buildings collapsed due to some planting of explosives to create a controlled implosion-type demolition, *you ARE in fact obligated to answer some starkly obvious questions.* 

It is beyond absurd to believe that anybody or any set of individuals *could possibly* have planted explosives with some kind of timed triggers at all of the absolutely required spots of the physical strutures, at all, much less that they could have done so in some indeterminate but clearly very short time period ALL without anybody noticing.

Since you cannot address the obvious physical impossibility of what your stupid theory REQUIRES to have happened in order for you theory to have had any chance of being what happened, you completely FAIL to provide any rational, coherent or even possible basis to justify your moronic request for a new or renewed investigation.

The implications of what you are suggesting REQUIRE that certain things MUST have taken place.  Yet there is NO evidence of such things whatsoever.  None.  

Repeating your conjecture about faulty analysis or whatever remains irrelevant.  You cannot point to ANYTHING in the real world that supports HOW you claim it happened.

Thus, you fail.  End of story.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 13, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


Well, the engineers from NIST and Purdue are using the same engineering terminology.  Even a man-on-the-street that day used the terms structural strength and fire/high temperatures when describing the collapse moments before.  You do the math.  Doesn't that scream conspiracy?


----------



## eots (Sep 13, 2009)

[QU





> OTE=Liability;1513530]
> 
> 
> 
> ...



the burden was on the 9/11 commission who by their own admission failed...imbecile
their failure is all the justification required






> That the prior report leaves _you_ unsatisfied is not a valid justification.



the fact it leaves the commision itself and lead NIST investigators is however





> YOU are claiming that conspirators actually perpetrated a massive crime, rather than allowing for the prospect that terrorists conductied atrocities which caused the destruction.
> 
> IF conspirators had actually been involved in the fantasy-crime, and going with your ridiculous assumption that the buildings collapsed due to some planting of explosives to create a controlled implosion-type demolition, *you ARE in fact obligated to answer some starkly obvious questions.*



that burden was on NIST and the commission to explain the collapse and prove their theory's  and they failed to answer the questions...
to prove the controlled demolition theory or any other theory requires a real criminal investigation with subpoena power







> It is beyond absurd to believe that anybody or any set of individuals *could possibly* have planted explosives with some kind of timed triggers at all of the absolutely required spots of the physical strutures, at all, much less that they could have done so in some indeterminate but clearly very short time period ALL without anybody noticing.



that is only your personal opinion..nothing more





> Since you cannot address the obvious physical impossibility of what your stupid theory REQUIRES to have happened in order for you theory to have had any chance of being what happened, you completely FAIL to provide any rational, coherent or even possible basis to justify your moronic request for a new or renewed investigation.
> 
> The implications of what you are suggesting REQUIRE that certain things MUST have taken place.  Yet there is NO evidence of such things whatsoever.  None.
> 
> ...



free fall collapse and molten metal have never been explained...and there is evidence..
the official story..has not provided the proof of its theory...


----------



## Liability (Sep 13, 2009)

eots said:


> [QU
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As always, that's a lame-ass deflection and you're wrong in any event.  The Commission wanted to know what happened and how to prevent it from happening again. They discovered what we already knew.  What happened was jetliners full of passengers and fuel crashed into the two main towers causing uncontrollable fires that resulted in structural collapses.  

That still has *NOTHING WHATSOEVER* to do with your unsupportably stupid and quite vile contention that American conspirators were part of some criminal plot to kill Americans and take down our financial sector.   The conspiracy you propose is flatly impossible.  That's why you persist in ducking the questions. 

The burden does not shift.

It is completely yours and you are utterly unable to meet that burden.

Everything else you say on this topic has been, is and remains completely meaningless until and unless you step up to the plate, honestly address and meet that burden.  But you can't do it.


----------



## eots (Sep 13, 2009)

_we_ found out what _we _already knew ?...who is _we _?...how did _we _know this ?...what source did _we _get this knowing from ?


----------



## eots (Sep 13, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ri1i6nAGOE&feature=PlayList&p=2BC3BE1853C2165A&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=4]YouTube - 9/11 - Condoleezza Rice at the 911 commision[/ame]



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9AoaU7LlTk]YouTube - Bush Questioned about 9/11 Commission[/ame]



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USnxe7hxP4I]YouTube - Bush talks about EXPLOSIVES in building (on 9/11?)[/ame]


----------



## eots (Sep 13, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUXglJU2w6U&feature=PlayList&p=A6431C0DFB2EFD5C&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=15]YouTube - On 9/11, Bush watched the first plane impact[/ame]



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSwtR8b4WCE]YouTube - Bush Reaction When Accused Of Prior Knowledge Of 9/11[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v36bkCB8sTY&feature=PlayList&p=FA8D7A017C97B1CC&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=31]YouTube - 9/11 Truth: NIST engineer denies molten steel at Ground Zero[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTp77iDM_As[/ame]


----------



## Liability (Sep 13, 2009)

eots said:


> _we_ found out what _we _already knew ?...who is _we _?...how did _we _know this ?...what source did _we _get this knowing from ?




WHO? ???  The entire world.  The planes were observed.  They weren't the magic Wonder Woman invisible planes.  They were real world passenger jet-liners.

The second passenger jet, in particular, got viewed by horrified witnesses on television as it happened.  (The first one WAS observed by fewer live witnesses, but it did get captured on video all the same.)

Now,  YOU make the unproved and irrational claim that the buildings didn't really come down because of all that.   No no no.  According to *you* and your imbecile ilk , the "real truth" is that those building fell because somebody (domestic conspirators in ora ligned with OUR government) had planted explosives at God knows how many secret but crucial locations within the two towers and building 7, wired them (unless some science-fiction brand version of military explosives that didn't require wiring somehow got planted instead with timing mechanisms or radio controlled detonators) ALL without anybody noticing the work or the other surrounding evidence of such an enormous effort, and then detonated them (timed to coordinate, apparently, with the acts of the al qaeda terrorist efforts -- so our home grown conspirators had to have been IN ON IT somehow with al qaeda!).

Yeah.  You have a highly realistic vision.  Very persausive.  

9/11 Troofers are one sick-ass, depraved, stupid lot of irrational motherfuckers.


----------



## eots (Sep 13, 2009)

> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



if nist can not explain the free fall collapse or molten metal then other theory's are required and controlled demolition..would explain both these facts...and to someone of limited understanding the thought that the u.s military may posses some forms of classified technology may seem a like sci-fi....but i am sure that is what you would of said about planes that don't appear on radar before stealth technology was declassified


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 13, 2009)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


ah, so you think its more likely that some UNKNOWN tech was used to do it


Occam's  Razor


----------



## Liability (Sep 13, 2009)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



It may have been aliens from outer space!

But there's no evidence of THAT either.

You = still FAIL.


----------



## eots (Sep 13, 2009)

crime n. a *violation of a law *in which there is *injury to the public *or a member of the public and a term in jail or prison, and/or a fine as possible penalties. There is some sentiment for excluding from the "crime" category crimes without victims, such as consensual acts, or violations in which only the perpetrator is hurt or involved such as personal use of illegal drugs. (See: felony, misdemeanor)


*act of war*&#8194; 
&#8211;noun an act of aggression *by a country against another *with which it is nominally at peace. 


the events of Sept 11 are clearly a criminal act and warrant a *criminal investigation*


----------



## Liability (Sep 13, 2009)

eots said:


> crime n. a *violation of a law *in which there is *injury to the public *or a member of the public and a term in jail or prison, and/or a fine as possible penalties. There is some sentiment for excluding from the "crime" category crimes without victims, such as consensual acts, or violations in which only the perpetrator is hurt or involved such as personal use of illegal drugs. (See: felony, misdemeanor)
> 
> 
> *act of war*&#8194;
> ...




There is nothing "clear" about your attempted distortion.  An act of war is not the same as a crime.

When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, it never dawned on anybody that "gee, we gotta put that Emperor fellow in an American prison."

That didn't occur to anybody for a reason which YOU cannot begin to grasp:  it's stupid as all hell.  Only one as dumb as you would now say, "Wait!  Why not??!"

What a maroon.


----------



## eots (Sep 13, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



not necessarily I do however know with certainty the military holds several patents pending on demolition technology's and explosives and if this was a government quasi-military operation it is reasonable to theorize they may of used technology's more advanced than the standard demolition company..but a top demolition firm in Holland when asked how long it would take the wire building 7 with no prep work and no more than 20 men..estimated only 3-4 hours


----------



## Liability (Sep 13, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...




Anf if this was an alien from outers space operation, it's reasonable to theorize that marshmallows can be toasted without a flame!

Thus, I have presented a perfect justification for a new or re-newed gubmint investigation!

Yeah baby!


----------



## eots (Sep 13, 2009)

liability said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > divecon said:
> ...



wow all this brain thikin and word stuff must be gettin yer head all silly


----------



## Liability (Sep 13, 2009)

eots said:


> liability said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Just demonstrating how slovenly your "logic" has been and remains.

You have failed, still, to offer any rational argument to support a new or re-newed investigation.  For "it might have been some hi-tech military grade super secret boom-boom material that did it!" is not even close to rational or reasonable.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 13, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


those bolded words means you have NOTHING to warrant a new investigation

and that company from Holland is LYING


----------



## eots (Sep 13, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



the bold words have no relevance on a re-investigation..the failure of the commission is all the justification required...and in a real investigation with subpoena powers it would be possible to determine who is lying...as it stands now it comes down to opinions of news magazines and private contractors and this is not acceptable


----------



## Liability (Sep 13, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...





> *the bold words have no relevance on a re-investigation..the failure of the commission is all the justification required.  *



Wrong.  That is just your reason for WANTING a new or renewed investigation.  It is not anything close to a justification FOR any such thing.  

And there is nothing to suggest that the commission "failed" in anything.  There are merely some conclusions they reached with which you disagree.  So what?  Your disagreement is irrelvant.

What you are STILL saying is that not only do you find the commission conclusions "wrong," but that  the "real truth" is that the buildings came down because of your hypothetical super secret sci-fi invisible unwired explosives.   

There is NOT one shred of evidence supporting your fantasy, and thus there remains NO justification for any renewed or new investigation.  

You are quite plainly nuts.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 13, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


and anyone that is lying wouldnt change the facts about what happened
all it would change is the political CYA that was done to cover the mistakes made that allowed the highjackers to go unstopped


----------



## eots (Sep 13, 2009)

Liability said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > liability said:
> ...




I don't believe you have a grasp om what is reasonable and could not begin to substantiate the nist theory..your argument is so weak you nust resort to taking my reasonable words and replacing them with gibberish childish words of your own


----------



## Liability (Sep 14, 2009)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Nobody really cares what you "believe" or claim to "believe."

And the richness of the irony in YOU, of all people, commenting about reasonable words is quite amusing.

The gibberish has been and remains all yours.

You have posited the "possibility" of super military secret classified eyes only explosives being used which would ALSO not have required wired detonators to create the timed implosions necessary to demolish the two world trade towers and WTC Building 7.

Furthermore, implicit in the balance of your argument (premised on the existence of this hypothetical material for which there remains zero evidence here in the real world) is that ALL of such hypothetical explosives could have been somehow planted in all three buildings -- in some unknown period of time -- at very precise crucial locations within the buildings -- all without causing ANYONE to "notice" that explosives had been planted in fully occupied office buildings.

And finally, you offer exactly ZERO explanation of how *anything along these impossible lines* COULD even theoretically have been accomplished.

But you persist in claiming, *despite these massive glaring failures by you in even addressing your burden of persuasion*, that _your_ personal doubts, about the fullness and accuracy of the prior Commission's analysis and the conclusions in the Commission's report, is sufficient to require a new investigation.

Sorry, dopey.  But nobody with a working brain is going to take YOUR word for what is or isn't "reasonable," since that is one of many things in life about which you have not even the first clue.


----------



## eots (Sep 14, 2009)

Liability said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



you talk a lot but say nothing and have this strange belief that your shit ass opinion some how constitutes...we...and..everyone...I have given the only reasons needed to investigate 9/11...the opinions of the majority participants of the commission that they failed in their investigation...


----------



## Liability (Sep 14, 2009)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



There's no way a brainless fart like you can know, either way.

Your evasions and deflections, transparent though they are, still don't work.

You are STILL relying on some hypothetical secret military explosives that do not require wiring, but have offered no evidence that anything like that exists which could be planted inside all three buildings in sufficient quantityt to account for the effects we saw.

It WOULD still require that such explosives BE planted, and they'd have to be planted at precise locations to create the demo effect taht can implode a building.  But you are unable to even BEGIN to explain HOW that could have been done in occupied office buildings.

Thus, everything you say "must have" happened requires an infantile refusal to account for the facts in the real world, like physics, like the capacity of humans to observe such minor things as walls having been opened to plant explosives on load bearing beams, etc., and like the astronomical odds against all those witnesses ignoring all that evidence but instead blithely reporting to work (and to their doom) without  ever reporting the suspicious holes and bombs to people working for building management to law enforcement authorities.

Since you cannot explain ANY of that, you mindlessly repeat your fantasy to us and demand that it be taken so seriously that it should lead to a new investigation.


----------



## eots (Sep 14, 2009)

Bush/Cheney failed to prove their theory of the events of 9/11 even with control of the investigative panels...it is an unsolved case...deemed a cover-up by the majority of commission members and lead investigators at NIST...and needs a real criminal investigation with subpoena power


----------



## Terral (Sep 14, 2009)

Hi Lia:

Perhaps Lia does not realize how stupid he looks in this WTC debate. :0)



Liability said:


> Nobody really cares what you "believe" or claim to "believe."
> 
> And the richness of the irony in YOU, of all people, commenting about reasonable words is quite amusing.
> 
> The gibberish has been and remains all yours.



Attacking your debating opponent adds nothing to your Official Cover Story Case that building fires/debris took down WTC-7 in 6.6 seconds.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2oAsgzXXdw"]Many People 'Predicted' The Collapse[/ame]

A steel-framed skyscraper has NEVER burned down before of after 9/11, but these people actually predicted the collapse amid many explosions.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q"]Many Explosions 'Before' WTC-7 Collapse[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXD3bAbZCow"]These Firefighters Were There On 9/11!!![/ame]

Lia is supposed to be proving that WTC-7 collapsed from 'building fires and debris,' but instead he plays the fool cuckoo by attacking his debating adversaries. :0)

GL,

Terral


----------



## Liability (Sep 14, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Lia:
> 
> Perhaps Lia does not realize how stupid he looks in this WTC debate. :0)
> 
> ...



Princess Turd:

You might have the hope of someday getting a tiny hint of cred if you'd heed your own advice.

In any case, you remain obtuse.

The buildings were not struck by jetliners only to collapse and fall 6.6 seconds later.

Plus, in case you think you are succeeding in your absurd effort to deflect, I will pull the conversation back into the realm of reality no matter how much you whine like a beyotch.

It is YOUR claim (you and the other 9/11 Troofer nuts) that the buildings went down due to some massive conspiracy.  The collapses were not the result of the crashes, etc.  Oh no.  To you loons, the collapses were the result of planned, coordinated, criminal and highly complicated but very deliberate demolition.

Since your buddy id-eots can't answer the question, maybe you think you can do so.

Why did nobody see the walls broken to get the bombs planted at the structural points on all the floors where all the explosives had been set?

Why did nobody see the detonator wires.  Wait.  Don't tell me.  These were those super secret special invisible military high explosives that also magically require no detonator cords.  

Ah.  What's the use?

You loons are beyond hope of reason.

There is, however, a good reason the entire world laughs at you imbeciles.  Your position is one that only a raving lunatic could hold.  And you are utterly unaware of how impossible your scenario is.  

Post more often.  You are amusing lots of people.


----------



## eots (Sep 16, 2009)

> LiaRbility
> Conservative Role Model
> Member #19862
> 
> ...




*Wireless detonators, and corresponding wireless detonator systems present opportunities for blasting arrangements that avoid the need for physical wire* 

*Title:Wireless detonator European Patent EP0480673 Kind Code:B1 
Abstract:Abstract of EP0480673*
A wireless detonator is disclosed that includes an antenna for receiving microwaves, a detonator provided with a heating element, and a transmission circuit. The heating element in the detonator is heated by the energy of the microwaves. The transmission circuit transmits the microwave energy from the antenna directly to the heating element. The antenna has a relative gain of 0 to 20 dB in the frequency band of the microwaves. The absolute value of the reactance component in the radiation impedance of the antenna is at most 50% of the pure resistance component of that impedance. The absolute value of the reactance component in the impedance of the heating element is at most 50% of the pure resistance component of that impedance. The pure resistance components of the radiation impedance of the antenna and of the impedance of the heating element are in a range of 70 to 130% of the characteristic impedance of the transmission circuit.



Wireless detonator - Patent EP0480673


----------



## eots (Sep 16, 2009)

Interview with Controlled Demo Expert, Danny Jowenko, confirming that Building 7 was brought ... Dutch Demolition Expert Danny Jowenko on WTC7 ...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc&feature=related]YouTube - Danny Jowenko on WTC 7 controlled demolition[/ame]


----------



## eots (Sep 16, 2009)

*Government secrecy*
Governments often attempt to conceal information from other governments and the public. These state secrets *can include weapon designs, military plans, diplomatic negotiation tactics, and secrets obtained illicitly from others ("intelligence"). *Most nations have some form of Official Secrets Act (the Espionage Act in the U.S.) and classify material according to the level of protection needed* (hence the term "classified information").* An individual needs a security clearance for access and other protection methods, such as keeping documents in a safe, are stipulated.

Few people dispute the desirability of keeping Critical Nuclear Weapon Design Information secret, but many believe government secrecy to be excessive and too often employed for political purposes. Many countries have laws that attempt to limit government secrecy, such as the U.S. Freedom of Information Act and sunshine laws. Government officials sometimes leak information they are supposed to keep secret. (For a recent (2005) example, see Plame affair.)


Secrecy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 16, 2009)

eots said:


> Interview with Controlled Demo Expert, Danny Jowenko, confirming that Building 7 was brought ... Dutch Demolition Expert Danny Jowenko on WTC7 ...
> 
> 
> YouTube - Danny Jowenko on WTC 7 controlled demolition


based on the video he saw, which wasnt the full video


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 16, 2009)

eots said:


> > LiaRbility
> > Conservative Role Model
> > Member #19862
> >
> ...


now prove they were ever built


----------



## eots (Sep 16, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sep-HDZoEBM&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Jowenko WTC7 Demolition Interviews, 2 of 3[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boNzLZInbjU&feature=related]YouTube - Jowenko WTC7 Demolition Interviews, 3 of 3[/ame]


----------



## Liability (Sep 16, 2009)

eots said:


> > LiaRbility
> > Conservative Role Model
> > Member #19862
> >
> ...



Id-eots might be getting warmer.  

If we believe that a patent means that wireless detonators got built in sufficient numbers to account for ALL of the explosives that would have to have been used in the 2 WT Towers (as well as Building 7), then all that's left is the super secret (and presumably invisible) high powered explosives that were used (with the magic wireless detonators with no worries about any radio interference setting any of them off prematurely), and the planting of the aforementioned super secret (and presumably invisible) high powered explosives at all of the requisite structural locations within the buildings that would make them fall pretty much on their own footprint, but without the mess of breaking through  any walls to get to the structural spots in the building (unless they did make a mess when planting the charges but also had a super secret team of Molly Maids doing clean-up), and oh yeah, the manpower required to do this (invisibly, one is forced to presume) at the time when their fore-knowledge permitted them to know that the al qaeda camel fuckers would be hijacking civilian jetliners to use as missles into those same buildings....

(Short sentences kinda suck.  Id-eots theories definitely blow.)


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 16, 2009)

Liability said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > > LiaRbility
> ...


especially when the time frame window they talk about it being done in, was nearly a year before the event when they were working on updating the elevators


----------



## eots (Sep 16, 2009)

> LiaRbility said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 16, 2009)

eots said:


> Conservative Role Model
> Member #19862
> 
> 
> ...


now you have to find a demo expert that would be willing to do it in an OCCUPIED building


----------



## eots (Sep 16, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative Role Model
> ...




it is not fully occupied 24/7..and there is testimony of strange activity's ..power downs
in the weeks prior to 9/11


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 16, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


power downs would not have been related to the placement of explosives
the ONLY time anyone had access to the core was during the elevator updates a year earlier

so, are you saying they placed the explosives in for a FULL year before?


----------



## eots (Sep 16, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



you have no Idea when the core was accessed if it was done covertly and if there is a connection with power downs or not...if the _elevator guy _could access the core I am sure a covert operation like this could also


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 16, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


LOL
and you have how much experience in covert ops?


----------



## eots (Sep 16, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



well I have a lot of indirect experience as that was my fathers occupation..and many of the adult males that surrounded me in my youth,,but regardless this is not necessary to understand that if an elevator company could access the core..then certain  covert elements within our government could access the core..that would fall into the category of basic logic and reason


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 16, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


yeah, they might be able to
but dont you think that OTHERS had access and might have seen it
and there is NO EVIDENCE of ANY explosive devices in the rubble


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 16, 2009)

http://www.magnumbuster.com/mccarthyindistries/snocap/pictures/sc6.jpg

dont you think SOMEONE would have found at least ONE of these devices?


----------



## eots (Sep 16, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



oh now its everyone could access the core..and there was no search for them either and firemen reported the biggest piece they found of anything was a broken piece of a telephone key pad all else was unrecognizable fragments....the evidence was rapidly removed,,something ex-NIST investigators found extremely unusual and unprecedented


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 16, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


not everyone, but they had a maintenance crew for the building

dont you think THEY would have seen something?


----------



## eots (Sep 16, 2009)

I have no idea who or how many..people had access..or what maintenance requirements there are in the core or the backgrounds of these individuals with access..but if i was investigating the collapse of towers as a criminal investigation I would certainly find out


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 16, 2009)

eots said:


> I have no idea who or how many..people had access..or what maintenance requirements there are in the core or the backgrounds of these individuals with access..but if i was investigating the collapse of towers as a criminal investigation I would certainly find out


there was no way anyone had enough access without others being involved
there was ZERO evidence of explosives having been used


----------



## eots (Sep 16, 2009)

you don't tend to find evidence you don't look for or cover up...the best evidence is the unexplained molten metal and free fall uniformed collapse


----------



## Liability (Sep 17, 2009)

In those massive towers, police and fire department radio communication was shown to be dangerously unreliable, intermittent or non-existent.  But still, the magic detonators (that may or may not even have been produced in large numbers) were not only usable despite that kind of interference, but *secure enough for supposed demo experts to use in placing the detonators into the magic invisible top secret high grade military explosives* with no fear that in the process a random radio signal could blow the experts to smithereens.

Yes.

It all becomes clear now.  

Absolutely.

There are, clearly, no problems whatsoever with id-eots' hypothetical massive criminal conspiracy.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 17, 2009)

eots said:


> the best evidence is the unexplained molten metal and free fall uniformed collapse



What kind of "molten metal" are you speaking of? Steel? Aluminum? The melting point of each is different. Metal can mean anything.


----------



## Liability (Sep 17, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > the best evidence is the unexplained molten metal and free fall uniformed collapse
> ...



I understand that the temperature reached inside the towers after the fires had been going uncontrolled for a period of time probably reached over a thousand degrees F.

I further understand that the aluminum structure (fuselage/skin) of the jets would have reached melting point at only around 700 degrees F.

Molten metal in such a furnace, therefore, would not be in the slightest little bit unexpected.


----------



## Terral (Sep 17, 2009)

Hi Lia:



Liability said:


> In those massive towers, police and fire department radio communication was shown to be dangerously unreliable, intermittent or non-existent.  But still, the magic detonators . . .
> 
> Yes.
> 
> ...



Lia's task is to prove that WTC-1, WTC-2 and WTC-7 collapsed Controlled Demolition Style into their own footprints @ free fall speed from building fires and/or debris. The very first thing that I want to see from Lia is his precedent for overbuilt skyscrapers collapsing from building fires. Good luck, because that never happened anywhere on this planet before or after 9/11. The biggest problem with the Official Cover Story is that WTC-7 was struck by no Jetliner, but all three skyscrapers collapsed DC-style anyway.

Terral and Eots have *864 professional architects and engineers* and *4721 support members* (AE911Truth.org) who agree that the WTC Skyscrapers were taken down by *Controlled Demolition*. We have tons and tons of *'scholars'* (ScholarsFor911Truth.org) who agree that the WTC Skyscrapers were DEFINITELY taken down using *Controlled Demolition*. We have hundreds and hundreds of *military/aviation experts/patriots* who agree that 9/11 was DEFINITELY and inside job (PatriotsQuestion911.com) that includes people like General Wesley Clark (bio) and  Colonel Nelson, Commander Muga, Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski, Lt. Col. Latas,  Major Rokke, Capt. Wittenberg, Capt. Davis, Barbara Honegger, April Gallop, Colonel Bunel, and Steve DeChiaro. And yet, this Princess Lia cartoon character wants you to believe that attacking Eots and Terral with NONSENSE AND STUPIDITY makes the case that WTC-7 was taken down from building fires and debris. :0) 

This *WTC-7 CD Topic* is *Reason #9* that the *USA Will Certainly Be Destroyed* (my Topic), because We The Sheeple 'are' just that STUPID!!!

GL, because you desperately need it,

Terral


----------



## Liability (Sep 17, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Lia:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No asshat.  My "job" is my job and what I choose to debate is for me to decide.  But your transparent effort to shift the discussion is QUITE telling.

So, I advise you to try for once to just *squarely confront your own inability* to meet your burden of peursuasion.

The ridiculous conspiracy theory you nurture like a festering wound requires that MANY things ALL be true.  You can establish *none* of them.  So, for all your conern about the physics involved in the collapse of the trade towers, you are still without the slightest evidence to support that anybody actually DID anything to deliberately cause the collapses (except that some terrorists did crash jet planes into those towers).

What follows is just a small sample of the huge list of things you cannot answer but which all have to have good answers in order for there to be ANY baiss to believe your fantasy of conpiracy and mass-murder by the American government against (mostly) Americans.


*Who were the conspirators?  Evidence?*
*How did they manage to plant the explosives in an occupied office tower (two of them, in fact) without EVER being seen?  Evidence?*
*How did they SET the charges?  Evidence?*
*How did they manage to get so many demo experts to commit mass murder?  Evidence?*
*What experts WOULD set demo charges in an occupied office skyscraper at all?  Evidence?*
*What "expert" would do so using radio controlled detonators?  Evidence?*
*How did they get access to the crucial structural points within the buildings without leaving evidence behind that would have alerted tenants, workers, police, etc?  Evidence?*
*How MANY demo-experts minimally would be required to do all of this?  Evidence?*
*How LONG would the "wiring" and the setting of the exposives have taken, minimally?  Evidence?*
*When did this army of demo-experts have any opportunity to do all this planting and setting?  Evidence?*


----------



## Terral (Sep 17, 2009)

Hi Lia:



Liability said:


> No asshat.  My "job" is my job and what I choose to debate is for me to decide.  But your transparent effort to shift the discussion is QUITE telling.



My *WTC-7 Controlled Demolition Case* appears in the Opening Post of this thread like my *Flight 93 Topic* is here and my *Pentagon Presentation* is here. I have proven that the Pentagon was first attacked at 9:31:39 AM and 'not' at 9:38 AM like the Official Cover Story LIES. You can quote from my work and make a case for something else on my *9:31 Topic* here. In fact, you can challenge any entry on my *"Pentagon Timeline"* on *my Topic* here.

Where can I go to see *'your' Opening Post Presentation* proving that building fires/debris took down WTC-7? Princess Lia thinks these readers are moved by his whining and crying, when his 'job' on this Topic is to prove that WTC-7 was taken down by building fires and/or WTC-1 falling debris. The ONLY two explanations for what took WTC-7 down are:

1. Controlled Demolition.
2. Building Fires/Debris.

Lia is trying desperately to discredit *'the' 911Truth* that WTC-7 was taken down using Controlled Demolition as part of a definitely Inside-Job Attack. Okay, so again, where is your thesis, claims and evidence to support any *"Building Fires Did It" conclusions*?

Some idiot convinced Lia that building fires took down WTC-7 using nothing but *his flapping lips* cuckoo. Now Lia thinks that you 'are' that STUPID too (my Topic) . . . 

GL,

Terral


----------



## Digibomber (Sep 17, 2009)

Goodness! Now you'll say George Bush personally ordered those pilots to fly into the WTC!


----------



## Liability (Sep 17, 2009)

Terral said:


> * * * *



I took the liberty of snipping from my quote of your prior post everything that amounts to another mere deflection by you.

Doesn't leave anything.

Don't fret, Turd.  I understand.  I pity you.

 When you have nothing but your irrational paranoid stupid theories to keep you warm at night, it IS a bother to have to confront all the things that establish that you are just a bubbling moron.  And yet, you deflect all the more; for to confront the impossibility of what you believe is to end up with NOTHING.

Poor you.


----------



## Terral (Sep 17, 2009)

Hi Lia:



Liability said:


> I took the liberty of snipping ... you are just a bubbling moron . . . And yet, you deflect all the more; for to confront the impossibility of what you believe is to end up with NOTHING . . .



Translation: Poor Lia has no 911Truth Case for anything at all. :0)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2THs3oNooM]. . . The Poor Thing . . . :0)[/ame]







Congratulations! And their hands never get tired . . .  

GL,

Terral


----------



## Liability (Sep 17, 2009)

Terral said:


> * * * *



Once again, since Turd has NOTHING BUT DEFLECTION to offer, snipping out of his post anything that fails to address the point leaves a huge void.

Turd ducks and misses yet again.

The impossibility of his moronic paranoid conspiracy theory doesn't phase him in the least!

He just ignores it all.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 17, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Lia:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Poor Princess Lia has no interest in the truth on ANY government corruption of the united states and just wants to bury his head in the sand like an ostrich cause the facts scare him.Yeah lets applaud him for that.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 17, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Lia:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



funny how NONE of these high ranking credible people  in the military  that Eots and Terral have posted for Princess Lia to see mean diddly squat to Princess Lia here. Great example of how she only sees what she WANTS to see.Princess Lia is one of those psych op agents that have penetrated this board to disrupt 9/11 truth movements.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 17, 2009)

Terral said:


> Terral and Eots have *864 professional architects and engineers*



Wow. Really? 

Let's put this into perspective for you so we can actually see how "impressive" this number is for you. On AIA's site, they say there are 108000 licensed architects in the United States. As of 2004 (5 years ago mind you), there were 1.4 million licensed engineers in the United States. Using those numbers, that's 1,508,000 people. And you're proud to have 864?!



That's 1 out of every 1745 architects and engineers that believes your garbage. You effectively have .05729% of the total architects and engineers in the United States alone. 1% would be 15080 people.

All this dead nuts evidence and that's all the architects and engineers you have in 8 years?!

Pathetic. Yeah, you're convincing people.


----------



## Terral (Sep 17, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> And you're proud to have 864?!



Oh. I forgot. Gam is all proud of his Loyal Bushie Conspiracy Theory . . .






GL,

Terral


----------



## Liability (Sep 17, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> * * * *



Like Princess Turd, 9/11 outtahismind cannot stick to the topic.   Ergo, as with the Turd, when the irrelevant deflections get snipped from its posts, nothing remains.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 17, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





You proudly displayed that number of 864 as if it were important and that we should be afraid of your movement for some reason.

8 years and you've managed to only scrap up 864 architects and engineers with your ROCK SOLID evidence. 1 out of every 1745 architects and engineers in the United States that you've managed to convince with your crap.

Think about that. .05729% of the total architects and engineers in the US. And you supposedly have concrete evidence that isn't wrong.

looks like not many people believe your crap. Come back when you reach at least 1% for crying out loud.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 17, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> funny how NONE of these high ranking credible people



Highly credible?!

France: Former intelligence officer Bunel jailed
Former NATO Officer Convicted of Treason - Los Angeles Times

Looks like one of your "highly credible" people was found guilty of treason a few years ago. Nice job guys. Let's add a few more derelicts to the list!

Credible... Good grief.


----------



## eots (Sep 17, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > Terral and Eots have *864 professional architects and engineers*
> ...



it is a wild assumption to believe any engineer that has not signed the petition  or written an essay on the topic..supports the official story...and many of the engineers I have posted are NASA research scientist ,NORAD tac directors..professors and have lead government  research depts..


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 17, 2009)

eots said:


> it is a wild assumption to believe any engineer that has not signed the petition  or written an essay on the topic..supports the official story...and many of the engineers I have posted are NASA research scientist ,NORAD tac directors..professors and have lead government  research depts..



And it's a "wild assumption" on your part that that's what my point was. 

My point is that after 8 years of you guys "pounding the pavement" with your rock solid evidence, you've only managed to get 864 people out of a total of 1,508,000 possible. 

Pathetic.

Let me reiterate. You've had 8 years and claim that your evidence has no holes in it yet you've only managed to get .05729% of the total amount of engineers and architects on board? Are you guys that lazy then? How many of those 1,508,000 people said that they DON'T believe you? Have you got that number?


----------



## eots (Sep 17, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > funny how NONE of these high ranking credible people
> ...





this guy is french...and I have never posted him and have no idea who he is...but regardless once again your point is pointless...by your logic if someone ..some where who believes the white house story is charged with a crime then the white house story is no longer credible or anyone else who supports it...lol...you are an idiot


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 17, 2009)

eots said:


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



Pot meet kettle.

Just like when people bring up evidence from different sources that support the official story and then you guys claim "shill" because they have some type of government tie somewhere that makes them "in on it". If you believe THAT kind of logic then YOU'RE an idiot.


----------



## eots (Sep 17, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > it is a wild assumption to believe any engineer that has not signed the petition  or written an essay on the topic..supports the official story...and many of the engineers I have posted are NASA research scientist ,NORAD tac directors..professors and have lead government  research depts..
> ...



like all your post these are your made up statistics and assumption that not  signing a petition or writing an essay on the subject implies acceptance of the white house story
and you keep losing sight of the fact that the commission and members of NIST
do not support this story and call it questionable and call for an independent investigation


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 17, 2009)

eots said:


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



READ MY POST AGAIN DOPE.

I am NOT saying that the statistics show that the rest of the people support the official story.

What I am saying, and that you seem to be missing the point on, is that after 8 years, all you've managed to scrap up to sign a petition is .05729% of the total architects and engineers in the United States. 

THAT SUCKS. You guys must be lazy.


----------



## eots (Sep 17, 2009)

Gamolon said:


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



laziness is reading popular mechanics and listening to some bush sound-bites as the basis of your opinion


----------



## Big Black Dog (Sep 17, 2009)

Glad you're on top of this breaking news story, Terral.  You'll probably be named Obama's "Stupidity Czar" any day now.


----------



## Terral (Sep 17, 2009)

Hi Dog:



Big Black Dog said:


> Glad you're on top of this breaking news story, Terral.  You'll probably be named Obama's "Stupidity Czar" any day now.















Please forgive, but that sounds funny coming from a guy naming himself Big Black Dog. :0) Terral is my real name (#3 + AE911Truth link = search 'Terral') and I likely know more about Commercial Building/Demolition than all of my debating adversaries combined . . . 

GL,

Terral


----------



## Liability (Sep 17, 2009)

eots said:


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



Laziness is refusing to even address the problems with your conspiracy theories because you know they present the proof that your ignorant views are impossible.  

Troofers:  "I know it couldn't have happened the way THEY say it happened because I saw these videos and I find them highly credible.  Freefall!"

Real world:  But for it to have happened any OTHER way would require you to believe a wide array of absurd things to each and collectively be simultaneously true, and those things boil down to one word, "impossible."  

Troofers:  "But, freefall! Molten metal!  Err -- core!  And -uhm - more videos!"

Real world:  Again, you have stated some "reasons" (sort of) for why you don't buy the official explanation.  But that doesn't address all of the things that would have to be true for your alternative explantion (mass murder conspiracy) to be true.  And those things are still impossible.  Don't you see?

Troofers:  "Freefall!  Footprint!  Videos!  Molecular analysis!  Molten metal! Uhm  Freefall!"


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 17, 2009)

Big Black Dog said:


> Glad you're on top of this breaking news story, Terral.  You'll probably be named Obama's "Stupidity Czar" any day now.



so says a loyal brainwashed Bush/Obama  dupe sheepie.


----------



## Terral (Sep 17, 2009)

Hi Lia:



Liability said:


> laziness is reading popular mechanics and listening to some bush sound-bites as the basis of your opinion



My WTC-7 Controlled Demolition Paper appears as the Opening Post of this thread (link). This was the very first Topic started in the WTC-7 Forum at the *AE911Truth* Website where I was a member for years (search "Terral"). Stop being so lazy and try *'debunking' anything* (heh) from my work. :0)



Liability said:


> Laziness is refusing to even address the problems with your conspiracy theories because you know they present the proof that your ignorant views are impossible.



My 911Truth papers have withstood the test of debate at the Loose Change Boards, the Let's Roll Board, the PilotsForTruth Board, so on and so forth 'and' Princess Lia still has no *"Building Fires Did It"* Case. The problem is not that Lia is so lazy, but that he simply has no case. Period.

If Lia really wants to defend *Official Cover Story LIES*, then go right ahead and start your Topic . . . 

GL,

Terral


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 17, 2009)

eots said:


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




and its also ignorance to buy into what popular mechanics says as well.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 17, 2009)

Liability said:


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



all things the 9/11 commission and popular mechanics have said is  impossible .you just dont want to see it.


----------



## Liability (Sep 17, 2009)

Terral said:


> * * * *



Turd, as is usual, I snipped the portion of your post wherein you chose to deflect and stray away from the actual point.

When you are ready to explain away all the impossible things that nevertheless HAVE to be true for your paranoid delusional conspiracy theory to be even possible, then I would be happy to explore your "evidence" for any of that.

Until then, as we can all plainly see, you are merely re-hashing the basis for your disbelief in the "official" explanation.  

We get it.  You don't "buy" it.  I don't CARE what you buy or not.

What I do care about is that you posit an alternative "explanation" which requires that a LOT of things HAVE TO BE TRUE.  You consistently evade addressing ANY of those many things.  You have NO evidence to support any part (much less all parts) of your alternative "theory."  

You can't.

The pre-conditions needed for your conspiracy theory to be credible are impossible.  Thus, your conspiracy theory is absurd and not worth talking about.  And until you face up to that, you will forever be reduced to trying to make the case that the official story is itself invalid.  Ho hum.  It's far better and meticulously better supported than anything YOU have to say.

Thus, again, you will come back to demand that I explain all the issues in the official reports that trouble you.  No need.  Your alternative theory is facially absurd.  It is sufficienet to know that.  And since your alternative explanation is an empty void, the official one stands.


----------



## eots (Sep 17, 2009)

Liability said:


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


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 18, 2009)

eots said:


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



I haven't read the Popular Mechanics article. I don't. And I don't listen to "Bush sound-bites" either. I go out and research everything myself unlike you and the other two three stooges. 

For example, you guys parrot the "molten METAL" comments and then move right over to the melting point of steel as proof that the official story is crap because jet fuel can't melt steel.

I bring up the fact that there was also a large amount of aluminum cladding on the outside of the perimeter columns. Not STEEL, but ALUMINUM, which has a much lower melting point than STEEL. 

I would like to know who either you or any of the other "truther brain trust" gets MOLTEN STEEL from MOLTEN METAL comments? I asked this before and you guys skip right over it. Not to mention that the ring leader here, 9/11 inside job, can't even answer to the fact that he effed up the MELTING point temperature and the temperature at which steel loses it's strength.

Yeah, you guys are working with correct facts to come up with your end results.

Talk about lazy.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 18, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> > Glad you're on top of this breaking news story, Terral.  You'll probably be named Obama's "Stupidity Czar" any day now.
> ...



Still don't know the difference between the MELTING point of steel and when steel starts to lose it's strength?

I see you totally avoid answering that HUGE mistake on your part.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 18, 2009)

eots said:


> there was molten metal..



Steel or Aluminum? Which was it?


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 18, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


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





I haven't read Popular Mechanics. 

Is it also the same kind of ignorance that leads you to believe that the temperature at whcih steel starts to lose it's strength and the temperature at which steel melts is almost the same? 

Do you even research the stuff you read or just believe in it because it goes along with your views of the government?


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 18, 2009)

eots said:


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



Why are most of them retired? Is it because they are now allowed to speak out without fear of repercussions because they are no longer under the steel fist of the governement?


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 18, 2009)

To those of you trying to debate the troofers. Don't bother. The block here in reaching the truth is not in who has the best evidence. Forget trying to have a real debate of finding the truth. The truthers are liars because they are unwilling to admit to others or maybe even themselves that it isn't the truth they are trying to prove. The block is in the mental disorder that is inside their heads. Do you really think 9/11 was the first time people like eots, indside job and Terrell thought there was an evil government cover up? The truth that I am fairly convinced of is that there is no mountain of evidence you could provide that a group of terrorists crashed planes into the WTC, spilling jet fuel, which burned, weakend the steel and caused the buildings to collapse. You couldn't give them the power omniscience and convince them that thats what happened.

Liability is correct. There are simply too many things that also would have to happen for this to be an inside job that they refuse to account for. It is really interesting to see them point to the minimal evidence for their theories (claims of SUPER thermite residue) and feel they don't need to provide evidence at all for how the thermite got there. Why are they not interested in interviewing people who were in teh WTC to see if the noticed the many people it would have taken to rig the building for a controlled demolition. Why are they not interested in searching for teh government officials for the many people it would have taken to orchestrate all of this. How did 'they' (who is them, they, whoever, btw?) organize everything required for the demolition and somehow arrange for the plans to crash into the buildings? These are just a few of the minor points you can't even begin to get these people to address.


----------



## Terral (Sep 18, 2009)

Hi Bern:



Bern80 said:


> To those of you trying to debate the troofers. Don't bother.



Translation: Just believe George Bush and Bern's version of what really happened on 9/11:









Bern80 said:


> The block here in reaching the truth is not in who has the best evidence. Forget trying to have a real debate of finding the truth.



Translation: Just believe whatever the corrupt U.S. Govt Officials want to cram down your throat. Nonsense! Examine 'all' the evidence 'and' draw your own 911Truth Conclusions like a thinking U.S. Citizen. My three primary 911Truth Papers are here:

Flight 93/Shanksville
Flight 77/Pentagon
WTC-7 Controlled Demolition 

Everyone is free to 'quote >>' anything at all from my work to then offer your advocating 'or' opposing views using whatever you call 'credible evidence.' My work has withstood the test of the debate all over the internet 'and' Bern simply has no case, because he has spent the last 8 years doing this (pic). :0)



Bern80 said:


> The truthers are liars because they are unwilling to admit to others or maybe even themselves that it isn't the truth they are trying to prove.



Bern is invited to 'quote me' and prove that any part of my thesis, claims, evidence or conclusions contain even a single lie. Good Luck. :0) 



Bern80 said:


> The block is in the mental disorder that is inside their heads. Do you really think 9/11 was the first time people like eots, indside job and Terrell thought there was an evil government cover up?



And this guy is trying to lead others 'away' from the 911Truth by asking stupid questions, because he is delusional beyond our collective abilities to fathom. Somebody tell us what you see in this empty hole:

My Flight 93 Topic:






I see a man walking from our right to our left wearing a dark shirt and a light-colored pair of pants. The time is around noon, which we know by the shadow gathered at his feet. However, there is no sign of any crashed 100-Ton Jetliner. Now Bern can try to prove that I am lying, but we already know Bush has been lying from day one:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60"]Bush Caught Lying About 9/11 . . .[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgfzqulvhlQ"]There Are A LOT Of People Who Lie And Get Away With It . . .[/ame]

GL,

Terral


----------



## Liability (Sep 18, 2009)

Terral said:


> * * * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...



To correct Turd's ^ MIS-translation:

Recognize that the 9/11 Trufers are uninterested in actual facts, logic OR "truth."  Their minds are rusted-shut on their imbecilic and unpersuasive views and notions.


----------



## Terral (Sep 18, 2009)

Hi Lia:



Liability said:


> To correct Turd's ^ MIS-translation:
> 
> Recognize that the 9/11 Trufers are uninterested in actual facts, logic OR "truth."  Their minds are rusted-shut on their imbecilic and unpersuasive views and notions.



I would love to see Lia's commentary on what he sees in the empty hole:

My Flight 93 Topic:






This idiot cannot even spell "911Truther" and he is the one ignoring the facts in these related 9/11 Cases. 






Okay hotshot: Tell us what you see? :0)

GL,

Terral


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 18, 2009)

Gamolon said:


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



They are not afraid to speak out NOW cause their retired and no longer have to worry about losing their jobs doofus.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 18, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


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



I suppose their LIVES are safe though right? No threats against them to keep quiet? I mean the BIGGEST scam in the world with 3,000 deaths at stake and the government just let's them roll on without any fear of retaliation. You guys are FAMOUS for saying that certain people are lying or hiding something because they are AFRAID to come forward.

What a joke.



Still haven't found the source for your claim that steel starts to lose it's strength at 2700F eh? Keep dodging. You made that up didn't you? If not, you'd be able to source it right?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 18, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> To those of you trying to debate the Bush dupes, Don't bother. The block here in reaching the truth is not in who has the best evidence. Forget trying to have a real debate of finding the truth. The Bush dupes  are liars because they are unwilling to admit to others or maybe even themselves that it isn't the truth they are trying to prove. The block is in the mental disorder that is inside their heads.  The truth that I am fairly convinced of is that there is no mountain of evidence you could provide that it was an inside job. You couldn't give them the power omniscience and convince them that thats what happened.
> 
> Liability is an idiot. He is clueless,ignores evidence and facts sinc e it doesnt fit HIS version of events and only sees what he wants to see like all us Bush dupes. There are simply too many things that also would have to happen for this to be a job done by 19 Terrorists and Bin Laden that they refuse to account for. It is really interesting to see them point to the minimal evidence for their theories  and feel they don't need to provide evidence at all for how the towers collapsed. Why are they not interested in interviewing people who were in teh WTC and listening to their testiomonys? why are they afraid to watch videos we show them?. Why are they not interested in reading testimonys of witnesses and looking at suppressed videos? Why do the Bush dupes REFUSE to look at links that prove it was an inside job? These are just a few of the minor points you can't even begin to get these people to address.




Very good post there Bern.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 18, 2009)

Gamolon said:


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



Too many people around the world know it was an inside job now.If they start that now that just backs up everything they been saying.best thing to do is try and discredit them the way you psyhe op agents do.yep your a joke alright.refusing to watch videos,thats a joke.No idiot thats common knowledge EVERYBODY knows that steel doesnt lose weaken till around 2500F.you've obviously never taken a science or metal shop class in your entire life.if you HAD,you would realise what an idiot you keep making yourself look like.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 18, 2009)

Liability said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > * * * *
> ...



yep thats you Bush dupes alright.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 18, 2009)

Gamolon said:


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



yes unlike you  I research it,everytime we post it for you though you ignore it though.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 18, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Big Black Dog said:
> ...



No its just you only see what you want to see so you ignore it.just like you refuse to watch videos that prove your full of shit in everything you say.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 18, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


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



Where is the source of your claim that steel starts to lose it's strength at 2700F. it's a simple question really. If you don't provide one, then you have no clue.

So where did you get that info?


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 18, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


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



I've asked you to source your claims every time you supposedly state a fact and you can;t do it. For example.

Let's see your source for the claim you have made that steel STARTS to weaken at 2700F.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 18, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> No idiot thats common knowledge EVERYBODY knows that steel doesnt lose weaken till around 2500F.you've obviously never taken a science or metal shop class in your entire life.if you HAD,you would realise what an idiot you keep making yourself look like.



Come on idiot. Source your "knowledge EVERYBODY knows". Please point us to any textbook, manual, website, article, science paper, etc., that says anything like you claim. Let's see how "COMMON" this information is. I bet you can't find ONE source that says steel starts to weaken at 2700F.

Come on mental giant. You can do it.


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 18, 2009)

Terral, even Eots said you're a  fucking idiot with no comprehension of fundamental thermodynamics.

We keep providing evidence, but you're all like


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 18, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Bern:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



See Gam dis in fo agent,Terral makes a well thought out post like this asking a simple question.Your fellow Bush dupe Bern and Princess Lia come back with moronic posts like Berns first on this page and Lia's first post to terral after this.they avoid answering his question he poses that proves the government is lying with the crap they just came back and posted.thats really a great way to win a debate. Also I have explained that hundreds of times in the past  to Bush dupes like Bern HOW the government was able to wire the explosives in the towers without people recognizing it but since they only see what they want to see,they ignored it just like they are ignoring this post of terrals and the question he is asking.why answer the questions for you if your just going to ignore it cause you only see what you want to see? pretty stupid in bothering with people like that.

Bern is being an idiot cause its just the opposite here and he knows it.that to accept the governments version of events to be correct,too many bizarre incidents and coincidences beyond reaslity would have to occur. Like Terral said so well.you Bush dupes just want to believe whatever the corrupt government officials want to cram down your throats and not examine the evidence.


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 18, 2009)

What happens when a soda can hits the ground at several hundred miles per hour?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Terral, even Eots said you're a  fucking idiot with no comprehension of fundamental thermodynamics.
> 
> We keep providing evidence, but you're all like



Lies by the Bush dupes as always.yeah your right,we keep providing you evidence but thats what you do,refuse to look,hear or listen to it.were not the ones who refuse to look at look haer and listen to videos.thats you Bush dupes.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 18, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


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



Here idiot. Educate yourself: Your claim that STEEL only starts to lose it's strength at 2700F is a bunch of bullshit. I can source claims that prove completely wrong.

Powered by Google Docs

Principles of fire protection - Google Books

ScienceDirect - Journal of Constructional Steel Research : Structural behavior of centrally loaded steel columns at elevated temperature

Fundamentals of Fire Protection - Google Books

I guess STEEL loses it's strength STARTING at 2700F in idiotville where you all reside.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 18, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > No idiot thats common knowledge EVERYBODY knows that steel doesnt lose weaken till around 2500F.you've obviously never taken a science or metal shop class in your entire life.if you HAD,you would realise what an idiot you keep making yourself look like.
> ...



It doesnt matter if I do that for you.Eots did that for you once on another thread.you ignored it so why bother.


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 18, 2009)

so coals and bellows must burn at 2700 degrees, then?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> What happens when a soda can hits the ground at several hundred miles per hour?



yeah that  exolains a lot alright.you and feloow Bush dupe miss kitty ignore facts and ignore science and only see what you WANT to see.


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 18, 2009)

Tell me, screwjob

What is the body of a jetliner made of?


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 18, 2009)

Terral said:


> Translation: Just believe George Bush and Bern's version of what really happened on 9/11:
> 
> Translation: Just believe whatever the corrupt U.S. Govt Officials want to cram down your throat. Nonsense! Examine 'all' the evidence 'and' draw your own 911Truth Conclusions like a thinking U.S. Citizen. My three primary 911Truth Papers are here:



Something has to be true before you can accuse someone of it. What exactley has lead you to assume that because I don't believe in your conspiracy theory, I must believe Bush and the 9/11 report. I can't even say that I know what the government's postion is. I imagine it is something along the lines of what we saw (two planes crashing into WTC, the damage causing an eventual collapse) is what happened. But to make the idiotic argument that the reason I disagree with you is because I am a brainwashed Bushite, is just that, an idiotic cop out.



Terral said:


> Bern is invited to 'quote me' and prove that any part of my thesis, claims, evidence or conclusions contain even a single lie. Good Luck. :0)



The problem is your flawed methodology. You are what is considered a 'junk' or hack scientist. Your methodology is to find evidence that supports a belief and that simply isn't how good science is done.



Terral said:


> And this guy is trying to lead others 'away' from the 911Truth by asking stupid questions, because he is delusional beyond our collective abilities to fathom. Somebody tell us what you see in this empty hole:



What is unreasonable about the questions I asked that need to be answered for your theory to hold water? Everyone saw two planes crash into the WTC. How was the simultaneous crash and building demoition accomplished? No one has provided a shred of evidence showing any government official conspiring with Al Quaida to accomplish this. No one has come forth who worked in the WTC to say they saw suspicious people during the months it would have taken to prep the building for demolition. No one has linked the government to paying off pilots to crash into the WTC.  No has provided evidence that the government knew the timing of the attacks (which they would have needed to know many months before hand) and waited to time the demolition with it. No one has come forth with any evidence that the planes were flown remotely. Those things need to be shown for your theory to work because what CAN'T be true is that coincidentally the government planned to demolish the buildings meanwhile Al Qaida planned to crash planes into them and both events miraculously happened at the same time.



Terral said:


> I see a man walking from our right to our left wearing a dark shirt and a light-colored pair of pants. The time is around noon, which we know by the shadow gathered at his feet. However, there is no sign of any crashed 100-Ton Jetliner. Now Bern can try to prove that I am lying, but we already know Bush has been lying from day one:



Except there was evidence of the wreckage, hell they found the frickin engine at the pentagon. It's clearly visible in pictures the truthers claim there isn't any.

But the overall point would be your dishonesty and primarily your dishonesty with yourself. My belief is that people like yourself, eots and inside job aren't capable of onjectively evaluating the evidence. You NEED for the government to have done this so it will fit in with the fucked up reality your brains have created for you.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 18, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


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



Nice dodge. I want YOUR source for this incredibly COMMON knowledge. Or are you saying that you are riding on eots' coattails and can't research for yourself?


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 18, 2009)

Why did Terral just link to a post he made at another forum where it says he's banned?


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 18, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > To those of you trying to debate the Bush dupes, Don't bother. The block here in reaching the truth is not in who has the best evidence. Forget trying to have a real debate of finding the truth. The Bush dupes  are liars because they are unwilling to admit to others or maybe even themselves that it isn't the truth they are trying to prove. The block is in the mental disorder that is inside their heads.  The truth that I am fairly convinced of is that there is no mountain of evidence you could provide that it was an inside job. You couldn't give them the power omniscience and convince them that thats what happened.
> ...



That your are willig to plagarise for amusement does not lend you anymore of your already extremely lacking credibility.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 18, 2009)

Terral said:


> I would love to see Lia's commentary on what he sees in the empty hole:



Where are the following people?

No
 Seat
 Full Name (apparent passenger list abbreviation)

1
 17?
 Christian Adams (C ADAMS)

2
 3?
 Saeed Alghamdi (S ALGHAMDI)

3
 6B
 Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi (A ALHAZNAW)

4
 3C or 8C
 Ahmed Alnami (A ALNAMI)

5
 10D
 Todd Beamer (T BEAMER)

6
 17F
 Alan Beaven (A BEAVEN)

7
 20F
 Deora Frances Bodley (D BODLEY)

8
 12B
 Marion Britton (M BRITTON)


 12C
 Unknown (E BRITTON)
A handwritten note on the manifest next to this record says Extra seat. Were assuming this means Marion Britton bought two tickets to ensure there was an empty seat next to her, and that it wasnt occupied by another passenger. Although that doesnt explain why it seems to have a different first initial (unless E = extra).

9
 4B
 Thomas E Burnett (T BURNETT)

10
 15D
 William Cashman (W CASHMAN)

11
 12D
 Georgine Rose Corrigan (G CORRIGAN)

12
 19C
 Patricia Cushing (P CUSHING)

13
 2B
 Joseph Deluca (J DELUCA)

14
 15C
 Patrick Joseph Driscoll (P DRISCOLL)

15
 2D
 Edward P Felt (E Felt)

16
 19B
 Jane C Folger (J FOLGER)

17
 13A
 Colleen Laura Fraser (C FRASER)

18
 20C
 Andrew Garcia (A GARCIA)

19
 11A
 Jeremy Glick (J GLICK)

20
 11D
 Lauren Grandcolas (L GRANCOL)

21
 16D
 Donald F Greene (D GREENE)

22
 2A
 Linda Gronlund (L GRONLUND)

23
 19A
 Richard Guadagno (R GUADAGNO)

24
 01?
 Ziad Samir Jarrah (Z JARRAH)

25
 18A
 Toshiya Kuge (T KUGE)

26
 17C
 Hilda Marcin (H MARCIN)

27
 10A
 Nicole Miller (N MILLER)

28
 12F
 Louis J Nacke (L NACKE)

29
 14C
 Jean Hoadley Peterson (J PETERSON)

30
 14A
 Donald Arthur Peterson (D PETERSON)

31
 10F
 Waleska Martinez Rivera (W MARTINEZ)

32
 5B
 Mark Rothenberg (M ROTHENBE)

33
 17A
 Christine Snyder (C SNYDER)

34
 13/18F
 John Talignani (J TALIGNAN)

35
 11F
 Honor Elizabeth Waino (H WAINO)

36
 21C
 Olga Kristin Gould White (K GOULD)


----------



## Terral (Sep 18, 2009)

Hi Bern:



Bern80 said:


> Something has to be true before you can accuse someone of it. What exactley has lead you to assume that because I don't believe in your conspiracy theory, I must believe Bush and the 9/11 report. I can't even say that I know what the government's postion is. I imagine it is something along the lines of . . .



Translation: Bern confused is completely ignorant about 9/11!!!













Go and educate yourself by running your own 911Truth Investigation and then return to these deliberations and pretend to know something. You cuckoo should be embarrassed for wasting our time with your nonsense and utter stupidity . . . 

GL,

Terral


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 18, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


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



Hey stupid. JBeukema brings up a good point in another thread. How were swords made? 

HowStuffWorks "How Sword Making Works"



> Steel becomes red hot around 1200 to 1500 degrees Fahrenheit (649 to 816 degrees Celsius) and glows orange at about 1800 F (982 C). Most steel alloys should be worked somewhere within this range. If the steel is cooler and appears bluish in color, it can be shattered by the hammering. Conversely, the steel should not be heated any higher than 1800 F (982 C) unless specified by the alloy's use guidelines.



Uh oh. If steel doesn't WEAKEN until 2700F, how in the WORLD did the steel become malleable/workable at the temps listed above?


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 18, 2009)

Hey, Terral

explain this


----------



## eots (Sep 18, 2009)

Gamolon said:


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



all forensic test of materials from the trade center..showed temperatures did not reach what is required to weaken steel...according to the lead fire investigator at NIST


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 18, 2009)

So... when NIST says they don't think the fires were hot enough, you believe them

when they say no evidence of explosives was found, they're lying?


You remind me of a song by FGFC820
'pick a side and bend the truth to fit'


----------



## Terral (Sep 18, 2009)

Hi Eots:



eots said:


> all forensic test of materials from the trade center..showed temperatures did not reach what is required to weaken steel...according to the lead fire investigator at NIST



Think about what you are saying for one minute. We are talking about massive skyscrapers and a 'steel-framed network' with components (girders, columns, beams, bar-joists) that weigh tens and hundreds of tons. The steel-frame network itself has the potential to transport any amount of heat energy to the cooler parts of the network MUCH more quickly than any single component can become weakened. 

The hypothesis of the 'weakened steel' idiots is that heat energy sits still within the steel-frame network, which is nothing more than fantasy.  Heat moves within the network like electricity through wires and NEVER sits still for even one moment. No sir. We are looking at hundreds and even thousands of massive steel connections that were 'severed' to cause massive skyscrapers to collapse at free fall speed, which cannot be done using any building fire and/or debris-causing scenarios. Period. Controlled Demolition is the ONLY way that all three of the skyscrapers could possibly be taken down . . . 

GL,

Terral


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 18, 2009)

Terral said:


> Think about what you are saying for one minute. We are talking about massive skyscrapers and a 'steel-framed network' with components (girders, columns, beams, bar-joists) that weigh tens and hundreds of tons. The steel-frame network itself has the potential to transport any amount of heat energy to the cooler parts of the network MUCH more quickly than any single component can become weakened.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5L_VJDletk]YouTube - branding cattle[/ame]



> The hypothesis of the 'weakened steel' idiots is that heat energy sits still within the steel-frame network,



Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> which is nothing more than fantasy.  Heat moves within the network like electricity through wires



not quite

once again,

thermodynamics for dummies - Google Search


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 18, 2009)

Why does Terral always disappear after being proven a liar and a fool


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 18, 2009)

eots said:


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



Answer the damn question. It's like pulling teeth. Are you afraid to be wrong or something? 

At what temperature does steel BEGIN to lose it's strength? It's a simple question that both you and 9/11 inside job keep saying is common knowledge.

Well what is it? Are you agreeing with 9/11 inside job that steel STARTS to weaken at 2700F?

Source please?


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 18, 2009)




----------



## Bern80 (Sep 18, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Bern:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



ActualLY I have quite directly challenged your position. I am perfectly capable of being persuaded by a good argument, you quite simply don't have one is all. All of the questions i asked are perfectly legitimate instead you seem more content to hurl insults then find the truth (not that that surprises me at all).


----------



## eots (Sep 18, 2009)

NIST has not looked for explosive residue so logically they found none..they did however examine materials and steel from the trade centers and found the temperatures required where not evident


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 18, 2009)

You won't even say what those temperatures are 


losing strength =/= soften =/= melt

again, explain this








and show us the det cord, blasting caps, and other pieces of explosive devidesamng the wreckage


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 18, 2009)

eots said:


> NIST has not looked for explosive residue so logically they found none..they did however examine materials and steel from the trade centers and found the temperatures required where not evident



And what were the temperatures required?


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> You won't even say what those temperatures are
> 
> 
> losing strength =/= soften =/= melt
> ...





JBeukema said:


> Why does Terral always disappear after being proven a liar and a fool


----------



## eots (Sep 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> You won't even say what those temperatures are
> 
> 
> losing strength =/= soften =/= melt
> ...



the lead fire investigator at stated temperatures required to weaken steel where no evident
your stupid picture is irrelevant...firemen reported not finding an object bigger than a piece of broken telephone key pad all else was unrecognizable fragments..there was miles and miles of wire of all kinds in the trade center and all kinds of electrical components
all covered in a foot of dust...don't be stupid about the needle in the haystack..that no one was looking for


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 18, 2009)

I remember reading that above a certain floor, but below the impact points, the steel was not fireproofed


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 18, 2009)

eots said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > You won't even say what those temperatures are
> ...



That's not the final report said, nor what the evidence suggests according to independent examinations

Besides, you already sad they're l;ying about the official story- which means he's lying about it not being hot enough



> your stupid picture is irrelevant..


.

So the fires in there were colder than red coals?



> firemen reported not finding an object bigger than a piece of broken telephone key pad



What happens when you frush things under thousands of pounds of concrete?



> all else was unrecognizable fragments..there was miles and miles of wire of all kinds in the trade center



Ya think?

[/quote]and all kinds of electrical components
all covered in a foot of dust...don't be stupid about the needle in the haystack..that no one was looking for[/quote]


So... you *don't* have any evidence of any traces of explosives or demolition equipment, even in the section that survived?


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 18, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > To those of you trying to debate the Bush dupes, Don't bother. The block here in reaching the truth is not in who has the best evidence. Forget trying to have a real debate of finding the truth. The Bush dupes  are liars because they are unwilling to admit to others or maybe even themselves that it isn't the truth they are trying to prove. The block is in the mental disorder that is inside their heads.  The truth that I am fairly convinced of is that there is no mountain of evidence you could provide that it was an inside job. You couldn't give them the power omniscience and convince them that thats what happened.
> ...


typical lying troofer


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 18, 2009)

Hey, 9/11 IJ...

explain this


----------



## Article 15 (Sep 18, 2009)

*Altering quotes is not allowed.

~A15*


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 18, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> *Altering quotes is not allowed.
> 
> ~A15*


Did I miss something?


----------



## eots (Sep 18, 2009)

show me that NIST  did forensic test that showed the steel was subjected to temperature sufficient to weaken steel to the point of structural failure...they went on the presumption that fire must have weakened the steel even though there is no evidence then made computer models with the necessary temperatures and tweaked them ever way they could to fit the assumption...but never investigated hypothetical blast scenarios as they stated to their investigators  and the public that they would..


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 18, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> To those of you trying to debate the troofers. Don't bother. The block here in reaching the truth is not in who has the best evidence. Forget trying to have a real debate of finding the truth. The truthers are liars because they are unwilling to admit to others or maybe even themselves that it isn't the truth they are trying to prove. The block is in the mental disorder that is inside their heads. Do you really think 9/11 was the first time people like eots, indside job and Terrell thought there was an evil government cover up? The truth that I am fairly convinced of is that there is no mountain of evidence you could provide that a group of terrorists crashed planes into the WTC, spilling jet fuel, which burned, weakend the steel and caused the buildings to collapse. You couldn't give them the power omniscience and convince them that thats what happened.
> 
> Liability is correct. There are simply too many things that also would have to happen for this to be an inside job that they refuse to account for. It is really interesting to see them point to the minimal evidence for their theories (claims of SUPER thermite residue) and feel they don't need to provide evidence at all for how the thermite got there. Why are they not interested in interviewing people who were in teh WTC to see if the noticed the many people it would have taken to rig the building for a controlled demolition. Why are they not interested in searching for teh government officials for the many people it would have taken to orchestrate all of this. How did 'they' (who is them, they, whoever, btw?) organize everything required for the demolition and somehow arrange for the plans to crash into the buildings? These are just a few of the minor points you can't even begin to get these people to address.




quoted for truth and to preserve the record


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 18, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I remember reading that above a certain floor, but below the impact points, the steel was not fireproofed



Not true at all.the steel in fact after the 93 bombing,  was reinforced even more so everywhere in the towers  on all the steel  with even MUCH more fireproofing than it ever had  before the 93 bombing.see your confused because your making the mistake that too many other gullible people around here have made,listening to the lies and propaganda of the corporate controlled media.anybody who knows about them knows they never have an interest in the truth about major events like this.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 18, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I remember reading that above a certain floor, but below the impact points, the steel was not fireproofed
> ...


proof of this?


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 18, 2009)

eots said:


> show me that NIST  did forensic test that showed the steel was subjected to temperature sufficient to weaken steel to the point of structural failure...they went on the presumption that fire must have weakened the steel even though there is no evidence then made computer models with the necessary temperatures and tweaked them ever way they could to fit the assumption...but never investigated hypothetical blast scenarios as they stated to their investigators  and the public that they would..



Did you watch the NGO piece on this. Steel beams can and do soften and fail when exposed to flame of jet fuel


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 18, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > show me that NIST  did forensic test that showed the steel was subjected to temperature sufficient to weaken steel to the point of structural failure...they went on the presumption that fire must have weakened the steel even though there is no evidence then made computer models with the necessary temperatures and tweaked them ever way they could to fit the assumption...but never investigated hypothetical blast scenarios as they stated to their investigators  and the public that they would..
> ...


i watched that
didnt you love how the troofers responded
LOL
especially when they were shown that thermite wouldn't cut a vertical beam
they all then claimed what was used was a special "super thermite" that no one has ever heard of before


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 18, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I remember reading that above a certain floor, but below the impact points, the steel was not fireproofed
> ...


The impact stripped away much of the fireproofing


fireproofing is not designed to resist such physical forces


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 18, 2009)




----------



## DiveCon (Sep 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


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


Correction: WAS not designed
they have reworked the formula so that now it should
and the new WTC7 is an example of it


----------



## eots (Sep 18, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > show me that NIST  did forensic test that showed the steel was subjected to temperature sufficient to weaken steel to the point of structural failure...they went on the presumption that fire must have weakened the steel even though there is no evidence then made computer models with the necessary temperatures and tweaked them ever way they could to fit the assumption...but never investigated hypothetical blast scenarios as they stated to their investigators  and the public that they would..
> ...



that is not an answer to this question


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


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



Even if such a thing has been concocted, I highly doubt it is widely employed 

jackass


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...


well, fuckhead, they used it in WTC7


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


WTC did not have anything designed to withstand such impacts when it went down


even if they rebuilt it and used it, my point remains valid- the materials used were designed to no such specs

nor its it likely in widespread use now

wtf is your problem, dude?


----------



## eots (Sep 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



*by no one you would be speaking about yourself again,,right..*

Robert Erickson,, emailed David Ray Griffin on 3/27/09: 
"if Jones is surprised that we just placed bags of thermite around the column...what else would Jones have suggested? " 

I was informed of the question above and I responded on 3/28/09 as follows: 

Robert, 

Bags of commercial thermite set against a steel column -- what a pathetic "experiment." Not anywhere close to representing my views, as you must know, from our discussion about the red/gray chips and the crucial distinction between ordinary thermite and super-thermite! What a terrible and unfair straw-man joke you are evidently trying to pull. 

Why can't you get a sample of super-thermite? I think you can, if you will actually try. Or are you like NIST which refuses to look? 




1. awards.lanl.gov... 
[quoting] 
Super-Thermite Electric Matches 
Applications 

The principal application is in the entertainment industry, which uses fireworks displays for a variety of venues, such as sporting events, holiday celebrations, and musical and theatrical gatherings. Secondary applications include 

&#9679; triggering explosives for the mining, demolition, and defense industries, 

2. Los Alamos National Lab: National Security Science... 
"technologies and can be applied to a multitude of related products &#8211;anywhere 
there is a need for sophisticated and accurate ignition control with lower risk of 
misfire at lower cost. " 
Development Stage: 
Working prototype available for demonstration purposes. 
Patent Status: 
Patent pending Non-Provisional 
Licensing Status: 
LANL is seeking partners to help commercialize this product which is available 
for exclusive or non-exclusive licensing. Contact: 
Michael Erickson, 505-667-8087 
michaele@lanl.gov 
tmt-2@lanl.gov 
Technology Transfer Division 

I urge you to contact Mr. Erickson at LANL and request at least three "prototype" samples of super-thermite matches. Since his interest is in "commercializing", I would recommend telling him that you are doing a special which addresses super-thermite and that this will give his product "free advertising", or something like that... I emailed him several months ago, but I lacked an approach that would help with his "commercializing" the product, which was his interest. I think you could succeed if you tried. 

Next, if you succeed in getting a few of the "super-thermite matches," I propose to send you the complete paper that we have -- which includes a discussion of these matches along with their potential usage on 9/11. I think that super-thermite "matches" of this type could very well have been used to trigger more conventional explosives such as C4 in the WTC buildings. 

Next step would be experiments, well-founded and relevant experiments, such as: 

1. Ask two independent laboratories to do SEM/EDS and DSC analyses as described in our paper on the super-thermite material contained in these matches. The results would then be compared carefully with those already obtained on red chips found in the WTC dust. 
One of these labs could be BYU/Dr. Farrer if you wish, since he has analyzed the red chips found in the WTC dust and could act very quickly. (BYU requires that he be paid for any 9/11 research now.) Such analyses are worthy of scientific publication in a peer-reviewed journal (unlike placing bags of commercial thermite next to steel columns). 

2. A real demonstration would involve a C4 shaped charge applied to a steel column, with the cutter charge ignited by a highly-reliable super-thermite match (in turn triggered using a remote radio signal). 

These experiments would test my hypothesis. 

Best wishes, 
Steven Jones



Prof Jones Responds to National Geographic, page 1


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...


i dont have a problem, and i'm not dude, but he is a friend of mine 

i was just responding to your "jackass" in kind
btw, they have rebuilt WTC7 and they used this new stuff
thats all i was saying


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 18, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


jones is a fucking crackpot


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> i was just responding to your "jackass" in kind



Did you not see the smilie?





> btw, they have rebuilt WTC7 and they used this new stuff
> thats all i was saying




still, my point remains valid...dammit...


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > i was just responding to your "jackass" in kind
> ...


your point was valid
since as far as i know WTC7(the new one) is the only place it is KNOWN to be right now


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 19, 2009)

Why you have to be so difficult, Dive?


----------



## JW Frogen (Sep 19, 2009)

I admit it, it was me. I brought down the WTC.

I wanted the Empire State Building to be the tallest boy on the block.

I did it all for art.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Why you have to be so difficult, Dive?


hey, i just forgot the 

LOL
i'm not being difficult


----------



## eots (Sep 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



I think the crack pot is you implying that there is not more advanced form of thermite or _super thermite`_


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


yeah, cause only HE would know of its existence
LOL

and why is it we never heard him claim this BEFORE this demonstration was done?
hmmm?


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 19, 2009)

Thermite does not explode, stick to things, or burn horizontally


Try to come up with better lies


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Thermite does not explode, stick to things, or burn horizontally
> 
> 
> Try to come up with better lies


did you notice that before the natgeo expose, it was always thermite that was used, and now that they proved that it was IMPOSSIBLE to use thermite they come up with "super thermite"


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 19, 2009)

Yep....


and did you notice that they refuse to discuss how swords are made or state just at what temperature steel starts to weaken?


Or that they trust the 'official story' when it suits them- the original statement by one man that the flames weren't hot enough- yet dismiss everything that doesn't support their claims?


Are they dishonest, retarded, or both?


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Yep....
> 
> 
> and did you notice that they refuse to discuss how swords are made or state just at what temperature steel starts to weaken?
> ...


i go with BOTH


----------



## eots (Sep 19, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Yep....
> 
> 
> and did you notice that they refuse to discuss how swords are made or state just at what temperature steel starts to weaken?
> ...



it depends on the steel...and your sword is profound only to you...nobody is saying steel and other metals can when heated to sufficient temperatures for sufficient duration and softened...it is being said these conditions did not exsit at the WTC  on 9/11


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 19, 2009)

eots said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Yep....
> ...


said by _you_, which means jack


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 19, 2009)

eots said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Yep....
> ...



well said.the other thing is that claim by that NIST person has come from him cause the official story is so pathetic that they cant deny the facts anymore so they are being forced now to start admitting facts little by little now.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 19, 2009)

JBeukema said:


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



again your buying into the lies of what the corporate controlled  mainstream media has been telling you.


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 19, 2009)

Look, he's back

hey, 911it...


how do you explain this?


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 19, 2009)

Which burn hotter, coals or jet fuel?


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 19, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


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



Again you swallow the load Alex Jones gives you


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 19, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



true enough.notice how he came  back with things like -thermite doesnt explode and stuff like that.well both thermite and explosives were used.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 19, 2009)

JBeukema said:


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



unlike the corporate controlled media that has a PROVEN history of lies and propaganda and NEVER looks at evidence in  major events like this,Jones at least does THAT much.

seeing how your so ignorant about all this though, no sense in going any further with you on this cause this is all stuff you SHOULD know by now after all these years.


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 19, 2009)

So... you *can't* tell me how a Katana was made?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 19, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Look, he's back
> 
> hey, 911it...
> 
> ...



what the hell is all THAT about? a pic of a sword and the casing it goes into.Like thats really relevent here.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 19, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> So... you *can't* tell me how a Katana was made?



again how the hell is THAT releveant to explosives bringing doww the towers? I also see how you avoid that point about the corporate controlled media as well.great job there.you know how people know that the corporate controlled media has NO interest in reporting the truth abotu events like this? congress did an investigation into the CIA's activities in the 70's and through the freedom of information act,they discoverd documents that they have CIA plants everywhere.government office buildings,human rights activists groups,and ESPECIALLY mainstream media outlets such as the LA times.everytime I bring that point up though,like clockwork,you Bush dupes ignore that fact just like you conviently did just now.So why bother when your bringing up irrelevent material?lol


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 19, 2009)

Still evading?


Tell me how Katanas were made. The coals don't get hot enough to soften steel. Even jet fuel can't do that!


----------



## Liability (Sep 19, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Still evading?
> 
> 
> Tell me how Katanas were made. The coals don't get hot enough to soften steel. Even jet fuel can't do that!



Yeah.  It's almost like the tools used by blacksmiths!   

JB has clearly and eloquently refuted some of the dopiest of the 9/11 Trufer sophistry by posting one picture.

(This doesn't happen a lot, but I have to give some props to JB.  Nicely done!)


----------



## Terral (Sep 19, 2009)

Hi JB:



JBeukema said:


> Yep.... and did you notice that they refuse to discuss how swords are made or state just at what temperature steel starts to weaken?



Anyone moved by your 'sword argument' is not even paying attention and is STUPID 'and' is helping to make my case that *the USA 'is' worthy of utter destruction* (#9 = my Topic)! Your little sword represents 'a segment' of iron/steel completely separate from any 'steel-frame network.' JB is trying to compare a few pounds of steel to massive columns like this: 






This red-iron box column includes steel sections that are four inches thick on each side 'and' this massive column was bolted and welded into a massive steel-framed network that allows any heat energy to be transported to 'cooler areas.' The next problem with JB's STUPID 'sword argument' is that swordsmiths utilize a furnace and a controlled environment to temper metals using optimum conditions. The Official Cover Story LIE says that massive girders, columns, beams and bar-joists were softened/melted from building fires that burn in the neighborhood of 800 to 1000 degrees 'and' for only about 20 minutes in any single location (Schwab/UL Lab Info). 

Your next problem is that all WTC-7 columns and beams were encased in 2 to 3-hour fireproofing insulation (pic) and everyone knows for certain that JB's silly sword includes no fireproofing countermeasures. The next problem is that red-iron structural steel melts at *2800 degrees* (link). Remember again that WTC-7 was struck my NO JETLINER 'and' all structural steel components were protected by the 'compartmentalization' of concrete slabs (horizontally) and masonry curtain walls (vertically). The short of a long story is that no building fires or debris could possibly 'sever' ALL WTC-7 COLUMNS AND BEAMS 'simultaneously,' unless Controlled Demolition was used by a professional Demolition Crew under the guidance of an experienced Demolition Supervisor. Period!!!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A&feature=player_embedded"]Watch The Short Clip Again[/ame]

Remember that a gigantic skyscraper like this . . . 






. . . was transformed into a neat little pile like this . . . 






. . . in 6.6 seconds. Now look at the sides of all the adjacent buildings to realize that WTC-7 collapsed CD-style 'straight down' into its own footprint! This CD Job was done by professionals and people who knew exactly what they were doing; and *I 'do'* (#3) know the difference. End of story . . . 

GL,

Terral


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 19, 2009)

This was an interview that John Skilling the lead engineer of the towers did with Eric Nalder of The Seattle Times back in 93 after the 93 bombing. Skilling pretty much proves that the airliner and the fires could not have brought down the towers with his comments here.That explosives however,could bring them down.  

Frank Demartini the onsite construction manager, also said when interviewed in jan 2001 for a special on the history channel called Modern Marvels that it was designed so that it could take MULTIPLE hits from airliners and the structure would still remain standing.of course this article will just fall on death ears.people here are in so much denial.




Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision
By Eric Nalder

Engineers had to consider every peril they could imagine when they designed the World Trade Center three decades ago because, at the time, the twin towers were of unprecedented size for structures made of steel and glass.

"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."

Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.

"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."

He took note of the fact that smoke and fire spread throughout the building yesterday. He said that is possibly because the pressurizing system that stops the spread of smoke didn't work when the electric power went off. Skilling, 72, was not involved in the design of the building mechanics.

Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."

Copyright (c) 1993 Seattle Times Company, All Rights Reserved.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Sep 19, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> Frank Demartini the onsite construction manager, also said when interviewed in jan 2001 for a special on the history channel called Modern Marvels that it was designed so that it could take *MULTIPLE hits from airliners* and the structure would still remain standing.


Oh well I guess if a *construction manager* said so... notice how wrong he was, yet you still take his advice!

Multiple hits, *YES*. Thousands of pounds of burning jet fuel , *NO*.

A stated numerous times, the steel didn't need to *melt*, only *weaken* to the point where it would collapse.

The terrorists *themselves* figured it would work *and it did,* no History Channel needed*.* Why is that so difficult for you to understand?


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 19, 2009)

We already told you what happened to the fireproofing and even Eots already called you out for your moronic claims about heat conducting heat instantly at the speed of light 'like electricity'


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 19, 2009)

> The next problem is that red-iron structural steel melts at *2800 degrees*



Steel doesn't need to melt. I don't melt the steel to make a sword, either


first you claim it can conduct heat unhindered, then you claim that the concrete compartmentalizes it.

Make up your mind


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 19, 2009)

NIST has failed to disprove the controlled demolition hypothesis and clings to a gravity-assisted collapse hypothesis. This is a disservice to Americans and the world--as GROWING numbers of people doubt the 9/11 official myths. 

The Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions: 

1. Extremely rapid onset of &#8220;collapse&#8221; 

2. Sounds of explosions at plane impact zone &#8212; a full second prior to collapse (heard by 118 first responders as well as by media reporters) 

3. Observations of flashes (seen by numerous professionals) 

4. Squibs, or &#8220;mistimed&#8221; explosions, 40 floors below the &#8220;collapsing&#8221; building seen in all the videos 

5. Mid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people &#8211; mostly to dust 

6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds 

7. Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves 

8. Symmetrical collapse &#8211; through the path of greatest resistance &#8211; at nearly free-fall speed &#8212; the columns gave no resistance 

9. 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris &#8211; outside of building footprint 

10. Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away 

11. Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 20 - 50 ton steel beams up to 500 feet 

12. Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements &#8211; obliterating the steel core structure. 

13. Tons of molten Metal found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (no other possible source other than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate) 

14. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD. 

15. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples 

16. More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for &#8212; 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings 

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e. 

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations 

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires) 

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel 

4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never &#8220;collapsed&#8221;

 Massive interlaced vertical columns of the North Tower are seen falling outward--their ends severed and glowing white--while streaming smoke from the ends. Gravity? Thermate? NIST admits to NOT TESTING any WTC debris for explosives/demolition residue. This amounts to criminal negligence--and underlies all the debate in this thread. Had NIST done its proper job--recognizing that there were over 500 eyewitness reports, many of which identified "explosions" which were NOT COINCIDENT with the planes crashing or the buildings collapsing. News footage reveals explosions. It took a Freedom of Information Act petition to get to these eyewitness testimonies about explosions--testimonies that were OMITTED from the 9/11 Commission Report.

WTC7 is the entry point for many who now know that the 9/11 Commission Report is a farce.....a coverup.

Many explosions occurred which are not coincident to the planes' crashes--before, after, and preceding the collapses. 9/11 Commission Report OMITS these.


Typical of many 9/11 "discussions" several participants here rely upon tactics of ridicule rather than intelligent debate with evidence. When you finally awake to who you have been, you will be horrified at what you have done.
__________________
Our government wouldn't lie about 9/11. Or would they? [ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=NWwrEEP8EBk]YouTube - Oklahoma City Bombing RARE footage[/ame]


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 19, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> Although Skilling is not an explosives expert



-you cite him as your expert witness


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 19, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Although Skilling is not an explosives expert
> ...



AE911Truth

like you 9/11 apologists ALWAYS do,you only read PARTS of posts since you only see what you WANT to see.you proved that here by just quoting PART of the post instead of the ENTIRE thing.LOl you obviously missed it where he pretty much made it clear that he made that comment because he knew people in demolitions and from his talks with THEM,he got his information from them that the towers could be brought down by explosives.but then again,testimony of demolition experts means not a thing to you.LOL.

here is ANOTHER one for you with at least hundreds of architects and engineers who dont accept the official version either.guess thats not good enough for you  or the fact that David Ray Griffith in his DEBUNKING THE 9/11 DEBUNKING book,unlike the 9/11 commission report,lists his sources like I gave from the seattle times on Skilling and sources of demolition experts saying those towers could not have fallen down like they did unless it was because of controlled demolitions.of course thats not good enough for you either though.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 19, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> We already told you what happened to the fireproofing and even Eots already called you out for your moronic claims about heat conducting heat instantly at the speed of light 'like electricity'



uh Eots posted the video for you to watch where Kevin Ryan talked about the towers being reinforced with fireproofing after the 93 bombing liar.Not our fault you wont watch it.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 19, 2009)

Mad Scientist said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Frank Demartini the onsite construction manager, also said when interviewed in jan 2001 for a special on the history channel called Modern Marvels that it was designed so that it could take *MULTIPLE hits from airliners* and the structure would still remain standing.
> ...



as usual,when people such as myself or Terral provide evidence, Mad here comes back with stupid ramblings with no evidence or facts to back up his ramblings. as usual,Mad automatilly assumes that just because the government and the CIA corporate controlled media said it,he takes it as face value as the ultimate truth. 

As usual,Mad believes that just because the government said thousands of pounds of  burning jet fuel caused the towers to collapse,its automatically true.what Mad ignores is the fact that the majority of the jet fuel exploded OUTSIDE of the towers.you can see that by watching the films of the huge fireball explosion when the Airliners slam into the towers.

That disproves Mads theory that thousands of pounds of burning jet fuel caused the towers to collapse when its obvious that about 80% of the fuel explodes outside of the towers.According to Mad, a highly qualified construction manager who was highly involved in the towers being built, means NOTHING to Mad, but the governments version does.Priceless.I love it.

 As I have stated numerous times Mad,Steel doesnt even begin to weaken till it gets around 2500F.You guys obviously never took a metal shop class in your entire life or you would know that to be a fact.I know it to be true  because my neighbor is a retired ceritifed steel worker who built buildings for over 30 years. I also notice how Mad reads only PARTS of posts when he reads posts in the fact that he ignored the comments of John Skilling the lead engineer of the towers comments back in 93 where he was quoted there would be a great loss of life due to the fires but the structure would remain standing. evidence that mad only sees what he WANTS to see and hears what he wants to hear.

The REAL terrorists Mad are the people in the Bush administration.Its hard for YOU to understand that cause like I just proved,you only see waht you WANT to see.until you take a metal shop class mad,your just continuing to talk out the side of your ass.


----------



## eots (Sep 19, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> We already told you what happened to the fireproofing and even Eots already called you out for your moronic claims about heat conducting heat instantly at the speed of light 'like electricity'



you simply repeated what popular mechanics told you happened to the fire proofing
the lab test showed it was extremely difficult to remove the fire proofing from impact and had to resort to blasting it at very short range with a shot gun to dislodge it and then it only came off in the immediate area in a all circle...and as 9/11 said...i already posted the information on fireproofing upgrades after 93


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


wait, wouldnt explosives blow the thermite away from the steel?


----------



## eots (Sep 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


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



[PDF] DETONATION PROPERTIES OF EXPLOSIVES CONTAINING NANOMETRIC ALUMINUM ...File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
an improvement was noted in the velocity of detonation and in plate dent ... super thermite area with mixes of nanometric aluminum and metal oxides ...
www.intdetsymp.org/detsymp2002/papersubmit/.../brousseau-193.pdf 
DETONATION PROPERTIES OF EXPLOSIVES CONTAINING NANOMETRIC ALUMINUM POWDER


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2009)

eots said:


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


now, prove it would take out the type of beams used in the towers


----------



## eots (Sep 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



that's what I find interesting..that all of the scientist and researchers that don't believe the bush/cheney story ...including  9/11 commission members and nist researchers...all want just that...to do the science..peer review it..have full disclosure of evidence...with subpoena powers...and let the truth be told as it ufolds.it is the defenders of the bush/cheney story that oppose this in ever way possible


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 20, 2009)

Take a rock, go to the roof of a 110 story building, let the rock go. It will hit the ground in about 11 seconds.

This is virtual freefall speed. This can only be achieved when NO MASS is present.

NO MASS present in the WTC??!!?! Let us take a look.

Google Image Result for http://indospectrum.com/images/photos/new-york-city/wtc_night.jpg

MMM,I can see it,must have mass,ok,mass is here.

so how to get rid of all that annoying mass? Use Bombs!The ONLY way the WTC was able to collapse in 11 seconds is by using explosives.

who is lying? Physics or the official american story?

Think deeply people! You can do it!


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 20, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> Google Image Result for http://indospectrum.com/images/photos/new-york-city/wtc_night.jpg


uh, whats that supposed to prove?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 20, 2009)

oh uh Ditzcon you might want ot get off the drugs you smoke for once in your life and read what I just now posted.at the time I made this last post I hadnt typed anything in yet.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 20, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> oh uh Ditzcon you might want ot get off the drugs you smoke for once in your life and read what I just now posted.at the time I made this last post I hadnt typed anything in yet.


then maybe its YOU on the drugs, because your post had NOTHING but the link at the time i replied to it


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 20, 2009)

and it didnt collapse to ground level in 11 sec you dumbass
there was still a 4 story PILE
that changes the rate of the fall to MORE than freefall speed


----------



## eots (Sep 20, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6rJRtpSg68]YouTube - 911 LIES - WTC7 - NIST Finally Admits Freefall 1-3[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 20, 2009)

eots said:


> YouTube - 911 LIES - WTC7 - NIST Finally Admits Freefall 1-3


that is on WTC7 and not WTC1 or 2
and then, it was only that speed for a BRIEF time


----------



## eots (Sep 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > YouTube - 911 LIES - WTC7 - NIST Finally Admits Freefall 1-3
> ...



a brief time ?..the entire collapse took seconds so even a few seconds is a long time 
the towers fell at free speed for the entire visible portion of the collapse which is substantial then the last few floors are hidden from view where NIST speculates in the potion not visible the collapse may have slowed..in an attempt to not use the words free fall and add a potential couple of seconds to the collapse




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A]YouTube - wtc 7 collapse[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 20, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


but again, the pile of debris was not at ground level


----------



## eots (Sep 20, 2009)

and again you support the cover up and oppose the request of NIST lead fire investigators for a peer reviewed independent investigation ..with floor model test ..calibration of computer models and investigation of hypothetical blast scenarios..and have no concern he calls NISTs finding questionable


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 20, 2009)

eots said:


> and again you support the cover up and oppose the request of NIST lead fire investigators for a peer reviewed independent investigation ..with floor model test ..calibration of computer models and investigation of hypothetical blast scenarios..and have no concern he calls NISTs finding questionable


the only "cover up" i see was in the placing of fault on the various intel groups not being able to share information
and the responsibility there
the rest is correct


----------



## eots (Sep 20, 2009)

so the timeline is correct ?...the complete omission of building 7 is correct...so the omission of testimony of all first responders  of explosions and molten metal is correct..


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 20, 2009)

eots said:


> so the timeline is correct ?...the complete omission of building 7 is correct...so the omission of testimony of all first responders  of explosions and molten metal is correct..


you are stuck on minutia


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 21, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> WTC was able to collapse in 11 seconds is by using explosives.



More incorrect information. Have you ever actually watched the videos of the collapses? 11 seconds?

Are you serious? 

The amount of stupid you bring to the table is amazing. I guess the "11 second" claim comes from the same source as your "steel only starts to weaken at 2700F" crap.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 21, 2009)

eots said:


> molten metal is correct..



Still haven't answered the question. What type of metal was it? Steel? Aluminum?


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 21, 2009)

eots said:


> and again you support the cover up and oppose the request of NIST lead fire investigators for a peer reviewed independent investigation



You mean the same one who doesn't agree it was supposedly a controlled demolition?

That one?


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 21, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> Take a rock, go to the roof of a 110 story building, let the rock go. It will hit the ground in about 11 seconds.



Ok smart guy. Can you please explain why then, if the towers totally collapsed in 11 seconds (free fall), there were pieces of the tower that fell AHEAD of where the collapse was progressing?







So what you are saying is that the debris was falling FASTER than free fall? Let me guess. Each individual piece of debris had a rocket attached to it that propelled it towards the ground.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 21, 2009)

Terral said:


> The Official Cover Story LIE says that massive girders, columns, beams and bar-joists were softened/melted from building fires that burn in the neighborhood of 800 to 1000 degrees 'and' for only about 20 minutes in any single location (Schwab/UL Lab Info).



Let's see if you can answer this question since nobody else seems to have the balls to.

At what temperature does steel BEGIN to lose it's strength? What temperatures can offices fires reach?


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 21, 2009)

Vulcan Solutions - Cardington Fire Test Comparisons

Interesting. I see office fire temps from  of 763C (1405F) to 1213C (2215F). Must be government funded.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 21, 2009)

eots said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Oh yes it does. We know the flames were burning jet fuel which was spilled on floor from the wings of the plane possibly even coating the steal beams. We now know that with such a flame it is possible to to weakn steal to the point of collapse.

Now you answer some questions.

How did our government coincide it's inside job attack with the crashing of the planes? 

Where is the evidence of the prep work (that would have taken months to accomplish and many men) that would have been required to implode the building?

I have more. You can start there.


----------



## eots (Sep 21, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > and again you support the cover up and oppose the request of NIST lead fire investigators for a peer reviewed independent investigation
> ...



well that statement was actually editorial not in quotes however what he did say in his letter to NIST  was  questioning why alternative theory's where not examined ..including hypothetical and that the fire scenario had a low probability


----------



## eots (Sep 21, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > The Official Cover Story LIE says that massive girders, columns, beams and bar-joists were softened/melted from building fires that burn in the neighborhood of 800 to 1000 degrees 'and' for only about 20 minutes in any single location (Schwab/UL Lab Info).
> ...



Kevin Ryan of underwriters stated ..test on the steel done at maximum possible temperatures for extended periods of time caused no weakening of the steel....NIST lead fire investigator says..of the forensic test done on recovered steel and material show temperatures required to weaken steel where not present...


----------



## eots (Sep 21, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > molten metal is correct..
> ...



it was steel as reported by first responders and engineers on site that molten metal was was still flowing down the metal columns ..it was found it blobs they dubbed meteorites..it was evident in the glowing red supports pulled from the wreckage


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 21, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > WTC was able to collapse in 11 seconds is by using explosives.
> ...



yeah but YOU havent as we both know.your putting words in my mouth I never said before.I said MANY times it weakens at 2500F and melts at 2800F.I know that to be fact cause I already told you,my next door neighbor is a retired  certified steel worker who built buildings for over 30 years.You have blatantly ignored facts and evidence just like the disinformation agent you are.

sorry but I will listen to a ceritifed steel worker I have met in real life than some internet loon who rambles on and on and can never admit it when he has been proven wrong.you also conviently ignored my long post I made like disinformation agents ALWAYS do.somehow you believe everything NIST says but when they admit they screwed up and that the towers fell at freefall speed as Eots just posted for you in his video,you all of a sudden say that NIST doesnt know what their talking about.Lol.I love it.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 21, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Take a rock, go to the roof of a 110 story building, let the rock go. It will hit the ground in about 11 seconds.
> ...



demolitions fool.I never said that debris fell faster than free fall.YOU did.thats normal in a controlled demolition for that to happen agent.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 21, 2009)

eots said:


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


and why was Kevin Ryan fired again?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 21, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> Vulcan Solutions - Cardington Fire Test Comparisons
> 
> Interesting. I see office fire temps from  of 763C (1405F) to 1213C (2215F). Must be government funded.



so you use something you can find on the INTERNET as your source and AGAIN despite what HUNDREDS  at LEAST of architects and engineers and demolition experts say, means NOTHING to you? got you.brilliant reasoning there. you continue to make yourself look like a fool with all these lies and disinformation you spread as well.

Eots already posted the video for you before where they provided FACTS that the towers  steel after the 93 bombing were REINFORCED with fireproofing.YOU ignored it like you always ignore facts.
You continue to make yourself look like a deluded fool as well in the fact that if you ever bothered to do any research,you would know that in 75 there was fire there back then that burned and lasted for over two hours.so much for your office fire theory.your hilarious.

You Bush dupes cant even agree on what caused the fire,thats whats funny.You told Eots earlier that the jet fuel fire had no impact in the towers collapse,that it was the office material that office fires have that made it collapse,yet Mad Moron here just said that it WAS the jet fuel fires that caused it to collapse.You two cant even make up your minds if jet fuel caused the fires to collapse. I love it.


----------



## eots (Sep 21, 2009)

[





> QUOTE=Bern80;1539483]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## eots (Sep 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


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



for the same reason Steven Jones was ...speaking out on 9/11 same reason the lead fire investigator of NIST quite after writing his article and voicing his concerns out side of NIST...I would suspect...same reason most of the high ranking military experts and researchers that have had the balls to speak are retired...make sense ?


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 21, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


WRONG
he was fired for making statements not supported by UL
he was NOT what he claimed to be at the company and was lying
thus they fired him and his wrongful firing law suit proved he was fired for that


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 21, 2009)

Eots posted this video before on Chris's thread but since it doesnt go along with your delusions,you conviently ignored it just like you conviently ignored his other video where NIST confesses the towers fell at freefall speed.you never watch videos though cause you only see what you want to see as we both know.This video puts an end to the whole thing and proves beyond a doubt that demolitions brought down the towers.of course as we both know,you wont watch this video since disinformation agents like you and Bush dupes like DITZCON only see what you guys WANT to see..  Too bad your not mature enough to admit you have been proven wrong that the fires did not cause the collapses.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8ZNoaqpxqM[/ame]

Kevin Ryan of course got fired for not going along with their coverup as many people have been around the country in jobs everywhere.wow what a free country this is.you cant even disagree with the government without fear of losing your jobs.thats how nazi germany was.The latest person who got fired for not accepting the governments version of events was one van johnson I think his name was.the environmentalist who was serving on the Obama administration for signing a petition to open up a new investigation.wow what freedoms we have here in america.cant question the governments version without losing your job.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 21, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> Eots posted this video before on Chris's thread but since it doesnt go along with your delusions,you conviently ignored it just like you conviently ignored his other video where NIST confesses the towers fell at freefall speed.you never watch videos though cause you only see what you want to see as we both know.This video puts an end to the whole thing and proves beyond a doubt that demolitions brought down the towers.of course as we both know,you wont watch this video since disinformation agents like you and Bush dupes like DITZCON only see what you guys WANT to see..  Too bad your not mature enough to admit you have been proven wrong that the fires did not cause the collapses.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8ZNoaqpxqM
> 
> Kevin Ryan of course got fired for not going along with their coverup as many people have been around the country in jobs everywhere.wow what a free country this is.you cant even disagree with the government without fear of losing your jobs.thats how nazi germany was.The latest person who got fired for not accepting the governments version of events was one van johnson I think his name was.the environmentalist who was serving on the Obama administration for signing a petition to open up a new investigation.wow what freedoms we have here in america.cant question the governments version without losing your job.


Kevin Ryan is a court documented LIAR


----------



## eots (Sep 21, 2009)

Lets not forget the hostile environment...they don't call it programing for nothing

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWxEyplLzRk]YouTube - Michael Reagan Solicits Murder on Mark Dice and 9/11 Truth[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRGv9z5oUbk&feature=related]YouTube - Rosie attacked over 'unpopular' 9/11 theories[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx9YPi6bcjg]YouTube - FOX: GERALDO MOCKS 9/11 TRUTH PROTESTERS[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 21, 2009)

hell, if geraldo can mock em, it must be easy to do
LOL


----------



## eots (Sep 21, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf33g9ep4YU]YouTube - Glenn Beck: "I hate 9/11 victims families for asking questions"[/ame]




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnKppff5yQ8&feature=related]YouTube - Glenn Beck on the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory (10/22/07)[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctqEndNmaFk]YouTube - Mainstream Media vs 9/11 Truth[/ame]


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 21, 2009)

eots said:


> NGO test are basically irrelevant and unverified...the fact both the Kevin Ryan of underwriters and the lead fire investigator of NIST..say the temperatures required to weaken steel cant be found in examination of the forensic evidence is of far greater relevance than what you watched in a 30 sec sound bite from a t.v show



That's what the truther on the show told you to say (see what a stupid argument that is when someone fires it back at ya? So why is it irrelevent? Do you ever listen to yourself and the asinine lengths you have to go to for your 'theory' to still work. Was the experiment faked?






eots said:


> this is completely untrue ..we know no such thing...that is only what popular mechanics told you..


 
Again was the experiment faked in some way that you're aware of?




eots said:


> without an investigation this is only assumption and speculation
> 
> this is why we have a real investigation..we don't just not investigate because you have some _why didn't they do this instead of that_..questions...



Yet it is a vital piece of proving your theory. It's not asking what someone did or didn't do. I am asking why is there ZERO evidence for somehting that MUST be true to prove your theory correct?


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 21, 2009)

eots said:


> YouTube - Glenn Beck: "I hate 9/11 victims families for asking questions"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


alex jones told you to post that


----------



## eots (Sep 21, 2009)

> =Bern80;
> That's what the truther on the show told you to say (see what a stupid argument that is when someone fires it back at ya? So why is it irrelevent? Do you ever listen to yourself and the asinine lengths you have to go to for your 'theory' to still work. Was the experiment faked?



no its not what a truther told me to say..it is the opinion of the lead fire investigator of nist..and it is seconded from ex-underwriters employee Kevin Ryan...and the test done on NGO.. did not meet the standards required and was unrealistic and nowhere near the level a nist investigator would consider in anyway conclusive





> Yet it is a vital piece of proving your theory. It's not asking what someone did or didn't do. I am asking why is there ZERO evidence for somehting that MUST be true to prove your theory correct




because without a true criminal investigation with testimony under oath and subpoena power the perpetrators are not required to give or release information or evidence or acknowledge witnesses


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 21, 2009)

eots said:


> That's what the truther on the show told you to say (see what a stupid argument that is when someone fires it back at ya? So why is it irrelevent? Do you ever listen to yourself and the asinine lengths you have to go to for your 'theory' to still work. Was the experiment faked?



Please explain to me why a beam of steel exposed to a flame fueled by jet fuel that eventually failed doesn't count. How can someone who claims to be after the truth not find that compelling?



eots said:


> no its not what a truther told me to say..it is the opinion of the lead fire investigator of nist..and it is seconded from ex-underwriters employee Kevin Ryan...and the test done on NGO.. did not meet the standards required and was unrealistic and nowhere near the level a nist investigator would consider in anyway conclusive



As i said, annoying when someones throws your ridiculous argument back at you isn't it?




eots said:


> because without a true criminal investigation with testimony under oath and subpoena power the perpetrators are not required to give or release information or evidence or acknowledge witnesses



Oh for stupid eots. I'm telling you're just digging yourself a deeper hole. Ya know how we kinda just went over this concept that for a theory to be valid there are variables that must hold true? The same would apply to this particular line of ridiculousness. What you just said is that we can't get to the truth because we can't officially subpoena suspects who would tell us what happened. Can you figure out what would have to be true there? I'll help. WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A SUSPECT BELIEVED TO BE PART OF THE INSIDE JOB. Have you heard of ANYONE, any person at all suspected of working for the government to commit this plot?


----------



## eots (Sep 21, 2009)

[quote





> =Bern80
> 
> Oh for stupid eots. I'm telling you're just digging yourself a deeper hole. Ya know how we kinda just went over this concept that for a theory to be valid there are variables that must hold true? The same would apply to this particular line of ridiculousness. What you just said is that we can't get to the truth because we can't officially subpoena suspects who would tell us what happened. Can you figure out what would have to be true there? I'll help. WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A SUSPECT BELIEVED TO BE PART OF THE INSIDE JOB. Have you heard of ANYONE, any person at all suspected of working for the government to commit this plot?





WTF are you babbling about ??....all roads lead to Cheney and clearly bush, Cheney rumsfeld and rice would be among those required to testify under oath...that silverstein fellow is also a weak link a few hours in a room and a bright light and a phone book and he would squeal like a pig.. as well there are indeed active military that have stated an unspecified direct knowledge but wont speak out of the chain of command unless called to testify...this was a crime and should proceed as any crime investigation would have..


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 22, 2009)

eots said:


> WTF are you babbling about ??....all roads lead to Cheney and clearly bush, Cheney rumsfeld and rice would be among those required to testify under oath...that silverstein fellow is also a weak link a few hours in a room and a bright light and a phone book and he would squeal like a pig.. as well there are indeed active military that have stated an unspecified direct knowledge but wont speak out of the chain of command unless called to testify...this was a crime and should proceed as any crime investigation would have..



Well at least part of the truth comes out. Again quite reveaing about you and the truthers. If you had to guess, how many truthers would you say voted for Bush/Cheney?

What SPECIFICALLY points to their involvement? If they are your prime suspects how did they orchestrate the entire thing? After all it couldn't have been just them. What was their motive? You think if you can subpoena them? Politicians, like no other group, take lies to the grave. For your own sake try a different approach because even assuming something so ridiculous were true you're probably not going any of them to tell the truth.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 22, 2009)

eots said:


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



STILL haven't answer the question. What type of METAL was it. Steel or Aluminum? I suppose they were experts and could tell by sight alone?

So which was it? Let's see you source that it was 100% steel.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 22, 2009)

eots said:


> well that statement was actually editorial not in quotes however what he did say in his letter to NIST  was  questioning why alternative theory's where not examined ..including hypothetical and that the fire scenario had a low probability



Right, but not any conspiracy garbage. He even stated what he thought might have actually happened. Did you read what he said HIS alternative theory was?


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 22, 2009)

eots said:


> Kevin Ryan of underwriters stated ..test on the steel done at maximum possible temperatures for extended periods of time caused no weakening of the steel....



Can you please supply me with that quote from Kevin Ryan? I would like to read it for myself from the same source you are.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 22, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


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



Then you are both wrong idiot. As has been proven time and time again, your lie that "steel only starts to weaken at 2500F" is total idiocy. I don't don't give a shit about a "steel worker's" opinion on the properties of steel. Is he an engineer? I worked in quite a few steel mills where they MAKE steel and know that you and he are full of shit. Go look around. I asked you AND eots for your source of your claim that steel weakens at 2500F and you have not provided it, which tells me that you're making stuff up. 

All you can do is take incorrect quotes from other idiots and pass them on because you're too stupid to do research yourself.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 22, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


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



Ok dumbass. Let's go REAL slow for you so you can understand.

If you claim that the towers collapsed in free fall, then how did the debris in that photo fall AHEAD of the collapse? With your "the towers collapsed at free fall" claim you are essentially saying that anything that is falling AHEAD of where the front of the collapse "wave" is at is falling FASTER than free fall.

Do you get it now or do I have to explain it again? Here, I'll even mark up the photo for you.





So again, if you are claiming that the towers collapsed at free fall, how is it possible that the debris piece I have circled in red is going to hit the ground BEFORE the entire tower completes it's collapse? So with your "towers fell at freefall claim" you have indirectly also claimed that that piece of debris is falling FASTER than free fall.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 22, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> Eots posted this video before on Chris's thread but since it doesnt go along with your delusions,you conviently ignored it just like you conviently ignored his other video where NIST confesses the towers fell at freefall speed.you never watch videos though cause you only see what you want to see as we both know.This video puts an end to the whole thing and proves beyond a doubt that demolitions brought down the towers.of course as we both know,you wont watch this video since disinformation agents like you and Bush dupes like DITZCON only see what you guys WANT to see..  Too bad your not mature enough to admit you have been proven wrong that the fires did not cause the collapses.
> YouTube - Kevin Ryan 9/11 Truth
> 
> Kevin Ryan of course got fired for not going along with their coverup as many people have been around the country in jobs everywhere.wow what a free country this is.you cant even disagree with the government without fear of losing your jobs.thats how nazi germany was.The latest person who got fired for not accepting the governments version of events was one van johnson I think his name was.the environmentalist who was serving on the Obama administration for signing a petition to open up a new investigation.wow what freedoms we have here in america.cant question the governments version without losing your job.



Wow. More stupid coming from you. Who would have thought....

Him getting fired because he didn't go along with their cover-up is pure speculation. He was FIRED because he expressed opinions about MANY things in his letter as if it were the opinions of the company as a whole. Did you not even read Kevin Ryan's letter? Here's part of it:



> There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and chatter.
> 
> Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.



He was NOT involved in the fire testing. He was a SITE MANAGER, not an EXECUTIVE as I have seen claimed by other people. He worked for a subsidiary of UL in a lab used for WATER TESTING.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 22, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> This video puts an end to the whole thing and proves beyond a doubt that demolitions brought down the towers.of course as we both know,you wont watch this video since disinformation agents like you and Bush dupes



Did I hear him right? He actually said that they proved the floors SAGGED? I thought steel didn't weaken?

Contradiction?

He then goes on to state that steel can't "MELT" at these temperatures, yet, as stated above, they he says they supposedly proved that the floors could SAG a little.

What gives?

What a joke. You guys provide evidence against your own claims.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 22, 2009)

eots said:


> Kevin Ryan of underwriters stated ..test on the steel done at maximum possible temperatures for extended periods of time caused no weakening of the steel....



Why in his video you posted does Kevin state that they showed the floors sagged just a bit. Was he involved in the fire testing?


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 22, 2009)

Also concerning Kevin Ryan's testing. Were the tests done with loads applied on the floors like similar to the loads on the floors of the towers?

Were the tests done with or without insulation?


----------



## candycorn (Sep 22, 2009)

Gamolon said:


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



*
Yeah like we're going to listen to the guy who can't punctuate properly. 

I'll take grammar for $200 Alex!



*


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 22, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> Eots posted this video before on Chris's thread but since it doesnt go along with your delusions,you conviently ignored it just like you conviently ignored his other video where NIST confesses the towers fell at freefall speed.you never watch videos though cause you only see what you want to see as we both know.This video puts an end to the whole thing and proves beyond a doubt that demolitions brought down the towers.of course as we both know,you wont watch this video since disinformation agents like you and Bush dupes like DITZCON only see what you guys WANT to see..  Too bad your not mature enough to admit you have been proven wrong that the fires did not cause the collapses.
> YouTube - Kevin Ryan 9/11 Truth
> 
> Kevin Ryan of course got fired for not going along with their coverup as many people have been around the country in jobs everywhere.wow what a free country this is.you cant even disagree with the government without fear of losing your jobs.thats how nazi germany was.The latest person who got fired for not accepting the governments version of events was one van johnson I think his name was.the environmentalist who was serving on the Obama administration for signing a petition to open up a new investigation.wow what freedoms we have here in america.cant question the governments version without losing your job.



the other thing that puts this to an end that explosives brought down the towers is that there were aeriel photos taken from above that showed intense heat emitting from ALL 3 of the towers grounds.Molten metal was found in all 3 basements of the 3 collapsed towers 3 weeks later.Temperatures FAR too intense for jet fuel and office fires.The fire department after 3 weeks of spraying water on them,the heat was STILL there.Rescue workers reported feeling intense heat below the bottom so hot that their boots melt.you gus going to say that the office fires or the jet fuel caused THAT after 3 weeks? nice try psche op agents. As i said before,Bld 7 is the crux of the 9/11 COVERUP commission in the fact that there were other buildings that were hit with debris that had MUSH far more extensive damagae done to them,yet THOSE buildings structures remained standing unlike bld 7 that the 9/11 coverup commission conviently did not even mention in their report.

Get off the drugs your smoking.you lose.thanks for the laughs guys.you exposed yourselfs as the disinformation agents you are "except for Ditzcon of course.He is afraid on ANY government conspiracy and is just in denial."  in the fact that none of these architects and engineers and even demolition experts testimonys are good enough for you.Priceless.I love it.LOL.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 22, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin Ryan of underwriters stated ..test on the steel done at maximum possible temperatures for extended periods of time caused no weakening of the steel....
> ...



I supplied you with the video of that to watch before where he says all of that.You never bothered to watch it like you 9/11 apologists NEVER do since as we both know,you only see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 22, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> Molten metal was found in all 3 basements of the 3 collapsed towers 3 weeks later.Temperatures FAR too intense for jet fuel and office fires



Molten STEEL or ALUMINUM?

Still haven't gotten an answer.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 22, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


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



Kevin says they proved the floors sagged a bit in the tests.

Uh oh!

Now what?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 22, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Eots posted this video before on Chris's thread but since it doesnt go along with your delusions,you conviently ignored it just like you conviently ignored his other video where NIST confesses the towers fell at freefall speed.you never watch videos though cause you only see what you want to see as we both know.This video puts an end to the whole thing and proves beyond a doubt that demolitions brought down the towers.of course as we both know,you wont watch this video since disinformation agents like you and Bush dupes like DITZCON only see what you guys WANT to see..  Too bad your not mature enough to admit you have been proven wrong that the fires did not cause the collapses.
> ...



yep stupid coming from you as always psych op agent.so what, he worked there idiot.Yes I have never denied he worked there at a lab for water testing.He worked there and had knowledge of everything me and Eots have talked about.none of that shows that it was the COMPANYS expressions.Nice try agent.better luck somewhere else in your pitiful attempts.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 22, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


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



Did you just come home from school? 

You need to go back and learn reading comprehension. Then again, maybe not. It's probably the same place that taught you about steel starting to WEAKEN at 2500F.


----------



## eots (Sep 22, 2009)

Gamolon said:


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



it was steel I provided that information several times...and you keep forgetting  that the lead fire investigator at also stated that fires a the maximum temperatures   for much longer durations created only minimal floor sagging...and that no forensic test  should that temperatures hot enough to weaken steel was even present at the wtc...so other than popular mechanics ...who confirms....your assertions ???


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 22, 2009)

eots said:


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



You don't research much do you? Explain this quote from James Quintiere: 





> Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers. I suggest that theres an equally justifiable theory and thats the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different, he said.



So NOW he says the trusses failed due to heat with insulation intact. I thought there wasn't enough heat to weaken steel? Maybe the trusses were made of plastic?

Not only does he NOT agree with you about explosives, but gives HIS ALTERNATE conclusion based on the trusses failing due to heat.

You truthers are a joke.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 22, 2009)

Gamolon said:


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


careful gam, you'll be called a "disinfo agent" soon

the crow flies at noon


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 22, 2009)

eots said:


> it was steel I provided that information several times...and you keep forgetting  that the lead fire investigator at also stated that fires a the maximum temperatures   for much longer durations created only minimal floor sagging...and that no forensic test  should that temperatures hot enough to weaken steel was even present at the wtc...so other than popular mechanics ...who confirms....your assertions ???



Let's assume that just for a second. That there was no weakening of the steal by fire (despite the overwhelming evidence that it could and the fact that you desperately cling to the words of one man as proof). Then what happened? Do you see how much more untenable your theory becomes by the moment? Again you fall into the trap where certain scenarios HAD to have taken place - scenarios you have provided zero evidence for - for your theories to be true. The videos we have seen quite clearly show the implosion of the building starting from the top and working their way down. So meaning any explosives used would have had to be detonated there - at the top - first. 'THEY' obviosuly meant for us to conclude that the the plane slicing through the building caused enough structural damage for the weight above to no longer be supported resulting in collapse and the sheep would just leave it at that. So please tell me how 'they' managed to make sure the planes hit underneath the pont where they had planned to trigger the first explosives.

The 'truthers' are not interested in the truth.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 22, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > it was steel I provided that information several times...and you keep forgetting  that the lead fire investigator at also stated that fires a the maximum temperatures   for much longer durations created only minimal floor sagging...and that no forensic test  should that temperatures hot enough to weaken steel was even present at the wtc...so other than popular mechanics ...who confirms....your assertions ???
> ...


that NO ONE would have noticed the building being wired for demo and that ZERO evidence of that being found in the cleanup shows just how STUPID troofers are
with the THOUSANDS of people involved in the clean up and not ONE of them has come forward to say "hey, i found some really strange looking devices while sorting through the debris" is just implausible


----------



## eots (Sep 22, 2009)

> Bern80;
> 
> [Let's assume that just for a second. That there was no weakening of the steal by fire (despite the overwhelming evidence that it could and the fact that you desperately cling to the words of one man as proof



what is this overwhelming you speak of and why do you characterise the man whose official mandate from the people of this country,,is to find the cause of the collapse as if he is one lone individual in the wilderness ?




> Then what happened? Do you see how much more untenable your theory becomes by the moment? Again you fall into the trap where certain scenarios HAD to have taken place - scenarios you have provided zero evidence for - for your theories to be true. The videos we have seen quite clearly show the implosion of the building starting from the top and working their way down. So meaning any explosives used would have had to be detonated there - at the top - first. 'THEY' obviosuly meant for us to conclude that the the plane slicing through the building caused enough structural damage for the weight above to no longer be supported resulting in collapse and the sheep would just leave it at that. So please tell me how 'they' managed to make sure the planes hit underneath the pont where they had planned to trigger the first explosives.
> 
> The 'truthers' are not interested in the truth



you test to fire theory when after years of trying to make science fit the story and still finding to have a very low probability you investigate hypothetical blast scenarios as requested by the lead fire investigator at NIST....As well as many highly respected and honored scientist


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 22, 2009)

eots said:


> > Bern80;
> >
> > [Let's assume that just for a second. That there was no weakening of the steal by fire (despite the overwhelming evidence that it could and the fact that you desperately cling to the words of one man as proof
> 
> ...



I find it very interesting that you proclaim you know so much about what happened. Yet you chicken shit out of providing any type of evidence what so ever for the things that must be true for your theory to remain plausible.


----------



## eots (Sep 22, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



strange looking devices ???? they found nothing bigger than a piece of broken keypad from a telephone..the tons of electronics and wire in buildings of this magnitude all covered in ash to top it all off...and then the crime scene  and evidence was all promptly destroyed by popular mechanics friends...controlled demolition inc...who was contracted to dispose of the evidence in a clean-up


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 22, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


they were but one of several
and there were THOUSANDS of people involved in the cleanup

btw, the "wireless detonators" you claimed were used were smaller than that
and they found a lot of small items


----------



## eots (Sep 22, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > > Bern80;
> ...



i want credible scientific study of hypothetical blast scenario's as promised by NIST and requested by the lead fire investigator....and a re-investigation of the intelligence and timeline as supported by the majority of 9/11 commision members...what do you want...and who do you share this opinion with ?


----------



## Liability (Sep 22, 2009)

eots said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Nobody cares what you or the other sub-moron Trufers want.

To ask for it is one thing.  Silly, but harmless.

But to GET it, you WOULD indeed have to mount a better case FOR a new investigation than you have come up with so far.

You really can't get PAST the fact that  there are thousands of things that WOULD ALL HAVE TO BE TRUE in order for your sick paranoid conspiracy crap theory to hold enough water to warrant a re-opening of any investigation.  And none (or practically none) of those things get addressed by you -- ever -- because they are too difficult for your pin-head to wrap it's tiny mind around.


----------



## eots (Sep 22, 2009)

Liability said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...







City of New York Concedes 9/11 Coalition Has 30,000 Valid Signatures to Put Referendum...



\\Thu Sep 10, 2009 4:44pm EDT  
City of New York Concedes 9/11 Coalition Has 30,000 Valid Signatures to Put
Referendum for 9/11 Investigation on November Ballot



NEW YORK, Sept. 10 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In a last minute decision,
lawyers for the City of New York have conceded that the New York City
Coalition for Accountability Now (NYC CAN),* a group comprising 9/11 family
members, first responders and survivors*, indeed did submit *over 30,000 valid
signatures to put the referendum for a new 9/11 investigation *before the
voters of New York City this November. 

*In an earlier letter from the City Clerk dated July 24, 2009, the City had
claimed only 26,003 signatures were valid, 3,997 short of the requisite*
30,000. *The City's concession that over 30,000 of the 52,000 signatures
submitted were in fact valid paves *the way for lawyers from both sides to
argue the legality of petition. 

Asked whether he thought NYC CAN could overcome the City's challenge to the
legality of the petition, legal counsel to the petitioners, Dennis McMahon,
said, "Absolutely. Although the City has an incredibly successful record of
shooting down ballot initiatives, we will be arguing from a fresh perspective
that reflects the unprecedented events of 9/11. We believe the courts will see
how critical an issue this is, and be persuaded with our legal reasoning and
point of view." A final determination on the legality of the petition will be
reached in time for *the referendum to be included on the November ballot
should the petitioners prevail.   *
Representatives for NYC CAN, 9/11 family member Manny Badillo and Executive
Director Ted Walter, arrived at the Board of Elections on the morning of
Wednesday, September 9, to assist the court-appointed referee in commencing a
line-by-line review of the disputed signatures, only to learn the referee's
review had been called off due to a last minute concession by the City. Mr.
Badillo immediately got on the phone to inform others of the news.  

"The City conceded we have 30,000 valid signatures. Big victory."

The City's concession comes as a result of the immense effort put forth by 50+
volunteers who gave more than 1,000 hours over a two week period from August
10 to August 25 to identify a total of 7,166 signatures that were wrongly
invalidated by the NYC City Clerk and Board of Elections. On August 27, NYC
CAN filed the 631-page Bill of Particulars cataloguing each of the 7,166
signatures it contended were in fact valid. *NYC CAN submitted another 28,000
signatures on September 4 to guarantee the referendum will go on the ballot if
they win the court case, bringing the total signatures submitted to 80,000*.

NYC CAN must deliver its memorandum of law in response to the City's motion
for summary judgment by Monday, September 21. The City will be given an
opportunity to reply before the referee's decision is made on Monday,
September 28.  Fast-track appeals will likely follow no matter who wins.  A
final decision will have to be made by September 30.
City of New York Concedes 9/11 Coalition Has 30,000 Valid Signatures to Put Referendum... | Reuters


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 22, 2009)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


so, of the 80k claimed, only 30k were valid


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 22, 2009)

eots said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



You can't have it both ways eots.  Your lack of objectivity is again revealed. You say hypothtical tests with flame to see when steel will soften don't count. Why will you accept a hypothetical blasting scenario but not that?

I told you what I want. I want the truth. I maintain that you don't want the truth. That in fact your brain is probably not capable of accepting the truth. Can you sit there and objectively say that if sufficient evidence was presented you would accept that what all essentially saw is really what happened? You believe in the tri-lateral commission for god's sake. If nothing else is FACT this is: You are a liar because you are incapable of admitting to yourself that what you WANT is proof that our government orchestrated the event of 9/11, that they were somehow able to coincide a controlled demolition with the plane crashes. THAT is what want and that is a far, far different thing than wanting the truth. The FACT is eots you can't know the truth because you don't know who you are.


----------



## eots (Sep 23, 2009)

Bern80;



> You can't have it both ways eots.  Your lack of objectivity is again revealed. You say hypothtical tests with flame to see when steel will soften don't count. Why will you accept a hypothetical blasting scenario but not that?



they do and when done by NIST..or in an official capacity ..but not from national geo


*James Quintiere, Ph.D., Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science*




This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. *NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse*. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, *NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements. *
*Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do?* ... 


*Testing by NIST has been inconclusive.* Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & [sic] of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? 

*
careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have.*





> I told you what I want. I want the truth. I maintain that you don't want the truth. That in fact your brain is probably not capable of accepting the truth. Can you sit there and objectively say that if sufficient evidence was presented you would accept that what all essentially saw is really what happened? You believe in the tri-lateral commission for god's sake.



so you are saying ther is no tri-lateral commison ???



> If nothing else is FACT this is: You are a liar because you are incapable of admitting to yourself that what you WANT is proof that our government orchestrated the event of 9/11, that they were somehow able to coincide a controlled demolition with the plane crashes. THAT is what want and that is a far, far different thing than wanting the truth. The FACT is eots you can't know the truth because you don't know who you are



blah blah blah ramble ramble...what ???...I am the one that supports a real investigation...you oppose it...


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 23, 2009)

eots said:


> they do and when done by NIST..or in an official capacity ..but not from national geo



None of the tests were conducted NGO. They were conducted by the same type of qualifying bodies that would need to be used for your investigation. Scientists at Purdue University, The Society of Civil Engineers and the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center. What do you find these groups do be unqualified

I find it far more interesting what you DIDN'T highlight:

*NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event* 

Fruther it should be noted that while the Mr. Quintere may not be completely satisfied with the investigation he does not share you belief that this was an inside job. I was easily abe to find Mr. Quintiere's paper on the issue. From what I can read he does support that the planes ultimately brought down the towers. What he disagrees about is how the structure failed. He indeed does not believe the steel beams softened due to fire exposure. His belief is summarized here: 

*2. Trusses fail as heated by fire (with insulation intact) as due to the instability of
the external columns according to Usmani et al.12, or the trusses fail at the
connections according to Burgess et al.13 and the NIST truss computations9*



eots said:


> [/B]so you are saying ther is no tri-lateral commison ???



I don't believe they run the world.




eots said:


> blah blah blah ramble ramble...what ???...I am the one that supports a real investigation...you oppose it...



Where have I ever stated I don't support further investigation? You can investigate it until the cows come home for all I care. My contention is that you are not satisified with any evidence or able to weigh objectively any evidence now or in the future that supports anything but a government inside job. Again until you face the truth about yourself, you will not learn the truth of what happened on 9/11.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 23, 2009)

eots said:


> i want credible scientific study of hypothetical blast scenario's as promised by NIST and requested by the lead fire investigator



Why is it that you and your other stooges continually post claims and quotes WITHOUT the sources. Is that part of your game-plan? To quote mine and make up your own stuff so people can't make up their own minds? 

Between you and 9/11 inside job, you two never quote what you are talking about. You want a "good debate" about subjects here, but refuse to make it easy to discuss by referring us to videos and past posts that supposedly contain the information.

So, I'll ask you this again. Please post the source to the quote where James Quintiere requested a scientific study of "hypothetical blast scenarios". Can you provide one or not? If not, we can all just assume that your making this crap up. Much like 9/11 inside job and his claim that steel only STARTS to melt at 2500F, yet provides no source for his claim and only gives us a mysterious "steel worker" who told him this.


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 23, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > they do and when done by NIST..or in an official capacity ..but not from national geo
> ...



*a government inside job.*

Is that the only alternate possibility?  Cheney outed Plame and Bush apparantly didn't know about it.  How about not assuming who was responsible until an honest examination reveals the truth?


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 23, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > i want credible scientific study of hypothetical blast scenario's as promised by NIST and requested by the lead fire investigator
> ...



This is a link to the search I did to get to his pdf paper (direct link can't be posted)

James Quintiere - Yahoo! Search Results

The guy does have some valid questions. But what is more interesting is that truthers like eots really point to him is their guy. Problem is, as far as I can tell he doesn't beleive it was an inside job either. He simply posits a different collapse scenario.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 23, 2009)

eots said:


> it was steel I provided that information several times...and you keep forgetting  that the lead fire investigator at also stated that fires a the maximum temperatures   for much longer durations created only minimal floor sagging...and that no forensic test  should that temperatures hot enough to weaken steel was even present at the wtc...so other than popular mechanics ...who confirms....your assertions ???



Did you even read James Quintiere's paper concerning his questions to NIST about the investigation? Probably not. You and 9/11 inside job just parrot the things you read from the other truthers and don't do any research yourself. Here is a quote from Mr. Quintiere's paper found here: James Quintiere - Google Search



> The ratings for the UL furnace tests were based on loaded assemblies,
> and therefore the failure time is based on structural collapse. Note the long
> span truss of 65-ft could not be tested. Normally the test assembly is not
> loaded and temperature is the criterion for the rating; in some areas of the
> ...



And the final blow to you and everyone else who uses the lead fire investigator's thoughts and claims as proof of explosives/thermite/controlled demolition of the towers is this quote towards the end of his paper:



> An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
> appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
> the *UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
> corresponding to failure based on structural analyses.*



See that bolded part? The only thing he disagrees with in the NIST report is that they claim the CORE COLUMNS weakened. His alternate theory is that it was the TRUSSES that failed.

You didn't even read the paper did you? What a friggin joke you people are.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 23, 2009)

eots said:


> *James Quintiere, Ph.D., Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science*



Ok, Let's tear this post of yours to shreds and expose you for the fraud you are. Why did you put James Quintiere's name at the top of this post as if he said EVRYTHING listed below without posting the actual source for each claim? You do this quite often. Both you AND 9/11 inside job are guilty of this crap. Trying to make your claims more plausible for some reason? Afraid that people will read the ACTUAL quotes and make their own opinion?



eots said:


> This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. *NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse*. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, *NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements. *



The above paragraph was speaking about WTC7 specifically. What does that have to do with WTC1 and WTC2? Trying to intentionally confuse people?



eots said:


> *Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do?* ...



Again trying to confuse people by putting the above quote DIRECTLY below the "hypothetical blast scenarios" as if Quintiere is saying they should look into BLAST scenarios as a whole for ALL towers. What an lying ass you are, trying to mislead people. James Quintiere has said many times that his ALTERNATIVE scenario is the TRUSSES failed due to heat and not the COLUMNS failing as NIST claims. Nothing to do with explosives, but you guys prefer to lie and mislead to get your point across.

Pathetic.



eots said:


> *Testing by NIST has been inconclusive.* Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & [sic] of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done?
> 
> *
> careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have.*



All this followed up by his quote towards the end of his paper:


> An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
> appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
> the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
> corresponding to failure based on structural analyses. This hypothesis puts
> ...



So, your LEAD FIRE INVESTIGATOR" that you so proudly display as proof that we need a new investigation to prove it was a controlled demolition, states that HE believes it was STILL a structural failure due to heat, only that it was the TRUSSES that failed, not the columns.

It is clear that you guys are swallowing hook, line, and sinker, every little bit of information your "leaders" are giving you WITHOUT researching anything yourselves.

I'd laugh if this wasn't so pathetic.


----------



## Liability (Sep 23, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *James Quintiere, Ph.D., Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science*
> ...



It's almost like the Trufers are opposed to truth.

It's almost like they whine about alleged disinformation but instead employ it as their main form of propaganda.

It's almost like there's a chance people might take their dishonesty and stupidity in any way seriously.

Nah.


----------



## Terral (Sep 23, 2009)

Hi Gamolon:



Gamolon said:


> Quoted Part >>  . . . An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and the *UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures  corresponding to failure based on structural analyses . . . *
> 
> Gamolon Commentary >> See that bolded part? The only thing he disagrees with in the NIST report is that they claim the CORE COLUMNS weakened. His alternate theory is that it was the TRUSSES that failed.
> 
> You didn't even read the paper did you? What a friggin joke you people are.



No. What a joke you are for holding this STUPIDITY up as evidence that 'Building Fires Did It' in this WTC-7 Case!!!! Please allow me to include the description of COMPLETE MORON!!! Any 'Surface Test' makes reference and to the application of heat energy to a steel 'SEGMENT' completely detached from the MASSIVE Steel-framed network!!!! There is no amount of heat energy coming from ANY BUILDING FIRE that will cause the heat to remain stationary in ANY STEEL-FRAME NETWORK. Period! The heat energy races throughout the network from the 'hot' areas to the 'cooler' areas without requiring the permission of any NIST pinhead!!! You need a serious set of cutting torches to even begin 'severing' massive girders and columns like this . . . 







The WTC Skyscrapers include MASSIVE columns that were 'CUT' (severed) into 'truck-sized' segments for easy removal by the Inside-job Terrorists who murdered innocent Americans 'and' who are still working every damned day to Cover Up their handiwork!!!






This box column is composed of massive plates that are four inches thick on each side 'and' the thermate froth is pouring out on ALL SIDES. Seventy-five percent of the froth is on the 'outside' of the column with Twenty-five percent on the 'inside,' because the thermate charge was obviously set on the OUTSIDE of the column. This massive column was 'cut' on a 45-degree angle to allow the entire column line to 'walk' in our direction.






Open up your deluded eyes to realize that the stub columns (short segments in the ground) were all forced in the same direction as the 'high' side of the 45-degree angle IN EVERY CASE. Why??? Since I am a Demo Supervisor for more than 30 years, then *I 'am' qualified* (#3) to answer this question: The massive 'upper' column . . .






. . . includes a 'bend' that was created 'during the Controlled Demolition' of the skyscraper; when the massive 'load' was shifted and the upper column slid off the lower column stub (short segment in the ground). The massive transfer of weight pushed the stub column in the opposite direction, until the upper column fell and impacted the concrete pad in sequence with 'all' of the upper columns in the skyscraper being 'severed.' The timing of these events allow the back of the steel-framed network to be 'broken' to initiate the "Controlled Demolition" Collapse/Implosion. These 45-degree angle 'cuts' are *"Controlled Demolition Signatures"* and CLEAR EVIDENCE that these WTC Skyscrapers were taken down by experts. 

You will find that 'all' of the column stubs are bent in the direction of the 'high point' of the 45-degree cuts, because the column line moved in the opposite direction 'and' the weight was still pushing down on the column stubs! If these columns were cut intentionally by demo crews (not), then the massive weight would NOT be a factor and all of these column stubs would be perpendicular (90 degrees) to the ground. However, the reason that nothing I say makes any sense to the typical American FOOL is because the USA 'is' worthy of being utter destroyed off the face of the earth (#9) . . . so keep up with the nonsense and STUPIDITY. 

The *H1N1 Triple-triple Recombinant Biological Weapon* 'is' about to mutate (my Topic) 'and' a very large percentage of the world population is going to be exterminated. THEN, perhaps, those who remain will be able to listen to common sense . . .  

You guys should be spending time investigating *"Swine11"* (Post #303) . . . 

GL,

Terral

. . .


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 23, 2009)

Terral said:


> No. What a joke you are for holding this STUPIDITY up as evidence that 'Building Fires Did It' in this WTC-7 Case!!!! Please allow me to include the description of COMPLETE MORON!!! Any 'Surface Test' makes reference and to the application of heat energy to a steel 'SEGMENT' completely detached from the MASSIVE Steel-framed network!!!! There is no amount of heat energy coming from ANY BUILDING FIRE that will cause the heat to remain stationary in ANY STEEL-FRAME NETWORK. Period! The heat energy races throughout the network from the 'hot' areas to the 'cooler' areas without requiring the permission of any NIST pinhead!!! You need a serious set of cutting torches to even begin 'severing' massive girders and columns like this . . .



Why do they insulate the steel structure in a building if heat from an office fire cannot affect the steel in any way due to your "transfer of heat to cooler areas"? Are you saying that your pictures show proof that the columns were cut during the demolition and not during cleanup?


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 23, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gamolon:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So in a nutshell you are telling us the person providing this testimony, Mr. Quintiere, the same guy that eots, a fellow truther, beleives is proof of an inside job, is an idiot?  It oughta tell you something when two truthers can't even agree with each other.


----------



## Terral (Sep 23, 2009)

Hi Bern:



Bern80 said:


> So in a nutshell you are telling us the person providing this testimony, Mr. Quintiere, the same guy that eots, a fellow truther, beleives is proof of an inside job, is an idiot?  It oughta tell you something when two truthers can't even agree with each other.



I am not here to agree with anybody. All of this 'talk' about NIST and 911Comission Cronies is useless chatter that confuses the typical USMB reader. If anybody wishes to address 'the Topic' of this debate, then start by 'quoting >>' something from 'my work' in the Opening Post and present your advocating 'or' opposing views using the evidence.

GL,

Terral


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 23, 2009)

Terral said:


> Since I am a Demo Supervisor for more than 30 years, then *I 'am' qualified* (#3) to answer this question: The massive 'upper' column . . .
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Demo Supervisor?! Oh boy! I'm impressed! Did you learn your research skills common sense while being a Demo Supervisor? I hope not. 

Can you prove to me that the columns you speak of were not cut AFTER the fact for ease of cleanup? 

You see, I was a construction supervisor for many projects including work done on blast furnaces in steel mills. I also designed hydraulics for mills, designed oxygen pipelines for mills, was part of damage assessment teams for explosion disasters. I worked along side the Army Corp of Engineers, I worked in breweries and designed the piping system in them, and many other projects. Your "30 years experience" doesn't impress me at all.

I find your explanations to be completely idiotic.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 23, 2009)

Terral said:


> All of this 'talk' about NIST and 911Comission Cronies is useless chatter that confuses the typical USMB reader.



I get it now. The "typical" USMB reader is far below your intelligence level to figure this stuff out themselves, so you have to bring your "vast knowledge" and "30 years as a Demo Supervisor" to the table to help them out?

Pray tell, what is a "typical" USMB reader Mr. High and Mighty?


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 23, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Bern:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There's nothing confusing about it at all. My beliefs aren't grounded in what the NIST or 9/11 found simpy because I dont know what's in them. As with eots, the problem in finding the truth is in your head because no scientific mind could ever claim that the truthers as well as yourself are conducting an objective, unbiased investigation. It is so obvious to anyone looking at this group from the outside that they you are cherry picking the evidence that fits your preconceived notion. 

Like your pictures for example; did you not consider the beams were cut through in the cleanup process? What evidence do you have that they weren't? Hell even the truthers on the NGO special, once all the evidence was presented, were reduced to the truly laughable excuse that it was 'obviously' spray-on SUPER thermite that was used. Which is of course a substance only government officials have ever seen.


----------



## Terral (Sep 23, 2009)

Hi Bern:



Bern80 said:


> There's nothing confusing about it at all.



That is a wonderful profession . . .  



Bern80 said:


> My beliefs aren't grounded in what the NIST or 9/11 found simpy because I dont know what's in them.



Here is the deal in a nutshell: There are only 'two' (count them) explanations for what took WTC-7 down into its own footprint CD-style in 6.6 seconds:

1. Controlled Demolition.
2. Building Fires/Debris.

You are either in the "CD" Camp, OR you are standing with George Bush, Karl Rove, Dickless Cheney, Donald the liar Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft and the other 9/11 Inside-Job Terrorists spreading a mere *"Building Fires Did It" FANTASY*. There is no precedent for overbuilt skyscrapers collapsing from building fires, because that is very much IMPOSSIBLE. The heat energy is 'displaced' throughout the entire steel-frame network 'and' into the air and ground MUCH more quickly than any single steel member can be softened or melted or any other such NONSENSE. 

I was a member at AE911truth.org for some time (search "Terral") 'and' the Opening Post Presentation was posted in the WTC-7 Forum and scrutinized by professional architects and engineers with far more technical knowledge on these subjects than any of you. If you want to believe *Loyal Bushie/Obama "Building Fires Did It" Fantasies* (see #9), then that says MUCH more about you than anything that happened on 9/11 . . . 



Bern80 said:


> As with eots, the problem in finding the truth is in your head because no scientific mind could ever claim that the truthers as well as yourself are conducting an objective, unbiased investigation.



This is complete and utter NONSENSE. Thousands and thousands and thousands of massive steel components (girders, columns, beams, bar-joists) had to be 'cut' using deliberate 'timed sequences' to allow steel-framed skyscrapers to collapse CD-style into their own footprints. 

 [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEV7YHtAZ2Y"]Watch The Short Video And Decide For Yourself[/ame]

Danny Jowenko 'is' a Demolition Expert who knows full well that WTC-7 was taken down using . . . 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMhUTrBODtA&feature=related"]Controlled Demolition[/ame]



Bern80 said:


> It is so obvious to anyone looking at this group from the outside that they you are cherry picking the evidence that fits your preconceived notion.



Bullony!!! Bern is living in *911Truth DENIAL* (pic) and you refuse to wake-the-hell-up!!! Period. I know for a 100 percent FACT that WTC-7 was DEFINITELY taken down using Controlled Demolition, but you guys are at liberty to believe whatever blows air up your skirt . . . 



Bern80 said:


> Like your pictures for example; did you not consider the beams were cut through in the cleanup process?



Unlike Bern, I have studied these related 911 Inside Jobs from every perspective. Tell me what you see at the very top of this picture:






You are looking at another 45-degree angle 'shaped-charge' cut made during the Controlled Demolition of WTC-7. Look at all the 90-degree cuts on all the red-iron columns and beams scattered throughout the debris pile! All of these components are lying down exactly where they fell 'during' the Controlled Demolition of this skyscraper, as the debris has yet to be moved. Nobody climbed up any ladder to make a 45-degree cut that high 'and' no 45-degree cuts were made during the clean-up operation. Those cuts are dangerous, increase the chances of shifting the load 'and' waste far too much fuel. No. These 45-degree angle cuts are 'Controlled Demolition Signatures,' even if Bern has no idea what this means . . . 



Bern80 said:


> What evidence do you have that they weren't?



The evidence says WTC-7 was taken down using *Controlled "Pull It" Demolition*. Period. You want to believe "Building Fires Did It" for no good reason; except to feed your own delusions . . . 

GL,

Terral


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 23, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gamolon:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Bush dupes here continue to make themselves look like idiots in the fact that in ALL 3 buildings,we have seen pics of molten metal found under them 3 weeks after the collapse and also as late as into october as well AFTER the firefighters had been spraying down the fires that whole time.the heat from below the wreakage was so intense that some of the firefighters and rescue workers reported their boots started melting off.ALL impossible 3 weeks later from just juel fuel or office fires. they sure are grasping at straws now. With thermate though,it WOULD cause that kind if intense heat and still be there 3 weeks later and well into october.office fires and jet fuel though? I love it."rolling on floor with laughter." Ilove it how the views of hundreds of architects,engineers and even demolition experts means nothing to do them.Only what NIST and the 9/11 coverup commission say.Priceless.great entertainment there.LOl.and when NIST does admit they made a mistake they the towers collapsed at freefall speed,all of a sudden they think NIST is wrong.priceless logic.I love it.LOL.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 23, 2009)

Terral said:


> Here is the deal in a nutshell: There are only 'two' (count them) explanations for what took WTC-7 down into its own footprint CD-style in 6.6 seconds:



6.6 seconds?! 

What the hell are you smoking? Your full of crap and I'll show you why. Look at this video.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExUTAbUCYL0]YouTube - Danny Jowenko on WTC 7 - 02-22-07[/ame]

The collapse initiation STARTS at :25 in this video with part of the mechanical penthouse (left side of the video) collapsing into the building. Count how many seconds there are until the top of the rest of that penthouse starts it's way down. I get to :32 of the video. That's 7 seconds right there. Do you mean to tell me that you MISSED that part? Or are we to believe that that isn't part of the collapse for some reason? Now, add the rest of that collapse timing where the rest of the penthouse top falls to the ground. What is that? Do we add your 6.6 seconds onto that now for a grand total of 13.6 seconds? 



So, total collapse DIDN'T occur in 6.6 seconds because you exclude the mechanical penthouse initial collapse from your calculation? 

Why did you do that? Is it because it fit your claims better?


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 23, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> The Bush dupes here continue to make themselves look like idiots in the fact that in ALL 3 buildings,we have seen pics of molten metal



Steel or aluminum? Why can you not answer the question?



9/11 inside job said:


> found under them 3 weeks after the collapse and also as late as into october as well AFTER the firefighters had been spraying down the fires that whole time.the heat from below the wreakage was so intense that some of the firefighters and rescue workers reported their boots started melting off.ALL impossible 3 weeks later from just juel fuel or office fires.they sure are grasping at straws now. With thermate though,it WOULD cause that kind if intense heat and still be there 3 weeks later and well into october.office fires and jet fuel though? I love it."rolling on floor with laughter." Ilove it how the views of hundreds of architects,engineers and even denolition expoerts means nothing to do them.Only whats NIST and the 9/11 coverup commission say.Priceless.great entertainment there.LOl.



Really? Thermite continues to burn for 3 weeks AFTER it's started? 

Oh my freakin' God. Now I KNOW you're a joke.



Yeah. I guess you should be proud that less 1/2% of the total architects and engineers in the US believe you. That's something right?


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 23, 2009)

Terral said:


> You are either in the "CD" Camp, OR you are standing with George Bush, Karl Rove, Dickless Cheney, Donald the liar Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft and the other 9/11 Inside-Job Terrorists spreading a mere *"Building Fires Did It" FANTASY*. There is no precedent for overbuilt skyscrapers collapsing from building fires, because that is very much IMPOSSIBLE. The heat energy is 'displaced' throughout the entire steel-frame network 'and' into the air and ground MUCH more quickly than any single steel member can be softened or melted or any other such NONSENSE.



This is slightly disengunous. I'm thinking a few thousand pound aircraft slamming into the building at a few hundred miles per hour probably played a role as well. It wasn't 'just a fire' that brought down the towers.



Terral said:


> This is complete and utter NONSENSE. Thousands and thousands and thousands of massive steel components (girders, columns, beams, bar-joists) had to be 'cut' using deliberate 'timed sequences' to allow steel-framed skyscrapers to collapse CD-style into their own footprints.



...which would have required thousands and thousands of people to orchestrate. No one, not a soul, has come forward to confess. Even now that Bush and his cronies are out of power, no one has come forth to implicate anyone in this theory. And btw, yes many of the beams were cut, BY A GIANT GOD DAMN AIRPLANE. It is quite clear that the top of the building starts collapsing first.  What did you think should have happened? That floors 94 or so on down were going to support the collapse of the floors coming down at freefall on it on it? I'm the delusional one? So again I ask how did whoever orcheastrated this make sure that the planes hit below the point where the first charges would need to have been placed?





Terral said:


> Bullony!!! Bern is living in *911Truth DENIAL* (pic) and you refuse to wake-the-hell-up!!! Period. I know for a 100 percent FACT that WTC-7 was DEFINITELY taken down using Controlled Demolition, but you guys are at liberty to believe whatever blows air up your skirt . . .



You CAN'T know that for 100% fact. You just plain don't have the evidence to support it. You have cuts in beams. THAT'S IT. That combined with a brain already leaning toward the conspiratorial and it was a closed case for you within moments. But you don't have evidence of any peopel(s) that would have had to plant it. You don't have anything verified to be thermite residue. You don't even have any independent testing to show that thermite could have done it. What is funny is that you claim to have all this evidence for a controlled demolition, yet the very thing used to cause you admit leaves basically no evidnce behind.





Terral said:


> You are looking at another 45-degree angle 'shaped-charge' cut made during the Controlled Demolition of WTC-7. Look at all the 90-degree cuts on all the red-iron columns and beams scattered throughout the debris pile! All of these components are lying down exactly where they fell 'during' the Controlled Demolition of this skyscraper, as the debris has yet to be moved. Nobody climbed up any ladder to make a 45-degree cut that high 'and' no 45-degree cuts were made during the clean-up operation. Those cuts are dangerous, increase the chances of shifting the load 'and' waste far too much fuel. No. These 45-degree angle cuts are 'Controlled Demolition Signatures,' even if Bern has no idea what this means . . .



I don't think you are looking at what you think you're looking at here. The iron looking squares do not appear to be I beams. They look more tile-like. Secondly I don't really see how the captioner could derive from that angle that it was a 45 degree cut. What it looks like to me on right most two iron columns (if that's what they are) appear to be composed of sections of perfect squares. On the two right most columns, part way up there is a break in this pattern, then woud continue where the captioned circle is. If possible could you please provide an uncaptioned version of this picture?


----------



## eots (Sep 23, 2009)

those that support truth whatever that truth may be support an independent investigation with subpoena powers as the majority of 9/11 commision members and chief NIST investigators..those opposed to the truth for what ever reason would prefer to just play...debunker...bottomline


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 23, 2009)

Terral said:


> Unlike Bern, I have studied these related 911 Inside Jobs from every perspective. Tell me what you see at the very top of this picture:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well Terral, obviously you haven't studied this stuff enough. It seems to me that you and the other conspiracy loons find information that supports your views and immediately stop there without looking for alternatives. This kind of crap seriously cramps your reaesrch ability. With a little effort, you would have found out that you were SADLY mistaken in your claim about the above photo.

I LOVE making you idiots look stupid. Do you know WHY it looks like a 45 degree angle super duper thermite cut? I'll tell you why "Mr. 30 years experience as a demo supervisor".

First of all, the beam is at an angle in the picture taken. So you are looking tpartially at the TOP of the columns. Second, the angle debris BEHIND the column helps to make the optical illusion that the beam is "cut" at a 45 degree angle. How do I know this? Here is a photo of the same column, but from different angle. The original photo is here: http://willyloman.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/wtc-7-perfect-implosion.jpg

Here is a closeup I did in Photoshop just by scaling the photo up:





It isn't cut at a 45 degree angle at ALL joker. The extents you guys go to to prove your bullshit is quite amusing.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 23, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > Unlike Bern, I have studied these related 911 Inside Jobs from every perspective. Tell me what you see at the very top of this picture:
> ...



And thus we learn one's perspective can change one's perception on a mental as well as physical level.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 23, 2009)

Bern80 said:


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


typical for troofers
they LIE


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 23, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > Here is the deal in a nutshell: There are only 'two' (count them) explanations for what took WTC-7 down into its own footprint CD-style in 6.6 seconds:
> ...


because TROOFERS love to LIE


----------



## eots (Sep 23, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



I dont point to him as.. my guy ...I point to him to cofirm the following...if he finds the controled demolition theory less likely than a collapse theory...(which is what he was qouted as saying) is not he point......

In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, *by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding. *
1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? ... 


2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ... 

*3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation*. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. *A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure *are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error? 

4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But *the validation of these modeling results is in question*. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that. 

*5. Testing by NIST has been inconclusive*. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & [sic] of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? ... 

6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September [2005] that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?" 


OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 23, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



You most certainly do. You've only mentioned him in a dozen or so posts in this thread alone. But you have to acknowledge that while you both may agree that the investigation was less than satisfactory, a point I may be willing to concede, you and he diverge opinions when you and the truthers take what he says a make this gigantic flying leap of logic to use what he says as evidence of controlled demolition and inside job. You frankly bastardize his work by holding him up as a means to support your controlled demolition, inside job theory. There is nothing to indicate for a second that he holds the opinion that there was a controlled demolition that brought the towers down. For all you know the reason he is asking for it is because he believes such comparisons would rule OUT that scenario. I am further convinced that if such experiments took place to HIS satisfactions, you would remain unconvinced that a controlled demolition was not possible.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 23, 2009)

eots said:


> dont point to him as.. my guy ...I point to him to cofirm the following...if he finds the controled demolition theory less likely than a collapse theory...(which is what he was qouted as saying) is not he point......



I love the word games here. He doesn't "find the controlled demolition theory less likely". He doesn't consider it at ALL. His alternate theory is that the TRUSSES failed due to HEAT.

Quit playing games.

Is that what the truth movement has been reduced to? Word games?


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 23, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > dont point to him as.. my guy ...I point to him to cofirm the following...if he finds the controled demolition theory less likely than a collapse theory...(which is what he was qouted as saying) is not he point......
> ...


yes, that's all it has ever been


----------



## eots (Sep 23, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > dont point to him as.. my guy ...I point to him to cofirm the following...if he finds the controled demolition theory less likely than a collapse theory...(which is what he was qouted as saying) is not he point......
> ...



bullshit he says,,, he think its is _most likely_ floor collapse..and not explosives...then he questions why alternative theory's...that NIST had promised and stated clearly was to include hypothetical blast scenarios ...had never been done


----------



## eots (Sep 23, 2009)

> You most certainly do. You've only mentioned him in a dozen or so posts in this thread alone. But you have to acknowledge that while you both may agree that the investigation was less than satisfactory, a point I may be willing to concede, you and he diverge opinions when you and the truthers take what he says a make this gigantic flying leap of logic to use what he says as evidence of controlled demolition and inside job. You frankly bastardize his work by holding him up as a means to support your controlled demolition, inside job theory.



no I hold him up to support no such temperatures requires to weaken steel where found in the forensics...that information from the government blocked not forthcoming and worked to deter the finding of facts..that no coherent timeline had been done..that computer models have not been calibrated..that the investigation of hypothetical blast scenarios was requested but never done..that the crime scene had been removed in a unprecedented fashion hindering the investigation...that the NIST findings are inconclusive and an independent investigation with subpoena power is required





> There is nothing to indicate for a second that he holds the opinion that there was a controlled demolition that brought the towers down. For all you know the reason he is asking for it is because he believes such comparisons would rule OUT that scenario. I am further convinced that if such experiments took place to HIS satisfactions, you would remain unconvinced that a controlled demolition was not possible



well those are nothing more than your imaginings and assumptions aren't they


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 23, 2009)

eots said:


> no I hold him up to support no such temperatures requires to weaken steel where found in the forensics...that information from the government blocked not forthcoming and worked to deter the finding of facts..that no coherent timeline had been done..that computer models have not been calibrated..that the investigation of hypothetical blast scenarios was requested but never done..that the crime scene had been removed in a unprecedented fashion hindering the investigation...that the NIST findings are inconclusive and an independent investigation with subpoena power is required



None of which would come close to proving an inside job or controlled demolition because you still have zero evidence for the many, many other variables that would have to be true for theory to remain plausible.

For starters, Hell for kicks let's assume a controlled demolition did take place. Why would you assume it was done by the government? Why couldn't Al Quaida have been responsible for that as well?




eots said:


> well those are nothing more than your imaginings and assumptions aren't they



Unless you can explain to me what is untrue or inaccurate about any of that, no, they are not.


----------



## eots (Sep 23, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > no I hold him up to support no such temperatures requires to weaken steel where found in the forensics...that information from the government blocked not forthcoming and worked to deter the finding of facts..that no coherent timeline had been done..that computer models have not been calibrated..that the investigation of hypothetical blast scenarios was requested but never done..that the crime scene had been removed in a unprecedented fashion hindering the investigation...that the NIST findings are inconclusive and an independent investigation with subpoena power is required
> ...


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 24, 2009)

eots said:


> do I have to point out to you according to the lead fire investigator at NIST ..ZERO evidence of the heat required to even weaken steel could be found in forensic evidence...the very cornerstone of the collapse theory....



Do I have to continually point out to you that you're lying? Here is a quote from his paper. 





> An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
> appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
> the *UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
> corresponding to failure based on structural analyses.*



You're full of crap. He believes, based on the tests and evidence that the trusses failed due to heat.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 24, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > do I have to point out to you according to the lead fire investigator at NIST ..ZERO evidence of the heat required to even weaken steel could be found in forensic evidence...the very cornerstone of the collapse theory....
> ...


and thats because they did
he just doesnt believe that the core columns also had heat failures

there is ZERO evidence if explosive demolition in any of the buildings


----------



## eots (Sep 24, 2009)

A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have *no evidence *that the temperatures they predict as *necessary for failure* are corroborated by findings.. 

Dr. Quintiere Chief of NIST's Fire Science 

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 24, 2009)

eots said:


> do I have to point out to you according to the lead fire investigator at NIST ..ZERO evidence of the heat required to even weaken steel could be found in forensic evidence...the very cornerstone of the collapse theory....



Again you cherry pick your evidence. I also read your last post here. Gamolon has quite clearly quoted what Quintiiere believes happened in his paper. Please quote for us the section of that paper, which is linked here in this thread, where Mr. Qunitieire apparently contradicts his own words. 

And again you didn't answer my questions. When are you going to man up and start explaining the many other variables that must also be true for the controlled demolition (here on out CD), inside job theory to remain plausible? First and foremost how were 'they' able to make sure the planes crashed into the building below where the controlled demolition would have had to start?


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 24, 2009)

eots said:


> A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have *no evidence *that the temperatures they predict as *necessary for failure* are corroborated by findings..
> 
> Dr. Quintiere Chief of NIST's Fire Science
> 
> OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation



What's your point? He STILL thinks that explosives had no part in the towers coming down. He STILL thinks it was the trusses that failed due to heat. 

Do you understand what he means by "due to heat"? You keep claiming that temperatures could not have been reached to affect the steel in any way, yet the same guy who you keep using as your point man, is saying that HE BELIEVES that it WASN'T the columns, but the TRUSSES that failed.

You keep asserting that he wants an investigation because he thinks explosives or thermite were used. 

Not the case pal. When he says "alternative theories", he means ALTERNATIVE STRUCTURAL failures. Anyone who reads his paper and gets out of it that he wants an investigation done because he thinks there were explosives used has a friggin screw loose in their head.

Quit trying to mislead people.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 24, 2009)

eots said:


> if he finds the controled demolition theory less likely than a collapse theory...(which is what he was qouted as saying) is not he point......



Can you please post a link to the quote that has him saying this please?


----------



## eots (Sep 24, 2009)

> &#8220;If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the &#8216;conspiracy theories&#8217; that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, *more likely,* it&#8217;s one of the floors falling down.&#8221;
> 
> Dr. Quintiere




`and then proceeds with test and simulations as requested of him based on temperatures well in excess of anything that was evident at the wtc


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 24, 2009)

eots said:


> > If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the conspiracy theories that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, *more likely,* its one of the floors falling down.
> >
> > Dr. Quintiere
> 
> ...



I get it now! You are taking is quote COMPLETELY out of context in order to support your view.

So what you are TRYING to imply is that he thinks BOTH scenarios are plausible, but that his theory that the trusses failed due to heat outweighs the demolition/explosives theory.

Did i get that right?


----------



## Terral (Sep 24, 2009)

Greetings to Gamolon and All:

My congratulations to Gamolon for pointing out an inconsistency in my testimony on the WTC-7 Case. Rarely does anyone come along and point out blatant errors in my work, so I want to take the time and show everyone my mistake. My original photograph here has an error:







The circled area atop the photograph appears to be a 45-degree thermate cut, when in reality this red-iron I-beam is a disconnected segment. Gamolon used *this picture* (here) to show me the light. Note what appears to be a box column with a 45-degree angle cut like *this* (pic) is actually a red-iron I-beam like this: 






Gamolon is 'right' on this point and I was definitely 'WRONG.' Again, I applaud him for taking the time to point out my error. I am going to return to my illustration today and make the required changes. All of that being said, the 90-degree I-beam cuts that appear throughout the same picture of the collapsed WTC-7 debris pile clearly represent Controlled Demolition Signatures. We are still looking at an overbuilt 47-story skyscraper . . . 






. . . transformed into this neat little pile . . . 






. . . (look at the adjacent building faces) in 6.6 seconds . . . 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A&feature=player_embedded"]. . . Like This . . .[/ame]  

Here is where the rubber meets the road in this WTC-7 Controlled Demolition Case: Demolition Supervisors work for months preparing the demo 'plans' and months setting the charges to bring down a massive structure of this size with this kind of efficiency. There is NO WAY that anybody started a few fires and ran away to watch this skyscraper collapse CD-style. You could dump a million gallons of jet fuel (kerosene) onto WTC-7 and light a match and the building would remain standing if you repeated the process a million times; because hydrocarbon fuels simply do NOT burn hot enough to melt one pound of 2800-degree red-iron steel.

Watch The Short Video

Now I have admitted the error in my work to everyone here 'and' the "Building Fires Did It" Official Cover Story LIARS can do the same thing . . . 

GL,

Terral


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 24, 2009)

Terral said:


> . . . (look at the adjacent building faces) in 6.6 seconds . . .



Another "mistake". Not 6.6 seconds. Why are you not including the fact that part of the mechanical penthouse fell INTO the building 7 seconds BEFORE the entire structure collapsed? I showed you the Jowenko video that CLEARLY shows that part.

Is there some reason why you are ignoring this part of the collapse?


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 24, 2009)

Terral said:


> Here is where the rubber meets the road in this WTC-7 Controlled Demolition Case: Demolition Supervisors work for months preparing the demo 'plans' and months setting the charges to bring down a massive structure of this size with this kind of efficiency. There is NO WAY that anybody started a few fires and ran away to watch this skyscraper collapse CD-style. You could dump a million gallons of jet fuel (kerosene) onto WTC-7 and light a match and the building would remain standing if you repeated the process a million times; because hydrocarbon fuels simply do NOT burn hot enough to melt one pound of 2800-degree red-iron steel.
> 
> Watch The Short Video
> 
> ...



I would say 'where the rubber meets the road' would be, regardless of the method used, many, many people would still have to be involved in the demo rigging of all three buildings. Where the rubber meets that road is that not a single truther out there has been able to produce a single soul willing to say 'they' did it, or the know someone who did it...NO ONE.


----------



## Terral (Sep 24, 2009)

Hi Gamolon:



Gamolon said:


> Another "mistake". Not 6.6 seconds. Why are you not including the fact that part of the mechanical penthouse fell INTO the building 7 seconds BEFORE the entire structure collapsed? I showed you the Jowenko video that CLEARLY shows that part.
> 
> Is there some reason why you are ignoring this part of the collapse?



Do not push it, Gamolon. We are still looking at just 'two' explanations for what took WTC-7 down into its own footprint in "6.6 seconds," according to many sources.

911Research.wtc.7.net



> *WTC 7*
> 
> Ryan concludes with a brief look at the fall of WTC 7, noting that NIST still hasn't produced their final report on the incident. WTC 7 would have been the tallest building in 33 states and *it collapsed in 6.6 seconds*.


The answer to your question is "Yes." My time today is spent going through the information related to the ongoing *Swine11 Attack *(my Topic) and Medical Martial Law that is coming on *October 15, 2009* (my Topic). Is there some reason you think this WTC-7 Case has more importance at this time? This is FAR more important right now . . . 

GNCLive.com Podcast Link

Nutrimedical Report Sept. 23 Hour 1

GL,

Terral


----------



## candycorn (Sep 24, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gamolon:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Woo Hoo.  Since I work in the medical field, I guess I won't have to worry about coming to work on the 15th of October (a Thursday).  I'm going to book my flight to Fiji!!!

Maybe I should wait for secondary independent confirmation...I very well can't go to my executive director and say....well this guy named Fecal told me so on the Internet!!!!.*


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 24, 2009)

Terral said:


> Do not push it, Gamolon.







Terral said:


> We are still looking at just 'two' explanations for what took WTC-7 down into its own footprint in "6.6 seconds," according to many sources.



Sorry, but "your sources" are completely wrong. The collapse STARTED with the partial collapse of the mechanical penthouse which was 7 seconds BEFORE your proposed (and incorrect) collapse start.

Again, you are wrong.


----------



## Terral (Sep 24, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> Sorry, but "your sources" are completely wrong. The collapse STARTED with the partial collapse of the mechanical penthouse which was 7 seconds BEFORE your proposed (and incorrect) collapse start.
> 
> Again, you are wrong.



No. This time Gam is wrong. Add seven seconds to the collapse time in 'your' WTC-7 commentary if that makes sense to you and blows air up your skirt. The start of the penthouse collapse is NOT the moment when the main structure began to collapse in the CD process.

GL,

Terral


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 24, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Riiiggghhhttt.

Let's ignore the partial mechanical penthouse collapse because you just CAN'T be proven wrong twice in the same day by the same person can you.


----------



## Terral (Sep 24, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> Riiiggghhhttt.
> 
> Let's ignore the partial mechanical penthouse collapse because you just CAN'T be proven wrong twice in the same day by the same person can you.



No. Gam has failed to convince me from the evidence that anyone should add 7 seconds to the Controlled Demolition Collapse of WTC-7. I quite frankly do not care that Gam interprets this aspect of the evidence differently than most everybody else (Google WTC 7, 6.6 seconds). Adding 7 seconds to the CD Collapse in NO WAY supports the delusion that "Building Fires Did It." Period.

This is *a good video* (here) describing the WTC-7 Collapse that also uses the same 6.6 second collapse time.

Thanks again for your assistance with 45-degree cut error.

GL,

Terral


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 24, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


no, as always YOU are wrong


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 24, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What evidence do you have that renders that portion of the collapse irrelevant?


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 24, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


the only reason that will come up with results is because of the lies you fucking morons keep posting


----------



## Terral (Sep 24, 2009)

Hi DiveBomb:



DiveCon said:


> the only reason that will come up with results is because of the lies you fucking morons keep posting



At least Gam 'was' able to point out an error in my WTC Opening Post. All Dive cuckoo can do is come out here and use the 'f' word and throw dust into the air like an idiot.

GL,

Terral


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 24, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi DiveBomb:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Please explain why the following explanation is not valid. What if anything in here can you prove is not accurate? Why is it less plausible then your controlled demolition theory?



> Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom  approximately 10 stories  about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
> 
> NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
> 
> ...


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 24, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi DiveBomb:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


because i dont waste as much time looking up proof for you to ignore
i just call you a fucking idiot


----------



## eots (Sep 24, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > > If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the conspiracy theories that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, *more likely,* its one of the floors falling down.
> ...



there is nothing to take out of context..there is *zero evidence *of the temperatures required to weaken steel found in the forensic test...that's just a fact...and the lead investigator requested investigation into other theory's which *included hypothetical blast scenarios*..but that was never done,,these are simply the facts


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 24, 2009)

eots said:


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



Do you not see the double standard you have set up here? Your argument is essentially this. There is no evidence for the heat required to cause the collapse (God I can't even say that without coming up with a few dozen holes in that theory), therefore it was a controlled demolition. In that case I should be able to just as validly state There is no evidence for a controlled demolition (which there isn't) therefore it must have been the planes and the fire that brought down the towers. At the very best eots you have no more case than i do.


----------



## eots (Sep 26, 2009)

> [Bern80;
> 
> Do you not see the double standard you have set up here? Your argument is essentially this. There is no evidence for the heat required to cause the collapse (God I can't even say that without coming up with a few dozen holes in that theory)



why because you cant understand the simply reality that science can through  forensic testing determine the max temperature a fire had obtained





> therefore it was a controlled demolition. In that case I should be able to just as validly state There is no evidence for a controlled demolition (which there isn't) therefore it must have been the planes and the fire that brought down the towers. At the very best eots you have no more case than i do




well I can do a little better actually..the multiple reports of molten metal..the denial from NIST of any such witness testimony and exclusion of all witnesses from the 9/11 report that gave testimony of explosions or molten metal..but even if it is coincided one case is no greater than the other all the more reason to have a real investigation with subpoena powers and to fulfill the testing  including the hypothetical blast scenarios as requested by the former lead fire investigator at NIST and echoed by the majority of 9/11 commision members now.and it baffles me how people can not see the logic and reason for this


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 26, 2009)

eots said:


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



those are facts they desperately try to get around to no avail.


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 26, 2009)

Did anyone ever explain these?


----------



## Toro (Sep 26, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Did anyone ever explain these?



Are you saying ninjas are responsible?


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 26, 2009)

I'm just wondering why we don't use coals to power the nation, if they burn hotter than jet fuel


----------



## eots (Sep 26, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> I'm just wondering why we don't use coals to power the nation, if they burn hotter than jet fuel



well what a stupid musing that is...however it does not change the fact that forensic testing provides ZERO evidence that temperatures required to soften the steel in question was present 



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LH9cMdaYMM]YouTube - Becky's Homestead 11: Kerosene Heater[/ame]


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 27, 2009)

NatGeo softened some steel with some jet fuel


are they a part of the reptilian jeluminati enforcement squad for the NWO, too?


----------



## candycorn (Sep 27, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> NatGeo softened some steel with some jet fuel
> 
> 
> are they a part of the reptilian jeluminati enforcement squad for the NWO, too?



Of course they are.  Ever notice how they're magazines are in yellow...which symbolizes....Asians.....which speaks to Viet Nam......which is Anti-American.  If they change their colors to, lets say a more patriotic and staunchly American, red for example, then maybe they'd be okay.  Maybe.

Of course I'm a disinfo agent so I'm not to be trusted.  Or maybe since I'm a disinfo agent you can't believe what I just wrote.  Or maybe thats just what I want you to think..


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 27, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> NatGeo softened some steel with some jet fuel
> 
> 
> are they a part of the reptilian jeluminati enforcement squad for the NWO, too?


they must have put some coal in the bottom of that pit


----------



## eots (Sep 27, 2009)

so when ever you losers lose a debate you go into you lame_..comedy _routine..but none of it changes the fact that the 9/11 commission was a cover -up...that the temperatures required to soften the steel in question was not present at the wtc according to forensic testing


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 27, 2009)

eots said:


> so when ever you losers lose a debate you go into you lame_..comedy _routine..but none of it changes the fact that the 9/11 commission was a cover -up...that the temperatures required to soften the steel in question was not present at the wtc according to forensic testing


and that is a lie

i agree that the commission was a cover up, but not the way you do
they were simply covering their own asses for failures to put the pieces together to stop it


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 27, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > NatGeo softened some steel with some jet fuel
> ...


I hear if you mix coals with blocks of wood, it burns for weeks on end


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 27, 2009)

eots said:


> so when ever you losers lose a debate you go into you lame_..comedy _routine..but none of it changes the fact that the 9/11 commission was a cover -up...that the temperatures required to soften the steel in question was not present at the wtc according to forensic testing


So you take the one test you like and ignor all the rest?


Did you ever tell us what that temperature is?


wait... wait... so superthermite's not hot enough to weaken steel, either...

then how does superthermite bring down the buildings?


----------



## eots (Sep 27, 2009)

none of your rambling changes the fact that there is ZERO evidence that the temperatures required to soften the steel in question was obtained at the wtc..and the lead investigator expressed in no uncertain terms the government blocked the investigation and did not appear to be interested in finding the truth and has strongly recommended an independent investigation with subpoena powers


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 27, 2009)

eots said:


> none of your rambling changes the fact that there is ZERO evidence that the temperatures required to soften the steel in question was obtained at the wtc..



Well, that debunks your superthermite...  and your detcord and other methods used to 'cut' through steel with superheated gasses during a demolition...


Who knew wood and coals burned hotter than jet fuel and superthermite?

I'm shocked.


----------



## eots (Sep 27, 2009)

NIST never did the hypothetical blast scenario as requested by the lead fire investigator and was no privileged to the eyewitnesses accounts of molten metal or supplied with any such metal for testing...you cant find what you don't look for...hence his request a independent investigation with subpoena power...but maybe if you sent him a picture of your beloved swords the light would come on and he would...get it...lol...lol


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 27, 2009)

eots said:


> eyewitnesses accounts of molten metal



wait.. you can *melt* metal without being hot enough to even _weaken_ it? 

Or was it mercury or something else other than the steel from the towers that was melted?

I don't know what universe you live in, but it's clearly not the same as the rest of us.

You never did explain how those swords were made, btw


----------



## eots (Sep 27, 2009)

the areas that were cut with charges are the only areas the would forensically show the extreme temperatures required to weaken the steel in question..the rest of the steel would indicate only the heat it was subjected to due to fire and this is why there is no indication of  temperatures sufficient to cause failure


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 27, 2009)

eots said:


> the areas that were cut with charges are the only areas the would forensically show the extreme temperatures required to weaken the steel in question..the rest of the steel would indicate only the heat it was subjected to due to fire and this is why there is no indication of  temperatures sufficient to cause failure




No evidence of such temperatures were found on those sections


you debunk yourself again


----------



## eots (Sep 27, 2009)

you have zero evidence that fire temperatures were sufficient to weaken steel...there is however evidence to suggest it did not


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 27, 2009)

eots said:


> you have zero evidence that fire temperatures were sufficient to weaken steel...


well so much for your superthermite, then



you just argued that nothing could have possibly brought the towers down


perhaps it was god?


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 27, 2009)

From a trufer site:


> _                      Previously molten metal was found "flowing like lava" by the FDNY                      in the basements of all 3 WTC High-rises.__
> _


_
_
_How do you melt steel without being hot enough to weaken it?_


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 27, 2009)

You can't have it both ways

either there was no 'molten metal' or the temperaturs no only weakened steel but melted it


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 28, 2009)

eots said:


> you have zero evidence that fire temperatures were sufficient to weaken steel...there is however evidence to suggest it did not



But your "lead fire investigator" says that he believes, based on everything he has seen, that the trusses were weakened by heat and thus caused the collapse.

The person you use to support your claim of "no evidence of temperatures existing to cause weakening of steel" says that all the evidence and testing that was done SUPPORTS his claim of the trusses being WEAKENED by heat.

How can this be? You keep pointing to him as evidence of there NOT being proof, yet he contradicts your claim in the same breath.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 28, 2009)

eots said:


> you have zero evidence that fire temperatures were sufficient to weaken steel...there is however evidence to suggest it did not



I'm curious. What evidence do you have to support cutting charges/thermite?


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 28, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > you have zero evidence that fire temperatures were sufficient to weaken steel...there is however evidence to suggest it did not
> ...








​


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 28, 2009)

eots said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just wondering why we don't use coals to power the nation, if they burn hotter than jet fuel
> ...



You are ware that saying they couldn't find the evidence for it and saying it was impossible for it to have happened are to very different things, right?


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 28, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...




saying there's no evidence of it and that it was so hot it melted the metal for weeks is just retarded- but that's Eots


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 28, 2009)

Terral said:


> You could dump a million gallons of jet fuel (kerosene) onto WTC-7 and light a match and the building would remain standing if you repeated the process a million times; because hydrocarbon fuels simply do NOT burn hot enough to melt one pound of 2800-degree red-iron steel.



Why does it have to be that the steel needed to MELT for the tower to become structurally unstable and collapse? Does that fit your claims better?

Why do you ignore the fact that steel loses it's strength at much lower temperatures and does not need to MELT.

You guys are hysterical.


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > you have zero evidence that fire temperatures were sufficient to weaken steel...there is however evidence to suggest it did not
> ...



first off the lead investigator calls his findings questionable and pleas for a new investigation...don't forget that part...and he also complains the government was blocking the investigation...secondly it is a simple concept if cutting was used only the sections cut would show forensically the extreme temperatures ...but if it was fire dispersed throughout that caused the collapse these temperatures should be found on most of steel and materials subjected to fire...and it is not


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > You could dump a million gallons of jet fuel (kerosene) onto WTC-7 and light a match and the building would remain standing if you repeated the process a million times; because hydrocarbon fuels simply do NOT burn hot enough to melt one pound of 2800-degree red-iron steel.
> ...



because no such temperatures required to melt or weaken steel were found in forensic testing ...whats so hard for you to understand about that


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 28, 2009)

eots said:


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



What temperatures were found then?


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 28, 2009)

eots said:


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



He calls for a new investigation because he thinks the collapse was caused by the TRUSSES failing, not the columns as NIST states. His calling for a new investigation has nothing to do with the fact that there were explosives/thermite involved. 

Quit trying to use his statements to make it sound like he wants a new investigation because he thinks there were explosives/thermite used.

You're being dishonest now.


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2009)

Gamolon said:


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



the trusses vs columns was just a for instance..an example of alternatives...but the question he repeatedly ask and received no reply seem to be his biggest problem..and one of those questions is..if no test show the temperatures required to weaken steel...where did that heat come from ? another is to ask why the alternative theorys were not tested as promised...and those test included..hypothetical blast scenarios...clearly he feels a independent investigation is required


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 28, 2009)

eots said:


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



You obviously haven't read his paper have you. He clearly states that HIS alternative theory is that the TRUSSES failed due to HEAT and is supported by all the information provided by the tests labs. Go read it.

Also. What evidence are you using to support your claims that thermite cuts were made? Are you using the same photos as Terral? 

Were "thermite cuts" made every few floors on all 47 interior core columns?


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 28, 2009)

eots said:


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



What temperatures did they find the steel was subjected to?


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 28, 2009)

eots said:


> if no test show the temperatures required to weaken steel...where did that heat come from ?



Then why does he clearly state that HIS ALTERNATE theory is that the data garnered from the investigation and tests agree with his claim that the TRUSSES FAILED DUE TO HEAT?

Can you explain that? Did you read his paper at all? Where the trusses made of plastic or something? He saw data that supports his theory that the columns did not fail, but the trusses did.

DUE TO HEAT.

I'll ask you again since you seem to be avoiding the question. What temperatures did they find that the steel was subjected to in their tests?


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2009)

they simply assume the heat is there and then proceed with the test and calculations. and simulations. based on this assumption...but as he stated the reality is...the heat  required was not proven to be there...


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2009)

Gamolon said:


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



about 500f exactly what you would expect to find in a normal building fire


----------



## Liability (Sep 28, 2009)

Gamolon said:


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



What temperatures were found to have been probably reached (and for how long) during the inferno?

At what temperature does the steel used in the construction of the towers and building 7 "weaken?"

How much weakening would be required to START a collapse at the top of the towers?

Once the collapse had started, causing all the weight to suddenly be added to each lower level, what would prevent the collapse to progress?


----------



## Liability (Sep 28, 2009)

eots said:


> they simply assume the heat is there and then proceed with the test and calculations. and simulations. based on this assumption...but as he stated the reality is...the heat  required was not proven to be there...



What does that even mean when you say something slippery like "the heat  required was not proven to be there"?

That depends on what you mean by "proven."

What IS known and HAS been proved is that there WAS absolutely and definitively observed hard physical evidence that there WAS heat generated WELL BEYOND what was to be expected by a hydrocarbon fire within the office setting.  





> *The data provide strong evidence that chemical reactions which were both violent and highly-exothermic contributed to the destruction of the WTC buildings.* NIST neglected the high-temperature and fragmentation evidence presented here: it appears nowhere in their final report [15].


http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf  at page 10.

The structures observed in the microscopic analysis of the WTC "dust" suggest -- VERY STRONGLY -- that temperatures were reached in the inferno that WAS capable of weakening the metal at the WTC.  





> The formation of molten spheres with high iron contents along with other species in the WTC dust required extremely high temperatures. Our results are compared with those of other laboratories.
> *The temperatures required for the molten sphere-formation and evaporation of materials as observed in the WTC dust are significantly higher than temperatures associated with the burning of jet fuel and office materials in the WTC buildings.*


 http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf From the "Abstract" at page 1.


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2009)

Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do?

although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that t*hey have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure *are corroborated by findings 


*Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration *at NIST&#8217;s failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. &#8220;And that building was not hit by anything,&#8221; noted Dr. Quintiere. &#8220;It&#8217;s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I* have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing*!&#8221;


&#8220;In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause,* by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding. *

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## Liability (Sep 28, 2009)

eots said:


> Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do?
> 
> although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that t*hey have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure *are corroborated by findings
> 
> ...



You are flatly lying, now.  I just presented very concrete EVIDENCE that (for whatever reasons or by whatever mechanism known or unknown) the temperatures inside the towers HAD to have rached enormously high level.


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2009)

Liability said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > they simply assume the heat is there and then proceed with the test and calculations. and simulations. based on this assumption...but as he stated the reality is...the heat  required was not proven to be there...
> ...



exactly the temperatures were not found in the steel samples but the dust shows signs in excessive of jet fuel or office materials...thank you...there is molten metal...yet there is no molten metal ???

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOwnPn_CsTk]YouTube - NIST DENIES MOLTEN METAL[/ame]


----------



## Liability (Sep 28, 2009)

eots said:


> * * * *
> 
> exactly the temperatures where not found in the steel samples but the dust shows signs in excessive of jet fuel or office materials...thank you...there is molten metal...yet there is no molten metal ???
> 
> * * * *



You are talking gibberish.  The frame of the aircraft almost certainly melted.  Aluminum does that kind of thing.  And the SCIENTIFIC evidence clearly shows that the EXTREMELY high temperatures WERE almost certainly reached -- temperatures which could WEAKEN the STEEL used in the WTC construction (especially supporting structures).

The columns did not vaporize or melt.  But there was, if you'd bother to read the material I shared, this tidbit:  "the FEMA report discussed the 'evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation' and called for further investigation . . . ."  
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf at page 8.



> In fact, the non-melting of WTC steel is emphasized by NIST &#8211; *but they fail to address the presence of large numbers of iron-rich spherules in the dust published in USGS and other reports before the NIST study was published in October 2006 *[16, 18].


 http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf at p. 9.

If you and I are unable to explain the mechanism for how those high temperatures (far above what would normally be predicted or expected) were achieved, that's a frustration.  But to deny the evidence that the temperatures WERE reached is dishonest of you.  And if the temperatures WERE reached (as the evidence clearly suggests they were) then we have a likely explanation for the WEAKENING of the metal -- *not the melting of the metal *-- in the WTC.  "Melting" not required.  "Melting" is a mere deflection by you.  Forget "melting."  Try to stay focused.  Stop trying to mislead others with your spew.

If you wish to debate, you do yourself a massive disservice by being dishonest about it.

READ the entire article and look at the photographic evidence of the very particles described.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2009)

so what was the source heat in excess of jet fuel or office material ???


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 28, 2009)

eots said:


> so what was the source heat in excess of jet fuel or office material ???


if jet fuel cant get that hot, how do you explain the NatGeo documentary?


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > so what was the source heat in excess of jet fuel or office material ???
> ...



flawed science without proper controls and procedures..just like the Purdue simulations that conveniently remove the engines from the simulated plane


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 28, 2009)

eots said:


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




so your 'lava' of molten metal melted cold?


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 28, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


so, an open pit filled with jet fuel is flawed?
HOW????

and the purdue simulations DID include the engines, stop reading that liar alex jones


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 28, 2009)

eots said:


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



So you recant your claims of molten metal in the basement and the use of 'superthermite'?


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 28, 2009)

Gamolon said:


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



that's par for the course with eots


----------



## Liability (Sep 28, 2009)

eots said:


> so what was the source heat in excess of jet fuel or office material ???




How DO you read with your eyes closed and your mind shut?

Try to pay attention for once.

I do not know the mechanism that caused the fire to burn so much hotter than would be expected.  But it is apparent to anybody willing to consider the EVIDENCE that the fire DID burn hotter than expected.  The article I posted come complete with pretty pictures, in fact.

You can say, "well, if we can't explain how the fire burned that hot, so it must not have burned that hot" all you wish, but it only makes you look like even more of an imbecile.  For whether we know WHY it did so or not, we do have pretty clear proof that it DID burn that much hotter.

And once we know (and we do) that the fire DID burn much hotter than the circumstances seem to indicate would be expected, then the remaining question is:  could that greatly increased heat have caused trusse, etc to WEAKEN (not "melt") to the point that they were unable to prevent the collapse?

The answer is "yes."

You have NO evidence for your fanciful superthermite notions.

But SCIENCE proves that the fire DID burn much hotter than we would normally predict under those circumstances.


----------



## eots (Sep 29, 2009)

Liability said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > so what was the source heat in excess of jet fuel or office material ???
> ...



the evidence that it did melt steel.. is the evidence of something more than fire


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 29, 2009)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


except the only ones to ever claim any steel melted is you troofer morons
the only claim i have seen is the steel lost its structural integrity, and not melted


----------



## eots (Sep 29, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



no engines on the pentagon strike simulation ..on the wtc simulation the engines return  watch it for yourself...and taking an unrated steel beam a fraction of the size using 700 gallons of contained fuel  for starters..get serious it was a couple of guys with a fork lift a big pool of jet fuel and a little piece of metal..


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 29, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


which was compensated for
did you think they would actually build the WTC over to test it?


----------



## eots (Sep 29, 2009)

the words scale testing are lost on you...


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 29, 2009)

eots said:


> the words scale testing are lost on you...


no, they arent
thats exactly what NatGeo had done and you dismissed it


----------



## eots (Sep 29, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > the words scale testing are lost on you...
> ...



why do you do this...it was nothing close to a scale floor test as requested by the lead fire investigator at NIST ..it proves a argument that no one is making..and also ignores the fact that that  evidence (and the collapse itself is not evidence )does not  show tempatures anywhere near that required to cause failure


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 29, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


except the facts disagree with you
the temps were in excess of what would be needed to cause the steel to lose at least 50% of its structural integrity
the floor trusses sagged and pulled away from both the outer shell and the inner core
and then they started to drop
once that started to happen the already weakened core columns were not strong enough to hold the building up


----------



## eots (Sep 29, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



these are not facts.. they are _unproven_ .._theory_.._questionable_..these are the words of the man whose theory ..you call fact


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 29, 2009)

eots said:


> the evidence that it did melt steel.. is the evidence of something more than fire





eots said:


> you have zero evidence that fire temperatures were sufficient to weaken steel...there is however evidence to suggest it did not




So it was hot enough to melt steel... but not hot enough to soften it or compromise its ability to carry a load?


Self-refutation is an ugly thing


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 29, 2009)

eots said:


> the words scale testing are lost on you...



If the beam and load are to scale, the temperature at which it is effected is scale independent



dumbass


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 29, 2009)

eots said:


> the evidence that it did melt steel.. is the evidence of something more than fire



You nor anyone else has yet to answer my question.

Was it STEEL or ALUMINUM?

Using your "forensic data" argument which you ALWAYS present because you need to be sure, how do you know it wasn't ALUMINUM? Why molten STEEL?


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 29, 2009)

eots said:


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



Really? 

I guess you just directly refuted your own claim that thermite was used since it burns at 4500F.

Have you done any research to find out what temperatures building fires can reach? I posted links, but you ignored them.


----------



## Liability (Sep 29, 2009)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Yes.  During the conflagration, tiny top secret government agents wearing protective firegear moved in under cover of the confusion and used acetelyne torches to cut the trusses, etc., at a variety of key locations, then planted the super-secret-radio-controlled detonators in the equally top secret charges of superthermite (in a building where radio communication was shown to have been tragically impeded), then they snuck out and remotely blew up the superthermite charges at the recently "cut" key locations to create the appearance of a tragic building collape resulting from the jet crashes, but which was ACTUALLY a controlled detonation.

Of course.

Why didn't you just say so?

Damn those Keebler Elves!


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 29, 2009)

eots said:


> the evidence that it did melt steel.. is the evidence of something more than fire



Would you please make up your mind? 

First you say that there weren't temperatures high enough to weaken steel. Then you say thermite was used which burns at 4500F. Then you say the forensic tests show that none of the recovered steel from the fire areas ever reached temperatures higher than 500F. Then you again say thermite was used, even though it burns at 4500F.

So which is it?


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 29, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > the evidence that it did melt steel.. is the evidence of something more than fire
> ...


I'm going to guess 'none of the above'- final answer


----------



## eots (Sep 29, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > the evidence that it did melt steel.. is the evidence of something more than fire
> ...



only the areas cut would show these extreme temperatures ..the rest of the metal would show the temperature of the overall fire...no sections cut where provided for testing so these temperatures where not found..except as you point out in dust samples independently tested that show molten blobs indicating indeed that metal had reached temperatures required not only the weaken steel but melt steel


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 29, 2009)

so... it wasn't hot enough to soften the steel


but it was hot enough to melt it and leave it molten for weeks?


----------



## eots (Sep 29, 2009)

> JBeukema;1566407]so... it wasn't hot enough to soften the steel



it ?.. I assume you mean the kerosene and office fires ?..if so no the fires where not sufficient to weaken the steel in question





> but it was hot enough to melt it and leave it molten for weeks?



it...(the fires )..would not be capable of producing this result...another source of heat 
must of been present


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 29, 2009)

Anyone have a tally sheet on how many times this moron's changed his CON$piracy theories?


----------



## eots (Sep 29, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Anyone have a tally sheet on how many times this moron's changed his CON$piracy theories?




what a loser response...a lame attempt to run from the facts



*National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation 


This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements. *


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 29, 2009)

eots said:


> jbeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone have a tally sheet on how many times this moron's changed his con$piracy theories?
> ...


qft


----------



## eots (Sep 29, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > jbeukema said:
> ...



omg..divot has gone candycorn on us thinking big block letters give any substance to his argument..lol


there is also *no evidence* of the temperatures required to cause failure...yet you ignore that fact...you also ignore the fact that scientist in the employee of NIST requested investigation of blast scenarios and NIST said they would be done.. but they were never done... you cant find evidence you don't look for or acknowledge


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 29, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


its called putting emphasis on the IMPORTANT parts that you seem to have missed

and as to the temps, you are LYING once again
there was TONS of evidence supporting the temps needed to weaken the steel


----------



## eots (Sep 29, 2009)

the important part is that investigators at NIST requested this..it was promised but never delivered  and after numerous request no response as to why  it had not been done was ever given to lead fire investigator..


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 29, 2009)

eots said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone have a tally sheet on how many times this moron's changed his CON$piracy theories?
> ...


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 29, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > jbeukema said:
> ...





> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to DiveCon again.



dammit, Gunny... fuckin' ****-ass jew...


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 29, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...




psst- you posted that 



> there is also *no evidence* of the temperatures required to cause failure..



seethe section I made red


----------



## eots (Sep 29, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



how much more irrelevant can you be ??


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 29, 2009)

eots said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


I'm sorry, were we not supposed to read the source you posted that debunked your bullshit?


You're very obvious, nowadays. You used to play your role better.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 29, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...


he cant keep up with terral


----------



## eots (Sep 29, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...




 it debunks your bullshit in reality..it is a simple concept I am sure you understand..but to accept it would require you to admit your error so instead you do this


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 29, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...





			
				gunny the fuckin **** ass jew said:
			
		

> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to DiveCon again.


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 29, 2009)

Eots, you'r eno fun anymore. You used to play the role pretty well, but now you're so obvious the entire game is ruined. Same thing with 'Terral'.

Did you just get lazy or what?


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 29, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...


you best get to spreadin some around


----------



## eots (Sep 29, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Eots, you'rrrr eno fun anymore. You used to play the role pretty well, but now you're so obvious the entire game is ruined. Same thing with 'Terral'.
> 
> Did you just get lazy or what?



blah blah blah what ?  ..its not us.. its your own incoherent ramblings that are so obvious..we have overloaded you with facts ..its like when you have to many programs running on your computer and it freezes .. i_nformation overload..._cant process ..just give your self a break from all this _brain thinkin _for a month or two and you will be fine


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 29, 2009)

> we have overloaded you with facts





like debunking yourselves and eachother?


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 29, 2009)

eots said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Eots, you'rrrr eno fun anymore. You used to play the role pretty well, but now you're so obvious the entire game is ruined. Same thing with 'Terral'.
> ...


FACTS???

LOL 
wow
you call those delusional rantings "facts"?


----------



## eots (Sep 29, 2009)

yes facts.. the majority of 9/11 commision members call the investigation a cover-up and request a new investigation with subpoena powers ..as does the lead fire investigator at NIST who has stated that the government deterred fact finding..that there was no evidence of the temperatures required to cause failure and the fact he requested and was promised  investigation  of hypothetical blast scenarios as a possibility although he has not seen evidence of this  either..but this was never done...these are the facts


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 29, 2009)

eots said:


> yes facts.. the majority of 9/11 commision members call the investigation a cover-up and request a new investigation with subpoena powers ..as does the lead fire investigator at NIST who has stated that the government deterred fact finding..that there was no evidence of the temperatures required to cause failure and the fact he requested and was promised  investigation  of hypothetical blast scenarios as a possibility although he has not seen evidence of this  either..but this was never done...these are the facts


really?
how many members were there?
and who are these people you are claiming?


----------



## eots (Sep 30, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > yes facts.. the majority of 9/11 commision members call the investigation a cover-up and request a new investigation with subpoena powers ..as does the lead fire investigator at NIST who has stated that the government deterred fact finding..that there was no evidence of the temperatures required to cause failure and the fact he requested and was promised  investigation  of hypothetical blast scenarios as a possibility although he has not seen evidence of this  either..but this was never done...these are the facts
> ...



9/11 panel distrusted Pentagon testimony
Commissioners considered criminal probe of false statements

CNN.com - 9/11 panel distrusted Pentagon testimony - Aug 2, 2006


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 30, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


thats ONE member
now show proof he had anyone else behind him


----------



## eots (Sep 30, 2009)

The White House Has Played Cover-UpFormer 9/11 Commission Member Max Cleland Blasts Bush 
The independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is holding public hearings today with testimony by top Bush administration officials. We speak with former commission member Max Cleland who was the chief critic of the White Houses lack of cooperation in the investigation.

"The White House Has Played Cover-Up" - Former 9/11 Commission Member Max Cleland Blasts Bush


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 30, 2009)

eots said:


> The White House Has Played Cover-UpFormer 9/11 Commission Member Max Cleland Blasts Bush
> The independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is holding public hearings today with testimony by top Bush administration officials. We speak with former commission member Max Cleland who was the chief critic of the White Houses lack of cooperation in the investigation.
> 
> "The White House Has Played Cover-Up" - Former 9/11 Commission Member Max Cleland Blasts Bush


and what his complaint was was dealt with
old news
no longer relevant since the white house DID cooperate


----------



## eots (Sep 30, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > The White House Has Played Cover-UpFormer 9/11 Commission Member Max Cleland Blasts Bush
> ...



bullshit..the statements stands ..show me anywhere tat max says this was resolved to his satisfaction... stop lying


9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon - washingtonpost.com


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 30, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


this was back in 2006 numbnuts


and quite frankly, i dont give a rats ass if Max Cleland was satisfied or not


----------



## eots (Sep 30, 2009)

what and any action was taken ?...it was adressed how ??..what a stupid response


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 30, 2009)

eots said:


> what and any action was taken ?...it was adressed how ??..what a stupid response


you are too fucking ignorant to even discuss these issues
they had testimony you dumbfuck


----------



## Maple (Sep 30, 2009)

You sure are a nut case, the fall of those buildings was explained in detail, it was the fire that was so hot from the jet fuel that it melted the steel supports that collapsed one floor on top of another. It was a domino effect.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 30, 2009)

Maple said:


> You sure are a nut case, the fall of those buildings was explained in detail, it was the fire that was so hot from the jet fuel that it melted the steel supports that collapsed one floor on top of another. It was a domino effect.


WRONG
it never melted the steel
it didn't need to melt it to weaken it enough to lose its structural integrity


----------



## eots (Sep 30, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > what and any action was taken ?...it was adressed how ??..what a stupid response
> ...



really please elaborate...but first I would like the link to the statement from max cleland that the issues were resolved


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 30, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


who gives a flying fuck what Max Cleland said
it was YEARS ago that the problem came up
why dont you provide proof that Max Cleland thinks it was an inside job first


----------



## eots (Sep 30, 2009)

Maple said:


> You sure are a nut case, the fall of those buildings was explained in detail, it was the fire that was so hot from the jet fuel that it melted the steel supports that collapsed one floor on top of another. It was a domino effect.



no I am not a nut case..you are just someone who's entire knowledge of the events of 9/11 and the following investigation is TV sound bites and maybe a hour long propaganda piece..you have never read the 9/11 commission report or the NIST report and are not it the slightest bit aware of the opinions of those involved in these investigations...of that there is no question


----------



## eots (Sep 30, 2009)

divecon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > divecon said:
> ...



you make a false claim...you get called on it...then you say you dont give a fuck anyway..distract from your lie...because you lost...again


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 30, 2009)

eots said:


> divecon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


no, i didnt lie you fucking moron
you have ZERO proof to back up your bullshit


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 30, 2009)

eots said:


> we have overloaded you with facts ..



I'll call you on that one eots. Please provide me your "facts" that lead you to believe that thermite was used beyond a reasonable doubt.

This should be good.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 30, 2009)

eots said:


> the lead fire investigator at NIST who has stated that the government deterred fact finding..that there was no evidence of the temperatures required to cause failure



If there was no evidence of temperatures required to cause failure, then why does he make this statement in his paper:



> An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
> appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
> the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
> corresponding to failure based on structural analyses. This hypothesis puts
> ...





eots said:


> and the fact he requested and was promised  investigation  of hypothetical blast scenarios as a possibility although he has not seen evidence of this  either..but this was never done...these are the facts



Was this "hypothetical blast scenario" statement related to WTC1 and WTC2 or just WTC7?


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 30, 2009)

Here is video proof that the collapse of WTC7 did not happen in 6.6 seconds as Terral and others would have you believe. The collapse initiation STARTED with the partial mechanical penthouse collapse seen in the video below, followed by the rest of the building coming down.

The fact that Terral and others prefer to ignore the partial penthouse collapse in their "6.6 second" total collapse claim is very telling.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ_fFxBB4aY]YouTube - WTC7 Penthouse Collapse Timeline[/ame]


----------



## Liability (Sep 30, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> > You sure are a nut case, the fall of those buildings was explained in detail, it was the fire that was so hot from the jet fuel that it melted the steel supports that collapsed one floor on top of another. It was a domino effect.
> ...



For a simple straightforward concise explanation consistent with the observable facts, known science and common sense, DiveCon, you

(a) win the award for declarative writing on this rather stupid topic; or
(b) get labeled an "agent" by some silly 9// Trufers; or
(c) both of the above.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 30, 2009)

An even BETTER video of WTC7 penthouse collapse. You can see a few windows break and the left part of the wall "shudder" as the corner of the penthouse collapses into the building. This CLEARLY shows that the damage went into the inside of the building itself. Then the whole building CONTINUES to collapse.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUkvnfV606w&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - 9/11: WTC 7 east penthouse collapse[/ame]

There seems to be even a small part of the video cut out between when the penthouse partially collpases and then continues on into the rest of the full collpase making it longer than 6.6 seconds.



Yeah, you HAVE to ignore that Terral in order to make your 6.6 second total collapse theory credible.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 30, 2009)

Maple said:


> You sure are a nut case, the fall of those buildings was explained in detail, it was the fire that was so hot from the jet fuel that it melted the steel supports that collapsed one floor on top of another. It was a domino effect.



what other fairy tales do you have to tell for the day?


----------



## eots (Sep 30, 2009)

you people are funny...NIST admits free fall for the visable portion of the collapse and even if you manage to fudge a sec.. a 47 story building falls in secs like a house of cards


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 30, 2009)

eots said:


> you people are funny...NIST admits free fall for the visable portion of the collapse and even if you manage to fudge a sec.. a 47 story building falls in secs like a house of cards


wrong, they admit a partial time frame of "free fall speeds"
not a complete free fall


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 30, 2009)

eots said:


> you people are funny...NIST admits free fall for the visable portion of the collapse and even if you manage to fudge a sec.. a 47 story building falls in secs like a house of cards



Really eots? Fudge a sec? It's more like 7 or 8 seconds. Making the total collapse time more than DOUBLE the 6.6 second collapse time you truthers spout off about.

Not to mention the fact that you can SEE the penthouse corner fall into the building and cause damage to the innards of it. The damn wall shudders as the structure caves in.

The point is, 6.6 seconds for total collapse is bullshit. It's been proven with the video above.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 30, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > you people are funny...NIST admits free fall for the visable portion of the collapse and even if you manage to fudge a sec.. a 47 story building falls in secs like a house of cards
> ...


thats why i call em troofers, they dont give a rats ass about the truth


----------



## eots (Sep 30, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > you people are funny...NIST admits free fall for the visable portion of the collapse and even if you manage to fudge a sec.. a 47 story building falls in secs like a house of cards
> ...



even NIST  with its* theory *the collapse slowed in the portion not viusable still only stretches the official time to 10.5 secs...those are the facts


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 30, 2009)

eots said:


> you people are funny...NIST admits free fall for the visable portion of the collapse and even if you manage to fudge a sec.. a 47 story building falls in secs like a house of cards



I know,thats whats so hysterical about their logic.They defend NIST to know end when they say fires brought down the towers but now that they have admitted they made a mistake and that the towers DID fall at freefall speed,NOW all of a sudden they say NIST is wrong.I love their logic,its priceless. Doesnt matter that demolition experts have said thats what brought down the towers I love it. 

Funny thats the FIRST person I would want an opinion from in an investigation like this is a demolition expert.  Their logic reminds me of Pale Riders.According to Pale,Alex Jones is a loon in his belief that 9/11 was an inside job and wont watch any of Jones videos on that,yet when Jones goes and makes a video called THE OBAMA DECEPTION,Pale embraces it as the ultimate truth.what a hyprocrite.These 9/11 COINCIDENCE THEORISTS belong in that same group of hypocrites that Pale is.They want it both ways just like he does with Obama but not with 9/11.


----------



## JD_2B (Oct 1, 2009)

Godboy said:


> > I am obviously not the only guy on this planet knowing for A FACT that WTC-7 was taken down using Controlled Demolition.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The evidence does not lie, "Godboy".. Those towers did not simply fall down on top of themselves as a result of a plane crash. They were designed to withstand that kind of heat and impact. Steel buildings just do not fall onto their own footprint in such an exact way, except in cases of planned strategic demolition. 

Face it- 3,000 people lost their lives for two reasons- money and power. The owner of the building wanted the money, and the government wanted the power.

This is not the first time something like this has happened, either. Remember the cold war? Well, we blew up a dummy ship out in the Caribbean, to make it look like Cuban allies of Russia were trying to wage war on us. 
We were aware in advance of the pearl harbor mess-  and we even got a fax the day before..

Hell, the whole friggin world knew that 9/11 was going to happen- we had over two dozen tips from reliable enough sources, LONG before the fact, and YET, GeeDubleya still ordered that bomb sniffing dogs be removed from the WTC, and got it so that the FAA would no longer allow pilots to have guns in their cockpits.. 

The pilots were decorated military men, also.. 

Understanding these facts, along with the thousands of pieces of visual imagery evidence- how can one NOT see that a conspiracy exists?? LOL!!!


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 1, 2009)

eots said:


> even NIST  with its* theory *the collapse slowed in the portion not viusable still only stretches the official time to 10.5 secs...those are the facts



Can you not add eots? Clearly you cannot. The START of the collapse happens when the mechanical penthouse corner falls into the building. From that point until the roofline starts to go down is 7 to 8 seconds. You can SEE the damage to the wall face happen as the penthouse structure falls INSIDE the building. 

7 to 8 seconds. If your number for complete collapse is 10.5 seconds, then you are saying the time it took the roofline to fall to the ground was 2.5 seconds.

We're talking upwards of 14 seconds for the entire building to collapse from start to finish. That's more than DOUBLE the 6.6 second collapse claim.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 1, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> The evidence does not lie, "Godboy".. Those towers did not simply fall down on top of themselves as a result of a plane crash.



They didn't it was a result of the plane damaging the structure and the fires weakening the structural system.



JD_2B said:


> They were designed to withstand that kind of heat



You know this for a fact? Show me the information you are basing this claim on. Did you find a test or study done by Robertson and company that says they did heat tests on the structural components? I'd be interested to see that.



JD_2B said:


> and impact.



Did the towers come down right after the planes hit? No? Then they DID withstand the impact. They came down as a result of a combination of things. Fire AND the damage caused by the impact.



JD_2B said:


> Steel buildings just do not fall onto their own footprint in such an exact way, except in cases of planned strategic demolition.



You mean both towers fell into two 208'x208' square areas? Really? I could have sworn there was debris scattered WAY outside the 208'x208' footprints. I've even seen videos where the perimeter column facades fall OUTSIDE the footprint.



JD_2B said:


> Face it- 3,000 people lost their lives for two reasons- money and power. The owner of the building wanted the money, and the government wanted the power.



If you are basing tis claim on the above evidence, you are wrong.



JD_2B said:


> This is not the first time something like this has happened, either. Remember the cold war? Well, we blew up a dummy ship out in the Caribbean, to make it look like Cuban allies of Russia were trying to wage war on us.
> We were aware in advance of the pearl harbor mess-  and we even got a fax the day before..
> 
> Hell, the whole friggin world knew that 9/11 was going to happen- we had over two dozen tips from reliable enough sources, LONG before the fact, and YET, GeeDubleya still ordered that bomb sniffing dogs be removed from the WTC, and got it so that the FAA would no longer allow pilots to have guns in their cockpits..
> ...



You haven't stated any facts. You got them all wrong.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 1, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > you people are funny...NIST admits free fall for the visable portion of the collapse and even if you manage to fudge a sec.. a 47 story building falls in secs like a house of cards
> ...



Based on YOUR fact finding abilities, nobody should pay any heed to what you have to say.

The "Steel doesn't begin to weaken until 2700F" is just the beginning of your idiocy. I'm STILL waiting for the numerous sources that you say make this claim.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 1, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> The evidence does not lie, "Godboy".. Those towers did not simply fall down on top of themselves as a result of a plane crash. They were designed to withstand that kind of heat and impact. Steel buildings just do not fall onto their own footprint in such an exact way, except in cases of planned strategic demolition.




You know the architect of the buidings personally? pretty impressive connection there. Before 9/11 I'm sure he would have said "you bet, i designed the building to withstand a airline crashing into it." 




JD_2B said:


> Face it- 3,000 people lost their lives for two reasons- money and power. The owner of the building wanted the money, and the government wanted the power.
> 
> This is not the first time something like this has happened, either. Remember the cold war? Well, we blew up a dummy ship out in the Caribbean, to make it look like Cuban allies of Russia were trying to wage war on us.
> We were aware in advance of the pearl harbor mess-  and we even got a fax the day before..
> ...



The common theme among you and all the other truthers seems to be your prediliction towards conspiracy theories in general. Just as I explained to eots, you people aren't going to know the the truth becuase you don't know yourself.


----------



## eots (Oct 1, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > The evidence does not lie, "Godboy".. Those towers did not simply fall down on top of themselves as a result of a plane crash. They were designed to withstand that kind of heat and impact. Steel buildings just do not fall onto their own footprint in such an exact way, except in cases of planned strategic demolition.
> ...



 you explained nothing..you gave your shit ass opinion...so your bullshit theory's would include those official story CTrs like yourself...or can you prove your theory  ?


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 1, 2009)

eots said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...



My point is you can't prove yours. Because again you have zero explanation for the many other variables that MUST HAVE TO BE TRUE for the controlled demolition theory to remain plausible.  

Further in dealing with the likes of yourself and other truthers I find actual evidence to be irrelevant. Or more accurately I find that _you_ conveniently find pieces of evidence irrelevant. This is why I find the term 'tuthers' so ironic. It is a lie. Truthers are not looking for the truth. They are trying to prove that 9/11 was an event orchestrated by the U.S. government. That is far, far, far different than a group wanting to find the truth. Your goal is to arrive at a singular outcome, where the real truth could have many potential outcomes. Outcomes you have shown you aren't willing to even entertain. You and the truthers simply lack the introspection to see that the people that comprise the group, their mentality, is going to have a major effect on what they find.

A group that says it is after the truth must be completely unbiased and objective. Truthers CLEALY are not. I don't think I would be wrong in stating that the bulk of you viewed the governemnt in black helicopter light well before the events of 9/11. Whether that perception of the real world and our government is accurate is irrelevant. If you want to take up the mantle of finding the truth of THIS event, than you have to admit that in the pursuit of truth such a perception needs to get checked at the door because any good researcher will tell you your biases WILL effect the findings of your research.

You say your for the truth then prove it. I have asked you on multiple occassions to show us the evidence that MUST be in place for your theory to remain plausible. Clearly on the main towers the top of the buildings above where the planes hit, start to come down first. If this was a controlled demolition and it wasn't the planes weakening the structure that brought the buildings down than it was the charges or whatever placed above where the planes hit that did it. So how exactley did 'they' get the plane to hit in just the right spot on the building to maintain the cover up of the controlled demolition?

I remind you the above is the tip of the iceberg of the things the truthers need to show happened, but remains crucial to the controlled demolition theory.


----------



## eots (Oct 1, 2009)

truthers did need to prove anything but the complete failure of the NIST and the 9/11 commission who's role was only to confirm the bush /cheney story  not investigate and that has been proven with a reasonable certainty..the details of the truth will be found in an independent investigation with subpoena power


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 1, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> > > I am obviously not the only guy on this planet knowing for A FACT that WTC-7 was taken down using Controlled Demolition.
> ...



of course you DO know dis in fo agents Gam and Bern will try to come up with something to try and convince you your wrong dont you?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 1, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



actual evidence to be irrelevent? translation- overwhelming evidence  that explosives brought down these towers means NOTHING to me.I only see what I WANT to see so that means nothing to me. Us  coincidence theorists who support the official government  conspiracy THEORY that planes and office fires brought down the towers, are  biased and not objective.


----------



## candycorn (Oct 1, 2009)

eots said:


> truthers did need to prove anything but the complete failure of the NIST and the 9/11 commission who's role was only to confirm the bush /cheney story  not investigate and that has been proven with a reasonable certainty..the details of the truth will be found in an independent investigation with subpoena power



*How's that "we don't need to prove anything" tactic working for you...seeing  as how we are coming up on 2,950 days since the attacks and you're still the laughing stock you've always have been?*


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 1, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Right, overwhelming evidence. Except for the complete lack of explosive material found anywhere. I explained in my last paragraph how, if a controlled demolition took place, the sequence would have had to happen and yet again you both refuse to offer even a semi plausible explanation as to how, I REPEAT, the things that HAD to have happened, did happen. You have minimal evidence for the most bassest of theories and ZERO explanation for how it was carried. Your're missing:

-Evidence of when/how the buildings were rigged.
-How the government orchestrated the planes crashing into the building.
-why Al quaida claimed credit if they didnt do it.
-again, EVIDENCE of any explosive material was used (you have been reduced to claiming SUPER thermite, which there is no physical evidence for. a substance even truthers admit they can't get there hands on, don't know how hot it burn, or how it would have to have been applied, and oh only the bad government has access to it)

This whole controlled demolition thing was surmised for one reason and one reason only a bunch of morons predisposed to conspiracies in the first place whatched some video and went 'gee golly that kinda looks like how a building in a controlled demolition falls'. THAT'S IT.


----------



## eots (Oct 1, 2009)

candycorn said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > truthers did need to prove anything but the complete failure of the NIST and the 9/11 commission who's role was only to confirm the bush /cheney story  not investigate and that has been proven with a reasonable certainty..the details of the truth will be found in an independent investigation with subpoena power
> ...



your big block red letters prove nothing except maybe some sociopathic tendencies
either does your flat earther appeal to the herd mentality..._what everybody thinks_ line

the facts remain  9/11 commision members call the investigation a cover- up..hog-wash
criminal..treasonous and investigators at NIST talk of a government out to deter fact finding and withholding documentation and resources all agree on the need for an independent investigation with subpoena power


----------



## Liability (Oct 1, 2009)

eots said:


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



Putting your bombastic bullshit to the side for a moment, despite your proclivity to try, the actual state of affairs remains that YOU have the burden.  You can try to shift that burden all day long everyday from now to the end of our lives, but the burden of persuasion remains yours.

Try to step up and avoid begging the question and bootstrapping.

Just answer the questions.  Here are a few for starters (even though they have been asked of you in many ways all of which you have resolutely ducked):

*At a freaking minimum, how many people -- alleged conspirators -- HAD to have been involved to do the vile deeds you claim took place as a result of the conspiracy?

How on Earth did they plant the explosives at all, much less without leaving any visible evidence of their handiwork?*

You keep insisting that the commissioners allege that the Commission report is a coverup, but you fail to prove it.  Do so.

Which Commissioners?  When?  Cite?  Linkie?

If YOU want the investigation re-opened, you *are* the one with the burden of persuasion.  Step up.  Don't tell us again all the questions that YOU pretend exist and need to be answered.  Enough with your bootstrapping already.   Provide the world with SOMETHING valid to warrant the costs of a new investigation.  (Again, pointing to what you consider flaws in the old investigation will not suffice.  No bootsrapping allowed.)

Show us something to establish a reasonable probability that *CONSPIRATORS planted demolition type explosives in the buildings to coincide with the terrorist attacks.*

You never have; and without your usual bootstrapping you never will.  You are beyond implausible.  You are already into the realm of fantasy.


----------



## eots (Oct 1, 2009)

> Bern80;
> My point is you can't prove yours. Because again you have zero explanation for the many other variables that MUST HAVE TO BE TRUE for the controlled demolition theory to remain plausible


.  


thats nothing more than opinion and an examination of the bush /chenney story requires one improbable evnt after the otherin sequence in my opinion..but what is not opinion is there has been no satisfactory or conclusive investigation of 9/11



> Further in dealing with the likes of yourself and other truthers I find actual evidence to be irrelevant. Or more accurately I find that _you_ conveniently find pieces of evidence irrelevant. This is why I find the term 'tuthers' so ironic. It is a lie. Truthers are not looking for the truth. .




these are the basic complaints of the 9/11 commission and  NIST  investigators about their reports



> Your goal is to arrive at a singular outcome, where the real truth could have many potential outcomes. Outcomes you have shown you aren't willing to even entertain. You and the truthers simply lack the introspection to see that the people that comprise the group, their mentality, is going to have a major effect on what they find.



NIST press releases stated the request and intention to test hypothetical blast and controlled demolition theory's...this was never done



.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 1, 2009)

eots said:


> thats nothing more than opinion and an examination of the bush /chenney story requires one improbable evnt after the otherin sequence in my opinion..but what is not opinion is there has been no satisfactory or conclusive investigation of 9/11



Opinion?! Now your're just being a chicken shit. You believe in a conspiracy but apparently don't understand what the words means. For people to CONSPIRE a cover up, many different things must be orchestrated to achieve what you believed happen. What is more improbable, that what looked like happened, did, or that a bunch of people no one saw rigged a building and were able to get 2 airliners full of people to crash into them to cover up a demolition? Get your fucking head into reality for once in your paranoid life.

All of you truthers stop being a bunch of pussies and start actually looking for the truth. For you to be right you need evidence of the following.

How, when and who rigged the buildings. Here's another thing. You claim to have a lot of physical evidence, but where is your human evidence of anything? Physical evidence can be covered up easier than keeping someone from talking and yet not a soul has come forth to say the saw anything suspicious or has confessed to be involved.

Why would Al Quaida claim credit for something they didnt' do?

The FACT remains eots you can claim there are problems with how the investigation was done until the cows come home, but the two above things are the as yet irreconcilbable issues with your theory.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 1, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > thats nothing more than opinion and an examination of the bush /chenney story requires one improbable evnt after the otherin sequence in my opinion..but what is not opinion is there has been no satisfactory or conclusive investigation of 9/11
> ...


oh come on, they know you are one of us disinfo agents
wear it like a badge of honor


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 1, 2009)

eots said:


> NIST press releases stated the request and intention to test hypothetical blast and controlled demolition theory's...this was never done



For which buildings?


----------



## eots (Oct 1, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > NIST press releases stated the request and intention to test hypothetical blast and controlled demolition theory's...this was never done
> ...



it was requested for wtc 7..although I'm sure if those findings were conclusive the investigation would have been extended


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 1, 2009)

The necessary conditions for the OP's assertions have yet to be demonstrated.

The assertion fails.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 1, 2009)

eots said:


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



Problem is eots, those blast scenarios probably would not satisfy you. Look at the things a blast scenario would have to show. It wouldn't be enough to see how the buildings fell. the scenario would have to show include a scenario as to how it got rigged with no one noticing. And not just any explosive would count. They would have to come up with your vaunted SUPER thermite, a substance we aren't sure even exists, because no evidence of any conventional means of demolition have been found. 

One has to consider what you want out of such an investigation. I don't believe you could answer the following question honestly anyway, but give it a shot. What if, after every investigation you would like to see done, it is still concluded that two planes caused enough structural damage to collapse the trade centers and that's what really happened. Can you honestly tell me you're the type of guy that would drop his 'truth' crusade and be satisified with any thing that doesn't conclude it was a controlled demolition?

P.S. You still have not answered the questions required for CD to be plausible.


----------



## eots (Oct 1, 2009)

> Bern80;
> 
> Problem is eots, those blast scenarios probably would not satisfy you


.

the problum is you make baseless assumptions







> Look at the things a blast scenario would have to show. It wouldn't be enough to see how the buildings fell. the scenario would have to show include a scenario as to how it got rigged with no one noticing. And not just any explosive would count. They would have to come up with your vaunted SUPER thermite, a substance we aren't sure even exists, because no evidence of any conventional means of demolition have been found.




that's not true ..science would only have to prove that explosives were used




> One has to consider what you want out of such an investigation. I don't believe you could answer the following question honestly anyway, but give it a shot. What if, after every investigation you would like to see done, it is still concluded that two planes caused enough structural damage to collapse the trade centers and that's what really happened. Can you honestly tell me you're the type of guy that would drop his 'truth' crusade and be satisified with any thing that doesn't conclude it was a controlled demolition?



if it was done under the terms of the 9/11 family steering committee  and to their satisfaction ..yes


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 1, 2009)

eots said:


> that's not true ..science would only have to prove that explosives were used



Plenty of science has been expended already. There is no evidence any type of explosive device was used to bring down the towers. Even if it did it had to get there somehow. Someone had to put it there and A LOT of it to do the job, yet NO ONE has reported any such activity and NO ONE has confessed. You think there are these people that are keeping their mouths shut if not for a subpoena thrown in their face? Get real.  

Again your notion that this was an inside job done by controlled demolition is based on very flimsy circumstantial evidence. You are somehow surprised that 100% of the people working on this don't agree on the exact same story of what happened. WELL STOP THE FUCKING PRESSES. That isn't surprising in the least. The second thing it is based on, whether you care to admit it or not, is that the towers collapsinig look like what happens when a controlled demolition goes off. THAT'S IT. That is the basis of your belief. That fueled by your fucked up imagination. Which is interesting in itself considering there isn't much in the way other examples as to how sky scrapers collapse when it isn't intentional. 

I don't get why someone who claims to be looking for the whole truth would claim to be satisified simply knowing that explosives were used. that leaves so many questions unanswered. Hell that wouldn't even be evidence that our government did it. For someone who wants the truth it is truly baffling the things you seem to not want answers to.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 1, 2009)

The assertion is backed by zero evidence

the OP's assertion fails


----------



## candycorn (Oct 1, 2009)

*


Bern80 said:





eots said:



			that's not true ..science would only have to prove that explosives were used
		
Click to expand...


Plenty of science has been expended already. There is no evidence any type of explosive device was used to bring down the towers. Even if it did it had to get there somehow. Someone had to put it there and A LOT of it to do the job, yet NO ONE has reported any such activity and NO ONE has confessed. You think there are these people that are keeping their mouths shut if not for a subpoena thrown in their face? Get real.  

Again your notion that this was an inside job done by controlled demolition is based on very flimsy circumstantial evidence. You are somehow surprised that 100% of the people working on this don't agree on the exact same story of what happened. WELL STOP THE FUCKING PRESSES. That isn't surprising in the least. The second thing it is based on, whether you care to admit it or not, is that the towers collapsinig look like what happens when a controlled demolition goes off. THAT'S IT. That is the basis of your belief. That fueled by your fucked up imagination. Which is interesting in itself considering there isn't much in the way other examples as to how sky scrapers collapse when it isn't intentional. 

I don't get why someone who claims to be looking for the whole truth would claim to be satisified simply knowing that explosives were used. that leaves so many questions unanswered. Hell that wouldn't even be evidence that our government did it. For someone who wants the truth it is truly baffling the things you seem to not want answers to.
		
Click to expand...


Hey...they committed mass murder and all sure but hey, contempt of court...that rap scares the shit out of them!!!

I'm always curious about why none of these thousands and thousands of guys involved in this conspiracy have not tried to chisel Mr Big (every good caper has a Mr. Big) for more green.  Otherwise they'd sing to feds.  

I'm sure Mr. Big loved that.  

All ten thousand perps...all with airtight alibis.  No deathbed confessions, no drunk calls, no turning over someone else for a lighter sentence for a subsequent crime (DWI, DUID, etc..).  This is the most clean cut bunch of mass murderers in the history of crime.


*


----------



## eots (Oct 1, 2009)

> Bern80;
> 
> 
> Plenty of science has been expended already. There is no evidence any type of explosive device was used to bring down the towers



then why would the man in charge of this report express his frustration this was never done ?..and why does he call his theory questionable and why is there no evidence of the temperatures requires to weaken steel




> Even if it did it had to get there somehow. Someone had to put it there and A LOT of it to do the job, yet NO ONE has reported any such activity and NO ONE has confessed. You think there are these people that are keeping their mouths shut if not for a subpoena thrown in their face? Get real.



yes I  do...not many criminals confess without interrogation or investigation





> Again your notion that this was an inside job done by controlled demolition is based on very flimsy circumstantial evidence. You are somehow surprised that 100% of the people working on this don't agree on the exact same story of what happened. WELL STOP THE FUCKING PRESSES. That isn't surprising in the least. The second thing it is based on, whether you care to admit it or not, is that the towers collapsinig look like what happens when a controlled demolition goes off. THAT'S IT. That is the basis of your belief. That fueled by your fucked up imagination. Which is interesting in itself considering there isn't much in the way other examples as to how sky scrapers collapse when it isn't intentional


. 


you forgot the existence of molten metal and the free fall controlled collapse and first responder testimony





> I don't get why someone who claims to be looking for the whole truth would claim to be satisified simply knowing that explosives were used. that leaves so many questions unanswered. Hell that wouldn't even be evidence that our government did it. For someone who wants the truth it is truly baffling the things you seem to not want answers to



I never said that ..I Said that is all  forensic science needs to prove...it would be a a criminal investigations duty to find the answers to the other questions


----------



## eots (Oct 1, 2009)

candycorn said:


> *
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> ...



that is what black ops do and a examination of history would show your belief to be a fallacy..many secretes have been kept for decades..until declassified


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 1, 2009)

eots said:


> then why would the man in charge of this report express his frustration this was never done ?..and why does he call his theory questionable and why is there no evidence of the temperatures requires to weaken steel



He doesn't believe what you believe eots. What Mr. Quintiere believes happened is on record. He does IN FACT believe it is likely that the heat was sufficient to weaken the trusses that resulted in the collapse. That is in HIS vaunted paper that you keep calling out as your smoking gun. It's better evidence for me than it is for you. But you have totally bastardized what he believe taken his one request for demolition experiments horribly out of context. You ASSUME that he shares your opinion and he of course must want these experiments done to show a controlled demolition. He could want it for any number of reasons. Perhaps a model of some type to simply examine the physics of the building collapse. If he is any kind of researcher at all he is simply trying to collect data. The point is he isn't really the greatest piece of evidence for your case simply because while he may not like the investigation he just plain doesn't agree with the truthers.



eots said:


> yes I  do...not many criminals confess without interrogation or investigation


 If groups of people only admit to things under interrogation I am again forced to ask why Osama bin laden and al quaida took credit for the attacks? 



eots said:


> you forgot the existence of molten metal and the free fall controlled collapse and first responder testimony



People have pointed out to you time and again eot, you can't have this one both ways. How exactly are you reconciling your first statement that you believe heat was not sufficient to weakn metal then here claim their was molten metal.



eots said:


> I never said that ..I Said that is all  forensic science needs to prove...it would be a a criminal investigations duty to find the answers to the other questions



Your choice of words in interesting here. Why not needs to disprove again revealing your bias in your fucked up nogin. You keep saying a criminal act occurred perpetrated by our own yet you have ZERO criminal evidence for it and further dont' seem too interested in finding it. Again even you can prove a CD you still are left with who did it. You make another leap of logic for which no evidence exists being that if it was a CD it must have been the U.S. that did it.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 1, 2009)

well said bern


----------



## eots (Oct 1, 2009)

> He doesn't believe what you believe eots. What Mr. Quintiere believes happened is on record. He does IN FACT believe it is likely that the heat was sufficient to weaken the trusses that resulted in the collapse. That is in HIS vaunted paper that you keep calling out as your smoking gun. It's better evidence for me than it is for you. But you have totally bastardized what he believe taken his one request for demolition experiments horribly out of context.




clearly he would not request an investigation into it and repeatedly question why it was not done if he did not consider the possibility..clearly




> You ASSUME that he shares your opinion and he of course must want these experiments done to show a controlled demolition. He could want it for any number of reasons. Perhaps a model of some type to simply examine the physics of the building collapse. If he is any kind of researcher at all he is simply trying to collect data. The point is he isn't really the greatest piece of evidence for your case simply because while he may not like the investigation he just plain doesn't agree with the truthers.



well all that is assumption but the fact remains he calls the findings questionable request an independent investigation with subpoena powers and encourages all to be conspiracy theorist...but you ignore all of this 




> People have pointed out to you time and again eot, you can't have this one both ways. How exactly are you reconciling your first statement that you believe heat was not sufficient to weakn metal then here claim their was molten metal.



it is easy the forensic test..show the temperatures of the office and fuel fire throughout...not the relatively small sections subjected to extreme temperatures required to cut






> Your choice of words in interesting here. Why not needs to disprove again revealing your bias in your fucked up nogin. You keep saying a criminal act occurred perpetrated by our own yet you have ZERO criminal evidence for it and further dont' seem too interested in finding it. Again even you can prove a CD you still are left with who did it. You make another leap of logic for which no evidence exists being that if it was a CD it must have been the U.S. that did it




basically the same complaints ..the 9/11 commission has of the bin laden /no prior knowledge ..NORAD stand down story...


----------



## candycorn (Oct 2, 2009)

eots said:


> > He doesn't believe what you believe eots. What Mr. Quintiere believes happened is on record. He does IN FACT believe it is likely that the heat was sufficient to weaken the trusses that resulted in the collapse. That is in HIS vaunted paper that you keep calling out as your smoking gun. It's better evidence for me than it is for you. But you have totally bastardized what he believe taken his one request for demolition experiments horribly out of context.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Aren't you supposed to be in a FEMA camp right now?  They let you get on the Internet?  HA HA HA*


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 2, 2009)

eots said:


> and why does he call his theory questionable and why is there no evidence of the temperatures requires to weaken steel



There's no evidence of thermite/explosives either, but you obviously believe that there was a controlled demolition using these items.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 2, 2009)

Hey eots. Since you are using quotes and information from James Quintiere from BEFORE the final report came out from NIST in 2008, have you spoken or asked Mr. Quintiere about his views now?

I see many of your references from Mr. Quintiere to be from August of 2007 and before.

Just curious.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 2, 2009)

Hey eots. Another question. Do you ever do any further research or do you just find information that supports you views and leave it at that? After seeing that Mr. Quintiere's questions and comments came BEFORE the final WTC7 report came out, I did a little investigation. 

I found this quote:


> Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
> Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
> 
> In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the buildings critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.
> ...



Taken from here: Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

I suggest you present this to Mr. Quintiere and see if this satisfies his "hypothetical blast" scenario question. Looks like NIST did in fact look into these "blast scenarios".


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 2, 2009)

More information for you eots. In the paper, NCSTAR 1A, page 26, section 3.3, they discuss hypothetical blast scenarios. 

Why are you quoting old information like NIST never addressed this? Or is it the fact that you're too lazy to research anything to see if your convoluted beliefs and claims my be wrong?


----------



## Terral (Oct 2, 2009)

Hi Bern:



Bern80 said:


> P.S. You still have not answered the questions required for CD to be plausible.



Nobody is required to answer 'any' of your ridiculous questions to make the *"Controlled Demolition"* (AE911Truth.org) Case. I made that case in the OP of this thread if you ever want to address my CD thesis, claims, evidence or conclusions; which I doubt very much that you even begin to understand. What I would love to see is Bern's thesis and evidence for how "Building Fires/Debris Did It" for this WTC-7 Controlled Demolition Case. Please include the link to your work in Bern's next thoughtful reply. Asking me a thousand questions is NOT making your Official Cover Story Case at all . . . 

TY,

Terral


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 2, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Bern:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Unless you would be satisfied with the explanation 'the explosives appeared there out of thin air' then yes you do have to answer how they got there in the first place. And I did ask what was wrong with this particular theory (below) which was ignored. Again it is baffling how seemingly unimportant this detail is to the truthers. Then again since it is a decidely inconvenient truth that they have zero testimony from anyone claiming prior knowledge of the CD perhaps it is not so baffling.



> Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom  approximately 10 stories  about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
> 
> NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
> 
> ...


----------



## Terral (Oct 2, 2009)

Hi Bern:



Bern80 said:


> Unless you would be satisfied with the explanation 'the explosives appeared there out of thin air' then yes you do have to answer how they got there in the first place . . .



Listen up, Bern: *WTC-7 was 'DEFINITELY' brought down using Controlled Demolition.* Period. 

The 'only' other explanation on the table is that *"Building Fire/Debris Did It."* My WTC-7 CD Case has already been presented in the OP of this thread and Bern has managed to *'quote >>'* and debunk NOTHING. Click on the short video clip:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A"]WTC-7 Collapse[/ame]

Now try to tell everyone here that you are looking at a 47-story skyscraper falling down from Building Fires. :0)

Paris Building

Office Building

Landmark Tower Implosion

Now click on each of the CD Video Clips and look for similarities to the WTC-7 CD Implosion. 







Look at the faces of all the adjacent buildings!! WTC-7 imploded into its own footprint in the same exact way that these other buildings collapsed from Controlled Demolition. Nobody need convince you about how the charges were set for Bern to connect the CD dots. If you want to believe that overbuilt steel-framed skyscrapers 'can' fall down into their own footprints from building fires (that is impossible), then you confused: = #9) have every right to believe in fairy tales . . . 

GL,

Terral


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 2, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Bern:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why did you not respond to the theory posted? Obviously some very intelligent people at NIST believe in another explanation. And I thank you for proving the point I made to eots. One of your pieces of 'evidence' basically involves your observation that it looks to you like a CD. You'll have to forgive me if i don't lend much credance to that. Again for an objective person to use how they percieved the collapse as evidence one would think they would also need a frame of reference for how buildings collapse when NOT done via a controlled demolition. We don't have an awful lot of observable data on that. It is a pretty weak argument to say 'I think that was a controlled demolition because that looked like a controlled demolition' considering you don't know what a building collapsing by some other means looks like (unless of course you count the towers).


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 2, 2009)

eots said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...



yeah enough of that moronic too many people would have to be involved and it could never have been kept a secret crap.there was a secret covery war the CIA was involved in in Indonisia in the 50's that nobody knew about till the mid 90's,they kept that a secret for over 40 years and in the 90's we just found out about some of the miltarys secrets from world war one,secrets that were kept from the public for over 70 years.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 2, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Bern:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Interesting. You feel no need to have any evidence at all? I guess we were mistaken to take you the least bit seriously, then.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 2, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Bern:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




yeah that would be hysterical to see what kind of nonsense he comes up with for that one.as i have said before,BLD 7 is the crux of the 9/11 coverup commissions report cause that building was NOT hit by a plane and other buildings had FAR MORE EXTENSIVE damage done to them from debris and those buildings never collapsed.funny how Bern and the other Bush dupes conviently ignore that link of what architects and engineers and what demolition experts have said. and yes,asking a thousand questionsa that have been answered before in the past is not making a case for your theories Bern.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 2, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Bern:
> ...



He has given you evidence throughout this thread.again why do you Bush dupes ignore what architects. engineers and even demolition experts say instead of listening to the corporate controlled media and governments versions?


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 2, 2009)

The experts all said the same thing: no evidence supporting your claims


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 2, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Bern:
> ...



Oh so someone did tell us who planted the explosives?

You guys really are grasping now. If this was a murder, you would be claiming the defendant shot and killed someone except there's no bullet hole in the body and you have no gun.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 2, 2009)

candycorn said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > > He doesn't believe what you believe eots. What Mr. Quintiere believes happened is on record. He does IN FACT believe it is likely that the heat was sufficient to weaken the trusses that resulted in the collapse. That is in HIS vaunted paper that you keep calling out as your smoking gun. It's better evidence for me than it is for you. But you have totally bastardized what he believe taken his one request for demolition experiments horribly out of context.
> ...


no, that was terral, he(Eots) didnt believe that one


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 2, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Bern:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


how are you here?
why didnt we get you yesterday?


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 2, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Bern:
> ...


he NEVER responds to actual question, just copy & paste the same crap he always does


----------



## Terral (Oct 2, 2009)

Hi Setarcos:



Setarcos said:


> Interesting. You feel no need to have any evidence at all? I guess we were mistaken to take you the least bit seriously, then.



I have no need to answer any of your silly questions, as if questioning me to death makes the *"Building Fires Did It"* Case. If Setarcos has a *"Building Fires Did It"* Case, then go right ahead and present your fantasy from the evidence. I 'have' presented the evidence in the Opening Post of this WTC-7 thread. No. I do not expect *you *cuckoo to take my *WTC-7 testimony* seriously (#9) and I am probably the only member here *actually qualified *(#3) to write on this Topic . . .

GL,

Terral


----------



## candycorn (Oct 2, 2009)

DiveCon said:


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



My bad.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 2, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Setarcos:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


except NO ONE SAYS just fires did it
fires contributed to it along with the damage done either by the 2 Boeing airplanes or the fact a 110 story building fell into and on top of WTC7


----------



## eots (Oct 2, 2009)

Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NIST&#8217;s failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. &#8220;And that building was not hit by anything,&#8221; noted Dr. Quintiere. &#8220;It&#8217;s more important to take a look at that. *Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down *that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And *firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!&#8221;*


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 2, 2009)

eots said:


> Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NIST&#8217;s failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. &#8220;And that building was not hit by anything,&#8221; noted Dr. Quintiere. &#8220;It&#8217;s more important to take a look at that. *Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down *that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And *firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!&#8221;*


and was that before or after the final report?


----------



## eots (Oct 2, 2009)

James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST&#8217;s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

*Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, &#8220;Questions on the WTC Investigations&#8221; at the 2007 *World Fire Safety Conference. *&#8220;I wish that there would be a peer review of this,&#8221;* he said, referring to the NIST investigation. &#8220;I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they&#8217;ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.&#8221;


*&#8220;I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,&#8221; *explained Dr. Quintiere. &#8220;Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.&#8221;

Dr. Quintiere, one of the world&#8217;s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses.* &#8220;I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,&#8221; *


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


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 2, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Setarcos:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No one is JUST the building fires did it. This a weak contrivance that no one has asserted that you are holding up for the convenience of your own argument. A think two multi planes crashing in the buildings may have had a bit to do with it as well. 

Again Terral if this was a controlled demolition, the explosives used had to get there somehow. The work required for buildings that large to fall into their footprints that you claim (not quite actually) would have been quite intricate, yet there has not been a peep from a soul claiming any prior knowledge of any even remotely suspicious activity suggesting such a thing may have taken place. You ignore this because it is incredibly inconvenient for your argument. 

Clearly on the two main towers the areas above where the planes hit start to come down first. So I ask AGAIN, how did 'they' make sure the planes hit below where the detonated for the controlled demolition. I also again ask you to address the theory presented by NIST on how/why WTC 7 came down. What do you know about it to be factually inacurrate?


----------



## eots (Oct 3, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Setarcos:
> ...



all witnesses reporting suspicious activity and those who had awareness of prior knowledge were omitted from the report



*James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), *has called for an independent review of NIST&#8217;s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, &#8220;Questions on the WTC Investigations&#8221; at the *2007 World Fire Safety Conference. *&#8220;I* wish that there would be a peer review of this,&#8221; *he said, referring to the NIST investigation. &#8220;I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they&#8217;ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.&#8221;


*
&#8220;I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,&#8221; *



Dr. Quintiere, one of the world&#8217;s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to* scientifically re-examine *the WTC collapses. &#8220;*I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,&#8221; *

*World Trade Center Building 7.* &#8220;And that building was not hit by anything,&#8221; noted Dr. Quintiere. *&#8220;It&#8217;s more important to take a look at that.* Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building.* I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!&#8221;*

*
In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short* of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by *not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts *in the investigation, and by *the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding. *

Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ... 

*. A careful reading of the NIST report *shows that they have *no evidence* that *the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure *are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. 

*Testing by NIST has been inconclusive.* Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations,* a replicate test of at least *& [sic] of a *WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? ... *

4 validation of these modeling *results is in question.* Others have computed aspects with *different conclusions* on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a* time-line *and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that. 



OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 5, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> Hey eots. Since you are using quotes and information from James Quintiere from BEFORE the final report came out from NIST in 2008, have you spoken or asked Mr. Quintiere about his views now?
> 
> I see many of your references from Mr. Quintiere to be from August of 2007 and before.
> 
> Just curious.



Any answer eots?


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 5, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> Hey eots. Another question. Do you ever do any further research or do you just find information that supports you views and leave it at that? After seeing that Mr. Quintiere's questions and comments came BEFORE the final WTC7 report came out, I did a little investigation.
> 
> I found this quote:
> 
> ...



No comments on this eots?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 5, 2009)

you STILL wasting your time with the disinformation agents Eots?


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 5, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> you STILL wasting your time with the disinformation agents Eots?


he still talks to you, so yes


----------



## eots (Oct 5, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Hey eots. Another question. Do you ever do any further research or do you just find information that supports you views and leave it at that? After seeing that Mr. Quintiere's questions and comments came BEFORE the final WTC7 report came out, I did a little investigation.
> ...



LOL..a NIST  fact sheet explaining why they assume that controlled demolition would be noticed is not an scientific investigation of blast scenarios...

DR Quintere statement that..these collapse scenarios have a low probability
should also be noted..there are several explanations to your questions..my answer would be why don't we have an independent investigation with subpoena power and explore all evidence as requested by the family steering committee ..members of the 9/11 commission and the former lead fire investigator at NIST


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 5, 2009)

btw Ditzcon a moron like yourself who talks to himself-which is what you do when you talk to me since your on my ignore list,truley has a sad life and hardly has any credibility.LOL.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 5, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> btw Ditzcon a moron like yourself who talks to himself-which is what you do when you talk to me since your on my ignore list,truley has a sad life and hardly has any credibility.LOL.


if a moron has me on his ignore list, then why is that moron even addressing my post


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 5, 2009)

keep on responding to me loser,it just shows how pathetic you are and how desperate you are for my attention and how you feel the need to talk to yourself.Pretty pitiful you are that your that desperate for attention when you KNOW that person doesnt read your posts.LOL


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 5, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Hey eots. Another question. Do you ever do any further research or do you just find information that supports you views and leave it at that? After seeing that Mr. Quintiere's questions and comments came BEFORE the final WTC7 report came out, I did a little investigation.
> ...


the troofers will always ignore the actual truth


----------



## eots (Oct 5, 2009)

DiveCon said:


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



what truths are those /..that the FAA destroyed evidence ?..that there are critical unanswered question of the time line..that commission members and NIST investigators support a real investigation and there are complaints from both investigating bodies that fact finding was deterred...???


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 5, 2009)

eots said:


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


those are your lies


----------



## eots (Oct 5, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



no those are quotes from both NIST and commission members


----------



## eots (Oct 5, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Hey eots. Another question. Do you ever do any further research or do you just find information that supports you views and leave it at that? After seeing that Mr. Quintiere's questions and comments came BEFORE the final WTC7 report came out, I did a little investigation.
> ...


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 13, 2009)

Terral said:


> Many buildings have been demolished using controlled demolition looking exactly like WTC-7 on 9/11, but again, no steel-framed skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire in the history of this planet. Twenty-first century demolition techniques include the use of Thermite Shaped Charges found all over WTC-1, WTC-2 and WTC-7.
> 
> Shaped Charges And The World Trade Center Collapses
> 
> ...



Really Terral? 

Why is there slag on one side of each plate of the column? On the left side of the column, there is no slag on the outside which means the torch put the slag on the INSIDE where we can't see it. The back side of the column has slag on the INSIDE, which makes sense if the torch were cutting from THE OUTSIDE. 

These cuts match the torch cuts below. This first photo shows the torch side with no slag.





This photo show the opposite side WITH slag.





Now that I have shown you that the cuts look exactly like torch cuts, I have some questions for you.

1. How did they get the thermite to cut horizontally?
2. What evidence do you have other than visual that shows that those cuts were done by thermite if I just showed you visual evidence that those cuts look exactly like torch cuts?
3. If thermite MELTS the steel, why are there jagged edges going 45 degrees through the steel plates that comprised the columns? These jagged edges are indicative of torch cuts.
4. How much thermite would be required to burn through 4" thick steel plate and how long would it take?


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 13, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJyBuANVkQ4]YouTube - WTC Angle Cut Columns during cleanup[/ame]

What about this video Terral? At about 1:33 in this video the guy says that his crew CUT the columns. He then points to columns with ANGLE cuts. 

I thought they DIDN'T DO angle cuts during demolition? So now we have video proof that they do. 

You are so out of it, it's not even funny.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 13, 2009)

Gee Terral, here's a photo of somone actually USING a torch on one of the columns.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 13, 2009)

eots said:


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


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 13, 2009)

eots said:


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


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 13, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> YouTube - WTC Angle Cut Columns during cleanup
> 
> What about this video Terral? At about 1:33 in this video the guy says that his crew CUT the columns. He then points to columns with ANGLE cuts.
> 
> ...


nice find


----------



## eots (Oct 13, 2009)

they statement says they discounted blast scenarios it does not say the scientifically investigated blast scenarios so stop pretending they are one in the same...his statements where made when the report was essentially completed and the final release was the essentially the very same report..and you know this


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 13, 2009)

eots said:


> they statement says they discounted blast scenarios it does not say the scientifically investigated blast scenarios so stop pretending they are one in the same...his statements where made when the report was essentially completed and the final release was the essentially the very same report..and you know this



You're just plain wrong now. 


> Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
> Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
> 
> In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the buildings critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.
> ...


----------



## eots (Oct 13, 2009)

the fact sheet you are quoting was put out in 2004 ..long before the statements and request were made
 by Dr Quintiere.dont show me NIST saying they looked at it carefully ..show me the investigation 


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lihj-Kz9wjY]YouTube - 9/11 CONSPIRACY: NIST CHIEF ENGINEER LIES ABOUT MOLTEN METAL[/ame]


*NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.*

The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.  

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an *unlikely *substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would *not necessarily **have been conclusive*. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, *NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.*


----------



## Terral (Oct 13, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> Really Terral?



Yes. For real. 



Gamolon said:


> Why is there slag on one side of each plate of the column? On the left side of the column, there is no slag on the outside which means the torch put the slag on the INSIDE where we can't see it.



No. There is no 'slag' in the above photograph (look again)! You are looking at thermate 'froth' residue where 75% is on the 'outside' and 25% is on the inside of the massive red-iron column. You are arguing for a man standing 'above' the massive column to then make a 45-degree angle cut in a 'downward' direction along the 'length' of the massive support; which NEVER happened. No Demo Supervisor on earth would allow such a dangerous cut to be made on any large member, BEFORE all of the scattered debris is removed from the area. We are looking at FIREMEN in the picture and not Demolition Workers . . .  



Gamolon said:


> The back side of the column has slag on the INSIDE, which makes sense if the torch were cutting from THE OUTSIDE.



No. The inside of the column has 25% of the thermate 'froth,' because the charges were obviously set on the 'outside' of the column.  



Gamolon said:


> These cuts match the torch cuts below. This first photo shows the torch side with no slag.



There is NO SLAG on any of these columns!



Gamolon said:


> Now that I have shown you that the cuts look exactly like torch cuts, I have some questions for you.



No. You have introduced some "Building Fires Did It" Propaganda about torches and slag and NONSENSE in order to divert attention away from the Controlled Demolition Signatures that are EVERYWHERE.



Gamolon said:


> 1. How did they get the thermite to cut horizontally?



The Thermate Charges were set like typical CD charges (pic). Some charges are set at 90 degrees (horizontal), while others are set to cut at 45 degree angles and 'walk' the column line in *one of the four directions* (short video).



Gamolon said:


> 2. What evidence do you have other than visual that shows that those cuts were done by thermite if I just showed you visual evidence that those cuts look exactly like torch cuts?



Gam does NOT even begin to know the differences between thermate shape charge cuts (froth residue) and typical torch cuts (slag residue). I 'do' (#3) know the difference . . .  



Gamolon said:


> 3. If thermite MELTS the steel, why are there jagged edges going 45 degrees through the steel plates that comprised the columns? These jagged edges are indicative of torch cuts.



No. We are talking about literally thousands of thermate shape charge cuts being made during the Controlled Demolition Process where massive loads are shifting in desired directions. You should expect to have problems with the execution of a small percentage of charges for one of many reasons. Remember that your job is to prove that 'building fires' took down WTC-7 and 'then' talk to me about how demo workers made cuts in the aftermath of the collapse. The problem is that you must prove that 'all' the WTC-7 supporting members were compromised at the SAME TIME, which is very much impossible in any skyscraper built using *'Compartmentalization'* (link and see OP again) of all supporting steel supports. 



Gamolon said:


> 4. How much thermite would be required to burn through 4" thick steel plate and how long would it take?



How much thermate is needed to burn supporting members has NOTHING to do with making the Controlled Demolition Case! These massive steel supported can NEVER be burned down using hydrocarbon-based building fires in a billion years! The question is about whether these WTC Skyscrapers were brought down using *Controlled Demolition *(AE911Truth.org), OR from building fires and/or falling building debris. In other words: How do 'you' transform this . . . 






. . . into this . . . 






. . . 'and' without damaging the adjacent building faces???!!! Go ahead and tell us 'how' all of these thousands of massive steel supports were *'severed'* using anything other than Controlled Demolition!

GL,

Terral


----------



## Mad Scientist (Oct 13, 2009)

Terral said:


> Go ahead and tell us 'how' all of these thousands of massive steel supports were *'severed'* using anything other than Controlled Demolition!


 The plane, hijacked by Muslims, slammed into the building igniting the tons of fuel on board. The fuel weakens the steel beams which causes the entire top of the building to fall to the floor below. That floor cannot take the stress of all the floors above falling on it so it collapses too. And just like an accordion the entire building goes down: Directly Down. The only "control" were the Muslim pilots who flew the jet on it's suicide mission.  Remember Osama bin Laden taking credit for it? Correct me if I'm wrong but I think he's not a US Government employee.

You honestly didn't see this before? Well I hope I've opened your eyes to the simple truth.


----------



## eots (Oct 13, 2009)

one small problem a careful reading of the NIST report shows the temperatures required to weaken steel were not found in forensic testing of the metal and materials from the wtc


----------



## Godboy (Oct 13, 2009)

Mad Scientist said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > Go ahead and tell us 'how' all of these thousands of massive steel supports were *'severed'* using anything other than Controlled Demolition!
> ...



I think blindness is the unfortunate side effect of being "bat" shit crazy.


----------



## eots (Oct 13, 2009)

Mad Scientist said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > Go ahead and tell us 'how' all of these thousands of massive steel supports were *'severed'* using anything other than Controlled Demolition!
> ...



and if your going to spout the official lie you should at least know what it is NIST rejected the _pancake theory_ after _truthers_ showed its flaws and invented the _thermal expansion theory_


----------



## Mad Scientist (Oct 13, 2009)

eots said:


> and if your going to spout the official lie you should at least know what it is NIST rejected the _pancake theory_ after _truthers_ showed its flaws and invented the _thermal expansion theory_


That's not the *official lie*, that's *my lie*. I don't know what the official lie is anyway.

Too many people involved and affected by 9/11 to have the truth suppressed. Bubba couldn't keep his affairs secret and that was just between those two, why would 9/11 conspiracy secret be any better kept?

Because it isn't a conspiracy that's why.


----------



## eots (Oct 13, 2009)

Mad Scientist said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > and if your going to spout the official lie you should at least know what it is NIST rejected the _pancake theory_ after _truthers_ showed its flaws and invented the _thermal expansion theory_
> ...



oh the secrets cant be kept fallacy..yet those involved in the investigation say..secrets were kept..the truth not told..and if your belief is correct..where is bin laden..how has that secret been kept ??


----------



## Godboy (Oct 13, 2009)

eots said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



You are comparing a man hiding in a cave, to covering up the biggest conspiracy of all time that would have involved thousands of people to keep it secret? Being crazy AND stupid must have dramatic impacts on your personal life.


----------



## eots (Oct 13, 2009)

well apparently according to you the _man in the cave _orcastrated one of the biggest conspiracy's in history..and pulled it off without a hitch and runs a huge network called al qaeda..but no one has given up his plans or his location in all these years...so you are of the opinion that the_ man in the cave _and his cohorts are more effective than u.s intelligence and air defence and he and his network can keep secrets the CIA is incapable of keeping...intresting


----------



## SdivaD (Oct 14, 2009)

eots said:


> one small problem a careful reading of the NIST report shows the temperatures required to weaken steel were not found in forensic testing of the metal and materials from the wtc



Well, that rules out superthermite and molten steel, eh?


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 14, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> 
> 
> ...






Terral said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Why is there slag on one side of each plate of the column? On the left side of the column, there is no slag on the outside which means the torch put the slag on the INSIDE where we can't see it.
> ...


No way. You are telling me that by YOUR visual analysis, you see a difference between the "slag" or "thermate froth"?! You're full of crap. There's no way the "slag" or "froth" look any different from this picture






To this picture





They are even the same color. Not to mention the jagged cut pattern of a torch in each photo. This crap is coming from the same person who fabricated all kinds of descriptions and comments concerning a certain "45 degree cut column" when it was in fact just a column that was leaning. How did you come up with all that garbage based on a WRONG INTERPRETATION? You based your crap on ASSUMPTIONS for that particular picture.

Oh yeah.





Same jagged edges seen in the cut. The jagged edges even go in the same direction as the torch "flame" is cutting.



Terral said:


> where 75% is on the 'outside' and 25% is on the inside of the massive red-iron column.



You have x-ray vision? How can you see the sides opposite the camera view? It's easy. Being a "demolition supervisor", I figured you would figure it out. I guess I have to explain it to you. The torch cuts were made from OUTSIDE the column on the top, left, and right sides which is why the "slag is on the INSIDE of the column. The torch cut was then made on the INSIDE, blowing out, which is why you see "slag" on the OUTSIDE face of the bottom of that column. 



Terral said:


> You are arguing for a man standing 'above' the massive column to then make a 45-degree angle cut in a 'downward' direction along the 'length' of the massive support; which NEVER happened.



You mean they guy with the torch couldn't have moved AROUND the column to make the cuts on each side? Do you mean to tell me "Demolition Supervisor" that you make your people stand in one spot to make cuts?! And as far as your claim to be a "Demolition Supervisor", which you think adds credence to your claims, here's something for you. I've worked onsite doing damage assessment for large explosions at chemical plants. IMC/Angus in LA for one and Shell Oil in Belpre OH for another. I've done construction supervision for many steel mill projects including blast furnaces, oxygen line construction and pipeline cleaning with pigs. I did design work on the Tooele, Utah facility used for the destruction of chemical weapons. I designed piping modules for Anhueser Busch plants. I've been told stories by steel mill workers about how a Kress carrier driver, transporting a ladle full of molten metal, had it spill around him. The tires and part of the carrier melted. the driver was witnessed trying to escape the spill by running THROUGH the molten metal only to be incinerated down to nothing as he ran. I've seen/heard some crazy shit in my time. Your explanations hold no water with me. Quit trying to throw your "Demolition Supervisor" weight around as support to the fact that you THINK you know what you're talking about. 



Terral said:


> No Demo Supervisor on earth would allow such a dangerous cut to be made on any large member, BEFORE all of the scattered debris is removed from the area. We are looking at FIREMEN in the picture and not Demolition Workers . . .



More bullshit. I've been on site for damage assessment after a few explosions and they DO make diagonal cuts. I even posted a video where a guy POINTS to the columns his guys cut and THEY had diagional cuts in them. You're either lying or not very experienced with debris cleanup after a catastrophic explosion. Tell me something. When someone torch cuts a column during disaster cleanup, do they support the upper end of the column with anything so it doesn't topple over and crush someone while the cuts are being made?



Terral said:


> No. The inside of the column has 25% of the thermate 'froth,' because the charges were obviously set on the 'outside' of the column.



So it's charges eh? The kind that go BOOM and make a nice clean cut? I watched a video of a thermite cutting charge. I saw no "slag" or "froth" produced from a thermite cutting charge. I've seen "slag" or "froth" produced from regular thermite slowly burning/melting through steel, but not from a thermite cutting charge. 



Terral said:


> There is NO SLAG on any of these columns!


 As I've shown in the pictures above the "slag" or "froth" match in BOTH pictures. you just can;t handle it.



Terral said:


> No. You have introduced some "Building Fires Did It" Propaganda about torches and slag and NONSENSE in order to divert attention away from the Controlled Demolition Signatures that are EVERYWHERE.



Sorry Terral. I found a big mistake in your INTERPRETATIONS before and I'm doing it again. There is another alternative explanation to the "slag" and/or "froth" on the columns and that's from torches. Your visual analysis is on the same level as Christophera's I'm sorry to say.



Terral said:


> The Thermate Charges were set like typical CD charges (pic). Some charges are set at 90 degrees (horizontal), while others are set to cut at 45 degree angles and 'walk' the column line in *one of the four directions* (short video).



Bullshit. You have NO proof whatsoever. Pure speculation. Again, you're making shit up to fit the pictures. As I've said before, I already proved you wrong on your "45 degree cut column horsecrap". It's the same with this visual interpretation.



Terral said:


> Gam does NOT even begin to know the differences between thermate shape charge cuts (froth residue) and typical torch cuts (slag residue). I 'do' (#3) know the difference . . .



Sorry. Wrong again.



Terral said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > 3. If thermite MELTS the steel, why are there jagged edges going 45 degrees through the steel plates that comprised the columns? These jagged edges are indicative of torch cuts.
> ...



You failed to answer the question. Why are there "jagged edges" at a 45 degree angle showing in your photo when a thermite cutting charge blows STRAIGHT through? Are you suggesting that they set the charges to cut 45 degrees across the width of the plates that comprised the columns to make those 45 degree jagged edges??!?!?!?



Terral said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > 4. How much thermite would be required to burn through 4" thick steel plate and how long would it take?
> ...



Oh yes it does. You have described a theory and you need to come up with plausible steps to make it happen. Just like you think you are finding errors and contradictions in the official story, your "official story" is subject to the same scrutiny. What's the matter Terral? Can't make your theory work? Wow. Just like Christophera. How much thermite would it take to cut through a 4" steel plate? This directly affects how BIG the charges would have to be, how much noise they would have made, how that were installed without anyone seeing them, etc. Answer the question. Why are you and your theory not subject to the same tough questions? You say you want people to debate you, yet when I do, you redirect me to defend the official story instead of you answering the tough questions about your own theory. 



Terral said:


> . . . 'and' without damaging the adjacent building faces???!!! Go ahead and tell us 'how' all of these thousands of massive steel supports were *'severed'* using anything other than Controlled Demolition!
> 
> GL,
> 
> Terral



Tell you what. You show me some closeups, not some distant, fuzzy, grainy photos of these "SEVERED" columns where we can actually see the ends. You are confusing everyone at best with your visual analysis. You claim "thermite" in this photo.





I fail to see the "signature froth" on the end of the columns you claim have been severed? Why is that? Do you have any better photos of the debris before clennup was started that clearly show "froth". I bet you don't.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 14, 2009)

eots said:


> one small problem a careful reading of the NIST report shows the temperatures required to weaken steel were not found in forensic testing of the metal and materials from the wtc



And there was no forensic evidence of explosives or thermite either yet you CHOOSE to believe that.

Why?


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 14, 2009)

eots said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > Terral said:
> ...



What is a lie about what he said? It isn't that we all buy into some story. It's that by pretty much every observable measure, that's what happened. You STILL are the one who doesn't get it, eots. Your theory of what happned can not exist in a vacuum. 

The government orchestrating a controlled demolition does not explain why bin Laden took credit. 

It does not explain how they were able to orchestrate planes crashing into a building below where the 'detonation' would have had to take place.

Hell it doesn't even explain why planes crashed into the building in the first place. If you believe our government was capable of rigging a building for demoliton without being detected, why not a group of terrorists?


----------



## Godboy (Oct 14, 2009)

eots said:


> well apparently according to you the _man in the cave _orcastrated one of the biggest conspiracy's in history..and pulled it off without a hitch and runs a huge network called al qaeda..but no one has given up his plans or his location in all these years...so you are of the opinion that the_ man in the cave _and his cohorts are more effective than u.s intelligence and air defence and he and his network can keep secrets the CIA is incapable of keeping...intresting



Thats not actually what happened. Bin Laden didnt come up with the plan, nor did he involve himself with every detail of carrying it out. Bin Laden financed the operation, but thats about it really.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the primary man responsible for the planning. As i recall, it was actually his nephews idea, but it was just a pipe dream they both had since like 1992ish. Word got out that Bin Laden was taking interveiws with would-be terrorists to determine who he would finance. UBL liked the plane crashing plan, so he agreed to finance it. By this time, KSMs nephew was arrested for other terrorist attacks, which happened a few years before 9/11, so he never got to be part of the planning.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 14, 2009)

eots said:


> one small problem a careful reading of the NIST report shows the temperatures required to weaken steel were not found in forensic testing of the metal and materials from the wtc



Forensic huh?

Since you seem to be a supporter of controlled demolition, please provide me with a couple of sources pertaining to the forensic evidence that supports a controlled demolition. If you cannot supply me with any, I would like you to please explain why you ONLY scrutinize the official story and all of it's studies and request "forensic evidence", but never once scrutinize or request "forensic evidence" for the conspiracy theories. 

Have you ever debated or scrutinized any of the conspiracy theories here on this board like you do the official story? If so, please point me to the particular thread and except my apology.

Otherwise, I'll just view you as another government hating lemming who only chooses to argue against the things that go against your beliefs and are not truly interested in the truth at all. If you were interested in the truth, you'd scrutinize BOTH sides to weed out the crap and use the same set of standards you use to find the supposed faults in the official story when looking into any conspiracy theory.

So far you've only done that with the official story as far as I can see.

Ball's in your court.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 14, 2009)

Terral said:


> The problem is that you must prove that 'all' the WTC-7 supporting members were compromised at the SAME TIME, which is very much impossible in any skyscraper built using *'Compartmentalization'* (link and see OP again) of all supporting steel supports.



Another false statement Terral? This is getting tiresome. Please explain why I need to prove "supporting members were compromised AT THE SAME TIME" when this video CLEARLY shows that the "supporting members" were NOT compromised at the same time.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUkvnfV606w]YouTube - 9/11: WTC 7 east penthouse collapse[/ame]

Can you explain how you came up with "compromised at the same time" from the video above? I see the entire mechanical penthouse on the left ollapse into the building itself. Then the center part of the roof, followed by the rest of the building. 

Please explain how this shows ALL the members being compromised at the same time. This should be good. I can even see the facing of the building react to the penthouse falling INSIDE. Do you see the windows shattering and the face of the building bulge slightly as it fell inside? Or are you just being intentionally blind?


----------



## Terral (Oct 14, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> No way. You are telling me that by YOUR visual analysis, you see a difference between the "slag" or "thermate froth"?! You're full of crap. There's no way the "slag" or "froth" look any different from this picture.



Yes. There is a difference between thermate froth and torch slag 'and' yes Gam is full of crap for even trying to push this "cutting torch did it" thesis cuckoo. The 800 pound gorilla in the room is your empty hypothesis on how an overbuilt 47-story skyscraper collapsed into its own footprint in 6.6 seconds IN THE FIRST PLACE. 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A"]CD Collapse, OR Collapse From Fire???[/ame]

Let's examine the evidence again in this picture:






Look at the 'Severed Column End' segments that are scattered throughout the debris pile. These column sections were obviously 'cut' BEFORE they fell to become part of the debris pile having NOTHING to do with any demo workers. These columns were CUT during the Controlled Demolition Process to THEN have debris fall on top of them during the collapse. I KNOW FOR A FACT that WTC-7 was taken down using Controlled Demolition by all of these Controlled Demolition Signatures, but you have no explanation for HOW all of these massive steel connections were 'cut' before the skyscraper collapsed in the first place. The idea that thousands of these cuts were made by demo workers 'after' the collapse IS STUPID beyond our collective abilities to fathom. Your silly notion is that a Demo Supervisor ordered his men to climb a ladder and make 45-degree angle cuts . . .






. . . FOR WHAT REASON????? No sir. That massive box columns was 'cut' using a thermate shape charge 'during the CD process' and AFTER the column line above was deliberately compromised. The massive columns above this one were also 'cut' at 45-degree angles in opposite directions, so that this column sliding off the lower pedestal broke the back of the entire 47-story column line. The inner columns are taken out first to allow the center of the skyscraper to collapse first. Then the outer columns are 'cut' to allow all outer walls to collapse in this *'Controlled Demolition.' 
*
Here is how STUPID you look for even offering up a this 'cutting torch made these 45-degree cuts' NONSENSE. (Click on the picture) Follow the massive column down and you will find a base plate that includes bolts and nuts on top of a concrete pad (another pic). You are making an argument for wasting a huge amount of cutting torch fuel and valuable demo worker time to make a fancy 45-degree angle cut on a box column with 4-inch sold steel sides, when the column pad bolts only needed to be loosened to hoist the entire column from this location. 

Look at the pictures again and tell me where the 47 concrete slabs went???? :0) 

The very first thing you need to do is come up with an explanation for what 'cut' thousands of WTC-7 structural steel connections AT THE SAME TIME to allow a CD-like Collapse. THEN start barking about demo workers cutting the collapsed steel members. Otherwise, your entire argument is from a guy that is definitely full of crap confused . . . 

GL,

Terral


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 14, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Bullshit. You look at the two pictures. The one I posted and the one you posted and tell me the differences. There are none.



Terral said:


> The 800 pound gorilla in the room is your empty hypothesis on how an overbuilt 47-story skyscraper collapsed into its own footprint in 6.6 seconds IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> CD Collapse, OR Collapse From Fire???



That's a bogus video because you cut out the collapse of the mechanical penthouse into the building itself. Why are you ignoring this? Because it fits your views better? 6.6 seconds is bullshit. It was LONGER than that because the collapse STARTED with the collapse of the penthouse. How sad you are trying to mislead people.



Terral said:


> Let's examine the evidence again in this picture:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Here's why you're wrong. Again. Look at this photo I marked up.





As the text in the picture asks, how in the hell did a shape charge, placed parallel to the face of the plate make 45 degree angle jagged cuts (shown with the red lines on the photo) THROUGH the plate?

YOU'RE FULL OF CRAP!


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 14, 2009)

Terral, can you also tell me why the cut pattern from this torch photo, circled in red...





...matches the cut pattern circled in red in this photo?





Do you see the jagged edges of the actual cuts in each photo? Funny how they match right? Same jagged edges...


----------



## eots (Oct 14, 2009)

SdivaD said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > one small problem a careful reading of the NIST report shows the temperatures required to weaken steel were not found in forensic testing of the metal and materials from the wtc
> ...



no not at all..those temperatures would of been in very selective  and precise areas only so only testing the exact area of the cuts would show these temperatures or within the molten metal that was without question present..the rest of the steel would show the temperatures of the burning material and fuel which were not sufficient to weaken steel


----------



## Logique (Oct 14, 2009)

Eots has the results of such testing, yes?


----------



## eots (Oct 14, 2009)

yes


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


"A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings "

James Quintiere, Ph.D

former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST&#8217;s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## eots (Oct 14, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM]YouTube - Eyes Wide Shut: Gross Negligence with NIST Denial of Molten Metal on 9/11[/ame]


----------



## candycorn (Oct 14, 2009)

Logique said:


> Eots has the results of such testing, yes?



I think he was the subject of a lot of tests...mental exams, metal drugs, all failed.


----------



## eots (Oct 14, 2009)

candycorn said:


> Logique said:
> 
> 
> > Eots has the results of such testing, yes?
> ...



but that's only because you are a douchebag that can not address the fact of molten metal and deceptions of NIST


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 15, 2009)

eots said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Logique said:
> ...



The problem is eots you keep contradicting yourself on the whole molten steel thing. You keep citing Mr. Quintiere as saying there was not sufficient heat to weaken the steel  (let alone melt it) while at the same time claiming super thermite was used which was what caused the molten steel found at the sight. 

And again not to mention the many, many other variables that you so conveniently ignore that would be required to make your theory true. It's very revealing concerning your mentality that you're like a dog on a bone when it comes to inventing evidence of controlled demolition while at the same time choose to remain completely obtuse about finding evidence about how it would have to get there in the first place. 

You see, eots the truth of the agenda of the likes of you and terrel is revealed through the manner in which you choose to attempt to tackle the problem. No objective problem solver would do what you are doing. Trying so hard to prove a CD and leave how it possibly got planted in the first place as an afterthought. The simplest wat to rule out whether an explosive of any type was used to bring down the towers would be to establish whether it was even possible to get them in place to do in the first place. You won't even broach this subject, resorting to your lamest of excuses 'subpoena power'. What a fucking joke. It's like you don't even want to know.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 15, 2009)

eots said:


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





Then please explain Mr. Quintiere's quote from the paper he wrote that says this:


> An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
> appears to have more support. *Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
> the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
> corresponding to failure based on structural analyses*. This hypothesis puts
> the blame on the insufficiency of the truss insulation.



So he believes that all the testing and evidence point to TEMPERATURES affecting the STEEL FLOOR TRUSSES to a point that they FAILED.

What? Were the trusses made of plastic? 

The problem with you is you are trying to use Mr. Quintiere's quotes as evidence that HE believes that there was a controlled demolition and we need a new investigation. That is TOTALLY wrong. He believes that the failure due to TEMPERATURES falls on the floor trusses and NOT on the columns. 

So your man Quintiere, in his own paper, says there is enough to show that TEMPERATURES affected the STEEL trusses to a point of failure.

You're just plain wrong now. Your own WITNESS agrees with us.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 15, 2009)

eots said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Logique said:
> ...



Molten metal. You keep saying this yet cannot answer my question. Aluminum or steel? Which was found?

Edit:
I would like to see the forensic evidence you have in your possession that proves molten steel was found which leads you to believe thermite was used in a controlled demolition. Otherwise, you need to question your theory like you do the official story.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 15, 2009)

Explain this photo Terral.






Where is the "signature froth" on the ends of those columns that prove themrite? I see no "froth covered" ends on ANY (I count 4) of those columns in that photo.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 15, 2009)

Terral said:


> Another problem with the Official Fire Cover Story is these 45-degree angle shaped-charge cuts appear everywhere . . .



This picture and above caption just make me laugh. Terral make the "45-degree angle shaped-charge cuts everywhere" comment followed by a photo that shows 90 degree breaks and the columns. Not only that, but the ONLY 45 degree cut pointed out by Terral in that photo, was later pointed out as a MISTAKE that Terral admitted to.

Also note that Terral points out in the photo above that there is "no melting" nor is there "burn marks". I also see no "thermite froth".

Terral, you have effectively shown with your own picture that no thermite was used. How funny.

Do you happen to have any GOOD, CLOSE photos of columns in from WTC7 that show the "thermite froth" on there ends? Or do you use hard to see pictures for a reason?


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 15, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> That's a bogus video because you cut out the collapse of the mechanical penthouse into the building itself. Why are you ignoring this? Because it fits your views better? 6.6 seconds is bullshit. It was LONGER than that because the collapse STARTED with the collapse of the penthouse. How sad you are trying to mislead people.



And the entirety of the collapse is likely even longer than a video that does incorporate the penthouse collapse.  What the 'troofers' are glossing over is the perspective from which they are looking at the collapse. The only video(s) we have are from the OUTSIDE. When a collapse occurs it usually due to internal failure because that is where the load baring structures are. All we can see is the external collapse and I think it is rather naive and to believe that what we see on the outside is true mark of the beginning of the collapse.


----------



## eots (Oct 15, 2009)

so if the penthouse is supported by a cental colum undamged by falling debri why did it collapse first ?
then how dis the other colums fail at the exact same instance..it just isnt possible with fire


----------



## eots (Oct 15, 2009)

Gamolon said:


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



man I have posted everytime and everytime you say the same shit...it was STEEL and just and there are multiple official witnesses

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Eyes Wide Shut: Gross Negligence with NIST Denial of Molten Metal on 9/11[/ame]


----------



## eots (Oct 15, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > yes
> ...



you cling to the one example he gives of another possibility and wholly ignore everything else the man said..ultimately and overwhelmingly he believes

Dr. Quintiere said he originally &#8220;had high hopes&#8221; that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. &#8220;They&#8217;re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it&#8217;s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.&#8221; 


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


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 15, 2009)

eots said:


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



One example?! It's his ONLY alternate theory.

And YOU ignore the fact that your own star witness says that there was TEMPERATURES high enough to AFFECT the STEEL FLOOR TRUSSES enough to make them FAIL and that this evidence furthers his own theory that it was the TRUSSES, not the CORE COLUMNS that were the cause of the collapse.

Why does he think this?


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 15, 2009)

eots said:


> so if the penthouse is supported by a cental colum undamged by falling debri why did it collapse first ?
> then how dis the other colums fail at the exact same instance..it just isnt possible with fire



I have posted the explanation for this TWICE now (this will be the 3rd) in this very thread. No one as yet as bothered to refute it.



> Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom  approximately 10 stories  about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
> 
> NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
> 
> ...


----------



## eots (Oct 15, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > so if the penthouse is supported by a cental colum undamged by falling debri why did it collapse first ?
> ...



its just a bunch of mumbo jumbo and does nothing to answer the question at all and there is no link to where this garbage came from..sounds like popular mechanics


----------



## eots (Oct 15, 2009)

Gamolon said:


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







NO I am using he words to show the and that information was withheld and "fact finding deterred" and that he is "calling for a new and independent investigation "and that the temperatures required for ant of his theory's to be functional" can not be corroborated with forensic testing"..and that he encourages other scientist to be " conspiracy theorist"


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 15, 2009)

eots said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



It quite clearly states it came from NIST.  Quit making excuses. What about what is in there is incorrect? This is the crux of their argument:



> According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."



Doesn't sound like 'mumbo jumbo' to me. What evidence do you have that renders Sunder's theory implausible?

Yes it is the pop mech article. However I have yet to see any type of credibile refutation of it. The truth more likely than not is you simply dont like it because it challenges your theory. Interesting how closesly you scrutinize one theory but won't level the same scrutiny against your own. More evidence that you are far from an objective individual just looking for the truth. This is so typical of chicken shits like yourself. When you can't obhectively or scientifical refute what is presented you are reduce to riduclous ad hominems.


----------



## eots (Oct 15, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



popular mechanics pfttt..you prove one word of there crap is true.. it reads like a novel written for school children not a scientific report


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 15, 2009)

eots said:


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



Where is your forensic evidence that there was a controlled demolition?


----------



## Terral (Oct 15, 2009)

Hi Bern with Eots mentioned:



Bern80 said:


> You see, eots the truth of the agenda of the likes of you and terrel is revealed through the manner in which you choose to attempt to tackle the problem. No objective problem solver would do what you are doing . . .



WTC-7 was taken down using Controlled Demolition. Period. Eots and I are arguing with complete buffoons with no clue about how to prove that *"Building Fires Did It."* These morons want to believe that all structural steel *'cuts'* (like this one) took place 'after' WTC-7 burned down. No sir. The entire structure COLLAPSED . . . 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A"]. . . Straight Down Into Its Own Footprint . . .[/ame]

. . . to create this little pile:






There is *no amount of hydrocarbon fuel* and *no amount of 'building fires' *and *no amount of falling WTC-1 debris* that can bring this 47-story skyscraper down CD-style in a kabillion years!!!!!! This is obviously a Controlled Demolition, but we have far too many Official Cover Story Idiots cuckoo running around wanting to believe Loyal Bushie/Obama LIES!!!! 

Maybe Eots is entertained by arguing with idiots . . . 

GL,

Terral


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 15, 2009)

eots said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Accept for all of the scientists they actually cite of course in the article.

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics

Pretty lame eots. You really can't do it can you? You really don't have the integrity to man up and admit you have NOTHING to credibly refute this theory, do you.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 15, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Bern with Eots mentioned:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You know this scientifically how exaclty? If you are right it should be fairly simple for you to tell us all why Mr. Sunder of NIST is incorrect in the following:



> Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom &#8212; approximately 10 stories &#8212; about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
> 
> NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
> 
> ...



If you two are so right and popluar mechanics and the many scientists they interviewed got it so wrong, one would think it should be simple for you to point out the mistakes they made that render them incorrect and easily provided scientific evidence showing is why they are incorrect. Yet the only thing we get out of you two as rebuttals is 'pfft' from eots and 'LIES' from you like some looney that forgot to take his rabies medication.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 15, 2009)

Gamolon said:


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


it could also have been lead from the massive battery systems in the buildings


----------



## eots (Oct 15, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



they give a big long list of people without that supposedly contributed in some way to the article it is completely vague and misleading and among that list are endless PR people or magazine writers..it is a joke..basic physics..the existence of molten metal.. the near free fall collapse and the ensuing cover up of of eyewitnesses refutes this story


----------



## eots (Oct 15, 2009)

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, *the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence*. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. 

[PDF] FEMA 403 -- Chapter 5File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
(psi) (low) pressure going into WTC 7 for cooking purposes. ...... massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. ...
www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf 


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM]YouTube - Eyes Wide Shut: Gross Negligence with NIST Denial of Molten Metal on 9/11[/ame]


----------



## Terral (Oct 15, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> You know this scientifically how exaclty? If you are right it should be fairly simple for you to tell us all why Mr. Sunder of NIST is incorrect in the following . . . If you two are so right and popluar mechanics and the many scientists they interviewed got it so wrong, one would think it should be simple for you to point out the mistakes they made that render them incorrect and easily provided scientific evidence showing is why they are incorrect . . .



No sir. The fact that WTC-7 was taken down using Controlled Demolition is very easy to see, but you 'choose' to remain willfully ignorant to 'the' 911Truth. Here is the deal: Bern and the other *Loyal Bushie/Obama Official Cover Story DUPES* can burn forever and ever in the lake of fire with the *911 Commission Report Cronies* 'and' the *NIST Cronies* 'and' the *Popular Mechanics Cronies* and *'all liars'* . . . 

GL,

Terral


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 15, 2009)

eots said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...




So you have evidence that their are eyewitnesses somewhere that have been compelled to not talk because what _they_ say they saw would constitute inconvtravertible evdince of a CD? 

Are you saying you have evdince that Pop Mechanics didn't really interview these people? They they attribute quotes to these people that they didn't make. If so, hey I want the truth to, so show me some evidence that Pop mechanics goal was to publish some giant sham piece. 

This is what I keep harping on eots. The things that would have to be true for any of the things you state, that the article is phoney, that people are being slienced, that there was a CD, have so many REQUIREMENTS that you have ZERO evidence for. We keep begging you to provide so we can indeed get to the truth, but the fact that you obtusely ignore or make refutations that attack sources rather than evdince shows that it is not the truth you are after. You want to show this was a CD perpetrated by the government and you are too fucked up in the head to see the difference.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 15, 2009)

Terral said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > You know this scientifically how exaclty? If you are right it should be fairly simple for you to tell us all why Mr. Sunder of NIST is incorrect in the following . . . If you two are so right and popluar mechanics and the many scientists they interviewed got it so wrong, one would think it should be simple for you to point out the mistakes they made that render them incorrect and easily provided scientific evidence showing is why they are incorrect . . .
> ...



What is so simple to see? The way it fell? Get fucking real Terrel. That's what your evidence hinges on. You'll have to forgive if don't find credible comentary on what, someone overdo for a psych eval, thinks a building falling looks like.  You keep saying it's so simple, yet provide NO evidence that's what happened. Nor do you even attempt to try to refute the assertions of Sunder. I ask again, what evidence, from an OBJECTIVE, SCIENTIFIC (that first one will be tough for you I know) perspective do you have that refutes Sunder's theory? Again it's so simple, so find me the simple evidence that is so blatently obvious that Mr. Sunder missed.


----------



## Terral (Oct 15, 2009)

Hi Bern with Eots mentioned:



Bern80 said:


> What is so simple to see? The way it fell? Get fucking real Terrel . . .















Eots is the guy willing to entertain himself by arguing with *"Building Fires Did It" Morons* cuckoo . . . not me. My CD case appears in the OP of this thread 'and' you are at liberty to believe in Loyal Bushie/Obama Fairy Tales if that blows air up your skirt . . . 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2THs3oNooM]Bern Has A LOT Of Air Up His Dress . . .[/ame] 

GL,

Terral


----------



## eots (Oct 15, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



no that's what you do...if you want evidence it will require some attention span if you are up for it


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

witnesses
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2d9--j9beA&feature=PlayList&p=A9FED25740FF1925&index=13]YouTube - Core Of Corruption Part 14 of 15[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQSY9uEE02I&feature=PlayList&p=A9FED25740FF1925&index=14]YouTube - Core Of Corruption Part 15 of 15[/ame]

CORE OF CORRUPTION FULL DOCUMENTARY 29 videos

http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...ull&search_type=&aq=0sx&oq=core+of+coruption+


----------



## eots (Oct 15, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEtfHkE2zYg]YouTube - Popular Memetics - Part 1 of 2[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBYOPJk2u64]YouTube - Popular Memetics - Part 2 of 2[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvFuRYyEkiU]YouTube - Popular Mechanics Debunked with EASE![/ame]


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 15, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Bern with Eots mentioned:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So you're 'scientific' position is that Sunder is a moron because he believes fires played a role? Again you'll have to forgive me if the objective people of the world to found that to be compelling rebutal. 

These are simply yes or no questions that should waste much of your precious time:

Do you have scientific or hell even compelling evidence of any type to show Sunder is incorrect.  If so, prove it's really the truth you are after. Because based on your behavior and laughable excuse for 'evidence' I am forced to call bullshit on yet another person who claims to be after the truth. The fact that you are compelled to participate in juvenile mocking rather than engage in conversation about find something you so vehemently claim to be after is rather telling.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 15, 2009)

eots said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



When this all started I told you I believe I am more interested in the truth than you are. In holding with that I will meet you part way The Core of Corruption segements are probably the most compelling of the conspiracy theories I have seen to date. Certainly the most plausible relatively speaking. There are still problems with making it a truly viable scenario.

Let's assume The Lone Gunmen episode that is cited is essentially the impetus for why 9/11 happenned and that's essentially how that day went down. The problems I have with that would need to be addressed would be:

1) First and foremost, and I include you in this group, most everyone who believes in the conspiracy seems to be, to a lesser degree or more, a but bat shit crazy, which poses a credibility problem from the get go. 

2) It is theorized this was done for the purpose of starting a war against terrorism and for the purpose of selling weapons. Problem is I don't have such a low opinion of people that I believe there was essentially a conversation that went. "What you need to sell some guns? Sure will kill 3000 people for ya as an excuse.
' Further the number of people needed to orchestrate this would need to be huge. And no one has come forward to confess out of sheer crisis of conscience that they were in on it.

3) If that was the goal of 9/11 you have to question some of the military decisions afterward. If the goal was to convince people the terrorists why didn't we keep after teh terrorists instead of going into Iraq. I don't see that would have been much of a tough sell to the American people.

4) I don't buy the theory in the episode that the terrorists will want to take credit for something they didn't do. No one from al quaida has stepped forward to say they we didn't really do it or we were coerced into saying they did it.


----------



## eots (Oct 15, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 16, 2009)

eots said:


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



If I recall, you only believe:

*FORENSIC EVIDENCE*

Isn't that right eots? Isn't that what you've been clambering for as the ONLY type of proof concerning the TEMPERATURES of steel horseshit you keep coming back with?

Why is it that you'll believe EYEWITNESS reports about a substance being STEEL or ALUMINUM, but you won't except studies and calculations done by many engineers? Even your own man, Mr. Quintiere, saysn there was enough evidence to make him believe that the TEMPERATURES of the FIRES in the towers caused the floor trusses to fail.

You make me sick. It has nothing to do with you finding the truth. You hate government and that's what drives your beliefs. You have just proven that with your double standards. 

I'll ask you again. Please point me to another thread where you vehemently debate against the merits of any of the controlled demolition theories just as you do aginst the official story. I bet you can't.

Also, please supply me with the forensic evidence that proves the molten metal was steel and not another substance. If you can't, then by YOUR OWN STANDARD OF EVIDENCE, you have to throw away your "eyewitness" horseshit.

You guys are unbelievable.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 16, 2009)

I suppose you missed this Terral.



Gamolon said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Gam:
> ...



Come on. 

Let's hear your explanation on this one. How did a THERMITE CHARGE, arranged parallel to the face of the plate of the column, create 45 DEGREE, jagged impressions? 45 degrees from the PARALLEL TO THE PLATE thermite charge. Did physics go away for that period of time and when the charge went off, instead of going straight through the plate, the force of the blast decided to make a 45 degree turn?


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 16, 2009)

Terral, you must have missed this post also...



Gamolon said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > Another problem with the Official Fire Cover Story is these 45-degree angle shaped-charge cuts appear everywhere . . .
> ...



Where is all the "thermite froth" signatures on those columns in the photo above? Care to point them out? Do you have any closeups of the WTC7 debris before cleanup started that shows the tremendous amount of "thermite froth" on the ends of the columns? All I see is you using distant photos that you can easily lead someone to believe whatever you want them to believe. 

Sounds like Christophera really. All these photos are interpreted by you with no supporting evidence for what you say exists in each photo. You rely on your claim to be a "Demolitions Supervisor" to help lend credence to your views. EXACTLY like Christophera's core theory and the fact that he claims to be a construction worker AND welder and then goes on to TRY and make intelligent observations of the photos.

Any closeup photos I have looked up of the WTC7 columns show no froth anywhere? yet you claim it is everywhere. Where are those photos you have showing this?


----------



## Terral (Oct 16, 2009)

Hi Bern:



Bern80 said:


> So you're 'scientific' position is that Sunder is a moron because he believes fires played a role?



Not at all. Anyone standing for the* Official "Building Fires/Debris Did It" Cover Story Explanation* is either a DoD Handler/Op/Asset, OR a Loyal Bushie/Obama DUPE. 






Take your pick . . .  



Bern80 said:


> Again you'll have to forgive me if the objective people of the world to found that to be compelling rebutal.



There are exactly *'two' explanations* for what took WTC-7 down in mere seconds:

1. Controlled Demolition.
2. Building Fires/Debris. << Bern cuckoo believes this NONSENSE.

My CD case appears in the OP of this thread and I see 'no' Building Fires Did It Explanation from you or anybody. Period. Hydrocarbon fires simply do NOT even begin to burn hot enough to compromise one pound of 2800-degree red-iron structural steel! Bern has no explanation for what 'cut' thousands of massive red-iron structural steel girders, columns, beams and bar-joists to cause a CD-like collapse. Right? That is the reason that you are hunting around for a silly 'rebuttal' to justify your willingness to become a *Loyal Bushie/Obama DUPE*.  






GL,

Terral


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 16, 2009)

Terral said:


> My CD case appears in the OP of this thread and I see 'no' Building Fires Did It Explanation from you or anybody. Period. Hydrocarbon fires simply do NOT even begin to burn hot enough to compromise one pound of 2800-degree red-iron structural steel! Bern has no explanation for what 'cut' thousands of massive red-iron structural steel girders, columns, beams and bar-joists to cause a CD-like collapse. Right? That is the reason that you are hunting around for a silly 'rebuttal' to justify your willingness to become a *Loyal Bushie/Obama DUPE*.



Again, simply because I don't believe what you believe does not mean I believe what I do because someone told me to. This is again revealing of the lack of objectivity of the truthers that you have to resort to such ridiculous tactics to make your argument. I have posted three times now the explanation provided by Dr. Sunder of NIST and you have dismissed it without presenting a single piece of credible evidence as to why it should be dismissed. I'll help you out some even. The fact that you don't like the popular mechanics article he is cited in is not credible, scientific evidence.


----------



## Terral (Oct 16, 2009)

Hi Bern:



Bern80 said:


> Again, simply because I don't believe what you believe does not mean I believe what I do because someone told me to.



If Bern knows that WTC-7 was taken down by Controlled Demolition (like these guys and these guys and these guys), THEN we are on the same side of this WTC-7 CD Debate. If you honestly believe that WTC-7 was taken down using 'Building Fires/Debris' (the only other theory), THEN you are MUCH too far from the 911Truth Lifeboat to receive any lifeline from me. Period.



Bern80 said:


> This is again revealing of the lack of objectivity of the truthers that you have to resort to such ridiculous tactics to make your argument.



WTC-7 was DEFINITELY taken down using Controlled Demolition. This is the ONLY explanation that makes 'any' sense whatsoever. Where is 'your' precedent for overbuilt skyscrapers collapsing CD-style into their own footprints from building fires? Nothing like that exists!  



Bern80 said:


> I have posted three times now the explanation provided by Dr. Sunder of NIST and you have dismissed it without presenting a single piece of credible evidence as to why it should be dismissed.



Perhaps you deceived somebody into buying the Official "Building Fires Did It" Cover Story Explanation, but none of your trickery will work on me. :0) 



Bern80 said:


> I'll help you out some even.



Do not condescend to me with your nonsense and stupidity cuckoo. You are the Loyal Bushie/Obama DUPE. Not me . . . 

GL,

Terral


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 19, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> Here's why you're wrong. Again. Look at this photo I marked up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hey Terral. No explanation for this eh?


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 19, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> Terral, you must have missed this post also...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Still waiting for all your pictures of all the column and beam ends of WTC7 that are covered in thermite froth?


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 19, 2009)

eots said:


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



Since you are such a big supporter of forensic evidence eots, can you please show me the link or source to the forensic evidence used to prove that the molten metal was indeed steel and not something else? 

I mean, eyewitness testimony is NOT forensic evidence is it?


----------



## Terral (Oct 19, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> Still waiting for all your pictures of all the column and beam ends of WTC7 that are covered in thermite froth?



We will wait forever for Gam to provide his thesis paper on how WTC-7 collapsed CD-style into its own footprint from building fires. Your contention cuckoo is that these 45-degree angle cuts were made by demolition workers 'after' the collapse by fire, so go right ahead and start explaining how that happened.

The fact is that 'both' of us know that *'you'* confused have no *"Building Fires Did It" Case*.






These columns show the same 45-degree thermate cuts 'and' show the telltale signs of severe stress placed upon these supports 'during' the CD process. 






These columns were 'cut' during the CD process, when the upper column section slid off the lower column pedestal. The massive weight of the upper column line shifted to the 'low' side of the pedestals . . . 






. . . which moved all of the stub column (pedestal) sections in the direction of the 'high' point of the 45-degree angle cuts. The fact that we see 'stress signs' in the upper column sections 'and' the lower pedestal sections means these red-iron supports were still under massive loads, when the upper sections slid off of their pedestal supports. THAT means these cuts were made 'before' the Controlled Demolition of the entire structure; which is the reason that a 47-story skyscraper . . . 






. . . 'could' be reduced to a little pile . . . 






. . . in 6.6 seconds. 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A"]WTC-7 CD Implosion[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIbqaybkbWI&NR=1"]Watch Again[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRkQ7Tr9Q3o&NR=1"]And Again[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfR-YX1N9i4&NR=1"]And Again[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM&NR=1]And Again[/ame]

GL,

Terral


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 19, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Here's why you're wrong. Again. Look at this photo I marked up.
> ...



No Terral. I am discussing YOUR thesis and what is wrong with it (which is quite a bit). No wonder you won't answer my questions.

So for the THIRD time now, explain to all of us here how a thermite charge, placed parallel to the face of the plate that made up the box columns, made 45 degree angle, jagged groove markings across the width of said plate. I guess the blast from the charge went against physics that day and decided to redirect itself to go 45 degrees?

See the photo I marked up with the red lines and quit avoiding the question.

Also, where are all your WTC7 photos showing the thermite froth covered beam and column ends?


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 19, 2009)

Terral said:


> . . . in 6.6 seconds.



You sure do lie quite a bit, you know that?

The entire building did not collapse in 6.6 seconds. It was much more than that. The collapse started with the mechanical penthouse falling into the building as shown here.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkOGkdNq13k]YouTube - WTC7 NIST Clip with east penthouse[/ame]

You choose to ignore this fact. That video length is more than DOUBLE the 6.6 seconds you continue to spout. Can you explain why you ignore the penthouse collapse as the start of the WTC7 building collapse?


----------



## Terral (Oct 19, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> You choose to ignore this fact. That video length is more than DOUBLE the 6.6 seconds you continue to spout. Can you explain why you ignore the penthouse collapse as the start of the WTC7 building collapse?



Sure! The 6.6 second collapse marks the time that *"WTC-7" Collapsed* free fall speed into its own footprint . . . 

. . . 







Only Gam seems to care about the penthouse collapse, which is just one very small component of the WTC-7 Controlled Demolition Implosion Process. Please start your *"Building Fires Did It" Topic* cuckoo right away, so the rest of us can start laughing . . . 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2THs3oNooM]Oh Yeah! Gam Has NO Building Fires Did It Case!![/ame]

GL,

Terral


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 19, 2009)

Gamolon said:


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



Still waiting on your explanation of this.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 19, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Funny, but you haven't provided me the proof that thermite was used to bring down WTC7. You said there that thermite was used and then go on to blab about thermite signatures everywhere. 

Can you show me the pictures you have that show thermite froth on the column and beam ends that prove thermite was used?

You have no proof that thermite did it.


----------



## eots (Oct 19, 2009)

Gamolon said:


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




the forensic evidence is in  the control of the perps...clearly the testimony of expert eyewitnesses establishes molten steel..and if it did not then where is nists forensic test to show it is not steel ? there are no such test because nist just denies any such testimony
all together


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 19, 2009)

eots said:


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





Sorry Mr. Double Standard. I want forensic proof that supports your eyewitnesses claims. You don't have any and neither do they. So, according to your OWN standards of proof, you cannot believe what these eyewitnesses say. 

Why do you believe them? Why the two sets of standards? You're a fraud. The only reason you have to support the conspiracy theories is the fact that you don't like government and are completely biased. 

What a joke.

You have NOTHING!


----------



## eots (Oct 19, 2009)

Gamolon said:


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



bullshit the fact is the perps control the evidence the meteorite was displayed and shown to the media in the weeks following 9/11 but they are not offering it up or any of the other evidence for independent testing..someone is lying either it is NIST or the first responders and engineers on site..it is that simple


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU]YouTube - 9/11 Incontravertable Proof the Government is Lying[/ame]


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 20, 2009)

eots said:


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



And you're missing my point. 

You want forensic evidence of temperatures of the steel even though there are studies, and expert opinions that the steel was affected by temperatures.

Now you choose to believe that there was thermite used WITHOUT any forensic evdience whatsoever. Only eyewitness accounts of what people THINK it was. 

Why are you not vehemently going after the conspiracy theorists claims like you are the official story? Why the double standard eots?


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 20, 2009)

eots said:


> the forensic evidence is in  the control of the perps...



So you admit that there is no forensic evidence that you have seen to be absolutely sure it was steel? Yet you believe it was molten steel? Based on eyewitness reports?

Sorry eots, but by your own standards, this does not work. 

You're so biased it's not even funny. 

Why are you not debating the merits of Terral's thermite garbage? There are TONS of mistakes in his theory, yet I don't see you debating him. What about Christophera? 

You aren't interested in the truth at all are you? You're just a government hating individual who will support ANYTHING that makes it look bad. 

Your postings PROVE that.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 20, 2009)

Here's another question for you eots.

If thermite supposedly caused the steel to melt in the first place during the supposed "demolition", then what kept it molten for all that time until it was able to be seen by "eyewitnesses"?

What maintained the temperature for days, even weeks?

According to this photo from Terral, notice the "thermite froth" on the columns? Why did this particular bit of MOLTEN STEEL/THERMITE FROTH harden right below the "cut" and not drip down to pool along the lower levels?

So again, what maintained the high temperatures? Are you suggesting that therite was still burning a day/days after the collapse?

This should be interesting...


----------



## Terral (Oct 20, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> Here's another question for you eots.



The folly in your supposition is that asking 1000 questions makes the "Building Fires Did It" Case. Gam does NOT even begin to understand even the basics about Controlled Demolition, so he is reduced to asking question after question after question . . . 



Gamolon said:


> If thermite supposedly caused the steel to melt in the first place during the supposed "demolition", then what kept it molten for all that time until it was able to be seen by "eyewitnesses"?



Gam is talking about these molten metal pools:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmMLDG87Sak]WTC Molten Metal[/ame]

Here is the deal: WTC-7 (like all skyscrapers) was built upon massive concrete pads with anchor bolts holding massive red-iron columns that hold beams that hold bar-joists that carry concrete slabs. The massive beams are bolted and welded to the columns on floor after floor after floor going skyward for 47 stories. All of the massive red-iron connections were 'cut' using thermate shape charges that melted the steel instantly at more than 2500 degrees. However, the thermate residue/froth dripped STRAIGHT DOWN like the acid blood in the 'Alien' Movies. 

The 2500-degree Celsius molten metal accumulated in the basement under each column line, until the ground around the molten pools melted into silica glass; which contained the enriched sulfur/thermate metal within the glass-like containers. The demolition workers then breached the molten metal compartments weeks later, which exposed the molten metal to the open air.



Gamolon said:


> What maintained the temperature for days, even weeks?



The molten metal was contained inside the glass-like molten silica subcompartments like the coffee in your thermos. These molten metal pools could not form in any typical 'building fire' situation, because those fires simply do not burn with sufficient heat energy to melt 2800-degree Fahrenheit steel. 



Gamolon said:


> According to this photo from Terral, notice the "thermite froth" on the columns? Why did this particular bit of MOLTEN STEEL/THERMITE FROTH harden right below the "cut" and not drip down to pool along the lower levels?



The molten metal had low enough mass and density to stick to the side of the massive column. Imagine a 'beam' cut at 90 degrees (perpendicular) to the ground 'and' then multiply that by 47 stories 'and' then realize that some massive girders stood 9-feet tall!








Gamolon said:


> So again, what maintained the high temperatures? Are you suggesting that therite was still burning a day/days after the collapse?
> 
> This should be interesting...



No. The 2500-degree Celsius Sulfur-enriched Thermate Molten Metal Pools accumulated in the basement of all three WTC Skycrapers.  

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wVLeKwSkXA]Dr. Steven Jones Explains[/ame]

GL,

Terral


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 20, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'll call your bluff Terral.

You contradict yourself in your own annotated photo here.





In that above photo, you even ASK the question "Where is any melting by fire" and make a statement of "This I beam Segment Shows No Signs Of Burns From Fire". How stupid are you? What kind of games are you playing Terral? You're having trouble keeping your lies straight as you try to change your story over time. How can you sit there and say that the steel in that photo shows cuts by thermite yet "there are no signs of burns"???

What a friggin' joke.



Damn that sounds just like Christophera doesn't it? Making shit up as you go along only to forget the story along the way and post something that actually debunks yourself.

Let's see those pictures of all the WTC7 column and beam ends covered in thermite froth Terral. I love how I've asked you to provide this and you can't.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 20, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Here's why you're wrong. Again. Look at this photo I marked up.
> ...



Still no explanation for this genius?


----------



## Terral (Oct 20, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> I'll call your bluff Terral. You contradict yourself in your own annotated photo here . . .



Let's see . . . Gam has no *"Building Fires Did It" Case*, so he stumbles around asking stupid questions. WTC-7 was still brought down using *Controlled Demolition* (AE911truth.org) . . . 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5akpnIFK-RM]WTC-7 Controlled Demolition[/ame]

. . . even if Gam confused cannot understand what that means . . . 

GL,

Terral


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 20, 2009)

Terral said:


> Watch the WTC-7 Collapse Video again:
> 
> Use your curser to hold the round scrollbar and move WTC-7 up and down repeatedly. The roof section and the center of the building collapse first, then the two sides plummet at *free fall velocity* like any successful controlled demolition. Before looking at the details of how WTC-7 was built using Compartmentalization of all the steel supports, we need to take a look at the massive building itself.


Here is the video Terral posted from the above quote
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A]YouTube - wtc 7 collapse[/ame]

Lie #1 from Terral.
The roof section and center of the building in that video above DID NOT collapse first. Terral uses a video that has cut out the mechanical penthouse falling into the building FIRST. THEN the roof and center of the building collapse. Here is the true collapse video, INCLUDING the penthouse collapse.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkOGkdNq13k]YouTube - WTC7 NIST Clip with east penthouse[/ame]

Why the lie Terral?



Terral said:


> The melting point of WTC-7 structural steel is 1535 degrees Celsius or 2795 degrees Fahrenheit. The first problem with the *Fire Caused The Collapse* Theory is that building fires burn between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, or about one third the required temperature to melt structural steel.



Lie #2 from Terral. Why do you use the term "melt" when everyone is saying that steel loses it's strength at much lower temperatures and that is the main point. Steel loses 40%-50% of it's strength at about 900-1100 degrees.



Terral said:


> This information is very important, because remember WTC-7 collapsed in one single smooth motion, which means extra attention was paid to placing charges to sever these thicker and stronger steel supports. Try to imagine the amount of energy required to break all of these connections simultaneously and you begin to see



Lie #3 from Terral.
One smooth motion? "Break all connections simultaneously"? Ummm, this video shows otherwise. First the penthouse, then the center, then the roof. FAR from ONE SMOOTH MOTION.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkOGkdNq13k]YouTube - WTC7 NIST Clip with east penthouse[/ame]




Terral said:


> The damage from a thermite/thermate shaped charge is exactly what you see above the confused firemans head. Note the size of the massive column and the molten iron residue that flowed *inside and outside the column*.



Lie #4 from Terral.
The cuts above look exaclty like the torch cuts shown in the two photos below.










Notice that "jagged" edges of the cut in the first photo and the  "thermite froth" in the second photo. No differences whatsoever.



Terral said:


> as any torch cut would blow the molten iron off the column entirely away from the worker.



Lie #5 from Terral.
Torch cut here. Notice the slag is NOT being blown off the steel.







Terral said:


> There is no cut from any torch that would leave molten iron residue on the inside and outside of 'all' the sides of a column this way.



Lie #6 from Terral.
Notice the wording in his explanation. In this photo he posts here





Can you honestly see BOTH sides of EACH steel plate to say that there slag on ALL sides? I see no SLAG or "thermite froth" on the outside of the steel plate with the jagged cut on top.



Terral said:


> None of the demolition workers in the picture above climbed up any ladder forty or fifty feet in the air to make that 45-degree angle cut, because that was part of the original *Controlled Demolition* (AE911Truth.org) of WTC-7.



Lie #7 from Terral. 
Terral already admitted that this claim was a "mistake".


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 20, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hmmm. Wonder why you are starting to post the same stuff over and over again when you get pinned into a corner Terral.

Did you go to Christophera's school of how to debate? Maybe we should start calling you Terrala. 

What's the matter Terral. Someone throw a few monkey wrenches into your "airtight" theory?


----------



## eots (Oct 20, 2009)

the same stuff ?...what ?..you want new truths ??


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 20, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Gam:
> ...


they always do that
the same debunked lies over and over


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 20, 2009)

eots said:


> the same stuff ?...what ?..you want new truths ??


so, you want to keep repeating the same lies


----------



## eots (Oct 20, 2009)

you have debunked...nothing..your explanation for the collapse is ridiculous


----------



## eots (Oct 20, 2009)

Ex-CIA Chief James Woolsey handed down gag-order to 9/11 Firefighters 
Text size   
Jerry Mazza
Infowars
October 20, 2009

This tale begins during and shortly after 9/11/2001, when a writer named Randy Lavello published a story at Prison Planet, Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center &#8216;Conspiracy Theory&#8217; is a Conspiracy Fact. Among the many tales in this article, a number of which were picked up in Mike Rivero&#8217;s web site, what really happened, is a conversation between Lavello and Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr. It&#8217;s a head-spinner&#8230;




 The Woolsey gag order created an Omerta-like mob silence that Firefighters and Police Officers have had to deal with to this day. 

&#8220;[Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr.] explained to me [Lavello] that, &#8216;many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they&#8217;re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the &#8216;higher-ups&#8217; forbid discussion of this fact.&#8221; Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as the Fire Department&#8217;s Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag order down the ranks. &#8216;There were definitely bombs in those buildings,&#8217; he told me.&#8221;

Isaac also addressed the FBI gag order in an article by Greg Syzmanski, saying &#8220;It&#8217;s amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear or retaliation or losing their jobs.&#8221; He mentions that the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials prevented them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9/11. Syzmansky praised Isaacs in a highly interesting article titled One-Man Investigative Team.

Ex-CIA Chief James Woolsey handed down gag-order to 9/11 Firefighters


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 20, 2009)

eots said:


> you have debunked...nothing..your explanation for the collapse is ridiculous


LOL yeah SURE it is


----------



## eots (Oct 21, 2009)

*Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, U.S. Marine Corps (ret) &#8211; Retired U.S. Marine Corps fighter pilot with over 300 combat missions flown. Decorations include the Distinguished Flying Cross and 32 awards of the Air Medal. Aircraft flown: Douglas A-4 Skyhawk, Lockheed C-130H Hercules. 10,000+ total hours flown. 20-year Marine Corps career.* 

Article Twenty-five U.S. Military Officers Challenge Official Account of 9/11 1/14/08: 

&#8220;September 11, 2001 seems destined to be the  watershed event of our lives and the greatest test for our democracy in our lifetimes.  *The evidence of government complicity in the lead-up to the events, the failure to respond during the event, and the  astounding lack of any meaningful investigation afterwards, as well as the ignoring of evidence turned up by others that renders the official explanation impossible, may signal the end of the American experiment.*  It has been used to justify all manners of measures to legalize repression at home and as a pretext for behaving as an aggressive empire abroad.  Until we demand an independent, honest, and thorough investigation and accountability for those whose action and inaction led to those events and the cover-up, our republic and our Constitution remain in the gravest danger.&#8221; OpEdNews.Com Progressive, Tough Liberal News and Opinion 


Statement to this website 2/20/07: 

"This isn't about party, it isn't about Bush Bashing. It's about our country, our constitution, and our future. ... 

Your countrymen have been murdered and the more you delve into it the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away. 

If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual information that directly contradicts the official report and who want explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and have motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy or fearful, or ... to check into the facts yourself, what does that make you? Scholars for 9/11 truth have developed reams of scientific data. Michael Ruppert published an exhaustive account of the case from the viewpoint of a trained investigator. David Ray Griffin provides a context for the *unanswered or badly answered questions that should nag at anyone who pretends to love this country. *
*Are you afraid that you will learn the truth and you can't handle it?*

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


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 21, 2009)

eots said:


> the same stuff ?...what ?..you want new truths ??



No. 

The same "When will Gam post his own thesis for a the official story" story posts. Haven't you seen a pattern eots? Whenever I ask Terral to further explain some of the bullshit explanations, he post that same crap now.

I have pointed out just a few lies/mistakes in Terral's garbage. He already admitted one mistake. Go read the post above I made. Why does Terral have to lie and stretch the truth? 

By the way, where is YOUR FORENSIC evidence that you have seen that proves it was molten steel? Who did the testing?


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 21, 2009)

Hmmm. Let's follow Terral's misleading and dishonest posts, shall we? Here is his one post I found where Terral misleads people into thinking the ENTIRE COLLAPSE of WTC7 took 6.6 seconds and even posts a video to support it. I bolded the part where Terral says the collpase took 6.6 seconds. The WHOLE collpase.


Terral said:


> Hi Princess Lia:
> Wake the hell up already. This topic was started before you joined the US Message Board. Perhaps Lia wants to explain how *WTC-7 collapsed Demo-style in 6.6 seconds*, after being hit by nothing at all. :0)
> 
> Watch The Clip Again



Then he later posts this little gem again trying to mislead people to think the ENTIRE WTC7 collapse took 6.6 seconds, which I bolded.


Terral said:


> Attacking your debating opponent adds nothing to your Official Cover Story Case that building fires/debris *took down WTC-7 in 6.6 seconds.*



Terral later posts this. AGAIN trying to mislead anyone who reads his crap into believing that the ENTIRE WTC7 collpase took 6.6 seconds. Remember. THE ENTIRE COLLAPSE, according to Terral so far, took 6.6 seconds.


Terral said:


> Remember that a gigantic skyscraper like this . . .
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So then after pointing out to him the collpase STARTED with the mechanical penthouse, he posts this. He NOW starts to change his story. How can ANYONE ignore the penthouse collapse as part of the ENTIRE collpase? Sounds like Terral doesn't like the TRUE evdeince and prefers to keep using bogus, 6.6 second collapse evdidence because it fits his theory better. How quaint.


Terral said:


> No. This time Gam is wrong. Add seven seconds to the collapse time in 'your' WTC-7 commentary if that makes sense to you and blows air up your skirt. The start of the penthouse collapse is NOT the moment when the main structure began to collapse in the CD process.
> 
> GL,
> 
> Terral



Now, after he's been shown to be mistaken AGAIN, Terral refers to the collaspe as having TWO parts. The first collapse supposedly "non controlled demolition" and the second collpase "controlled demolition". Here's his latest quote.


Terral said:


> Sure! The 6.6 second collapse marks the time that *"WTC-7" Collapsed* free fall speed into its own footprint . . .



So Terral decides to change direction on his theory like a fart in a wind storm. Isn't that great folks? 

He even claims that there is no evidence of MELTING or FIRE damage on the WTC7 columns yet wants you to believe that there is thermite froth/thermite cuts on those same beams!


Contradictions anyone? So where are eots and 9/11 inside job at? Why don't they come in and defend Terral's lies and mistakes.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 21, 2009)

eots said:


> you have debunked...nothing..your explanation for the collapse is ridiculous



Ah yes, the "biased" eots speaks.

Why have you not debated Terral to tell him his theory is ridiculous? He has less FORNSIC evidence than the official story yet you let him spew his crap without a word.

Why?


----------



## Terral (Oct 21, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > you have debunked...nothing..your explanation for the collapse is ridiculous
> ...



WTC-7 'Was' Taken Down Using Controlled Demolition (*OP*). My thesis agrees 100 percent with *AE911Truth.org Architects and Engineers* (link), *ScholarsForTruth Scholars* (link) and other *Demolition People* (#3) who know for A FACT that *WTC-7 "WAS" Taken Down Using Controlled Demolition*. Eots agrees that WTC-7 'WAS' Taken Down Using Controlled Demolition, which means we are in the same CD Camp. However, Gam wants to believe in Loyal Bushie/Obama Official Cover Story Fairy Tales that WTC-7 collapsed into its own footprint in mere seconds from building fires, but where is your thesis paper with claims and evidence???? :0) 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A"]Controlled Demolition OR Collapse From Fire?? You Decide[/ame]

Gam is jumping up and down like an idiot cuckoo with *'no' posted thesis paper* on what took WTC-7 down!! Haul out your *"Building Fires Did It" thesis, claims and evidence*, so these readers can begin drawing those kinds of conclusions; OR can start laughing their butts off like Terral and Eots . . . :0)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2THs3oNooM"]This Gam Guy Is An Official Cover Story Clown!!![/ame]

This is *reason #9* that the *USA 'IS' Worthy Of Being Destroyed Off The Face Of The Earth* (my Topic) 'and' Gam is the perfect example of this kind of utter STUPIDITY. And he has *"NO CLUE"* confused that there is 'anything' wrong with *'his' Official Cover Story LIE*. Zip, zero, nada, NONE . . .   

GL,

Terral


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 21, 2009)

Awwwww.

What's the matter Terral? Can't own up to your lies and deceit? You have to keep posting the same "Gam doesn't have a thesis" drivel?

I see the pattern. Pretend you know what you're talking about, but when someone sees the baloney in it, redirect the debate about your own theory's shortcomings elsewhere.

You're on the same level with your truther brother Christophera now. You can't even answer questions about mistakes and bad assumptions.

What a team you two are!


----------



## Terral (Oct 21, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> Awwwww.
> 
> What's the matter Terral? Can't own up to your lies and deceit? You have to keep posting the same "Gam doesn't have a thesis" drivel? . . .



Start your* "Building Fires Took Down WTC-7" Topic* using whatever Gam calls 'credible evidence.' That way everyone here will see how really STUPID you look confused for even suggesting that the *Official Cover Story LIE *has any substance in reality whatsoever. The simple fact is that you have *"NO" opposing thesis* to my CD case in the Opening Post. Right? Of course. And yet, 'my' work is laid out with the verifiable references for everyone to see. Right? Of course. Step up to the plate and take a few *"Building Fires Did It" swings* and I will come behind and write my rebuttals to your NONSENSE. 

The 911Truth is that Gam will NEVER even begin to draft that *"Building Fires Did It" Paper*, because you have no precedent and no evidence that building fires can even begin to take down overbuilt steel-framed skyscrapers. :0)

You are too scared to write any *"Building Fires Did It" Paper*, because then these readers would know that you are an *Official Cover Story Idiot* cuckoo, just like I already know for A FACT . . . 

GL,

Terral


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 21, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why do I need an opposing thesis when I'm proving your theory invalid? I've asked you a bunch of questions concerning the validity of what YOU say is what happened. Obviously the mistakes and lies that have been shown in your "slam dunk" theory of what happened have made you a mute when it comes to addressing them.

Just like Christophera.

Your theory has a bunch of holes in it which I have shown. Care to debate them? I didn't thinks so.

Coward.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 21, 2009)

Terral said:


> The simple fact is that you have *"NO" opposing thesis* to my CD case in the Opening Post. Right? Of course. And yet, 'my' work is laid out with the verifiable references for everyone to see. Right? Of course. Step up to the plate and take a few *"Building Fires Did It" swings* and I will come behind and write my rebuttals to your NONSENSE.



I have written rebuttals to your nonsense, but you refuse to address them.

Why?


----------



## Terral (Oct 21, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> I have written rebuttals to your nonsense, but you refuse to address them.
> 
> Why?



Your points have been addressed to 'my' complete satisfaction. If you really feel that anyone has been moved in the direction of *'your' unwritten "Building Fires Did It" Case* cuckoo, then congratulations!!!






[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2THs3oNooM]And their hands never get tired . . .[/ame]

GL,

Terral


----------



## eots (Oct 21, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > you have debunked...nothing..your explanation for the collapse is ridiculous
> ...



because you are the one spewing crap..pretending anyone but maybe  NIST investigators would be supplied the withheld evidence for forensic testing and for ignoring reports of first responders and engineers on site at wtc reporting molten metal and temperatures far in excess of those produced by fire...the only answer you have to this is to ignore its existence..and the saddest part is you some how think you are...clever


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 21, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Exactly. Your nothing but a coward. What a cop-out. 



Run Terral. Hide behind your lies and deceit. I hope you and Christophera have fun together.

GL,

Gam.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 21, 2009)

eots said:


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



Blah, blah, blah.

No forensic evidence to back your claim of molten steel eh?

Guess that means you haven't proven SHIT!!!

You, Terral, 9/11 inside job, and Christophera. All in the same boat.

No wonder it's sinking.


----------



## Terral (Oct 21, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> Run Terral. Hide behind your lies and deceit. I hope you and Christophera have fun together.
> 
> GL,
> 
> Gam.



Let's see. Reality Check Time: 

Gam is whining on 'my' *WTC-7 Topic* where 'my' *CD proposal, claims, evidence and conclusions* appear in the Opening Post. However, Gam has no *"Building Fires Did It" Case* and has no *"Building Fires Did It" Topic* and no *"Building Fires Did It" paper* posted anywhere on this fine USMB Board. Therefore, nobody has the opportunity to 'run' over to 'his' *Building Fires Did It series of supported arguments* to begin asking questions about anything. 

Therefore, Gam confused is the one who needs to run, run, run to start his *"Building Fires Did It" Propaganda Topic* for the out-of-control Bush/Obama Administration Cover Story. 

Chop, chop . . . We are all waiting . . . 

GL,

Terral


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 21, 2009)

WTC 7 fell as a result of 7 hours of unfought fire and the extensive damage it received from the collapse of the WTC Tower. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Terral (Oct 21, 2009)

Hi SFC:



SFC Ollie said:


> WTC 7 fell as a result of 7 hours of unfought fire and the extensive damage it received from the collapse of the WTC Tower. Nothing more, nothing less.



That is an interesting *unsupported opinion *(see #9). Please lay out your theory, claims *and evidence*, so the rest of us can begin drawing 'your' *Official Cover Story Conclusions* cuckoo. Here is one problem with your 'Building Fires Did It" theory:

911Research Website:






WTC-7 is already imploding at free fall speed, but there is 'no' sign of any building fires through any of the unbroken windows! And yet, this same skyscraper was reduced to this little pile . . . 






. . . in mere seconds. I would like to know 'your' precedent for modern-day steel-frame skyscrapers collapsing CD-style into their own footprints (look at the adjacent building faces = no damage) in a *'symmetrical collapse.'* 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC44L0-2zL8]WTC-7 In Freefall . . .[/ame]

In other words, WTC-7 fell *'straight down'* and this side of the building has *'no damage.' *Therefore, any damage on the 'other' side of the building should have caused the skyscraper to fall in 'that' direction; which never happened . . . 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgAJ4sKUp8g"]Smoking Gun Evidence: WTC 7 Controlled Demolition[/ame] 

Thanks in advance,

Terral


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 21, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi SFC:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


its been shown to you over and over
at this point it would be a waste of time to continue to show it to someone as delusional as you
seek out professional help before you become a danger to yourself and/or others


----------



## Terral (Oct 21, 2009)

Hi DiveBomb:



DiveCon said:


> its been shown to you over and over
> at this point it would be a waste of time to continue to show it to someone as delusional as you
> seek out professional help before you become a danger to yourself and/or others



Nobody asked anything of the village idiot confused . . . 

Terral


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 21, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi DiveBomb:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


then YOU should stop posting
you fucking moron


----------



## xÞx (Oct 21, 2009)

eots said:


> the same stuff ?...what ?..you want new truths ??



It would be a welcome change from everything else you've posted thusfar


----------



## eots (Oct 21, 2009)

xÞx;1638153 said:
			
		

> eots said:
> 
> 
> > the same stuff ?...what ?..you want new truths ??
> ...



you have not a clue what I have posted _thus far .._and I am sure the depth of your knowledge on this subject amounts to next to nothing more than mass media sound bites who are you trying to kid

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM]YouTube - Eyes Wide Shut: Gross Negligence with NIST Denial of Molten Metal on 9/11[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 21, 2009)

Sorry not one bit of real evidence of molten Steel.

I would post links but haven't been here long enough yet. But I just spent an hour looking for one decent testimony or any evidence and it's all been disproved.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 21, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Sorry not one bit of real evidence of molten Steel.
> 
> I would post links but haven't been here long enough yet. But I just spent an hour looking for one decent testimony or any evidence and it's all been disproved.


it doesnt matter, they've had real evidence presented to them and they ignore it


----------



## eots (Oct 21, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Sorry not one bit of real evidence of molten Steel.
> 
> I would post links but haven't been here long enough yet. But I just spent an hour looking for one decent testimony or any evidence and it's all been disproved.



are you really this delusional I showed you eyewitness testimony of first responders and engineers present at the wtc..multiple reports from varied credible and independent eyewitnesses..you believe them all to be lying ? ..what link are you going to post rookie ?..popular mechanics denial of the existence of the witnesses just presented ?
you are another one who probably never read the commission report or the fema report or the  NIST report or the criticisms from the authors of these reports on their value or conclusiveness...popular mechanics and fox news ..its pathetic really

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM]YouTube - Eyes Wide Shut: Gross Negligence with NIST Denial of Molten Metal on 9/11[/ame]


----------



## eots (Oct 22, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH6JVXk7jpQ]YouTube - 9/11 Explosions Heard Loud and Clear: WTC 7[/ame]




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ5qVkJ0-hs]YouTube - 9/11: Three WTC survivors in explosive interview[/ame]



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdc0OsLN_nU&feature=related]YouTube - 9/11 Cop says numerous secondary explosions heard in WTC[/ame]




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKaL4eqd_h4&feature=related]YouTube - 9/11: Secondary Devices & Explosions (NBC)[/ame]


----------



## candycorn (Oct 22, 2009)

eots said:


> xÞx;1638153 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*
Okay, fine, whatever you say.  Lets assume that when we wake up tomorrow we wake up in the bizarro world and you're right for the first time ever.

What then.

What do you plan to do about it?  

Not a damn thing; In 8 years, all you've accomplished is making an ass of your self and the only thing you've added to the discussion is saliva.  

I don't see the next 8 being any different.

How are they treating you at the FEMA Camp dumbass?

HA HA HA

*


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 22, 2009)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry not one bit of real evidence of molten Steel.
> ...



Yeah. Firemen, Debris Removal Specialists, Architects, etc., can ALL make VISUAL identification of molten steel over molten aluminum or another substance. There's even a supposed quote in the video from Leslie Robertson who was asked about it. He said he never made such a statement, nor was he in position to do so.

You're a joke. 

I see in your post above the crux of your biased opinions. You state "*multiple reports from varied credible and independent eyewitnesses..you believe them all to be lying...*"

I suppose all the engineers who participated in the studies and tests for the collapses are also lying? They are not CREDIBLE sources?

So in the end your nothing but a biased punk. Eyewitness reports are good enough when they go along with and support your thinking, but you need FORENSIC EVIDENCE instead of studies and tests done by engineers in order to prove you wrong.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 22, 2009)

Terral said:


> Start your* "Building Fires Took Down WTC-7" Topic*



I don't need to. I have all the studies and tests done be engineers as my evidence. You have failed miserably to show that they are wrong with your crappy alternative theory.

I have found numerous mistakes and misleading statements that proves your theory is incorrect, but you won't address them.

What a sad individual you are.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 22, 2009)

Terral, please explain this to me. 

You claim that the WTC7 columns and beams were cut using thermite. You claim that there are thermite signatures all over.

Yet you post this picture.





In this picture you make the following statements and ask the the following questions:
1. This I Beam Segment Shows No Signs Of Burns From Fire
2. Where Is Any Melting By Fire?
3. I Beam Segment Has No Burns

Then there is a statement in the photo that says this:
1. The Supporting Columns, Girders, and Beams Were Severed Using Thermite.

How ridiculous! 

You debunk yourself in the same photo! Was this magical thermite that doesn't leave marks or melt steel? Where are all the "thermite signatures"?

What a HUGE mistake on your part.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 22, 2009)

Of course there were multiple explosions. Many many explosions. That would be things like cellphone and lap top batteries, Transformers, various office machines, water running onto a hot surface even, Pipes bursting, just use your imagination. Thousands of things in a High rise building will explode in a fire. This is known as common sense.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 22, 2009)

Hey Terral.

How did the structural steel from the Madrid Windsor Tower collapse?





Notice that what survived was the CONCRETE CORE part. So why did the structural steel part collapse after only a couple of hours? I mean, according to you, office fires don't last that long, can't reach temperatures to weaken steel, and steel transfers heat to the attached members.

Was it thermite here also? 

See, here is part of my evidence that office/building fires can and do cause steel to collapse.


----------



## Terral (Oct 22, 2009)

Hi SFC:



SFC Ollie said:


> Sorry not one bit of real evidence of molten Steel.
> 
> I would post links but haven't been here long enough yet. But I just spent an hour looking for one decent testimony or any evidence and it's all been disproved.



We have 'many' *Official Cover Story DUPES* confused waltzing around this place who really believe that WTC-7 collapsed CD-style from building fires cuckoo. Welcome to the party . . . 

Thank you for proving my thesis about why *the USA 'is' worthy of utter destruction* (#9).

GL,

Terral


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 22, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi SFC:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And we have many Terral dupes running around also. Following their leader who uses deceit and lies to make them believe what he says.


----------



## Terral (Oct 22, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> . . . What a HUGE mistake on your part . . .



Right. Now Gam is going to explain 'where' the missing 47 concrete slabs went in his upcoming *"Building Fires Did It" explanation! *According to Gam, this building burned down from building fires, which has NEVER HAPPENED in the history of this planet to 'any' steel-framed skyscraper. 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ&feature=related"]WTC-7 Was Hit By No Jetliner . . .[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z86dBvWm9RE&NR=1]Collapse From Controlled Demolition, OR Gam's Building Fires?? You Decide . . .[/ame]

If anybody here wants to believe Gam and 'his' unsupported argument that *"Building Fires Did It,"* then you also have been *DUPED* confused by George Bush, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, Larry Silverstein, Peter Peterson and the entire Inside-Job Gang (#9)!

GL,

Terral


----------



## eots (Oct 22, 2009)

> Yeah. Firemen, Debris Removal Specialists, Architects, etc., can ALL make VISUAL identification of molten steel over molten aluminum or another substance. There's even a supposed quote in the video from Leslie Robertson who was asked about it. He said he never made such a statement, nor was he in position to do so.
> 
> You're a joke.



the quotes are there on video out of their own mouths and clearly say *melting beams *and *support columns* and metal in the sub-floors you are in complete denial




> I see in your post above the crux of your biased opinions. You state "*multiple reports from varied credible and independent eyewitnesses..you believe them all to be lying...*"
> 
> I suppose all the engineers who participated in the studies and tests for the collapses are also lying? They are not CREDIBLE sources?



they where not witness to these events and can only study the evidence supplied to them do the experiments they are funded to do...NIST admits their scenario to be questionable and of a low probability




> So in the end your nothing but a biased punk. Eyewitness reports are good enough when they go along with and support your thinking, but you need FORENSIC EVIDENCE instead of studies and tests done by engineers in order to prove you wrong


.



the perpetrators control the evidence and deny the eyewitnesses and those involved in the reports call their own studies flawed and inconclusive and a cover-up


----------



## eots (Oct 22, 2009)

hey candycornhole




eots said:


> xÞx;1638153 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*



you do not abandon the pursuit of justice in a mass murder because it has not come in 8 yrs...so how is your search for bin laden going....*****


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 22, 2009)

eots said:


> are you really this delusional I showed you *eyewitness testimony* of *first responders and engineers present at the wtc*..multiple reports from varied *credible and independent eyewitnesses*..you believe them all to be lying ?



So you have deemed these people, these CREDIBLE, INDEPENDENT EYEWITNESSES as folks who know what they are talking about and trustworthy right? 

Good. Let's take Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl for example. You have used his quote, I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center. as supporting eyewitness testimony to lend credence to your beliefs. Let's look at some other comments and findigs he has made shall we?

1. He notes that steel has bent at several connection points that had joined the floors of the WTC to the vertical columns. He describes the connections as being smoothly warped, saying, If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of meltedits kind of like that. He adds, That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hotperhaps around 2,000 degrees.

2. At a recycling center in New Jersey, he sees 10-ton steel beams from the towers that look like giant sticks of twisted licorice.

3. He finds severely scorched [steel] members from 40 or so floors below the points of impact [by the planes]. He believes this is the result of the planes having destroyed the elevator walls, thereby allowing burning jet fuel to pour down into the building, igniting fires hundreds of feet below the impact floors.

4. He shows the San Francisco Chronicle a banana-shaped, rust-colored piece of steel that has twisted like toffee during the terrorist attack.

So let's see. This PROFESSIONAL, CREDIBLE, INDEPENDENT, EYEWITNESS engineer says he has seen steel smoothly warped connections which can only occur in steel which reached temperatures of 2000 degrees. Yet you tell me that there was no FORENSIC proof of that. 

Is he lying? Is his CREDIBLE, INDEPENDENT, and PROFESSIONAL statement a bunch of crap? I thought you said no steel reached temperatures that high?

Go read for yourself. 

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl

Damn are you a biased twit.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 23, 2009)

Eots, let's talk about Leslie Robertson's supposed quote in that video above about there being molten steel at the site.

Mr. Robertson is quoted as describing the "molten steel" still running after 21 days in a supposed quote from an SEAUNews pdf. I took a look at it. I don't see any quotes from Robertson in that article that state he saw "molten steel" 21 days after. I see a facts written by Mike Williams, but nothing quoted from Mr. Robertson. 

Here is the link to the pdf.
http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf

On top of that, someone questioned him on it and he replied in an email.


			
				Leslie Robertson email said:
			
		

> I've no recollection of having made any such statements...nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge.



Did you actually email Mr. Robertson and ask him about this supposed quote? My guess is no. As usual, you probably saw the quote in the video and since it supported your claims and thinking, stopped right there. 

Like I said. You are nothing more than a biased twit. Above is just another example how you and your ilk stop looking for the truth as soon as you find evidence which supports what you believe and leave it at that.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 23, 2009)

Let's discuss the first firemen in that video. The said that there was "molten steel running down the channelways..."

I suppose these guys are trained and have the expertise to VISUALLY discern whether a molten substance is aluminum, steel, or some other something else right?


----------



## eots (Oct 23, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > are you really this delusional I showed you *eyewitness testimony* of *first responders and engineers present at the wtc*..multiple reports from varied *credible and independent eyewitnesses*..you believe them all to be lying ?
> ...



why do you pretend not understand.. NIST reported the temperatures confirmed in forensic test showed temperatures from fire and no where near that required to weaken steel from the materials the perpetrators supplied for testing ..they could of supplied the twisted pieces and huge beams bent like horseshoes but then they would have another problem because to bend steel beams in such away they would have to be softened or they would crack or break and that would require temperatures far in excess of what can be created by fire ..you are in fact suppling evidence of controled demoliton becuse it would indeed require tempatures in excesss of 2000 degrees...so you now agree there is clear evidence of tempatures of at least 2000 degress...lol


----------



## Terral (Oct 23, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> Let's discuss the first firemen in that video. The said that there was "molten steel running down the channelways..."
> 
> I suppose these guys are trained and have the expertise to VISUALLY discern whether a molten substance is aluminum, steel, or some other something else right?



In other words, since Gam cuckoo has *no "Building Fires Did It" argument*, then he is reduced to asking stupid questions . . . :0)

GL,

Terral


----------



## xÞx (Oct 23, 2009)

eots said:


> xÞx;1638153 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Were you not aware that it stays on the forum after you post it?

Make up your mind. Was it too cool to melt steel or was your beloved superthermite used?

Can you please stick to one lie?


----------



## xÞx (Oct 23, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> Hey Terral.
> 
> How did the structural steel from the Madrid Windsor Tower collapse?
> 
> ...


Liquid thermite in the fire suppression systems


----------



## eots (Oct 23, 2009)

xÞx;1644325 said:
			
		

> eots said:
> 
> 
> > xÞx;1638153 said:
> ...



well with gams help we have clearly determined the temperatures were over 2000 degrees but none of the material supplied to nist shows temperatures anywhere near this hot because if it did there would be no denying the fact these temperatures can not be reached in a kerosene fire...is this to complicated for you


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 23, 2009)

eots said:


> xÞx;1644325 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


yet the Nat Geo test the jet fuel fires DID reach 2000° in an open air pit


yes yes, i know Nat Geo is in on the conspiracy


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 23, 2009)

eots said:


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



Are you really that stupid? Let me help you figure this out. I'll even bold and enlarge the important words for you.



			
				Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl findings said:
			
		

> 1. He notes that steel has *bent* at several connection points that had joined the floors of the WTC to the vertical columns. He describes the connections as *being smoothly warped*, saying, If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of meltedits kind of like that. He adds, That could only happen if you get *steel yellow hot or white hotperhaps around 2,000 degrees*.



Thermite doesn't bend or warp steel? Do you get it yet? It burns/melts through it. Thermite produces temps of 2500C or 4500F. Are you telling me that they used thermite to bend and warp/bend the steel to collapse the towers?


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 23, 2009)

Gamolon said:


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


and then ONLY in the line of GRAVITY


----------



## eots (Oct 23, 2009)

Gamolon said:


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



what happens to the temperature of a piece of metal over-all if you apply temperatures of 4500degrees to a portion of that metal...moron


----------



## xÞx (Oct 23, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > xÞx;1644325 said:
> ...



My problem with that test is that it does not account for what effect would be had by the confides space. I want an experiment that simulates the resulting air currents.


----------



## xÞx (Oct 23, 2009)

I still want  to know how they got thermite to move horizontally and cut vertical beams.


----------



## xÞx (Oct 23, 2009)

eots said:


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




Terral said earlier in the thread that heat is instantly transferred so that all metal is the same temperature. He got his ass handed to him.

You said Terral was an idiot for posting that.

Are you no adopting his claims?


I think it was back near the pictures of the swords (which you never explained, btw)


----------



## eots (Oct 23, 2009)

xÞx;1644332 said:
			
		

> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Terral.
> ...



I don't know what caused this partial collapse..more specs would be required but the building is clearly standing and the core has not turned to powder and it looks nothing like the controlled uniform collapse of all 3 wtc buildings and only serves to highlight the difference between a real building fire structural failure and a controlled collapse


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 23, 2009)

eots said:


> xÞx;1644325 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How did the steel portion of the Madrid Windsor building collapase eots? Here is the link to the description.
The Madrid Skyscraper Fire - includes videos and photos

Here is the picture.





Do you know what survived the collapse? The concrete core portion of the building. The steel COLLAPSED. 

How did this happen without thermite and just with a fire? The fire reportedly reached paek temps of 1472F. I thought fires couldn't get that high eots? At what temperature does steel begin to weaken again? About 650F? 

Another funny thing. Your man Terral wants us to believe that fires don't burn for very long and move on to other sources of fuel. How did this blaze last for 18 to 20 hours?

Look at this link and explain to me how parts of the building started to collapse after only 1 1/2 hours WITHOUT thermite.
Case Studies: Historical Fires: Windsor Tower Fire


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 23, 2009)

eots said:


> xÞx;1644332 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's because the core used concrete. The part that collapsed did not have concrete.

How did a fire cause the steel portion of the building to collapse without thermite?

You're backed into a corner now eots.


----------



## xÞx (Oct 23, 2009)

eots said:


> xÞx;1644332 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It serves to demonstrate the difference between having and not having (A)jet fuel and (B)  a concrete core


----------



## xÞx (Oct 23, 2009)

Anyone else starting to feel bad about picking on the retarded kid?


----------



## Terral (Oct 23, 2009)

Hi XP:



			
				xÞx;1644425 said:
			
		

> Terral said earlier in the thread that heat is instantly transferred so that all metal is the same temperature. He got his ass handed to him.



Bullony! Heat energy is constantly moving in any steel-framed network and NEVER remains stationary. Period. Heat energy from any fire source is transported 'away' into cooler areas of the steel-frame network more quickly than 'any' single support can be softened. Nobody here has presented 'any' Building Fires Did It hypothesis using claims nor 'any' kind of evidence. XP is running his mouth, when *I 'do'* (#3) know exactly what I am talking about. If XP wants to debate this topic, then simply go back to the Opening Post, 'quote me >>' and present your rebuttal arguments using whatever XP calls 'credible evidence.' 



			
				xÞx;1644425 said:
			
		

> You said Terral was an idiot for posting that.
> 
> Are you no adopting his claims?



Heat energy will always 'travel' to cooler areas of any steel-framed network. Period. Hydrocarbon fires simply DO NOT burn hot enough to melt 2800-degree red-iron structural steel. Period.



			
				xÞx;1644425 said:
			
		

> I think it was back near the pictures of the swords (which you never explained, btw)



XP needs to start 'his' Building Fires Did It topic right away, so the rest of us can start laughing . . . 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JithuVAIb7Y]YouTube - 9/11 Coincidences (Part Eight) UPDATE[/ame]

GL,

Terral


----------



## eots (Oct 23, 2009)

xÞx;1644425 said:
			
		

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



I asked what happens to the temperature of a piece of metal over -all if you heat a potion that metal to 4500 degrees...do you have an answer ?


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 23, 2009)

eots said:


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



IT MELTS IT ASSHOLE!!!

Jesus H Christ.

Explain this photo then.






Where are the damn bends and warps in this column like you say should be there due to the "thermite cuts" Terral says were made?


----------



## eots (Oct 23, 2009)

xÞx;1644460 said:
			
		

> Anyone else starting to feel bad about picking on the retarded kid?



a little but you ask for it


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 23, 2009)

xÞx;1644460 said:
			
		

> Anyone else starting to feel bad about picking on the retarded kid?



*raises hand*


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 23, 2009)

Terral said:


> Heat energy will always 'travel' to cooler areas of any steel-framed network. Period. Hydrocarbon fires simply DO NOT burn hot enough to melt 2800-degree red-iron structural steel. Period.l



But they burn hot enough to make steel start to lose it's strength. That's at about 650F when it starts.
If fires can't affect steel, why did this portion of the Windsor building collapse Terral? I see you keep avoiding this. With good reason I might add. I completely destroys your claims.


----------



## xÞx (Oct 23, 2009)

Who the fuck is XP?



Terral said:


> Bullony! Heat energy is constantly moving in any steel-framed network and NEVER remains stationary. Period. Heat energy from any fire source is transported 'away' into cooler areas of the steel-frame network more quickly than 'any' single support can be softened.



Right...

then this should be impossible, yes?







> Nobody here has presented 'any' Building Fires Did It hypothesis using claims nor 'any' kind of evidence.



Scroll, dude. there's a picture of this building in Madrid...

XP is running his mouth, when *I 'do'*


> Heat energy will always 'travel' to cooler areas of any steel-framed network. Period. Hydrocarbon fires simply DO NOT burn hot enough to melt 2800-degree red-iron structural steel. Period.




interesting...


especially since only you and eots have said anything was melted


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 23, 2009)

xÞx;1644460 said:
			
		

> Anyone else starting to feel bad about picking on the retarded kid?


no, because this stuff has been explained to them on so many occasion that now it is them being WILLFULLY stupid


----------



## eots (Oct 23, 2009)

> Gamolon;1644480]
> 
> 
> 
> ...



lol...so if you had a 30 ft beam and heated one end to 4500 degrees the whloe beam would melt...lol...what happens to the tempature of the rest of the beam  that the heat is not directly applied to..


----------



## xÞx (Oct 23, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> xÞx;1644460 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Poe's Law - RationalWiki


----------



## xÞx (Oct 23, 2009)

Nothing at all if you only apply the heat for .5 seconds  >.>

You people are slow


----------



## eots (Oct 23, 2009)

xÞx;1644545 said:
			
		

> Nothing at all if you only apply the heat for .5 seconds  >.>
> 
> You people are slow



so you believe it would take .5 of a second to cut through a core column and there would be no change in tempature to the rest of the column


----------



## xÞx (Oct 23, 2009)

eots said:


> xÞx;1644545 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I do?

Do state where I said that.

You're horrible at the psychic thing.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 23, 2009)

eots said:


> xÞx;1644545 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


so, when you cut a 10" piece of steel on the last 2" of it, he other end becomes too hot to hold?

btw, thats a question for you, not that I actually believe it does
(i KNOW better)


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 23, 2009)

eots said:


> > Gamolon;1644480]
> >
> >
> >
> ...








Wow eots! look at the heat from the torch, WHICH IS MELTING THE STEEL, spread from the cut outward!!!!!

I can see the yellow to orange color of the HEATED steel radiating outward from the cut!!!!!


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 23, 2009)

Again eots, why didn't the steel plates of this column, which you guys say was cut by thermite, show any signs of warping or bending?


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 23, 2009)

eots said:


> > Gamolon;1644480]
> >
> >
> >
> ...



Where is the radiating heat in these photos eots that you are assuming should be showing up where the torch is cutting? Where is the heated yellow or orange colored steel?


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 23, 2009)

eots said:


> xÞx;1644545 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This ought to be good.

How long to you think it would take thermite to cut through the 4" plate that made up this columns here?





Be careful now eots...Your pal Terral already gave a length of time according to this video he linked to here. Looks pretty INSTANTANEOUS to me.
Shaped Charges and the World Trade Center Collapses


----------



## eots (Oct 23, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > > Gamolon;1644480]
> ...



I have done a lot of cutting and I love to invite you to place your hand on  that steel plate


----------



## eots (Oct 23, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> Again eots, why didn't the steel plates of this column, which you guys say was cut by thermite, show any signs of warping or bending?



because it is too short


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 23, 2009)

As a person who has used thermite grenades, thermite plates, thermite powder, and a cutting torch I can promise you that that beam was cut with a torch.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 23, 2009)

eots said:


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



Great comeback. The temperature, according to you would be hot enough to bend steel, which is yellow or white hot from what your CREDIBLE eyewitmness said. You are implying that the thermite heated the surrounding steel to that temperature. 

What an idiot.



You're backed into a corner now and all you can come up with it that shit?


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 23, 2009)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Again eots, why didn't the steel plates of this column, which you guys say was cut by thermite, show any signs of warping or bending?
> ...


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 23, 2009)

Terral said:


> Bullony! Heat energy is constantly moving in any steel-framed network and NEVER remains stationary.



Can you tell me why I can heat up my STEEL kettle over a gas flame and then grab the STEEL handle that is attached to the STEEL kettle by STEEL bolts?

What a jackass.


----------



## cbi0090 (Oct 25, 2009)

Gamolon said:


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



When was this photo taken?  Before rescue crews could work safely there was a lot of cutting on overhead steel, etc.  You could not have gotten this photo immediately after the collapse, it just wouldn't have been accessible.  
I can't believe this conversation continues.  To those of us in the legitmate engineering community I can tell you it's a closed arguement and now well understood and will change our philosophy to the constuction of tall structures.  All structures, even your homes, are built  based on probabilities and economics.  A 2 x 4 is used in certain applications, instead of something else, for reason and that reason is based on some estimate of its function within papameters that are considered reasonable, not every possiblility.  Wind speeds, snow loads, etc.  If you built structures to withstand every possible load we'd all be living in tents or pyramids.  WTC was not built to withstand a fire of that magnitude at that location because the probability of it occurring was just too small to justify designing it that way.  Steel, with some protection, will withstand heat for some time, but not forever, and it is well known that if it goes beyond a point it fails suddenly.  The building did take the plane collision but it was the extended fire that did it in and the lack of redundance within the structure itself.


----------



## Terral (Oct 25, 2009)

Hi CBI:



cbi0090 said:


> I can't believe this conversation continues.  To those of us in the legitmate engineering community I can tell you it's a closed arguement and now well understood and will change our philosophy to the constuction of tall structures.



CBI confused cannot even spell *legitimate, argument* nor *construction*, AND the notion that WTC-7 collapsed from building fires is a *Govt Cover-Story Fantasy*. Period. There is *'no precedent'* for overbuilt skyscrapers collapsing CD-style from building fires and CBI very well knows it. 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A"]Death By Fire, OR Controlled Demolition? You Decide . . .[/ame]

What I want to see from this guy is a USMB Topic making the case that *"WTC-7 Collapsed From Building Fires" *with a thesis statement, claims, evidentiary support and conclusions. About one thousand professional architects and engineers have concluded that the WTC Skyscrapers collapsed from *"Controlled Demolition"* (AE911Truth.org). Tons of scholars agree with these architects and engineers 100 percent (ScholarsForTruth.org)!! People with *real demolition experience* (#3) agree that the WTC Skyscrapers collapsed from Controlled Demolition 'and' this CBI character is completely out to lunch in supporting the Official Cover Story LIE. Period.



cbi0090 said:


> All structures, even your homes, are built  based on probabilities and economics.



In other words, this CBI cartoon character thinks these USMB registered members and readers are complete idiots confused and Official Cover Story Fools cuckoo! WTC-7 was struck my no Jetliner and nothing even remotely similar and building fires have NEVER taken down any steel-framed skyscraper in the history of the cotton-picking planet. The simple fact is that any heat energy from any building fire burns in the neighborhood of 800 degrees 'and' for 20 minutes in any single location (SchwabCorp/UL Data). 

Building fires simply do NOT even begin to burn hot enough to melt 2800-degree red-iron structural steel (911Research.net). Perhaps Mr. CBI is unaware of the fact that WTC-7 was built using *"Compartmentalization"* (educate yourself) of all steel-frame support components, which eliminates 'fire' from even a remote possibility of taking down WTC-7. This means that any single building fire would exhaust all available fuel, within the sub-compartment, before dying out from the inability to cross masonry firewalls into new areas of the building. 



cbi0090 said:


> A 2 x 4 is used in certain applications, instead of something else, for reason and that reason is based on some estimate of its function within papameters that are considered reasonable, not every possiblility.



Holy Molies! This guy cannot even spell parameters nor possibility! Does your mommy know that CBI is using her computer? If you really want to debate this WTC-7 CD Topic, then head back to the Opening Post and begin drafting your rebuttal. Otherwise, I do not feel that CBI knows enough about these WTC CD Cases to even begin having a good conversation. Your problem is that we have 'two' other related 9/11 atrocities taking place on the SAME DAY and both of those cases have the same EMPTY HOLE:

My Flight 93 Topic:










Your problem is that we have pictures of this same EMPTY HOLE taken on April 20, 1994 (here), which says the Govt Cover Story for 'this case' is also a deliberate and fabricated LIE.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-59kouBgO_s]Continue Pushing Govt Cover Story LIES, If That Seems Good To You[/ame]

My Pentagon Topic:










In both cases, we see the same EMPTY HOLE that contains NO crashed 100-ton Jetliner. Period.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTJehfQkuyE"]Continue Pushing Official Govt LIES, If That Seems Good To You . . .[/ame]

This CBI guy needs to wake the hell up already. Thanks, BTW, for helping to prove *my related theory* (#9) . . . 

GL,

Terral


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 25, 2009)

The American Society of Civil Engineers and FEMA conducted an in-depth investigation of the World Trade Center. The team members included the director of the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the senior fire investigator for the National Fire Protection Association, professors of fire safety, and leaders of some of the top building design and engineering firms, including Skidmore Owings & Merrill in Chicago, Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire in Seattle, and Greenhorne & O'Mara in Maryland.

It concluded that massive structural damage caused by the crashing of the aircrafts into the buildings, combined with the subsequent fires, "were sufficient to induce the collapse of both structures."

The National Institute of Standards and Technology did its own forty-three volume study of the Twin Towers. "Some 200 technical experts . . . reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, [and] performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations," the institute says.

It also concluded that a combination of the crash and the subsequent fires brought the towers down: "In each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse."

Popular Mechanics, first in its March 2005 cover story and now in its expanded book, Debunking 9/11 Myths, after interviewing scores of other experts in the engineering field, takes apart the most popular contentions of the conspiracists. "In every case we examined, the key claims made by conspiracy theorists turned out to be mistaken, misinterpreted, or deliberately falsified," the book says.

I made a few calls myself, including to Gene Corley, who conducted the American Society of Civil Engineers/FEMA study, and to Mete Sozen, structural engineering professor at Purdue, who was one of the principal authors of "The Pentagon Building Performance Report" of January 2003, which was done under the auspices of the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Structural Engineering Institute. I also contacted engineering professors at MIT and other leading universities in the country, and none of them puts any stock in the 9/11 conspiracy theories. In fact, they view them as a huge waste of time. They are busy trying to figure out how to prevent buildings from falling in the future.

Of course, any conspiracy theorist worth his or her salt will claim that all these people are in on the plot. And that I am in on it, too.

Get over it.


 Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 25, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> The American Society of Civil Engineers and FEMA conducted an in-depth investigation of the World Trade Center. The team members included the director of the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the senior fire investigator for the National Fire Protection Association, professors of fire safety, and leaders of some of the top building design and engineering firms, including Skidmore Owings & Merrill in Chicago, Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire in Seattle, and Greenhorne & O'Mara in Maryland.
> 
> It concluded that massive structural damage caused by the crashing of the aircrafts into the buildings, combined with the subsequent fires, "were sufficient to induce the collapse of both structures."
> 
> ...


this is what most of these nuttter troofers dont get


----------



## Kat (Oct 25, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > The American Society of Civil Engineers and FEMA conducted an in-depth investigation of the World Trade Center. The team members included the director of the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the senior fire investigator for the National Fire Protection Association, professors of fire safety, and leaders of some of the top building design and engineering firms, including Skidmore Owings & Merrill in Chicago, Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire in Seattle, and Greenhorne & O'Mara in Maryland.
> ...





It has been proven over and over and over by non-partisan groups. Why anyone would want to embarrass themselves with the nonsense is beyond me.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 25, 2009)

Kat said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


they clearly have psychological issues and need professional help


----------



## eots (Oct 25, 2009)

Kat said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


James Quintiere, Ph.D.

*James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NISTs investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.*

Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, Questions on the WTC Investigations at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. I wish that there would be a peer review of this, he said, referring to the NIST investigation. I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what theyve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.


*I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable, *explained Dr. Quintiere. Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.

Dr. Quintiere, one of the worlds leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. I hope to convince you to perhaps become _'Conspiracy Theorists', _but in a proper way, he said. 

* In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause,* by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding. 

"I have over 35 years of fire research in my experience. I worked in the fire program at NIST for 19 years, leaving as a division chief. I have been at the University of Maryland since. I am a founding member and past-Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Sciencethe principal world forum for fire research. ... 

*"All of these have been submitted to NIST, but never acknowledged or answered. I will list some of these.* 

1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? ... 


*2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ... *

3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. *A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris t*hey have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error? 

4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But *the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that. *
5. *Testing by NIST has been inconclusive.* Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & [sic] of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? ... 

6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September [2005] that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?" 

[The full text of Dr. Quintieres statement to the Science Committee can be found at The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse: Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps ] 

Dr. Quintiere is one of the worlds leading fire science researchers and safety engineers. He served in the Fire Science and Engineering Division of NIST for 19 years and rose to the position of Chief of the Division. He left NIST in 1990 to join the faculty of the Department of Fire Protection Engineering at the University of Maryland, where he still serves.

Quintiere is a founding member and Past Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science (IAFSS). He is also a Fellow of the Society of Fire Protection Engineering and a Fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. He has received numerous awards for his contributions to fire science research and engineering, including: 

· The Department of Commerce Bronze Medal (1976) and Silver Medal (1982)

· The Howard W. Emmons Lecture Award from the IAFSS in 1986

· The Sjölin Award in 2002 for outstanding contribution to the science of fire safety by the International Forum of Fire Research Directors, NIST

· The 2006 Guise Medal by the National Fire Protection Association

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## eots (Oct 25, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnLMAzUIb5M&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - 9/11 Redux Pt1[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QXYNcVuBPM&feature=channel]YouTube - 9/11 Redux Pt2[/ame]


----------



## eots (Oct 25, 2009)

Dr. Quintiere said he originally &#8220;had high hopes&#8221; that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. &#8220;They&#8217;re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what* I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF *[Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought *they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information*. What prevented all of this? I think it&#8217;s *the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST*. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed,* those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything*.&#8221;


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


----------



## cbi0090 (Oct 25, 2009)

Sorry, but I don't spend a lot of time writing responses like this, at least not without my secretary proofing them, but it's obvious you have no intention of listening to any reason.  What makes this whole proposition so silly is the notion of a controlled demolition and what it would take to pull it off.  If you had ever visited a demolition site before the explosion and walked through the building to see what it takes to do something like that you'd know just how far fetched the idea is.  But you won't, and haven't and never will.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 25, 2009)

cbi0090 said:


> Sorry, but I don't spend a lot of time writing responses like this, at least not without my secretary proofing them, but it's obvious you have no intention of listening to any reason.  What makes this whole proposition so silly is the notion of a controlled demolition and what it would take to pull it off.  If you had ever visited a demolition site before the explosion and walked through the building to see what it takes to do something like that you'd know just how far fetched the idea is.  But you won't, and haven't and never will.


you know they have lost when the main complaint about your post is either spelling or grammar


----------



## eots (Oct 25, 2009)

*Paul Craig Roberts, PhD &#8211; Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury under Ronald Reagan, "Father of Reaganomics".  Former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal.  Currently Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute*. Former William E. Simon chair in political economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University.  Former Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University.  Author or co-author of several books on economics and politics, including; The Supply-Side Revolution (1985), Alienation and the Soviet Economy: The Collapse of the Socialist Era (1990), The Soviet Union After Perestroika (1991), The Capitalist Revolution in Latin America (2003). 

Interview Alex Jones Show 1/9/08: 

*"There's no accountability now, because the government got away with 9/11 and so any kind of violence is justified in terms of protecting us from terrorists or people who might have been a terrorist ... *

*Well, I've never tried to hide anything. I just try to say what the evidence supports. I never believed 9/11, because I had engineering training at Georgia Tech and I could tell when a building is being blown up by explosives. Any fool can look at those films and see the buildings aren't falling down, they're blowing up." At 9:25 of the segment at *YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. 


Endorsement of 9/11 and American Empire (Vol I) &#8211; Intellectuals Speak Out: "This is the most important book of our time. Distinguished national and international scientists and scholars present massive evidence that the 9/11 Commission Report is a hoax and that the 9/11 "terrorist attack" has been manipulated to serve a hegemonic agenda in the Middle East. The book's call for a truly independent panel of experts to be empowered to bring out the true facts must be heeded or Americans will never again live under accountable government." Interlink Books 


Essay 8/16/06:* "We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to "pancake" at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false."* INFORMATION CLEARING HOUSE. NEWS, COMMENTARY & INSIGHT 


Essay 2/6/06: "There are not many editors eager for writers to explore the glaring defects of the 9/11 Commission Report. One would think that if the report could stand analysis, there would not be a taboo against calling attention to the inadequacy of its explanations." http://www.counterpunc 


Bio: Biography - Paul Craig Roberts


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 26, 2009)

eots said:


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



Eots, I see you haven't answered the question. Where's the yellow or orange colored heated steel that you say should be evident radiating from the torch cut?


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 26, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > xÞx;1644325 said:
> ...



Terral? Eots?

Nobody wants to answer the questions? 

1. What caused the steel part of this building to collapse?
2. How did this fire burn for 18 to 20 hours? According to Terral, fires burn up the source and move on.



Terral said:


> The first problem with the *Fire Caused The Collapse* Theory is that building fires burn between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit,



3. This fire reached 1472F. What happened to your claim of building fires only burning between 800F and 1000F?


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 26, 2009)

Gamolon said:


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



Ok. I'm done laughing at this statement.

Can you please explain why there is no bending or warping shown on this column because, according to you, it was too short?


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 26, 2009)

Gamolon said:


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



Eots, since Terral can't explain this with his bullshit like he has tried to explain other events, maybe you'd like to try? 

Can you tell me why the thermite cutting charge placed on left face on this beam made 45 degree directional groves through the plate? How can an explosive cutting charge placed parallel to the face of that plate, when detonated, make 45 degree grooves thrpugh that plate? The force of the detonation would be perpendicular (or 90 degrees) to the outside face of that plate, thus making grooves in that direction.

Care to explain?


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 26, 2009)

And the BEST one of all?

This photo annotated by Terral in which he CLEARLY says that there are no burns from fire OR melted steel caused by fire.





Yet he says that the steel pictured in the photo was SEVERED by thermite cutting charges.

Hey Terral. Was your plan to debunk your own claims within the same photo?


----------



## Terral (Oct 26, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> Terral? Eots?
> 
> Nobody wants to answer the questions?



For the umpteenth time: Gam can show us his "Building Fires Did It" explanation in a thesis statement, claims, evidence and conclusions, if he ever grows a pair and actually wants to debate the WTC-7 Controlled Demolition Topic. Asking a billion questions does not make the Official Cover Story Case 'and' Gam very well knows it. Your problem is that thousands of massive steel-frame supports were 'cut' at the same time to allow this 47-story skyscraper . . .






. . . to collapse into its own footprint . . . 






. . . in mere seconds like this: 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A"]Gam Wants To Believe 'This' Happened From Building Fires!!![/ame]

Again, there are only 'two' (2) theories for what took WTC-7 down CD-style into its own footprint:

1. Controlled Demolition.
2. Building Fires/Debris. << Gam is pushing this fantasy, but refuses to present his case. :0)

Any rebuttal to my Opening Post CD Presentation 'must' be supported by *a thesis statement* ("Building Fires Did It") and *claims *("Fires Cut Thousands Of Massive 2800-degree Supports," Etc.) and *evidence* ("Good Luck Gam") and *conclusions* ("Gam Is Pushing Official Cover Story LIES" and has no case). However, Gam HAS NO CASE. Period. So he stumbles around on my topic throwing stones at a Controlled Demolition Case that he does NOT even begin to understand. The Opening Post makes the Case that WTC-7 was built using *"Compartmentalization"* of all steel supports, which rules out any possibility of DEATH BY FIRE.

911Research Website:



> 5.3.3 Compartmentalization
> 
> Concrete floor slabs provided vertical compartmentalization to limit fire and smoke spread between floors (see Figure 5-11). Architectural drawings indicate that the space between the edge of the concrete floor slab and curtain wall, which ranged from 2 to 10 inches, was to be filled with fire-stopping material.
> 
> ...


The limited WTC-7 building fires could NOT penetrate the masonry Compartmentalization Countermeasures to then 'cut' massive steel-frame supports to provide a 'symmetrical collapse.' You just saw that WTC-7 was in full free fall 'and' no sign of building fires were seen through any of the unbroken windows! Gam has no theory on how thousands of massive steel-frame supports were 'cut' by building fires (impossible) or any other method. Period! The ONLY answer that makes ANY sense whatsoever is that WTC-7 Was Taken Down Using Controlled Demolition, which is presented in the OP of this thread.



Gamolon said:


> 1. What caused the steel part of this building to collapse?



The Madrid fire lasted for more than a day like a torch . . .






. . . but the steel-frame itself did not collapse CD-style like WTC-7 'and' in just a few hours. 



Gamolon said:


> 2. How did this fire burn for 18 to 20 hours? According to Terral, fires burn up the source and move on.



The SchwabCorp/UL data applies to typical building fires 'and' the Madrid fire was obviously not typical. Gam is comparing apples to oranges, because the Madrid skyscraper burned for more than a day and DID NOT COLLAPSE, when WTC-7 burned for a few hours and COLLAPSED COMPLETELY. 



Gamolon said:


> 3. This fire reached 1472F. What happened to your claim of building fires only burning between 800F and 1000F?



The fact is that Gam has 'no precedent' for overbuilt steel-frame skyscrapers collapsing CD-style from building fires. Period. Perhaps Gam would have a case, IF the Madrid skyscraper burned for a few hours and 'then' collapsed into its own footprint leaving the adjacent buildings unscathed. However, if anybody here wants to follow Gam and his "Official Cover Story LIE," then more power to you! The Official Cover Story DUPES around here help to prove my thesis that *The USA "IS" Worthy Of Utter Destruction Off The Face Of The Earth* (#9).

Keep up the good work . . . 

Terral


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 26, 2009)

Terrel--you really need to check out Able's site.


----------



## Terral (Oct 26, 2009)

Hi Dill:



dilloduck said:


> Terrel--you really need to check out Able's site.



Post the link and any relevant information . . . 

GL,

Terral


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 26, 2009)

Terral said:


> For the umpteenth time: Gam can show us his "Building Fires Did It" explanation in a thesis statement, claims, evidence and conclusions, if he ever grows a pair and actually wants to debate the WTC-7 Controlled Demolition Topic. Asking a billion questions does not make the Official Cover Story Case 'and' Gam very well knows it. Your problem is that thousands of massive steel-frame supports were 'cut' at the same time to allow this 47-story skyscraper . . .



For the umpteenth time, your alternate theory sucks and I've shown you many mistakes and contradictions in it. Why can't you be honest and address my quesitons instead of trying to redirect everyone with your garbage about me not making my own thread. 



Terral said:


> . . . but the steel-frame itself did not collapse CD-style like WTC-7 'and' in just a few hours.



Just answer the question. How did the STEEL STRUCTURE part of this building collapse? 

Your avoidance of the questions is very telling...


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 26, 2009)

Terral said:


> . . . in mere seconds like this:
> 
> Gam Wants To Believe 'This' Happened From Building Fires!!!



Wrong video liar.

Here is the correct one that INCLUDES the mechanical penthouse collpasing. The part you prefer to leave out because it supports your mistake ridden theory better.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hxheSmeYkc]YouTube - WTC7 NIST Clip with Penthouse[/ame]


----------



## Terral (Oct 26, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> For the umpteenth time, your alternate theory sucks and I've shown you many mistakes and contradictions in it . . .



Present your* "Building Fires Did It" Case* and perhaps we will have something to debate. You and I know that will never happen, because Gam confused HAS NO CASE. Period. Again, if ANYBODY wants to follow in your *Official Cover Story STUPIDITY* cuckoo, then they should do so and prove my original hypothesis to be 100 percent correct (#9 again).

GL,

Terral


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 26, 2009)

Terral said:


> The fact is that Gam has 'no precedent' for overbuilt steel-frame skyscrapers collapsing CD-style from building fires. Period. Perhaps Gam would have a case, IF the Madrid skyscraper burned for a few hours and 'then' collapsed into its own footprint leaving the adjacent buildings unscathed. However, if anybody here wants to follow Gam and his "Official Cover Story LIE," then more power to you! The Official Cover Story DUPES around here help to prove my thesis that *The USA "IS" Worthy Of Utter Destruction Off The Face Of The Earth* (#9).
> 
> Keep up the good work . . .
> 
> Terral



Funny, but the steel structure part of that DID collapse after a couple of hours. Try explaining this one Terral.

You can't can you? I can tell because when you can't answer one of my questions, you try and change the subject to me making my own thread about fires.

All evidence you have provided AGAINST the fire theory completely idiotic. You even debunk yourself within your own photo. Care to address that little gem?


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 26, 2009)

Terral said:


> HAS NO CASE.


Neither do you as I have shown. Your theory stinks on ice. As it stands, you have NO theory.



Terral said:


> then they should do so and prove my original hypothesis to be 100 percent correct



I have already proven your theory is based on lies and mistakes. So your theory has proven to be 100% INCORRECT.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 26, 2009)

C'mon Terral you coward.

Let's see you answer to the mistakes in your theory. You can't.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 26, 2009)

Terral said:


> Any rebuttal to my Opening Post CD Presentation 'must' be supported by *a thesis statement* ("Building Fires Did It")





My rebuttals contain simple evidence that you are full of crap. Let's see the thermite cut photo evidence for the columns and beams of WTC7.

YOU HAVE NONE!!!

What a moron.


----------



## Terral (Oct 26, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> C'mon Terral you coward . . .



Now you want to get me laughing again. If Gam really believes in his heart of hearts that ANYONE here is following in 'his' *Official Cover Story "Building Fires Did It"* footsteps, then Congratulations!!!







Even if Gam confused tried to make his *"Building Fires Took Down WTC-7" Case* (which he will never do = too chicken), then I would be the very last person with Demolition Experience (#3) to fall for that NONSENSE. 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2THs3oNooM"]Gam Is Too Chicken! Get It? :0)[/ame]

Do not worry, Gam. There are plenty of Official Cover Story DUPES around here . . .






. . . so *somebody* cuckoo believes your *Official Cover Story STUPIDITY* . . . 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ]Gam Says Building Fires Did This . . .[/ame] 

GL,

Terral


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 26, 2009)

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/images/WTC7_column-79-Collapse.jpg

The extensive three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation found that the fires on multiple floors in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event. Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.

In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7s Column 79the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapsewould still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the columns failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008

Science not theory.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 26, 2009)

Terral said:


> then I would be the very last person with Demolition Experience



I can see why you don't do it for a living anymore.



Your experience does nothing for me as you've screwed up so many times in your theory I've lost count. I have FAR more experience than you in the engineering/structural field than you'll ever have. You don't impress me one bit.

The engineers I have shown your work to just laugh.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 26, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Awwwwww...

Boohoo.

Terral gets his ass handed to him and all he can do is post about me not having a "fires did it" thread.

WAHHHHHHHHH!

Pssssst. I made one for you Terral. Can I ignore your evidence that disputes my explanation like you ignore mine?


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 26, 2009)

Terral said:


> I KNOW FOR A FACT that WTC-7 was taken down using Controlled Demolition by all of these Controlled Demolition Signatures,



Are you going to ever show us these "THERMITE SIGNATURES" you have photos of for WTC7 columns and beams that were "CUT"?

I have yet to see any of them.


----------



## Terral (Oct 26, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> I have yet to see any of them.



No wonder (pic < Gam)!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIx2CVRxRXg&feature=related]This Short Video Might Help[/ame]

GL,

Terral


----------



## xÞx (Oct 26, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > Bullony! Heat energy is constantly moving in any steel-framed network and NEVER remains stationary.
> ...



I'm going to guess C) Steel is not a 'perfect conductor'


----------



## xÞx (Oct 26, 2009)

Terral said:


> CBI confused cannot even spell *legitimate, argument* nor *construction*,



Which does nothing to invalidate his (?) points?


> AND the notion that WTC-7 collapsed from building fires is a *Govt Cover-Story Fantasy*. Period. There is *'no precedent'* for overbuilt skyscrapers collapsing CD-style from building fires and CBI very well knows it.



Someone already posted the Madrid fire





> Holy Molies! This guy cannot even spell parameters nor possibility!



Pathetic ad homs, dude.

Man up and either admit to being a dumbass or actually address what the user has posted.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 26, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Of course Terral. 

I asked you to provide me with the photos you are using to show all of us your thermite signatures that show up on ALL the WTC7 you keep clammering about.

How about it? Where are they? Even one good one?


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 26, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





What an idiot. That video starts off speaking of steel melting. TOTALLY unrelated and dishonest. Nobody talks of steel melting. 

Why are you so dishonest?

Here's a video for you about one of the REAL reasons why WTC7 collapsed.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgHopwxZPGw]YouTube - Lecture Thermal Expansion[/ame]


----------



## eots (Oct 26, 2009)

*One of America&#8217;s most prominent scientists, Dr. Margulis is Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts - Amherst. She was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1983 and served as Chairman of the Academy&#8217;s Space Science Board Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution. In 1999, President Bill Clinton presented Dr. Margulis with the National Medal of Science, America's highest honor for scientific achievement, *"for her outstanding contributions to understanding of the development, structure, and evolution of living things, for inspiring new research in the biological, climatological, geological and planetary sciences, and for her extraordinary abilities as a teacher and communicator of science to the public." 

In her statement on PatriotsQuestion911.com, Dr. Margulis referred to 9/11 as &#8220;this new false-flag operation, which has been used to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as unprecedented assaults on research, education, and civil liberties&#8221;. She compared 9/11 to several self-inflicted attacks that had been used in the past to arouse people&#8217;s fear and hatred and justify war, including the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor, the Reichstag Fire, and Operation Himmler, which Germany used to justify the invasion of Poland, the trigger for World War II.


In her statement on PatriotsQuestion911.com, Dr. Margulis referred to 9/11 as &#8220;this new false-flag operation, which has been used to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as unprecedented assaults on research, education, and civil liberties&#8221;. She compared 9/11 to several self-inflicted attacks that had been used in the past to arouse people&#8217;s fear and hatred and justify war, including the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor, the Reichstag Fire, and Operation Himmler, which Germany used to justify the invasion of Poland, the trigger for World War II.

In her statement, Dr. Margulis cites &#8220;the research and clear writing by David Ray Griffin in his fabulous books about 9/11&#8221; as a useful source of information and analysis of problems with the official account of 9/11. She specifically lauded The New Pearl Harbor and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions*, &#8220;which provides overwhelming evidence that the official story is contradictory, incomplete, and unbelievable.&#8221;*
Internationally acclaimed for her ground-breaking scientific work, *Dr. Margulis is an elected member of The World Academy of Art and Science, an organization of 500 of the world&#8217;s leading thinkers,* chosen for eminence in art, the natural and social sciences, and the humanities. And in 2006, she was selected as one of &#8220;The 20th Century's 100 Most Important Inspirational Leaders&#8221; by the editors of Resurgence magazine.

Dr. Margulis&#8217; full statement can be read at PatriotsQuestion911.com. More information about Dr. Margulis&#8217; career can be found at Sciencewriters.



OpEdNews - Article: National Academy of Sciences Member Calls for New 9/11 Investigation


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 26, 2009)

eots said:


> *One of Americas most prominent scientists, Dr. Margulis is Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts - Amherst. She was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1983 and served as Chairman of the Academys Space Science Board Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution. In 1999, President Bill Clinton presented Dr. Margulis with the National Medal of Science, America's highest honor for scientific achievement, *"for her outstanding contributions to understanding of the development, structure, and evolution of living things, for inspiring new research in the biological, climatological, geological and planetary sciences, and for her extraordinary abilities as a teacher and communicator of science to the public."
> 
> In her statement on PatriotsQuestion911.com, Dr. Margulis referred to 9/11 as this new false-flag operation, which has been used to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as unprecedented assaults on research, education, and civil liberties. She compared 9/11 to several self-inflicted attacks that had been used in the past to arouse peoples fear and hatred and justify war, including the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor, the Reichstag Fire, and Operation Himmler, which Germany used to justify the invasion of Poland, the trigger for World War II.
> 
> ...



Oooooo.

A biologist throwing in her two cents. Remind me the next time I need a structural analysis done or loads calculated. I'll call on a biologist.


----------



## eots (Oct 26, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *One of America&#8217;s most prominent scientists, Dr. Margulis is Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts - Amherst. She was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1983 and served as Chairman of the Academy&#8217;s Space Science Board Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution. In 1999, President Bill Clinton presented Dr. Margulis with the National Medal of Science, America's highest honor for scientific achievement, *"for her outstanding contributions to understanding of the development, structure, and evolution of living things, for inspiring new research in the biological, climatological, geological and planetary sciences, and for her extraordinary abilities as a teacher and communicator of science to the public."
> ...



it is one of the finest minds in the country with a clear ability to research and and a keen understanding of scientific procedure and echos the beliefs of many exceptional scientist and engineers...denier


Dec. 13, 2007:  Seven Senior Federal Engineers and Scientists Call for New 9/11 Investigation &#8211; Official Account of 9/11 "Impossible", "Hogwash", "Fatally Flawed"
PDF Version      Article on OpEdNews

*Summary: Seven senior Federal engineers and scientists call for a new 9/11 investigation and denounce the official account of 9/11 as: "impossible", "hogwash", "fatally flawed", "false", "does not match the available facts", and "politically driven*".

*These senior engineers and scientists served in the Federal government for decades*.  Their primary functions were the responsible application of technology and the pursuit of scientific truth.  Their statements demonstrate that the desire for a new, thorough, and independent investigation of 9/11 is not a matter of partisan politics, nor the demand of irresponsible, deranged, or disloyal Americans.  It is instead a matter of the utmost importance for America&#8217;s security and the future of the entire world.  We must not now ignore their *stunning condemnation of the official account of 9/11.*OpEdNews - Article: Seven Senior Federal Engineers and Scientists Call for New 9/11 Investigation


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 26, 2009)

eots said:


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



It sounds like she researched it. She read the book and stopped there.

Much like what you do and your fellow truthers do.


----------



## eots (Oct 26, 2009)

Gamolon said:


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



right ...people of this esteem in science and engineering are well known for their un-thought out and non-analytical responses  to questions of such extreme importance and contreversy....lol...unlike gavin from popular mechanics...lol


----------



## xÞx (Oct 26, 2009)

This should be moved to the humour section


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 26, 2009)

xÞx;1652111 said:
			
		

> This should be moved to the humour section


you mean it isnt?

the CT forum is for laughs
isn't it?


----------



## xÞx (Oct 26, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> xÞx;1652111 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I thought this was the Routers RSS Feed?

No wonder everyone keeps looking at me funny when i bring up current events


----------



## eots (Oct 26, 2009)

*Summary: Seven senior Federal engineers and scientists call for a new 9/11 investigation and denounce the official account of 9/11 as: "impossible", "hogwash", "fatally flawed", "false", "does not match the available facts", and "politically driven".*

These *senior engineers and scientists served in the Federal government for decades.* Their primary functions were the responsible application of technology and the pursuit of scientific truth. Their statements demonstrate that the desire for a new, thorough, and independent investigation of 9/11 is not a matter of partisan politics, nor the demand of irresponsible, deranged, or disloyal Americans. It is instead a matter of the utmost importance for America&#8217;s security and the future of the entire world. We must not now ignore their stunning *condemnation of the official account of 9/11.*OpEdNews - Article: Seven Senior Federal Engineers and Scientists Call for New 9/11 Investigation



One of America&#8217;s most prominent scientists, Dr. Margulis is Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts - Amherst. She was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1983 and served as Chairman of the Academy&#8217;s Space Science Board Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution. In 1999, President Bill Clinton presented Dr. Margulis with the *National Medal of Science, America's highest honor for scientific achievement*, "for her outstanding contributions to understanding of the development, structure, and evolution of living things, for inspiring new research in the biological, climatological, geological and planetary sciences, and for her extraordinary abilities as a teacher and communicator of science to the public." 

In her statement on PatriotsQuestion911.com, Dr. Margulis referred to 9/11 as &#8220;this new false-flag operation, which has been used to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as unprecedented assaults on research, education, and civil liberties&#8221;. She compared 9/11 to several self-inflicted attacks that had been used in the past to arouse people&#8217;s fear and hatred and justify war, including the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor, the Reichstag Fire, and Operation Himmler, which Germany used to justify the invasion of Poland, the trigger for World War II.


In her statement on PatriotsQuestion911.com, Dr. Margulis referred to 9/11 as &#8220;this new false-flag operation, which has been used to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as unprecedented assaults on research, education, and civil liberties&#8221;. She compared 9/11 to several self-inflicted attacks that had been used in the past to arouse people&#8217;s fear and hatred and justify war, including the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor, the Reichstag Fire, and Operation Himmler, which Germany used to justify the invasion of Poland, the trigger for World War II.

In her statement, Dr. Margulis cites &#8220;the research and clear writing by David Ray Griffin in his fabulous books about 9/11&#8221; as a useful source of information and analysis of problems with the official account of 9/11. She specifically lauded The New Pearl Harbor and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, *&#8220;which provides overwhelming evidence that the official story is contradictory, incomplete, and unbelievable.&#8221;*Internationally acclaimed for her ground-breaking scientific work, Dr. Margulis is an elected member of The World Academy of Art and Science, an organization o*f 500 of the world&#8217;s leading thinkers,* chosen for eminence in art, the natural and social sciences, and the humanities. And in 2006, she was selected as one of &#8220;The 20th Century's 100 Most Important Inspirational Leaders&#8221; by the editors of Resurgence magazine.

Dr. Margulis&#8217; full statement can be read at PatriotsQuestion911.com. More information about Dr. Margulis&#8217; career can be found at Sciencewriters.



OpEdNews - Article: National Academy of Sciences Member Calls for New 9/11 Investigation


_*ya but ditz con says you all is just funny and that yer morons..so checkmate bitch yuk yuk*_


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 26, 2009)

Dr. Margulis is Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts - Amherst. She was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1983 and served as Chairman of the Academys Space Science Board Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution. In 1999, President Bill Clinton presented Dr. Margulis with the National Medal of Science, America's highest honor for scientific achievement, "for her outstanding contributions to understanding of the development, structure, and evolution of living things, for inspiring new research in the biological, climatological, geological and planetary sciences, and for her extraordinary abilities as a teacher and communicator of science to the public."

So this means she knows exactly what about explosives or Buildings or Structural
engineering? 

Nada, Nix, Nothing......DUH


----------



## eots (Oct 26, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Dr. Margulis is Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts - Amherst. She was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1983 and served as Chairman of the Academys Space Science Board Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution. In 1999, President Bill Clinton presented Dr. Margulis with the National Medal of Science, America's highest honor for scientific achievement, "for her outstanding contributions to understanding of the development, structure, and evolution of living things, for inspiring new research in the biological, climatological, geological and planetary sciences, and for her extraordinary abilities as a teacher and communicator *of science to the public*."
> 
> So this means she knows exactly what about explosives or Buildings or Structural
> engineering?
> ...



*well duh it means she has a brilliant mind and a keen understanding of scientific procedure and research and the fact is her conclusions are echoed be many engineers 8 of them listed above*

*Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret)  Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter*.  U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. (PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Cal Tech).   Former Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology.  22-year Air Force career.  Also taught Mathematics and English at the University of Southern California, the University of Maryland, and Phillips University. 
Member: Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth Association Statement: 

"Scholars and professionals with various kinds of expertise---including architects, engineers, firefighters, intelligence officers, lawyers, medical professionals, military officers, philosophers, religious leaders, physical scientists, and pilots---have spoken out about radical discrepancies between the official account of the 9/11 attacks and what they, as independent researchers, have learned. 

*They have established beyond any reasonable doubt that the official account of 9/11 is false and that, therefore, the official investigations have really been cover-up operations.* 

Thus far, however, there has been no response from political leaders in Washington or, for that matter, in other capitals around the world. Our organization, Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth, has been formed to help bring about such a response. 

We believe that the truth about 9/11 needs to be exposed now---not in 50 years as a footnote in the history books---so the policies that have been based on the Bush-Cheney administrations interpretation of the 9/11 attacks can be changed. 

We are, therefore, calling for a new, independent investigation of 9/11 that takes account of evidence that has been documented by independent researchers but thus far ignored by governments and the mainstream media." 


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

Who gained from 9/11?  Who covered up crucial information about 9/11?  And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place?  When you take those three things together, I think the case is pretty clear that its highly placed individuals in the administration with all roads passing through Dick Cheney. 

I think the very kindest thing that we can say about George W. Bush and all the people in the U.S. Government that have been involved in this massive cover-up, the very kindest thing we can say is that* they were aware of impending attacks and let them happen.  Now some people will say thats much too kind, however even that is high treason and conspiracy to commit murder."  *http://video.go 


Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11:     
"We want truthful answers to question.   As Americans of conscience, we ask for four things: 
An immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer 
Immediate investigation in Congressional Hearings. 
Media attention to scrutinize and investigate the evidence. 
The formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry." http://www.911truth.org/article 



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


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


Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11, signed by more than 900 Architects and Engineers: 

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


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


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 26, 2009)

And for every person with any kind of credentials you can name that is a truther I'll bet I can find 5 who are not. It's all a matter of intelligence One of the truthers showed me a poll that actually stated:

"people with only a high school education and Democrats were especially likely to suspect federal involvement in 9/11."

LOL you gotta love you guys.


----------



## eots (Oct 26, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> And for every person with any kind of credentials you can name that is a truther I'll bet I can find 5 who are not. It's all a matter of intelligence One of the truthers showed me a poll that actually stated:
> 
> "people with only a high school education and Democrats were especially likely to suspect federal involvement in 9/11."
> 
> LOL you gotta love you guys.



well I bet you cant and would simply post popular mechanics in one form or another


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 26, 2009)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > And for every person with any kind of credentials you can name that is a truther I'll bet I can find 5 who are not. It's all a matter of intelligence One of the truthers showed me a poll that actually stated:
> ...


again, there is nothing WRONG with using PM, because they got it right
not like the assholes you keep copy & pasting all over the place


----------



## eots (Oct 26, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



priceless...lol


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 26, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


it was 4 fucking years ago they published that
and they got the basics right
there might be some minutia they got wrong, but thats it
you asswipes point out the minutia and scream "SEEE!!!!!!!!!!"


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 27, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Hey eots? Is this what your posting has become? You can't debate the facts presented here so you just post other people's garbage?

Let's try again. If steel isn't affected by fire and cannot cause any type of collapse whatsoever, then what caused the collapse of the steel structure in the Windsor building pictured below?


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 27, 2009)

Hey Terral.

Got a question for you. Why did you lie in this post at this forum here. The YBBS - View Single Post - 9/11 Was Definitely An Inside Job

Here is your post.


			
				Terral said:
			
		

> 1. The pictures of WTC-7 falling at almost freefall speed . . .
> 
> http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors...wtc/WTC_ch5.htm
> 
> ...



Can you explain why you used THAT picture to try and get people to believe that it was a picture of WTC7 as it fell at free fall speed, but had no broken windows from damage, thus being evidence AGAINST fires causing damage?

Why did you lie and use that picture above when it clearly shows the PENTHOUSE ON THE LEFT has not COLLAPSED INTO THE BUILDING yet? Telling us that the collapse has not yet even started, yet you tried to pass it off as a photo of WTC7 DURING collapse?

What a despicable liar you are?


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 27, 2009)

Hey Terral.

Why all the changes in your past stories? Here's an excerpt from this site. Christian-Forum.net - Discuss Bible prophecy, news, doctrine. Make friends



			
				Terral said:
			
		

> . . . in just a matter of hours.



Then you change to say this here.


Terral said:


> Remember that a gigantic skyscraper like this . . .
> 
> . . . was transformed into a neat little pile like this . . .
> 
> ...



Now, after I posted the real video that INCLUDES the penthouse collapse, you say this.


Terral said:


> reduced to this little pile . . .
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A matter of hours, 6.6 seconds, mere seconds....

Keep changing the story Terral. Sooner or later you'll get it right.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 27, 2009)

Terral said:


> WTC-7 is already imploding at free fall speed, but there is 'no' sign of any building fires through any of the unbroken windows! And yet, this same skyscraper was reduced to this little pile . . .



Wow. I just noticed that you carry the same lie over here to this forum. Trying to pass off a picture showing "no damage" and claiming that photo shows WTC7 "already imploding at free fall speed" when the PENTHOUSE hasn't even collapsed yet in that photo.

The lengths you guys go to...



Nothing wrong with a few little lies, eh Terral?


----------



## Terral (Oct 27, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> Keep changing the story Terral. Sooner or later you'll get it right . . .



*WTC-7 Was Definitely Taken Down Using Controlled Demolition* (my OP). Period. The time from the WTC-1 and WTC-2 Demolition Implosions to the WTC-7 Demolition Implosion, *later that afternoon*, was 'hours.' However, the Controlled Demolition of WTC-7 from the *'start' of the implosion to the 'collapse'* was exactly *"6.6 seconds"* (story and story and story). My choice of terms and phrases are understood through the 'context' of each statement. 

Gam confused is trying to cast the shadow of doubt upon *my person* (#3), because of the folly of his *"Building Fires Did It"* explanations. :0)

GL,

Terral


----------



## eots (Oct 27, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > WTC-7 is already imploding at free fall speed, but there is 'no' sign of any building fires through any of the unbroken windows! And yet, this same skyscraper was reduced to this little pile . . .
> ...





gam..I find your evidence disingenuous..illogical and  not compelling compared to the evidence of controlled demolition and I  find the opinions of the experts I  have listed including the nist lead fire investigator to be more credible than popular mechanics magazine


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 27, 2009)

eots said:


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


except the people you usually quote don't actually agree with you


----------



## eots (Oct 27, 2009)

DiveCon said:


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



except that is just your MORON LIE
that you PROVE..with nothing..just a empty statement you  MORON LIAR


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 27, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


its not a lie
you troofer morons are the liars


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 28, 2009)

eots said:


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



Ahhhh yes. Eots speaks again. If you consider MY evidence all those things, what do you consider Terral's evidence? Particularly, what do you think of his lie posted above? The one where he KNOWINGLY uses a photo from BEFORE the collapse even started as evidence of NO BROKEN WINDOWS DURING the free fall collapse?

You're nothing but a friggin' biased hypocrite. You support people who have been PROVEN to post lies. You support them because they share the same beliefs you do.

How sad.

Where's your criticism of Terral and his bogus evidence?



eots said:


> and I  find the opinions of the experts I  have listed including the nist lead fire investigator to be more credible than popular mechanics magazine



You mean the same lead fire investigator, James Quintiere, who, based on his analysis and studies done by NIST, believes that the STEEL TRUSSES are what failed due to HEAT from FIRE and CAUSED THE COLLAPSE? You mean THAT OPINION of your EXPERT? Here dopey, I'll even quote you HIS conclusion at the end of his paper and bold what he thinks the cause was based on his EXPERT, CREDIBLE opinion.



			
				James Quintiere said:
			
		

> I contend that the NIST analysis used a fuel load that was too low and their fire durations are consequently too short. Only these short fires could
> then heat the bare core columns as NIST reports. The fires were too short
> to heat the insulated trusses to failure. The NIST analysis has flaws, is
> incomplete, and has led to an unsupported conclusion on the cause of the
> ...



So you support his conclusion/hypothesis that heat from the fires caused the trusses to fail. I mean, he is a CREDIBLE EXPERT in your opinion right?

You guys are a riot. You debunk your own shit with your own evidence.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 28, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Utter bullshit. COMPLETE collapse in 6.6 seconds??

I have video proof that you are WRONG. Why do you ignore the mechanical penthouse collapse? It that not part of WTC7?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6GMddY-lQ]YouTube - Collapse of WTC7[/ame]

Can you tell me why this video shows the COMPLETE collapse, starting with the penthouse you ignore, took about 14 seconds until the building disappeared?

6.6 seconds for a COMPLETE collapse is a lie, just like the majority of your evidence.


----------



## eots (Oct 28, 2009)

Gamolon said:


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



these are only *theory's* *..possibilities *he suggested they are *not conclusive *but you pick this one piece out and ignore the fact that suggest we all become *conspiracy theorist *and how lawyers deterred fact finding and that forensic evidence of materials supplied* do not show temperatures required to weaken steel *and *his call for a re-investigation*...because you are disingenuous


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 28, 2009)

eots said:


> do not show temperatures required to weaken steel



One of your CREDIBLE, EXPERT, PROFESSIONAL eyewitnesses disagrees with you. Remember?



			
				Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-As' observations said:
			
		

> He notes that steel has bent at several connection points that had joined the floors of the WTC to the vertical columns. He describes the connections as being smoothly warped, saying, If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of meltedits kind of like that. He adds, That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hotperhaps around *2,000 degrees.*



This goes hand in hand with Mr. Quintiere's alternate theory.

Another question. At what temperature does steel START to weaken? Do you have an answer or are you just going to play the idiot the rest of your stay here?


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 28, 2009)

eots said:


> these are only *theory's* *..possibilities *he suggested they are *not conclusive *but you pick this one piece out and ignore the fact that suggest we all become *conspiracy theorist *and how lawyers deterred fact finding and that forensic evidence of materials supplied* do not show temperatures required to weaken steel *and *his call for a re-investigation*...because you are disingenuous



Why are you not criticizing Terral's or Christophera's theories like you are the official story? I guess you support their lies because they agree with your beliefs and views?


----------



## Terral (Oct 28, 2009)

Hi Gam:

Gam wants everyone to believe that the WTC skyscrapers collapsed from building fires, which is the most ridiculous story that anyone has ever heard!



Gamolon said:


> Why are you not criticizing Terral's or Christophera's theories like you are the official story? I guess you support their lies because they agree with your beliefs and views?



Okay, hotshot: If there is no conspiracy involved with the WTC attacks, then go right ahead and explain this evidence for the EMPTY HOLE!

This is a picture of the EMPTY HOLE outside Shanksville, PA:

My Flight 93 Topic:






This is Official Govt Documentation for a crashed 100-ton Jetliner that is in reality an EMPTY HOLE.






All of the pictures show the same EMPTY HOLE, because this hole was created 'before' the *U.S. Geological Survey Photograph* taken on *April 20, 1994* (Click And Wake Up Already).






I can show you many pictures of the same EMPTY HOLE . . . 






. . . but you choose to remain in 911Truth DENIAL! We have the Flight 93 LIE and the Pentagon LIE and the WTC LIE all happening on the same day, but all Gam can talk about is the WTC attacks! Why does this guy completely ignore all of the evidence for the EMPTY HOLE in this Shanksville Case????

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-59kouBgO_s"]Where Is The 100-Ton Jetliner????[/ame]  
* 
*The Govt is LYING about the WTC-7 Controlled Demolition 'and' the Govt is LYING about the EMPTY HOLE outside Shanksville 'and' Gam is here to shove Official Cover Story LIES down your throats. Why? That is easy: DUPES (#7) will believe just about anything . . .

GL,

Terral


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 28, 2009)

Terral, it is NOT an empty hole as you claim

seriously, seek out professional help for your OCD


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 28, 2009)

Terral said:


> Okay, hotshot: If there is no conspiracy involved with the WTC attacks, then go right ahead and explain this evidence for the EMPTY HOLE!



Why would I do that?

I already exposed your lies and deceit you have used in your WTC7 theory and you won't even discuss those. You try to ignore them and move on to something.

So. Please explain this.


Gamolon said:


> Hey Terral.
> 
> Got a question for you. Why did you lie in this post at this forum here. The YBBS - View Single Post - 9/11 Was Definitely An Inside Job
> 
> ...



Again. Why did you knowingly use a picture of WTC7 BEFORE it started to collapse and claim that it is a photo DURING it's collapse that shows no damage?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 28, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Terral, it is NOT an empty hole as you claim
> 
> seriously, seek out professional help for your OCD



Quite true, I see lots of debris from 93.

U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia

U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/thumbs/P200061.jpg

U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia

U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia

But I'm sure we've all seen these and hundreds more before. I just don't understand how anyone can deny the proof from a court.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 28, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Terral, it is NOT an empty hole as you claim
> ...


yup, seen those a bunch of times, have the main source page bookmarked

they have been shown this over and over and they still stay in denial


----------



## eots (Oct 28, 2009)

yes we saw the sketchy pictures of a few unidentified parts that appear to be taken with the exception of possible one somewhere other than the impact site...not impressed


----------



## eots (Oct 28, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng&feature=PlayList&p=16D800790A246B99&index=0&playnext=1]YouTube - WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtKLtUiww80&feature=PlayList&p=AA7BEAA90FAA78A8&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1]YouTube - WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II)[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz43hcKYBm4&feature=PlayList&p=AA7BEAA90FAA78A8&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=2]YouTube - WTC7: Nist Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 28, 2009)

eots said:


> YouTube - WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)
> 
> 
> YouTube - WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II)
> ...


they only admit a "free fall" for a PORTION
not what you morons do


----------



## eots (Oct 28, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > YouTube - WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)
> ...



yes the visable portion..then they make an assumption on no evidence that perhapes it slowed in the unseen portion so they can try to extended the collapse time...lol...moron


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 28, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


no, a portion AFTER the collapse started
you guys always time the collapse from the wrong point and not the actual start
when the penthouse collapsed


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 28, 2009)

Consider the seismic records of the closest seismic recording station, at Palisades, NY (PAL). They show a very similar pattern for the leveling of WTC 1 and 2. In both cases there is about five seconds of high-amplitude movement, followed by about three seconds of movement at less than half that amplitude, and then by about 15 seconds of much weaker movement. In addition there is some still weaker movement starting about 12 seconds before the onsets of the high-amplitude movement. The main difference is that for WTC 1 the initial high-amplitude phase builds in intensity to a much higher spike than any seen for WTC 2.

The fact that the largest movement is followed by smaller movement has been cited as evidence that bombs, detonated at the starts of the collapses, generated the large movement, and that the debris impacting the ground contributed to the smaller subsequent movement. However, bombs, if detonated underground, would have generated strong P waves in addition to S waves. The fact that only strong S waves were reported is consistent with the theory that the largest movement was caused by building remains hitting the ground. 

9-11 Research: Speed of Fall


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 28, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Consider the seismic records of the closest seismic recording station, at Palisades, NY (PAL). They show a very similar pattern for the leveling of WTC 1 and 2. In both cases there is about five seconds of high-amplitude movement, followed by about three seconds of movement at less than half that amplitude, and then by about 15 seconds of much weaker movement. In addition there is some still weaker movement starting about 12 seconds before the onsets of the high-amplitude movement. The main difference is that for WTC 1 the initial high-amplitude phase builds in intensity to a much higher spike than any seen for WTC 2.
> 
> The fact that the largest movement is followed by smaller movement has been cited as evidence that bombs, detonated at the starts of the collapses, generated the large movement, and that the debris impacting the ground contributed to the smaller subsequent movement. However, bombs, if detonated underground, would have generated strong P waves in addition to S waves. The fact that only strong S waves were reported is consistent with the theory that the largest movement was caused by building remains hitting the ground.
> 
> 9-11 Research: Speed of Fall


we are talking about the fall of WTC7

9-11 Research: Rate of Building 7's Fall
that link is better for this discussion


----------



## eots (Oct 28, 2009)

*Former California Seismic Safety Commissioner Endorses 9/11 Truth Movement*

Prominent Engineer Calls for a New Investigation of 9/11

SAN FRANCISCO, CA July 16, 2007 -- San Francisco architect Richard Gage, AIA, founder of the group, 'Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth,' announced today the *statement of support from J. Marx Ayres, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council. *
J. Marx Ayres 


&#8220;We are proud to have the support of Marx Ayres, a nationally recognized expert in building energy systems and earthquake damage to building nonstructural systems, in our search for the truth about the events of 9/11.&#8221;, said Mr. Gage. &#8220;He has signed our petition requesting a reinvestigation of those tragic events and he has now gone even further by providing his personal statement of support for a new investigation of 9/11.&#8221;

Mr. Ayres is a nationally recognized expert in building air conditioning design and analysis, energy conservation, thermal energy storage, commissioning of HVAC systems, and earthquake damage to building mechanical systems, with over 55 years of experience. Co-founder of one of the largest building engineering firms in Los Angeles, Mr. Ayres has been in responsible charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects, including high rise offices, commercial centers, hospitals and laboratories, hotels and residential buildings, universities and colleges, schools, theaters and entertainment centers, jails and correctional facilities, TV and sound studios, governmental buildings and industrial facilities
In his statement, Mr. Ayres wrote, &#8220;I support the work of Dr. Steven Jones. He has provided a scientific foundation for the collapse of the three World Trade Center (WTC) towers. I read the FEMA September, 2002 report, prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers, and initially accepted their theory of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. As more information became available on the web, I was motivated to research the subject in a more rigorous manner. I have carefully studied the Jones 2006 paper, &#8220;Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?&#8221; and concluded that it is a rational step-by-step study that meets the accepted standards for scientific building research. His critical reviews of the FEMA, NIST, and 9/11 Commission reports are correct.&#8221;

Mr. Ayres continues, &#8220;Steven Jones&#8217; call for a &#8216;serious investigation&#8217; of the hypothesis that the WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fire, but through the use of pre-positioned &#8220;cutter-charges&#8221; must be the rallying cry for all building design experts to speak out.&#8221;




Dr. Steven Jones is in the forefront of independent scientific researchers investigating the events of 9/11. A former professor of physics at Brigham Young University, his research indicates that the World Trade Center skyscrapers were destroyed not as a result of the impact of airplanes, but rather the result of intentional, controlled demolitions using precisely timed detonations of pre-planted explosives. In fact, one of the skyscrapers, 610 foot tall, 47-story, WTC Building 7, was not even hit by an airplane, yet it disintegrated and fell into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds. It is of interest to note that Building 7 was not even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission&#8217;s "
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070715_former_california_se.htm


----------



## candycorn (Oct 28, 2009)

eots said:


> *Former California Seismic Safety Commissioner Endorses 9/11 Truth Movement*
> 
> Prominent Engineer Calls for a New Investigation of 9/11
> 
> ...



Nobody cares.

Have you found any real accomplishments of your "movement" yet?  If so, please list them.


----------



## eots (Oct 28, 2009)

candycorn said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *Former California Seismic Safety Commissioner Endorses 9/11 Truth Movement*
> ...



cornwhore...checkmate...****


----------



## candycorn (Oct 28, 2009)

eots said:


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



*So since you are unable to list a single accomplishment, can we safely assume that your "movement" is dead in the water?*


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 29, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Let's see how "smart" you really are eots.

Here's a COMPLETE video of the collapse of WTC7. Tell me how long it takes from beginning to end for it to collapse.
And don't try and say that you are taling about the free fall potion either because you have quoted your stooge, Steven Jones as saying this.


eots said:


> *yet it disintegrated and fell into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds. *I


So you believe the ENTIRE collapse took less than 7 seconds.

Here's the video.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6GMddY-lQ]YouTube - Collapse of WTC7[/ame]

Let's see if you can even count. I doubt it.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 29, 2009)

eots said:


> *Former California Seismic Safety Commissioner Endorses 9/11 Truth Movement*
> 
> Prominent Engineer Calls for a New Investigation of 9/11
> 
> ...



Check out this critical and well thought out explanation of why this guy believes it was a conspiracy.


			
				William Steven Burgess said:
			
		

> Since i usually don't like writing long synopsis, *I'd just say that some how, some way, in some fashion*...9/11 was an inside job.



Riveting to say the least.

Since eots seems to be stuck on people's credentials to lend credence to what they say, here is his bio.


			
				William Steven Burgess bio said:
			
		

> Have technical apprenticeship schooling and a little college, but no degree.



User Profile


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 29, 2009)

More well thought out and explained reasoning. Looks like he researched BOTH sides and came to a conclusion. 




			
				Zubayr Shah  said:
			
		

> I was very Interested in finding the Truth about the 9/11 "Attacks" after George Bush kept on publicly denouncing the Name of Islam.
> 
> I myself am a Muslim and i feel this is a Un-fair Treatment by Mr.Bush.
> 
> ...



User Profile


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 29, 2009)

These bios are hysterical! I just started reading some of them since eots seems to put so much into what they say. Here's a great one. I stopped reading after the last sentence. PRICELESS!!!



			
				Zackary MacCormack Paris said:
			
		

> I have to agree with the experts when they say it came down by demolition I can see the squibs clearly which I think is enough for me but *when the molten lava part came*



MOLTEN LAVA!!


----------



## Terral (Oct 29, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> These bios are hysterical! I just started reading some of them since eots seems to put so much into what they say. Here's a great one. I stopped reading after the last sentence. PRICELESS!!!



Gam is here to push the Official Cover Story that WTC-7 collapsed CD-style from building fires cuckoo. I stopped reading after the first sentence, because only two kinds of people push that NONSENSE.

1. DoD/FBI/CIA/NSA Handlers/Ops/Assets.
2. Loyal Bushie/Obama DUPES. 

If anyone really thinks that Gam has made the *"Building Fires Did It" Case *confused, then I have some swamp . . . I mean . . . waterfront property to sell you . . . 

The guy has no interest whatsoever in discussing the *EMPTY HOLE outside Shanksville* (my Flight 93 Topic) . . . 







. . . and no interest at all in discussing the *EMPTY HOLE at the Pentagon *(my Pentagon Topic) . . .






. . . because his handlers cool told him to stick to telling *Official Cover Story LIES* about the WTC Case. Thanks again for helping to prove my theory (#7, #8, #9) . . . 

GL,

Terral


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 29, 2009)

Terral said:


> WTC-7 is already imploding at free fall speed, but there is 'no' sign of any building fires through any of the unbroken windows! And yet, this same skyscraper was reduced to this little pile . . .



Terral. Why did you lie about this photo?


----------



## Liability (Oct 29, 2009)

Gamolon said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > WTC-7 is already imploding at free fall speed, but there is 'no' sign of any building fires through any of the unbroken windows! And yet, this same skyscraper was reduced to this little pile . . .
> ...



Liars lie.


----------



## Terral (Oct 29, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> Terral. Why did you lie about this photo?



Let's see: Gam is here pushing the *Official Cover Story LIE* that WTC-7 collapsed CD-style from building fires eusa_liar, but I am the liar. :0)

That picture was taken from *this page* (here). Upon reexamination of the evidence, *this picture* (here) appears to be taken a few minutes before *this one* (here) showing the CD-signature '*kink*' in the roof line. Therefore, WTC-7 was 'not' yet falling in the first picture that shows the penthouse still intact. However, we still see *'no signs' of any building fires through any of the unbroken windows* 'and' WTC-7 was still brought down using Controlled Demolition (my original thesis). Gam is still the Official Cover Story LIAR . . . 

Quite honestly, the angle of pre-collapse WTC-7 in the first picture threw me off a little bit. Now I realize that the camera is being held a few degrees off from perpendicular. Here is some more great video evidence that makes my case:

WhatReallyHappened.com

GL,

Terral


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 29, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's two *cough* mistakes *cough* you've admitted to now in your "evidence".

What about the this little gem Terral?





You know. Where you spew all this garbage about there being TONS of pictures of "thermite signatures" and "thermite froth" yet annotate the photo above saying that there is no "evidence of melting or fire" on the steel.



This is fun making you look like a complete ass.


----------



## Terral (Oct 29, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> This is fun making you look like a complete ass.



Laugh and have fun with it, while you can. WTC-7 was still taken down using *Controlled Demolition* (AE911Truth.org) and you are still guilty of pushing *Official Cover Story LIES*. Enjoy all of your days under the sun, because very soon Gam will be joining *'all lairs'* (Rev. 21:8 = ) where you belong . . .

Watch and see . . . 

GL,

Terral


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 29, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nope. 

Sorry Terral. I WON'T be going there. I was saved LOOONNNGGGG ago. You're bible thumping baloney does nothing to scare me. 

Please address your annotation you provided saying that that there is no evdeince of "MELTING" or "BURNS" on the steel yet you claim there are "thermite signatures" everywhere.

Come of goofball. you can't do it can you. A third mistake/contradiction you've been called on.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 29, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


ya know, its people like YOU that drive most people away from Christ
you are one talked about here


----------



## eots (Oct 29, 2009)

*no ..you mean like the ones here...*[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHFoUZEjuNM[/ame]
                                     [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_PAqT2JZOw]YouTube - Alex Jones - Secrets in Bohemian Grove[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 29, 2009)

Alex Jones is an asshole and a massive liar
you really should stop believing his bullshit


----------



## eots (Oct 29, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Alex Jones is an asshole and a massive liar
> you really should stop believing his bullshit



so what you are saying is in your ignorance that you believe the existence of the Bohemia grove is a lie   that the attendance and participation of world elite in pagan ceremonies does not occur  ?...what part is a lie and do you realize that these facts are documented through many mainstream sources and history books found in most libraries ??


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 29, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Alex Jones is an asshole and a massive liar
> ...


no, just HIS take on what actually happens there


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 29, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Alex Jones is an asshole and a massive liar
> ...




I would say that it's all Bullshit, where are the pictures of the world leaders he claims are there every July? To the best of my knowledge there are no pagan festivals in July either, as the early Christians actually planned their Christian holidays as close as they could to the pagan holidays to make it easier for the people to switch religions. You really should study these things more before opening your trap.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 29, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


bvullshit is what Alex Jones is best known for
if there is a nutty conspiracy to be believed, Alex Jones is all over it

think of him as George Noory to the 100th power


----------



## Terral (Oct 30, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> That's two *cough* mistakes *cough* you've admitted to now in your "evidence".



We agree. I am the 911Truther that 'does' own up to any mistakes in my original WTC-7 Controlled Demolition Thesis. Gam is the guy pushing Official Cover Story LIES with no intentions of admitting that you are running diversion for the out-of-control Bush/Obama Administrations. 






This is still a pre-collapse picture of WTC-7 showing no signs of building fires through any of the unbroken windows.






This is still a picture of WTC-7 taken minutes later showing the "Kink" in the roof line typical of a Controlled Demolition Implosion. 






This is still a picture of the little pile 'and' a picture that shows adjacent building faces virtually untouched. 



Gamolon said:


> This is fun making you look like a complete ass.



The two minor changes in my WTC-7 Controlled Demolition Proposal affect nothing in any of my conclusions that WTC-7 was DEFINITELY taken down using Controlled Demolition:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A&feature=player_embedded]WTC-7 CD-style Implosion[/ame]

This is still a video clip of WTC-7 imploding into its own footprint 'and' Gam has not even begun to make any "Building Fires Did It" Case. The massive skyscraper includes *thousands of 2800-degree red-iron support connections* (pic) that had to be 'cut' in order for the entire structure to collapse CD-style into its own footprint for which Gam has 'no' explanation whatsoever. Here is just one of many problems with your "Building Fires Did It" hypothesis for this WTC-7 Case:

Click Here

This picture shows the aftermath of WTC-1 also collapsing CD-style into its own footprint with WTC-7 standing tall 'above' the *"expanding pyroclastic dust clouds"* (#5 here). Most people fail to realize that WTC-7 stood* 350 feet 'away' from WTC-1* . . . 






. . . so go right ahead and explain how *'Building Fires Did It'* in the first place. Gam is quick to point out that the penthouse collapsed 'before' the main WTC-7 structure. Okay. Fine. So how does that happen when WTC-7 is 350 feet away and we can see that nothing struck the upper floors of the 47-story skyscraper? The obvious answer is that WTC-7 was wired for implosion, which has been my explanation from day one. The fact that Gam has managed to locate two minor errors in my CD Explanation in NO WAY makes his *"Building Fires Did It" Case*. 

Yes. Gam is having lots of fun, because only one side of this deliberation process is taking these 911Truth Topics seriously. Gam still has no precedent for building fires causing the CD-style collapse of any steel-frame skyscraper in the history of this planet, so my side of this debate will have the last laugh . . . 

GL,

Terral


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 30, 2009)

Terral said:


> Gam is quick to point out that the penthouse collapsed 'before' the main WTC-7 structure. Okay. Fine. So how does that happen when WTC-7 is 350 feet away and we can see that nothing struck the upper floors of the 47-story skyscraper?



I'll make this as simple as I can Terral. Let's discuss one aspect of a the structural system of a building. Do you understand what loads are? Do you understand how loads are distributed throughout a structure so that the weight load is not carried by one individual columns or beam, but by ALL the columns and beams?

Here's an example. Do you know how some companies have team building exercises? Some of them have one person lay on their backs on the ground and have, for example, 10 people surround that person, put two fingers from each hand underneath them and then lift them up? After that, let's knock that number down to five people and try it again. Do you think that each of the five people will have to lift more weight per person than when they had 10 people? Let's get only one person. What then?

Now, if you have columns connected by beams, this helps distribute the load to the other columns. If you start breaking connections of those beam to other columns, you start to overload single columns.

Now throw in the fact the the column/s are being heated from the office fires. They don't have to be heated to melting to be affected. Steel starts to lose it's strength at 650F. As the temperature rises, the steel continues to lose more of it's strength.

So through thermal expansion of the fires breaking connections throughout the system, fires lessening the support strength of the steel columns, what do you expect to happen?

If a steel column loses 80%-90% of it's strength at 1000F, what happens as it tried to support the load it was designed for? You said yourself that office fires reach temps of 800F-1000F. So steel does NOT need to melt to fail.

If the building was NOT on fire, where was all the smoke coming from?

Your claim that heat races to colder parts of the structure meaning that no steel beam or column would reach strength-lessening temperatures is completely stupid because there was a CONSTANT heat source in the office fire. If your statement were true then things I've seen in steel mills never happened. I have never seen a crane clamp lifting a bright red steel slab fresh from a furnace, turn red due to your "FAST HEAT CONDUCTION" crap. I have never seen rollers in a slab mill turn red due to your "FAST HEAT CONDUCTION" crap.

If you apply a constant heat source to one area of steel, it's going to heat up. It's not going to quickly dissipate. That's why they INSULATE STEEL to begin with. 

Even if that DID insulate the steel, did the also insulate the connections to make sure those weren't affected by heat? 

Tell me why, based on your HEAT CONDUCTION crap, this crane clamp isn't red by now if heat transfers as quick as you say.


----------



## eots (Oct 30, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



it is called summer solstice asshole...and you should really take your own advice

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCDs9Vs2iYM&feature=PlayList&p=0C2DC872418785BF&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=7]YouTube - 1981 News report about Bohemian grove[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPb-PN9F2Pc]YouTube - Nixon Tape Discusses Homosexuals at Bohemian Grove[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 30, 2009)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


damn, Nixon was paranoid about just about EVERYONE
big deal

and the summer solstice is in JUNE


----------



## eots (Oct 30, 2009)

i liker how you dismiss it with a stupid Nixon comment and ignore the second  1981 NBC piece that is many of the participants and that they preform ceremonies..you can be of the opinion this is of no spiritual relevance and is just some strange and gay way of entertainment but it is pure denial not to 
acknowledge the fact the world elite including presidents gather every year at the grove and preform pagan rituals to ancient deities


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 30, 2009)

eots said:


> i liker how you dismiss it with a stupid Nixon comment and ignore the second  1981 NBC piece that is many of the participants and that they preform ceremonies..you can be of the opinion this is of no spiritual relevance and is just some strange and gay way of entertainment but it is pure denial not to
> acknowledge the fact the world elite including presidents gather every year at the grove and preform pagan rituals to ancient deities


Nixon was the second one
and the first one wouldn't load when i responded


----------



## eots (Oct 30, 2009)

well  it pretty much answers Ollie's misinformed belief that the grove and the ceremony is not a fact


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 30, 2009)

eots said:


> well  it pretty much answers Ollie's misinformed belief that the grove and the ceremony is not a fact


ok, i gave it a watch, nothing in it backs your take on it
LOL
you fail once again
its a SUMMER CAMP

OMG who ever heard of such a thing


----------



## eots (Oct 30, 2009)

a summer camp of sodomy ..and pagan ceremonies..preformed by grown men of major power and influence type summer camp ?


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 30, 2009)

eots said:


> a summer camp of sodomy ..and pagan ceremonies..preformed by grown men of major power and influence type summer camp ?


and again, your video didnt say anything about all that
thats just more alex jones bullshit lies


----------



## eots (Oct 31, 2009)

you are the poster boy of denial


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHFoUZEjuNM]YouTube - Alex Jones asks David Gergen about Bohemian Grove Rituals[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 31, 2009)

SEE!!!!^^^^ 

Alex Jones


----------



## eots (Oct 31, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> SEE!!!!^^^^
> 
> Alex Jones



yes and david gergen and Alex ask honest questions and gergen is evasive and lies ..he does not deny any of it he just goes on a spin about respect..he does not say there is no such ceremony.. he says..it is none of your dam business..it is very clear in this exchange who is honest and who is deceitful and has something to hide..your blah blah Alex Jones routine is just a diversion from these facts


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 31, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > SEE!!!!^^^^
> ...


saying "none of your damn business" is not saying there ARE those things going on either, fucking idiot


----------



## eots (Oct 31, 2009)

no one is denying the idols at the grove or the rituals preformed..not even gergen.. it has been in existence a long time and was a favorite retreat for Goering before the war and he wrote of its spiritual roots and ceremonies there are many pictures of the ceremonies from the early 1900s up to the alex Jones film all basically the same and there have been all kinds of reports of rampant homosexuality other than  from Nixon  and in fact gergen even touched on it in his statement to the washington post..the only thing open for debate is its significance..if your consider it morally corrupt and hypocritical or just some demented good fun for the good old boys..no harm done


----------



## Trojan (Oct 31, 2009)

Terral said:


> Greetings to All:
> 
> All of the evidence points directly to inside-job terrorists taking down WTC-7 by Controlled Demolition on 9/11.



More lies

All the evidence?

All of it?

If something goes against your belief, does it become non-evidence by the wave of some magic wand?

Terral - is English a second language for you?

Do you know what evidence is?  Who gave you the power to decide what is or is not evidence?  What rules of law apply here?  Do you even care about the law?


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 20, 2009)

Terral, since this is YOUR thread about YOUR theory and how you know for a FACT that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition using thermite, please explain this contradiction to me. 

You claim that thermite signatures/thermite froth are everywhere. In this photo you say that the columns have been cut by thermite yet annotate the same photo to say that there is no signs of burns or melting anywhere on the columns/beams.










Care to address this? Why do you debunk your own claim in the same photo?


----------



## Terral (Nov 20, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> Care to address this? Why do you debunk your own claim in the same photo?



See what I mean? The Govt Stooge cool HAS NO *"Building Fires Did It"* Case.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2THs3oNooM"]What A MORON!!![/ame]

If anybody wants to swallow this moron's STUPID *"Building Fires Did It"* conclusions (#9), then go right ahead . . . 

GL,

Terral


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 20, 2009)

Terral debunks his "thermite severed columns" claim with his own annotation and is too much of a coward to address this major mistake.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 20, 2009)

Again, using any type of destruction devises on Building 7 does not fit in with any viable theories for the rest of the destruction that day.


----------



## eots (Nov 20, 2009)

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

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


Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11, signed by more than 950 Architects and Engineers: 

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







*Larry L. Erickson, MS, PhD*

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


*"Serious technical investigations by experts seem to be lacking from the official explanations." * AE911Truth 





*Robert H. Waser, BS ME, MS ME, PE  Retired Research and Development Engineer, U.S. Naval Ordinance Lab. 33 year career*, of which 15 years were as Chief Engineer of the laboratory's wind tunnel complex, which includes the world's largest hypervelocity wind tunnel.  Retired Licensed Professional Engineer, State of Maryland. 
Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition: 

*"The 'official' 9/11 story seems to violate laws of physics and engineering analysis*, specifically with respect to the *collapse speed* and the *temperatures of molten iron*.  The only explanation that seems to be in accordance *with all observations is controlled demolition."  *AE911Truth

Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11, signed by more than 950 Architects and Engineers:  



*Bogdan Dzakovic * *Witness before the 9/11 Commission.*  14-year Counter-terrorism expert in the Security Division of the Federal Aviation Administration. *Team Leader of the FAA's Red (Terrorism*) Team, which conducted undercover tests on airport security through simulated terrorist attacks.  *Former Team Leader in the Federal Air Marshal program*.  Former Coast Guard officer.

Video transcript 8/21/05 : Regarding the 9/11 Commission "*The best I could say about it is they really botched the job by not really going into the real failures.  At worst, I think the 9/11 Commission Report is treasonous."* 


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


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 20, 2009)

eots said:


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



Can you show me one photo/video of these MASSIVE structural members being hurled HORIZONTALLY?

Can you show me how thermite could HURL these MASSIVE STRUCTURAL MEMBERS HORIZONTALLY?

Do you realize that your BRILLIANT AEROSPACE ENGINEER says there was PYROCLASTIC CLOUD in an area where there was NO VOLCANIC activity? 

Can you show me accounts of people scorched and trees burned that were enveloped in this PYROCLASTIC CLOUD?


----------



## Terral (Nov 20, 2009)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> Can you show me one photo/video of these MASSIVE structural members being hurled HORIZONTALLY?



No. My *"WTC-7 Controlled Demolition"* argument has been made to 'my' complete satisfaction in the *Opening Post* (link) and subsequent posts. Those of you wanting to believe that *"Building Fires Did It"* cuckoo help to prove my other thesis *'true'* (#9) with your unbelievable nonsense and stupidity.

GL,

Terral


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 20, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That was asked of eots, not you moron.

I can understand how it is to your complete satisfaction though. With all the mistakes, lies, and contradictions in it. 

Fits you "truthers" perfectly.


----------



## eots (Nov 20, 2009)

Pyroclastic material is a class of materials including ash, cinders and pumice.
www.

pyroclastic Literally, fire-broken. Applied to volcanic rocks consisting of fragmented particles, *generally produced by explosive action.*siskiyous.edu/shasta/env/ecotype/glo.htm

*
Pieces of Bone Are Found on Building at 9/11 Site *
Sign In to E-Mail This Print Reprints Save  By JIM DWYER
Published: April 6, 2006


A crew of demolition workers discovered *74 **bone fragments near *the World Trade Center site over the weekend, the largest number of remains found since the end of recovery operations nearly three years ago and a sign that significant quantities of *human remains may have gone unnoticed in sporadic searches over the years.*

Most of the fragments were _found mixed among roof ballast  gravel _ that had been raked to the perimeters of the* roof *of the condemned Deutsche Bank building, officials said. The building, at 130 Liberty Street, stands just *south of where the twin towers once loomed*, and intensive work began there last month to prepare for its demolition. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/nyregion/06remains.html

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4i93qOBT70k&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBVhxnkK6s8[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 20, 2009)

eots said:


> Pyroclastic material is a class of materials including ash, cinders and pumice.
> www.
> 
> pyroclastic Literally, fire-broken. Applied to volcanic rocks consisting of fragmented particles, *generally produced by explosive action.*siskiyous.edu/shasta/env/ecotype/glo.htm
> ...


that just proves that the debris followed the path of LEAST resistance
nothing more


----------



## eots (Nov 20, 2009)

the path of least resistance for bone fragments is to be hurled 1000s of feet horezontaly and gaint beams to fly outward and embedding themselves in near by buildings ...how were these bone fragments created and what force scattered them across roof tops ?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 20, 2009)

eots said:


> the path of least resistance for bone fragments is to be hurled 1000s of feet horezontaly and gaint beams to fly outward and embedding themselves in near by buildings ...how were these bone fragments created and what force scattered them across roof tops ?



The force of Hundreds of thousands of tons of steel, plasterboard, office machines, furniture, etc etc etc


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 20, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > the path of least resistance for bone fragments is to be hurled 1000s of feet horezontaly and gaint beams to fly outward and embedding themselves in near by buildings ...how were these bone fragments created and what force scattered them across roof tops ?
> ...


eots doesnt think logically


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...




I think most of us have figured that out.


----------



## eots (Nov 20, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > the path of least resistance for bone fragments is to be hurled 1000s of feet horezontaly and gaint beams to fly outward and embedding themselves in near by buildings ...how were these bone fragments created and what force scattered them across roof tops ?
> ...



then these bodys should of been crushed like pancakes not blown into bone fragments and sent flying thousands of feet horizontally


----------



## eots (Nov 20, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



who is _most of us_ ? you and the rest of the flat earthers...moron


----------



## Fizz (Nov 20, 2009)

i'm wondering how a "controlled demolition" creates a bulge from the 10th to 13th floors over two hours before it happens.

i'm also wondering how a controlled demolition causes creaking and groaning sounds hours before the controlled demolition happens.

in order for your controlled demolition theory to be valid at all these need to be accounted for first. otherwise, your controlled demolition theory fails miserably.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 20, 2009)

Fizz said:


> i'm wondering how a "controlled demolition" creates a bulge from the 10th to 13th floors over two hours before it happens.
> 
> i'm also wondering how a controlled demolition causes creaking and groaning sounds hours before the controlled demolition happens.
> 
> in order for your controlled demolition theory to be valid at all these need to be accounted for first. otherwise, your controlled demolition theory fails miserably.


stop using logic, troofers cant handle that


----------



## Modbert (Nov 20, 2009)

Hasn't this horse been beaten to death enough already that it was sent to the glue factory and is currently sitting on my desk?


----------



## MrDiverse (Nov 20, 2009)

Great job Terra.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 20, 2009)

MrDiverse said:


> Great job Terra.


yes, great job terral, at proving what delusional fucks you troofers are


----------



## Modbert (Nov 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> yes, great job terral, at proving what delusional fucks you troofers are



The troof is out there. *Cue music*


----------



## eots (Nov 20, 2009)

Fizz said:


> i'm wondering how a "controlled demolition" creates a bulge from the 10th to 13th floors over two hours before it happens.
> 
> i'm also wondering how a controlled demolition causes creaking and groaning sounds hours before the controlled demolition happens.
> 
> in order for your controlled demolition theory to be valid at all these need to be accounted for first. otherwise, your controlled demolition theory fails miserably.



if you speaking of wtc 7 although I am aware that a fire chief gave an account to popular mechanics about bulging and creaking .. there are however many more first responder reports of no such noises or instability and of explosions

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfiLbXMa64[/ame]

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

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXD3bAbZCow&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## eots (Nov 20, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > yes, great job terral, at proving what delusional fucks you troofers are
> ...



I see your television .._programing... _has been successful and it has become your point of relativity and now shapes and forms your opinions for you...congratulations


----------



## Fizz (Nov 21, 2009)

eots said:


> if you speaking of wtc 7 although I am aware that a fire chief gave an account to popular mechanics about bulging and creaking .. there are however many more first responder reports of no such noises or instability and of explosions



you are hilarious, dude. you just provided a video in which a guy describes being on the 8th floor of WTC7 and hearing an explosion.

this guy apparently lived (i think we can agree on that).

so you are saying that a controlled demolition collapsed building seven but allowed enough time for people to escape?

seriously, do you have ANYTHING that refutes reports of the building bulging from the 10th to the 13th floors for up to two hours before your controlled demolition is supposed to have taken place?


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 21, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > if you speaking of wtc 7 although I am aware that a fire chief gave an account to popular mechanics about bulging and creaking .. there are however many more first responder reports of no such noises or instability and of explosions
> ...


the building had been evacuated for HOURS before it collapsed
so hearing an "explosion" at that time could have been ANYTHING from a CRT to a battery backup to even a refrigerator(the expansion tanks for the refrigerant)


----------



## Modbert (Nov 21, 2009)

Dive, I have to ask, what kind of pleasure do you receive from this?


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 21, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Dive, I have to ask, what kind of pleasure do you receive from this?


you actually have to ask?


----------



## Modbert (Nov 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> you actually have to ask?



No, but it's just so much more amusing to do so.

You in this thread just remind me of the one guy at the Carnival who wouldn't stop playing the whack-a-mole machine. 

And I say that with deep respect.


----------



## eots (Nov 21, 2009)

Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NIST&#8217;s failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. &#8220;And that building was not hit by anything,&#8221; noted Dr. Quintiere. &#8220;It&#8217;s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!&#8221;
OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## eots (Nov 21, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > if you speaking of wtc 7 although I am aware that a fire chief gave an account to popular mechanics about bulging and creaking .. there are however many more first responder reports of no such noises or instability and of explosions
> ...




he was trapped in he building for hours so what about this supposed raging inferno and if the building was bulging on the 13Th floor why did the collapse initiate with the penthouse then collapse in a controlled fashion



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STbD9XMCOho&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## eots (Nov 21, 2009)

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy*, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. *Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.  
WTC7.net the hidden story of Building 7: FEMA's WTC Building Performance Study


----------



## Fizz (Nov 21, 2009)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > you are hilarious, dude. you just provided a video in which a guy describes being on the 8th floor of WTC7 and hearing an explosion.
> ...



there is no "if" in the building was bulging from the 10th to 13th floors. how does your demolition theory account for that? asking why the collapse started at the penthouse (it didnt, but i will argue that point later) does not explain why there was a bulge in the building from the 10th to 13th floors. if you wish to argue your point then please address. you replying that a guy was trapped for hours in a building by a raging fire actually helps my point and hurts yours. after you answer the bulge question we can ask how it is possible for demolition experts to run through a huge building in a raging inferno and set explosive demolition charges but first you need to answer the simple question...

again i ask you, HOW DOES A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION CREATE A BULGE IN THE 10th TO 13th FLOORS HOURS BEFORE THE DEMOLITION TAKES PLACE?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 21, 2009)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



this video pretty much ends the debate and proves explosives brought the towers down.of course the Bush dupes wont watch it since they only see what they WANT to see.this video is the smoking gun they cant get around.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 21, 2009)

since this thread is the TRUTH and I havent posted this post here on this thread yet,I will do so now.this post is WHY this whole discussion is irrelevent and mute cause knowing THESE facts below,only a moron would STILL defend the official version that the fires caused the collapse of the buildings lol. You all STILL going to make yourselfs look like morons saying it wasnt a controlled demolition? lol. psyche op agents candycorn,sfc ollie,gam and ditzcon will since thats what their paid to do,how bout the rest of you Bush/Obama dupes? lol.

QUOTE=9/11 inside job;1677848]
I think you MEANT to say his job is to prove that it didnt collapse CD style in its own footprint Terral? which of of course the Bush dupe cant do that.He has made pathetic attempts to convince us that it didnt fall at 6.5 seconds freefall speed to no avail and also satalite photos taken a week after the towers collapsed showed heat temperatures still going with temps that were far too hot and intense to be office fires.

the fires had been hosed down everyday for that whole week.so much so one firefighter said it was like a lake because  there was so much water sprayed down on the fires.impossible for office fires to STILL be burning at that point.

However molten metal which many rescue workers spotted underneath all three towers at the bottom of the towers which was still burning despite all the fires put on it,IS a consistant sign of thermite.Not to mention that 7 of the most renowed scientists discovered through samples taken that nano thermite was found. office fires would have been put out several days ago being  thermite though and molten metal still burning at high intense temps after that period of time days later is consistant with explosives being used.which pretty much ends this debate and why this whole discussion is mute at this point. this is also a smoking gun they cant get around.


----------



## Terral (Nov 21, 2009)

Hi Fizz with Gam mentioned:

OMG! We have yet another *"Official Cover Story" Operative *working this USMB Board! 



Fizz said:


> there is no "if" in the building was bulging from the 10th to 13th floors. how does your demolition theory account for that?



Gam has an *Official "Building Fires Did It" Cover Story partner* who really thinks that asking a myriad of STUPID QUESTIONS makes his case. Here is what you do Mr. Fizz: Write a sufficient number of "I'm a newb" posts, until you can post links like everybody else. Then, start your "Building Fires Brought Down WTC-7" Topic and show us 'your' evidence to support that silly hypothesis. BTW, the Controlled Demolition Explanation (my Topic) appears at AE911Truth.org if anybody is interested. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A&feature=player_embedded]WTC-7 Controlled Demolition Implosion[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo]WTC-7 Side-By-Side Controlled Demolition Implosion[/ame]



Fizz said:


> asking why the collapse started at the penthouse (it didnt, but i will argue that point later) does not explain why there was a bulge in the building from the 10th to 13th floors.



Hey Fizz! There are only 'two' (count them) explanations for what took WTC-7 down in 6.6 seconds:

1. Controlled Demolition. << The ONLY Answer That Makes Sense (#3)
2. Building Fires/Debris. << Official Govt Cover Story LIE

Asking stupid questions cuckoo is merely asking stupid questions, so please start 'your' Building Fires Did It Topic ASAP. We all need a good laugh . . . 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2THs3oNooM]The DoD Sent Gam Some Disinfo Agent Assistance ...[/ame]

BTW, most Americans will believe just about anything (#9) . . . 

GL,

Terral


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 21, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Fizz with Gam mentioned:
> 
> OMG! We have yet another *"Official Cover Story" Operative *working this USMB Board!
> 
> ...




these government plants keep coming in by the droves.they are really getting desperate now to coverup the truth.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 21, 2009)

i see. i must be a government plant now!! 

we arent allowed to critisize theories NOT supplied by the government. we can only critisize theories that are supplied by the government. is that what is going on here?

it's actually a really simple question. i dont know why nobody can answer it. if the buildings were brought down by explosives then why was there a bulge in the building reported between the 10th and 13th floors hours before?

i'm trying to be open minded but this really needs to be addressed before i can believe that the collapse was caused by explosives. there are problems with the governments version and there are problems with the explosives version. right now neither one seems right to me. the title of the thread states that it was an inside job. so i am asking for some simple proof of the claim.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 21, 2009)

Fizz said:


> i see. i must be a government plant now!!
> 
> we arent allowed to critisize theories NOT supplied by the government. we can only critisize theories that are supplied by the government. is that what is going on here?
> 
> ...


anyone that doesnt buy into their delusions is a government agent

LOL


----------



## eots (Nov 21, 2009)

> i see. i must be a government plant now!!
> 
> we arent allowed to critisize theories NOT supplied by the government. we can only critisize theories that are supplied by the government. is that what is going on here?
> 
> ...



Nist  says that building fires caused the collapse of wtc 7...can you provide a link for NIST  that states this bulge was confirmed or plays a significant role in their collapse theory ?

NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, 08/21/08



Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NIST&#8217;s failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. &#8220;And that building was not hit by anything,&#8221; noted Dr. Quintiere. &#8220;It&#8217;s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!&#8221;

NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that. 


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


----------



## Fizz (Nov 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> anyone that doesnt buy into their delusions is a government agent
> 
> LOL



the funny part is that last week i was out near area51 taking pictures of aircraft flying around. the government wasnt too happy i was there and i got buzzed a few times. the people accusing me of being a government plant couldnt be further from the truth!!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 21, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



A video of one person making a statement is proof of nothing.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 21, 2009)

eots said:


> > i see. i must be a government plant now!!
> >
> > we arent allowed to critisize theories NOT supplied by the government. we can only critisize theories that are supplied by the government. is that what is going on here?
> >
> ...


why do you LIE so much
they never say "fire alone"


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > > i see. i must be a government plant now!!
> ...



Also this good Doctor says that WTC 7 was not hit by anything.......Is he blind, stupid, or both?


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 21, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


well, a 110 story building is nothing, isnt it?


----------



## eots (Nov 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > > i see. i must be a government plant now!!
> ...



can you provide a link from NIST  that shows this bulge and were it is included in collapse  model simulations ?


----------



## eots (Nov 21, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



he was the lead fire investigator at nist until 2007 and the person responsible for the thermal expansion theory you expound so...is he blind ..stupid or both ?


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 21, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


LOL
you dont even read your own links


----------



## eots (Nov 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



so what you are saying is no you can not provide confermation of your claim and show were the bulge is included in the Nist collapse simulation or is considered a significant factor ?


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 21, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


NO, i'm saying you are too fucking stupid to read your own fucking links because that link DID confirm it you fucking IDIOT


----------



## eots (Nov 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



then why dont you provide it ?


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 21, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


YOU posted the fucking link asshole
why dont YOU just go READ IT


----------



## kyzr (Nov 21, 2009)

I have a question for the conspiracy nuts.
If there was a controlled demolition of the WTC Towers and/or the WTC-7 et.al how can anyone explain that a "controlled demolition" requires a lot of prep work,  They need to pre-cut steel columns, place charges, and then string miles of wires to a detonator.  There is no way any sane person could think that anything but the 757 jets traveling at 500mph caused the collapses by having so much debris fall from 1350' up.  Thats a lot of steel falling doing lots of damage.
It was the terror attack, not faeries planting invisible explosives and miles of invisible wire.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 21, 2009)

kyzr said:


> I have a question for the conspiracy nuts.
> If there was a controlled demolition of the WTC Towers and/or the WTC-7 et.al how can anyone explain that a "controlled demolition" requires a lot of prep work,  They need to pre-cut steel columns, place charges, and then string miles of wires to a detonator.  There is no way any sane person could think that anything but the 757 jets traveling at 500mph caused the collapses by having so much debris fall from 1350' up.  Thats a lot of steel falling doing lots of damage.
> It was the terror attack, not faeries planting invisible explosives and miles of invisible wire.


/putting on tin foil

they used super secret wireless detonators and ultra super secret thermite paint

/taking off tin foil


see, its easy if you try

LOL


----------



## eots (Nov 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



really...I must of missed that would you care to post it


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 21, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


so you can ignore it once again?

why bother
you seriously need to seek out professional help for what ever deficiency it is that causes you to believe all these fucking conspiracies


----------



## eots (Nov 21, 2009)

kyzr said:


> I have a question for the conspiracy nuts.
> If there was a controlled demolition of the WTC Towers and/or the WTC-7 et.al how can anyone explain that a "controlled demolition" requires a lot of prep work,  They need to pre-cut steel columns, place charges, and then string miles of wires to a detonator.  There is no way any sane person could think that anything but the 757 jets traveling at 500mph caused the collapses by having so much debris fall from 1350' up.  Thats a lot of steel falling doing lots of damage.
> It was the terror attack, not faeries planting invisible explosives and miles of invisible wire.



according to demolition experts the wtc could be done in a day with approx twenty men
and the planning could of been done far in advance and there would of been bits of wire of every description the wtc.. the crime scene was not treated as such and almost all evidence was destroyed and your inane belief that the experts featured at this site are somehow intellectually challenged is ludicrous



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


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc[/ame]


----------



## eots (Nov 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



what a weasel.. whats the problem ...cant support your lies ??


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 22, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


you are the one lying'


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 22, 2009)

eots said:


> kyzr said:
> 
> 
> > I have a question for the conspiracy nuts.
> ...


BULLSHIT
it would take MONTHS
who ever said that is either a fucking liar or totally insane or BOTH


----------



## eots (Nov 22, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > kyzr said:
> ...



or he is the owner of one of europe's largest demolition firms


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 22, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


SURE he is


----------



## eots (Nov 22, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



really ??? ...you see that's what you deniers do...you talk of building damage..pancake collapses..diesel fuel generators ..all this stuff rejected by NIST and propagated through things like popular mechanics ...they are not even well versed in the official lies they support    
NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse
Report and Recommendations for Improving Building Safety Released for Comment

August 21, 2008


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

Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but *otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings*, caused an *extraordinary event*, said NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder. Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating *a fire-induced progressive collapse *that brought the building down. 


Shyam Sunder, NIST lead investigator, answers questions at a news briefing on August 21 about NIST's three-year study of the collapse of World Trade Center 7.



Video and photographic evidence combined with *detailed computer simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oil fires played a role in the collapse of WTC 7,* Sunder said. The NIST investigation team also determined that other elements of the buildings constructionnamely trusses, girders and cantilever overhangs that were used to transfer loads from the building superstructure to the columns of the electric substation (over which WTC 7 was constructed) and foundation below*did not play a significant role in the collapse.*
According to the report, a *key factor leading to the eventual collapse of WTC 7 was thermal expansion* of long-span floor systems at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings." WTC 7 used a structural system design in widespread use. 

Citing its one new recommendation (the other 12 are reiterated from the previously completed investigation of the World Trade Center towers, WTC 1 and 2), the NIST investigation team said that *while the partial or total collapse of a tall building due to fires is a **rare event*, we strongly urge building owners, operators and designers to evaluate buildings to ensure the adequate fire performance of the structural system. Of particular concern are the effects of thermal expansion in buildings with one or more of the following features: long-span floor systems, connections not designed for thermal effects, asymmetric floor framing and/or composite floor systems. Engineers, the team said, should be able to design cost-effective fixes to address any areas of concern identified by such evaluations.


NIST found that the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7, and the fires burned out of control on six lower floors. The heat from these uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors. Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical interior column that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building. The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the fifth floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of the critical column. This collapse of floors left the critical column unsupported over nine stories. 

When this critical column buckled due to lack of floor supports, it was the first domino in the chain, Sunder explained. What followed in rapid succession was a progression of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof lineinvolving all three interior columns on the most eastern side of the building. Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns in the core of the building failed. Finally, the entire façade collapsed.



Diagram 1Typical WTC 7 floor showing locations of columns (numbered). The buckling of Column 79 was the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7. The buckling resulted from fire-induced damage to floors around Column 79, failure of the girder between Columns 44 and 79, and cascading floor failures. [Download high-res version]

The investigation team considered the possibility of other factors playing a role in the collapse of WTC 7, including the possible use of explosives, fires fed by the fuel supply tanks in and under the building, and damage from the falling debris of WTC 1. 

The team said that the smallest blast event capable of crippling the critical column would have produced a sound level of 130 to 140 decibels at a distance of half a mile, yet no noise this loud was reported by witnesses or recorded on videos. 

*As for fuel fires,* the team found that they *could not* have been sustained long enough, *could not have generated sufficient heat *to fail a critical column, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from Floors 5 and 6, which was not observed. 

* Finally, the report notes that while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7. *

NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, 08/21/08

*fucking moron*....


----------



## Fizz (Nov 22, 2009)

eots said:


> according to demolition experts the wtc could be done in a day with approx twenty men and the planning could of been done far in advance and there would of been bits of wire of every description the wtc.. the crime scene was not treated as such and almost all evidence was destroyed and your inane belief that the experts featured at this site are somehow intellectually challenged is ludicrous]



COULD is not the same as DID. 

but even assuming that they only needed the ridiculous amount of only a day's work (and there is no way that is true but let's go with it for a moment) they didnt have that much time. the building was occupied and had people in it until the collapse of the towers. that means they only had six or seven hours. how many witnesses do you have that 20 guys were wiring the building for explosives? none.

obviously your statement that the crime scene was not treated as such is being made by someone that was never there.

but again, we are getting ahead of ourselves. you cant answer this simple question. how does a controlled demolition cause a building to bulge from the 10th to 13th floors HOURS before the demolition? how is that possible? please explain. dont change the subject. dont ask whether the bulge has been proven to affect the collapse. that isnt the question. the question is how a controlled demolition creates a bulge hours before the demolition. if you are going to defend your stance that it was a controlled demolition this really needs to be explained.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 22, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


yes, you ARE a fucking moron


----------



## eots (Nov 22, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > according to demolition experts the wtc could be done in a day with approx twenty men and the planning could of been done far in advance and there would of been bits of wire of every description the wtc.. the crime scene was not treated as such and almost all evidence was destroyed and your inane belief that the experts featured at this site are somehow intellectually challenged is ludicrous]
> ...


*

try reading the NIST REPORT  and stop quoting popular mechanics myths*


*Finally, the report notes that &#8220;while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7.&#8221; *


----------



## eots (Nov 22, 2009)

> obviously your statement that the crime scene was not treated as such is being made by someone that was never there


.

Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?

Former Chief of NIST's       James Quintiere, Ph.D

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


----------



## Fizz (Nov 22, 2009)

eots said:


> try reading the NIST REPORT  and stop quoting popular mechanics myths[/B]



let me just get a clear confirmation of your position. you are saying that there was no bulge between the 10th and the 13 floors and it is all a myth?? it wasnt there. there were no witnesses. zip. zilch. nada?


(please say yes and prove to us what an idiot you really are)


----------



## Terral (Nov 22, 2009)

Hi Eots with Mr. Fizz mentioned:



Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > try reading the NIST REPORT  and stop quoting popular mechanics myths[/b]
> ...



The idiots are trying to prove by innuendo (they have NO CASE) that WTC-7 came crashing down into its own footprint at free fall speed ...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A"]Mr. Fizz Says 'This' Happened From Building Fires[/ame]

...from building fires. Okay, Mr. Fizz. Please provide 'your' precedent for any modern-day skyscraper collapsing CD-style into its own footprint from building fires! Then explain why this ...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo"]This Is Obviously A Controlled Demolition Implosion[/ame]

... cannot possibly be caused by *Controlled Demolition* (AE911Truth.org). Mr. Fizz (and Gam) believes in his heart of hearts that this cannot possibly be *"Controlled Demolition"* . . .







. . BECAUSE????

Here is 'the 911Truth' about this Mr. Fizz and this Mr. Gam Official Cover Story Stooges cool:): Neither of these cartoon characters have written any thesis paper proving that *"WTC-7 Collapsed From Building Fires"* 'and' they never will. These guys are here to run diversion for the Official Govt Cover Stories, which means doing little more than throwing stones at real 911Truthers (like me) and throwing a ton of dust into the air to deliberately confuse these USMB readers. Mr. Fizz obviously thinks that we are idiots, even though I am likely the *most qualified USMB member* (#3) to write on these WTC Topics. Here are the facts:






WTC-7 stood about 350 feet 'away' from WTC-1, which collapsed straight down into its own footprint.

Click Here For WTC-7 Photograph

You can see by the evidence in this photograph that the upper half of WTC-7 is standing 'above' the debris coming from the WTC-1 implosion!!!! There is simply NO WAY that any WTC-1 or any WTC-2 debris caused fires in the upper half of WTC-7!!! There is no way that any fires were created on the WTC-7 side facing 'away' from the Twin Towers.






You cannot see any signs of 'fire' through any of the unbroken windows! Zip, zero, nada, NONE. And yet, just a few minutes later and we see this:






Note the telltale 'Kink' in the roof line saying that the center columns were blown out first, so the outside walls could collapse 'inward' during the 'Controlled Demolition' Process.






Now look at the little pile that MUST include the 'cutting' of thousands of massive red-iron girders, columns and beams!!! How did all the columns and beams in the 'upper half' of the skyscraper get 'cut,' so that WTC-7 collapsed into this neat little pile??? Gam and his Mr. Fizz partner have no answers 'and' they actually think that asking a ton of stupid questions is going to make their "Building Fires Did It" Case! 

All I see is a couple of Govt Stooges whining and complaining and throwing a lot of Official Cover Story Dust into the air, because they have NO "Building Fires Did It" Case at all. 

Watch The Short WTC-7 Implosion Video And Decide For Yourself

However, if anyone here wishes to follow in their Official Govt Stooge stupidity, then thanks for proving my thesis to be 100 percent accurate (#9) . . . 

GL,

Terral


----------



## eots (Nov 22, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > try reading the NIST REPORT  and stop quoting popular mechanics myths[/B]
> ...



there are accounts of first responders of a bulge there are other reports from first responders that say the building was stable and made no sounds...my position is simply the facts..as of 2007 the lead fire investigator at NIST had seen no testimony..pictures or detailed descriptions of the damage..it is not included in the NIST computer models as was determined to have played no significant role in the collapse..that building fires ALONE caused the collapse...so please dispute these facts that are a matter of public record and prove to me what an idiot you are


----------



## eots (Nov 22, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjykKWWEs3w[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 22, 2009)

eots said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjykKWWEs3w



What is that? A whole 6 stories? whoopee.......


----------



## eots (Nov 22, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjykKWWEs3w
> ...



ever heard of a scale model ..so in your limited intellect you believe the size of the structure is relevant ? are you implying that NIST considers the size of the building a contributing factor in the collapse ???...can you explain how that works ??


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 22, 2009)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...




I do not claim to be an expert in construction of anything other than a signal tower. I have supervised construction of them up to 185 ft. And I do know this much, The higher up we would go the bigger the chance of a weak link near the bottom failing because of the weight. Now using common sense a 6 story building subjected to the same type of damage as a 47 story building does not compare.  But then that's just me and common sense.


----------



## eots (Nov 22, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



well that would only make sense if building 5 had indeed suffered  the same failure as wtc 7 but did not collapse because there was still enough integrity to hold the weight of the building but there was no structural failure in building 5


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 22, 2009)

eots said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjykKWWEs3w


maybe because it was only 6 stories(thus less weight on the structural members) or maybe because none of the structural members had been damaged by the towers fall and it was JUST fire






notice WTC6, the center of the building DID collapse
and it was a shorter building than WTC5
why??
because it had parts of a 110 story building weaken its structural members


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 22, 2009)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


eots, wrong again, what a shock


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 22, 2009)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...




So you finally admit that the damage from the falling towers caused structural damage in WTC7. Very good, you are getting somewhere.


----------



## eots (Nov 22, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dbSt0JDUe4[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl8TfCS2jVM&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th2bnG_7UyY&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNf0jkgwZ90&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oo3oP4aOFw8&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OfXYjutzk0&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## eots (Nov 22, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjykKWWEs3w
> ...



your point is pointless ...yes there was *structural damage *to wtc 6..but it was not caused by *building fires...*building fires are the* sole cause *of the collapse of *wtc 7* and *damage played no significant role in the collapse *according to the NIST REPORT and computer model


----------



## eots (Nov 22, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



it is irrelevant...the facts are that NIST states beyond question that the damage played no role in the collapse and building fires alone were the cause...and for what evr reason photos testimony and detailed analysis of the reported damage was withheld from NIST investigators after repeated request until at least 2007...these are the facts ..deal with them...regardless of your opinion


----------



## Fizz (Nov 22, 2009)

eots said:


> your point is pointless ...yes there was *structural damage *to wtc 6..but it was not caused by *building fires...*building fires are the* sole cause *of the collapse of *wtc 7* and *damage played no significant role in the collapse *according to the NIST REPORT and computer model



ok. now we are getting someplace. i'm going to assume it was a typo and your meant there was structural damage to wtc7, right?

ok. so now there is structural damage to wtc7. in fact there is enough damage to cause 4 stories of the building to bulge. it is unsafe for firefighters to go inside. fires were allowed to continue to burn until they burned themselves out. we agree so far?

so..... speaking of points being completely pointless.... why bother to set off demolitions to bring it down? whats the point? its already got to come down anyway. so whats the rush to get in there and blow it up? why is there a need for an "inside job"? the entire conspiracy theory on wtc7 its just people chasing their own tail. why would the government, or aliens, or zionists, or masons or any other frigging thing you can bother to think of need to secretly set off demolitions when the building needed to come down anyway? WHATS THE POINT?!!!

at the time when there was a bulge in the building and it had become structurally unsound why not just roll up the wrecking ball and take a swing? theres no need for a secret demolition at all. your entire conspiracy theory is COMPLETELY FUCKING POINTLESS!!!!

edit to add---- nevermind. it seems you really did mean building 6. so are you saying there was or there was not structural damage to building 7?


----------



## eots (Nov 22, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > your point is pointless ...yes there was *structural damage *to wtc 6..but it was not caused by *building fires...*building fires are the* sole cause *of the collapse of *wtc 7* and *damage played no significant role in the collapse *according to the NIST REPORT and computer model
> ...


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 22, 2009)

eots said:


> yes but it was deemed irrelevant....* by NIST*


why do you keep falling back on whatever the fuck NIST said
who hear has used their findings as proof other than YOU and that fucking idiot christophera?


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 22, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


WRONG again
a HUGE section of WTC1 fell into WTC7
making a HUGE gash in the south side


----------



## eots (Nov 22, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > yes but it was deemed irrelevant....* by NIST*
> ...



lol...no one...lol.. they all rely on popular mechanics.... and their spawn..lol...and urban legends...there is only the NIST report and the FEMA report for official explanations..
popular mechanics is not considered an official source or investigative body of the government...lmao...hate to break it too you


----------



## Fizz (Nov 22, 2009)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Nov 22, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Nov 22, 2009)

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


----------



## eots (Nov 22, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf52SayA1w8&NR=1[/ame]


----------



## Fizz (Nov 22, 2009)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Nov 22, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 23, 2009)

eots said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf52SayA1w8&NR=1


nothing there supports what you claim


----------



## eots (Nov 23, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf52SayA1w8&NR=1
> ...



it supports the fact the building was not a raging inferno at that point and there were no fires reported prior to the evacuation and that it housed the CIA and a sophisticated emergency response center


----------



## eots (Nov 23, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > yes but it was deemed irrelevant....* by NIST*
> ...



so what divecon is NIST now a troofer moron site as well ??...this has to be your stupidest comment to date and that is saying a lot


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 23, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


it does no such thing


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 23, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


no, but you keep claiming that as a point of debate that NO ONE is making

AKA a STRAWMAN


----------



## eots (Nov 23, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



the official story is a strawman ?...so you don't support the findings of NIST ?
who's findings do you support ? or do you just prefer a hodgepodge of myths..fox news reports a little popular mechanics and what ever else floats across your transom ?


----------



## eots (Nov 23, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



your denial is amazing


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 23, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


not as much as yours


----------



## Fizz (Nov 23, 2009)

eots said:


> who's findings do you support ? or do you just prefer a hodgepodge of myths..fox news reports a little popular mechanics and what ever else floats across your transom ?



actually, i would like to ask you the same thing. who's findings do you support?


----------



## eots (Nov 23, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > who's findings do you support ? or do you just prefer a hodgepodge of myths..fox news reports a little popular mechanics and what ever else floats across your transom ?
> ...



ITS CALLED THE DIVCONSPIRACY THEORY..it basically consist of using the words liar and moron a lot and denial of any facts presented as the opinion of a toofer...


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 23, 2009)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


what an idiot
LOL

you dont present any facts and when confronted with actual facts you fall back on alex jones bullshit videos


----------



## eots (Nov 23, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



but you just stated I _fall back_ on NIST ????..you poor confused little man..so now NIST and alex are in on it together ? in this divconspiracy of yours ???


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 23, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


no i did not
i asked you WHY you are using them when NO ONE has used them as a source but YOU

that is known as a strawman


----------



## eots (Nov 23, 2009)

> why do you keep *falling back on *whatever the fuck NIST said
> nwho hear has used their findings as proof other than YOU and that fucking idiot christophera?



no actually my confused little friend you said *falling back on*...and again you consider citing the NIST report to be a strawman ???...what story do you support ???


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 23, 2009)

eots said:


> > why do you keep *falling back on *whatever the fuck NIST said
> > nwho hear has used their findings as proof other than YOU and that fucking idiot christophera?
> 
> 
> no actually my confused little friend you said *falling back on*...and again you consider citing the NIST report to be a strawman ???...what story do you support ???


which is the same fucking thing moron

and YES< if no one is claiming they support everything the NIST said, then it is a strawman to use it in the debate


----------



## eots (Nov 23, 2009)

divecon are you taking stupid pills or what ? if you do not support the NIST  report the mother of all 
debunking reports from which all others have spawned then what story do you support ? and me citing the official reports in a debate on wtc 7 is hardly a strawman...lol...you should really just fall back on your typing LIAR in all caps to debunk facts before you dig your hole too deep


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 23, 2009)

eots said:


> divecon are you taking stupid pills or what ? if you do not support the NIST  report the mother of all
> debunking reports from which all others have spawned then what story do you support ? and me citing the official reports in a debate on wtc 7 is hardly a strawman...lol...you should really just fall back on your typing LIAR in all caps to debunk facts before you dig your hole too deep


you are the one on the stupid pills
shit
i said, if NO ONE IS SUPPORTING EVERYTHING NIST SAID IT IS A STRASWMAN TO MAKE THAT CLAIM

and thats what you are doing
you are nit picking parts of it and saying that to believe ONE part of what they said means you have to believe ALL of it
stop being such a stupid fucking moron for a CHANGE


----------



## eots (Nov 23, 2009)

> QUOTE Divecon..what an idiot
> LOL
> 
> you dont present any facts and when confronted with actual facts you* fall back* on alex jones bullshit videos





> Quote Divecon
> why do you keep *falling back* on whatever the fuck NIST said who hear has used their findings as proof other than YOU and that fucking idiot christophera?







> QUOTE eots..but you just stated I *fall back *on NIST ????..you poor confused little man..so now NIST and alex are in on it together ? in this divconspiracy of yours ???






> QUOTE Divecon *no i did not*
> i asked you WHY you are using them when NO ONE has used them as a source but YOU
> 
> that is known as a strawman





> QUOTE eots..no actually my confused little friend you said *falling back *on...and again you consider citing the NIST report to be a strawman ???...what story do you support ???






> QUOTE Divecon ,,which is the same fucking thing moron




*lol....*


----------



## eots (Nov 23, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > divecon are you taking stupid pills or what ? if you do not support the NIST  report the mother of all
> ...



A Straswman ?..is that some kind of east Indian holy man er what ?


----------



## eots (Nov 23, 2009)

so you don't feel the nist report is completely correct then..so what parts did they get wrong and how did you determine this and would that not be cause to re-investigate and get it right ?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 23, 2009)

eots said:


> so you don't feel the nist report is completely correct then..so what parts did they get wrong and how did you determine this and would that not be cause to re-investigate and get it right ?




If they ever do a re-investigation, I can only say that your theories will still not be the ones they decide upon as being the truth.


----------



## eots (Nov 23, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > so you don't feel the nist report is completely correct then..so what parts did they get wrong and how did you determine this and would that not be cause to re-investigate and get it right ?
> ...



well that's open minded of you ..but regardless the need for a proper investigation should be evident to anyone


----------



## creativedreams (Nov 23, 2009)

There are countless Engineers and Architects with disturbing statements about 9/11 and the 3 building collapses.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 23, 2009)

And after reading or watching hundreds of them, I can honestly say that with my years of experience in the US Military to include being in a training video on destruction of Comsec Material using Thermite,There were no explosives planted in those buildings.

But that's just my educated opinion.


----------



## eots (Nov 23, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> And after reading or watching hundreds of them, I can honestly say that with my years of experience in the US Military to include being in a training video on destruction of Comsec Material using Thermite,There were no explosives planted in those buildings.
> 
> But that's just my educated opinion.



however there are other high ranking military and government researchers of very disguised service with expertise in explosives and engineering that wholly disagree with your opinion

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


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 23, 2009)

I'm sure there are, But in my world, they no longer count.

We all have opinions, you have yours, I have mine. Yours are based upon BS mine is based upon knowledge, fact, and common sense.


----------



## creativedreams (Nov 23, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> I'm sure there are, But in my world, they no longer count.
> 
> We all have opinions, you have yours, I have mine. Yours are based upon BS mine is based upon knowledge, fact, and common sense.



BOTH my brothers are high ranking military officers......


----------



## eots (Nov 23, 2009)

my father was in the British army Sgt in the paratroop regiment and a murder homicide detective after immigrating ..he shared the opinion of an inside job..he said it the day of the attacks..nothing of this magnitude could occur without complicity and prior knowledge... I  thought he was nuts


----------



## creativedreams (Nov 23, 2009)

eots said:


> my father was in the British army Sgt in the paratroop regiment and a murder homicide detective after immigrating ..he shared the opinion of an inside job..he said it the day of the attacks..nothing of this magnitude could occur without complicity and prior knowledge... I  thought he was nuts



I have an uncle that is well respected in the community. Pillar of the community if you will..

Anyways one day when he was visiting I just brought up the subject on 9/11 without disclosing my views.

WOW...without hesitation he went on to say how and why he believed 9/11 was an inside job!


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 23, 2009)

the apples don't fall far from the tree


----------



## eots (Nov 23, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> the apples don't fall far from the tree



so that would make me the apple from a detective tree and you the apple of ... a moron tree..??


----------



## eots (Nov 24, 2009)

by the way divecon thanks to you I have taken to calling people morons,,,my girlfreind makes some mistake and im all like duh...moron..the other day she was saying.. _thats so rude ..whats with this moron stuff??..._it is a terrible habit and its... ALL YOUR FAULT !..thanks a lot ...MORON


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 24, 2009)

eots said:


> by the way divecon thanks to you I have taken to calling people morons,,,my girlfreind makes some mistake and im all like duh...moron..the other day she was saying.. _thats so rude ..whats with this moron stuff??..._it is a terrible habit and its... ALL YOUR FAULT !..thanks a lot ...MORON


dont blame me for your failings in life, idiot


----------



## eots (Nov 24, 2009)

ya its my own fault..in my diving days we called it boat mouth its hard to break the habit of cursing when you step off the boat and these_ discussions _with you present the same problem for me..got to turn the  call people moron switch off when speaking to others less offensive than yourself


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 24, 2009)

eots said:


> ya its my own fault..in my diving days we called it boat mouth its hard to break the habit of cursing when you step off the boat and these_ discussions _with you present the same problem for me..got to turn the  call people moron switch off when speaking to others less offensive than yourself


ya see, i just dont give a shit when people i dont know show they dont have a grasp on reality i'll call them the moron they are


and that covers ALL 9/11 troofer morons
totally out of touch with reality

and christophera is a special case of he is in his own "special" reality
LOL


----------



## eots (Nov 24, 2009)

uh huh...right.... and speaking of _special reality's _could you elaborate on your NIST got it wrong theory that building fires alone were not the cause of the collapse of the wtc 7


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 24, 2009)

eots said:


> uh huh...right.... and speaking of _special reality's _could you elaborate on your NIST got it wrong theory that building fires alone were not the cause of the collapse of the wtc 7


i dont have a theory, asswipe


----------



## eots (Nov 24, 2009)

zzzzzzzzzzzz.....lol..so you don't believe so called conspiracy theories and you don't believe the official theories ...you have no theories of your own..,.wow dude yer like the wind...lol...so let me guess your motivation is you like to type the words LIAR and MORON in ALL CAPS..and this seems as good a forum as the next...LMAO....thanks....


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 24, 2009)

eots said:


> zzzzzzzzzzzz.....lol..so you don't believe so called conspiracy theories and you don't believe the official theories ...you have no theories of your own..,.wow dude yer like the wind...lol...so let me guess your motivation is you like to type the words LIAR and MORON in ALL CAPS..and this seems as good a forum as the next...LMAO....thanks....


we have gone through this for several months, you are still delusional and you have had the facts given to you and you just go back to your same delusional bullshit
do you actually expect the bullshit that doesnt change anyone mind about this to suddenly change someones mind?
that is the height of insanity


----------



## eots (Nov 24, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > zzzzzzzzzzzz.....lol..so you don't believe so called conspiracy theories and you don't believe the official theories ...you have no theories of your own..,.wow dude yer like the wind...lol...so let me guess your motivation is you like to type the words LIAR and MORON in ALL CAPS..and this seems as good a forum as the next...LMAO....thanks....
> ...



but were do these facts of yours come from diveconman ? the nist facts ? popular mechanics facts ? myths and misconceptions ? or a collage  of all of the above ? so are you saying you think you are insane ? delusional ? for thinking your inane ranting post would change how I think ? do you even know what it is you think ? my confused compadre ?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 24, 2009)

creativedreams said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure there are, But in my world, they no longer count.
> ...




My salute to your brothers.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 24, 2009)

creativedreams said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > my father was in the British army Sgt in the paratroop regiment and a murder homicide detective after immigrating ..he shared the opinion of an inside job..he said it the day of the attacks..nothing of this magnitude could occur without complicity and prior knowledge... I  thought he was nuts
> ...




And I have our Mayor living across the street from me who would be happy to laugh in his face.


----------



## eots (Nov 24, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



he most likely also believes that structural damage played a role in the official collapse scenario of building 7 as well...perhaps you should ask him and see


----------



## Fizz (Nov 24, 2009)

eots said:


> but were do these facts of yours come from diveconman ? the nist facts ? popular mechanics facts ? myths and misconceptions ? or a collage  of all of the above ? so are you saying you think you are insane ? delusional ? for thinking your inane ranting post would change how I think ? do you even know what it is you think ? my confused compadre ?



where is your theory and the facts to back it up?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 24, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



No doubt he is an evil and corrupt politician like most of them are just like the evil army operative YOU are.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 24, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > but were do these facts of yours come from diveconman ? the nist facts ? popular mechanics facts ? myths and misconceptions ? or a collage  of all of the above ? so are you saying you think you are insane ? delusional ? for thinking your inane ranting post would change how I think ? do you even know what it is you think ? my confused compadre ?
> ...



He has proved it was an inside job with MANY threads of his he has made in the past and in his posts here on this thread.if you actually took the time to read his posts and watch our videos we have proven it with as well instead of only seeing what you WANT to see,you would KNOW it was an inside job.


----------



## eots (Nov 24, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > but were do these facts of yours come from diveconman ? the nist facts ? popular mechanics facts ? myths and misconceptions ? or a collage  of all of the above ? so are you saying you think you are insane ? delusional ? for thinking your inane ranting post would change how I think ? do you even know what it is you think ? my confused compadre ?
> ...



ultimately my theory is we need to heed the calls of  lead investigators of NIST and senior council for the 9/11 commision that a re- investigation is required ..with full subpoena powers testimony under oath full disclosure of all still classified information with oversight for the media and the family steering committee and the admitted failure of these reports by  participants at the highest level is all the evidence required for this


----------



## Fizz (Nov 24, 2009)

eots said:


> ultimately my theory is we need to heed the calls of  lead investigators of NIST and senior council for the 9/11 commision that a re- investigation is required ..with full subpoena powers testimony under oath full disclosure of all still classified information with oversight for the media and the family steering committee and the admitted failure of these reports by  participants at the highest level is all the evidence required for this



actually, i agree with everything you have said except the disclosure of classified information. there is no need to give our enemies access to all our information and how we got it by making it public.

until then we go with the best information we have.


----------



## eots (Nov 24, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > ultimately my theory is we need to heed the calls of  lead investigators of NIST and senior council for the 9/11 commision that a re- investigation is required ..with full subpoena powers testimony under oath full disclosure of all still classified information with oversight for the media and the family steering committee and the admitted failure of these reports by  participants at the highest level is all the evidence required for this
> ...



well I am Impressed with  impressed with that display of reason..but there is little requirement to withhold evidence after this many years especially the forensic evidence of the attacks itself specifically ie; surveillance video of the pentagon and ..photos ..materials  and samples salvage from the crash sites


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 24, 2009)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


thing is, you wouldnt accept any new investigation either
so it would be a waste of money

because any new investigation would STILL not support your bullshit


----------



## eots (Nov 24, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



that's is just a weasley assumption..because I reject these clearly inadequate investigations


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 24, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


no, you have proven that no amount of facts will change you mind
thus, you would still be of the same mind if they did another investigation
so it would be nothing but a huge waste of money to do another investigation when we already know what happened


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 24, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> I'm sure there are, But in my world, they no longer count.
> 
> We all have opinions, you have yours, I have mine. Yours are based upon BS mine is based upon knowledge, fact, and common sense.



other way around moron.HIS are based on knowledge,facts,evidence and common sense,YOURS is based on lies,bullshit,and propaganda that you fucking disinfo agents propagate.your a disgrace to those 3000 plus people who lost their lives that day along with ditzcon,cornboy troll and fitz troll and agent Gam.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 24, 2009)

Fizz said:


> i see. i must be a government plant now!!
> 
> we arent allowed to critisize theories NOT supplied by the government. we can only critisize theories that are supplied by the government. is that what is going on here?
> 
> ...



the fact that you ignore overwhelming evidence that proves explosives brought the towers down is pretty obvious you are.you guys lie so often that if pinochio was true,your nose would grow thousands of miles long.lol.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 24, 2009)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



you disinfo agents havent been able to refute this evidence that explosives brought the towers down yet.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 24, 2009)

NOR have you been able to refute THIS evidence either that explosives brought the towers down.
{rolls on floor laughing} thats why this whole discussion is irrelevent and mute cause you idiots CANT refute this evidence as we both know.


9/11 inside job said:


> since this thread is the TRUTH and I havent posted this post here on this thread yet,I will do so now.this post is WHY this whole discussion is irrelevent and mute cause knowing THESE facts below,only a moron would STILL defend the official version that the fires caused the collapse of the buildings lol. You all STILL going to make yourselfs look like morons saying it wasnt a controlled demolition? lol. psyche op agents candycorn,sfc ollie,gam and ditzcon will since thats what their paid to do,how bout the rest of you Bush/Obama dupes? lol.
> 
> QUOTE=9/11 inside job;1677848]
> I think you MEANT to say his job is to prove that it didnt collapse CD style in its own footprint Terral? which of of course the Bush dupe cant do that.He has made pathetic attempts to convince us that it didnt fall at 6.5 seconds freefall speed to no avail and also satalite photos taken a week after the towers collapsed showed heat temperatures still going with temps that were far too hot and intense to be office fires.
> ...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 24, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


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



you never refuted my last post army disinfo agent.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 24, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




One Unnamed person on a youtube video does not constitute any type of proof.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 24, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> NOR have you been able to refute THIS evidence either that explosives brought the towers down.
> {rolls on floor laughing} thats why this whole discussion is irrelevent and mute cause you idiots CANT refute this evidence as we both know.
> 
> 
> ...



Ever Used Thermite? I have! it doesn't burn for weeks, it burns for a few moments, You would have needed to fill the entire building with it to make it burn for weeks. numbnutz.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 24, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> you disinfo agents havent been able to refute this evidence that explosives brought the towers down yet.



let me remind you of the answer you gave me earlier...... 



> people will do anything for money idiot.



you sir, are a jackass!!!


----------



## eots (Nov 24, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > NOR have you been able to refute THIS evidence either that explosives brought the towers down.
> ...



I worked for a decade as doing underwater cutting and welding  so so claiming you have for some reason used thermite means nothing...the heat created by such substances is intense and that heat in a insulated condition of being covered in rubble and dust could smolder for weeks without question


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 24, 2009)

eots said:


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


except thermite wont cut horizontally


----------



## eots (Nov 24, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M[/ame]



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFinXm6cydw&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 24, 2009)

eots said:


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



I was part of a team that made a US Army Training video on using Thermite to destroy COMSEC equipment and other classified material.  I don't know what you did underwater but that certainly does not compare to WTC.


----------



## eots (Nov 24, 2009)

part of a team  ya so was the cook...whats your point


----------



## eots (Nov 24, 2009)

the most common iron oxide used in thermite. Other oxides are occasionally used, such as MnO2 in manganese thermite, Cr2O3 in chromium thermite, or copper(II) oxide in copper thermite, but only for highly specialised purposes. All examples use aluminium as the reactive metal. Fluoropolymers can be used in special formulations, Teflon with magnesium or aluminium being a relatively common example. Magnesium/teflon/viton is another pyrolant of this type.

In principle, any reactive metal could be used instead of aluminium. This is rarely done, however, because the properties of aluminium are ideal for this reaction. It is by far the cheapest of the highly reactive metals; it also forms a passivation layer making it safer to handle than many other reactive metals. The melting and boiling points of aluminium also make it ideal for thermite reactions. Its relatively low melting point (660 °C, 1221 °F) means that it is easy to melt the metal, so that the reaction can occur mainly in the liquid phase[6] and thus proceeds fairly quickly. At the same time, its high boiling point ( 2,519 °C (4,566 °F) ) enables the reaction to reach very high temperatures, since several processes tend to limit the maximum temperature to just below the boiling point.[7] Such a high boiling point is common among transition metals (e.g. iron and copper boil at 2,887 °C (5,229 °F) and 2,582 °C (4,680 °F) respectively), but is especially unusual among the highly reactive metals (cf. magnesium and sodium which boil at 1,090 °C (1,990 °F) and 883 °C (1,621 °F) respectively). Further, the low density of the aluminium oxide formed as a result of the reaction tends to cause it to float on the iron, reducing contamination of the weld.

Although the reactants are stable at room temperature, they burn with an extremely intense exothermic reaction when they are heated to ignition temperature. The products emerge as liquids due to the high temperatures reached* (up to 2500 °C (4500 °F) *with iron(III) oxide)&#8212;although the actual temperature reached depends on how quickly heat can escape to the surrounding environment. *Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen *and does not require any external source of air. Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment, given sufficient initial heat*. It will burn well while wet and cannot be extinguished with water*. Small amounts of water will boil before reaching the reaction. *If thermite is ignited underwater, the molten iron produced will extract oxygen from water and generate hydrogen gas in a single-replacement reaction. This gas may, in turn, burn by combining with oxygen in the air*

An underwater cutting tool for steel, concrete, or the like, comprising a tubular oxygen ... The priming or firing substance preferably is iron thermite. ...


Underwater cutting tool - Patent 4477060


----------



## Fizz (Nov 24, 2009)

you guys are straying a bit off topic. how much thermite was found at the WTC site?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 24, 2009)

Fizz said:


> you guys are straying a bit off topic. how much thermite was found at the WTC site?



NONE

And good night


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 25, 2009)

eots said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFinXm6cydw&feature=related


yeah, those rods are so close to the thickness of the WTC columns

and if something larger simliar to that was used, dont you think it would have been found in the rubble?
this is the logic you FAIL at
and besides, that is NOT thermite
its a shape charge


and your bottom video is about fucking CARS moron


----------



## eots (Nov 25, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M
> ...




it utilizes thermite and how do cars melt with fires of paper.. capet.... office furniture ??
moron


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 25, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


SIMPLE, moron
the fires were hot enough and they was fuel IN the fucking cars asswipe
god damn you are too fucking stupid for words
all you fucking conspiracy nutters need professional help


----------



## eots (Nov 25, 2009)

fuel does not burn hot or long  enough to melt steel cars and create molten metal only hours after the crash and this occurred in the basement what caused these fires in the first place


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 25, 2009)

eots said:


> fuel does not burn hot or long  enough to melt steel cars and create molten metal only hours after the crash and this occurred in the basement what caused these fires in the first place


do you know what most cars have been made out of for the last 20+ years?

nothing in that video was proof of thermite
just more of you taking something and blowing it out of proportion


----------



## eots (Nov 25, 2009)

that was almost a decade ago and the frames were melted.. the rims.. the the drive shafts..and steel beams were melted.. .shut up


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 25, 2009)

eots said:


> that was almost a decade ago and the frames were melted.. the rims.. the the drive shafts..and steel beams were melted.. .shut up


prove it
that video didnt
LOL
you just have to keep grasping at straws


----------



## eots (Nov 25, 2009)

the testimony of dozen eyewitnesses and first responders in detail means nothing,,,whos grasping at straws ? and lets not forget as a diveconspirator you have no theories... asswipe


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 25, 2009)

eots said:


> the testimony of dozen eyewitnesses and first responders in detail means nothing,,,whos grasping at straws ? and lets not forget as a diveconspirator you have no theories... asswipe


wash, rinse, repeat


everything you use is out of context quotes
you guys are nothing but fucking LIARS


----------



## eots (Nov 25, 2009)

and all you do is make vague denials and accusations of that have lies no substance ..because your a a diveconspirator


----------



## eots (Nov 25, 2009)

tell us the one about how despite what NIST says diveconspirators still like to pretend that _structural damage_ and fire lead to the total collapse of wtc 7...that's my favourite one


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 25, 2009)

eots said:


> tell us the one about how despite what NIST says diveconspirators still like to pretend that _structural damage_ and fire lead to the total collapse of wtc 7...that's my favourite one


you are such a fucking idiot
grow a brain


----------



## Terral (Nov 25, 2009)

Hi Dive:



DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > the testimony of dozen eyewitnesses and first responders in detail means nothing,,,whos grasping at straws ? and lets not forget as a diveconspirator you have no theories... asswipe
> ...



And yet, DiveConMan uses these same three stupid sentences to call people names and play the *Official Cover Story Fool* confused!!!! Diver has never made any contribution to these Conspiracy Theory Topics. He just runs around calling people names and throwing as much Official Cover Story dust into the air as humanly possible. 

GL,

Terral


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 25, 2009)

So now we see that thermite shape charges were set and there was thermite in the parked cars around the buildings too. Damn sure wished i owned some stock in some chemical companies, They must have made a small fortune in thermite sales.


----------



## eots (Nov 25, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> So now we see that thermite shape charges were set and there was thermite in the parked cars around the buildings too. Damn sure wished i owned some stock in some chemical companies, They must have made a small fortune in thermite sales.



the cars were moved out on to the street afterwards and the central core was blown up in the basement


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 25, 2009)

Thermite does not "Blow up". I thought you said you had used it?

(though it can blow up if it hits magnesium) (You should see what happens to a Porsche engine)


----------



## eots (Nov 25, 2009)

Did nano-thermite take down the WTC? - RT


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 25, 2009)

eots said:


> Did nano-thermite take down the WTC? - RT






Niels Harrit: Tons! Hundreds of tons! Many, many, many tons!



Once again, just how many people over what length of time to plant those "Hundreds of tons" of explosives? Without anyone being seen or anyone talking.......


----------



## Fizz (Nov 25, 2009)

has any thermite actually been found at any WTC site? not melted steel. melted steel comes from steel. you people are acting like the only thing in the world that can possibly melt steel is thermite.

so where is the proof of the thermite?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 25, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > NOR have you been able to refute THIS evidence either that explosives brought the towers down.
> ...



hey army agent?,why dont you try reading what I posted? if you DID,you would have seen  the part about the satalites giving off EXTREME hot temperatures after a week long after the fires had been put out. FAR too intense to be office fires.impossible for it to be office fires when they had long been put out several days ago dorkball.they sure dont pay you enough for the b.s you post for the contiuned ass beatings you get here.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 25, 2009)

Fizz said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > you disinfo agents havent been able to refute this evidence that explosives brought the towers down yet.
> ...



yeah thats what you pathetic disinfo agents do.you dont give a shit that the government murdered over 3000 of its own citizens,just as long as they keep paying you for the bullshit you post is all you care about.if there is any such thing as a hell,your going with those people in the bush administration who pulled this off for your participation in this coverup.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 25, 2009)

eots said:


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



the moron ignores my point also that jet fuel fires after a weeks spaying for so many hours would have been longggggg put out. these morons will post ANYTHING for money.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 25, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Did nano-thermite take down the WTC? - RT
> ...



several people took you to school on that over at AWE.of course you never read the evidence and threads that people there  posted since you only see what you WANT to see like all you government plants do.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 25, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


YOU wouldnt know evidence if it hit you on the nose


btw, asswipe, i know you have me on ignore, but guess what, other people can read what i post to you even if your are too much of a fucking pussy to read it


----------



## Fizz (Nov 25, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> yeah thats what you pathetic disinfo agents do.you dont give a shit that the government murdered over 3000 of its own citizens


the government didnt kill anyone. the deaths happened because terrorists flew planes into buildings. are you denying that?



9/11 inside job said:


> ,just as long as they keep paying you for the bullshit you post is all you care about.if there is any such thing as a hell,your going with those people in the bush administration who pulled this off for your participation in this coverup.



damn, you mean i can get paid for showing what a completely paranoid lunatic you are? where do i sign up?!!!! 

terrorists flew planes into buildings. it killed lots and lots of innocent americans. if anyone is going to hell its the people blaming other americans for the acts of these terrorists. i'm sure osama is having a nice laugh at you people.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 25, 2009)

Fizz said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > yeah thats what you pathetic disinfo agents do.you dont give a shit that the government murdered over 3000 of its own citizens
> ...



sure thats what you moron agents like to do is TRY to  brainwash people with that the government didnt kill anyone,the only terrorists are the people in the bush administration who pulled this off as we BOTH know. the only lunatics are you idiots who defend the fairy tale version of the governments lies that muslin terrorists pulled this off.No YOUR going to hell so is agent SFC ollie.i actually feel sorry for you  pathetic guys cause you both are going to suffer unbearable pain for your participation in these lies.

Neither one of you idiots have been able to refute my post that explosives brought the towers down when the planes struck.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 25, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


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





Hey stupid agent, that still does not change the facts that thermite does not and can not burn for weeks at a time.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 25, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...




LOL No one ever took me to school little boy. In awe you were on ignore for a month because you were too stupid to realize I was the real thing and not Candy. Now can you answer the question or not? My guess is not.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 25, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


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



Actually the planes hitting the buildings is what proves that explosives did not bring them down. All those fires and cut wires and all that. Now again, how many people to plant those hundreds of tons of explosives?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 25, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


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




see unlike you,I CAN admit it when I have been proven wrong.you the troll jerk you are CANT.you have yet to admit I have proven you wrong that explosives brought the towers down like the arrogant disinfo agent you are.plenty of people like creative dreams took you to school that it was an inside job and explosives brought the towers down,but like that other troll cornboy,you ignored the evidence cause like him, you only see what you WANT to see.it was pretty easy to make the mistake that you were him cause you always posted the same bullshit,lies and propaganda HE always does there and the fact that he has MANY other socks he posts there under was also why  it was an easy mistake to make.

MOLTEN steel WAS found under neath the rubble,IMPOSSIBLE due to fires idiot,ONLY explosives can do that when under water for so long moron.

I have said this hundreds of times in the past but agents like you ignore it since you only are interested in posting bullshit.it only takes a hundred or less people over a few months time to plant the explosives,when you have marvin bush the head of the security of the towers and that other corrupt bastard silverstein in charge as well,pretty easy to get the operatives inside disguised as construction workers to plant the explosives.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 25, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


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



lies as always from you idiot.it doesnt prove jack shit.the fires were NOT intense enough to cause the towers to collapse army  agent.i just answered that for you.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 25, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


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



whatever lying agent.


----------



## eots (Nov 25, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


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




 what poor little retarded Ollie does not realize no one claims it does


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 25, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


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



Whatever, I'm a liar, that's the best you got? You got nothing little boy. You have no proof of any explosives and there is no way in hell that much explosives were smuggled into a Building that was occupied by thousands of people a day, let alone the miles of wiring and thousands of hookups that would have had to be made. And still none of these people talked? Bullshit alert.

And thermite still only burns for a very brief period of time. That is what you are claiming that because of thermite there were pools of molten steel weeks after the attacks.....


----------



## eots (Nov 25, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU1oTv0-_Xw[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3qZG0T6__4[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx33GuVsUtE[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 25, 2009)

Nice videos, we've seen them all before. I only have one question; Were these videos presented in court during the  Zacarias Moussaoui trial? And if not, why?


----------



## eots (Nov 25, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Nice videos, we've seen them all before. I only have one question; Were these videos presented in court during the  Zacarias Moussaoui trial? And if not, why?



because the trial was a scam like the investigation all  witnesses regardless of rank or expertise that conflicted with the official story were ignored completely in the 9/11 commission report and NIST lead fire investigator complained in writing about as 2007 not being supplied witness statements and photo evidence


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 25, 2009)

SO again you dismiss any evidence that does not fit into what you want to be true. It was a court of law with a Judge and lawyers on both sides and a Jury and everything, But because the evidence presented points toward the official story, you consider it a sham....

You are a fucking idiot.


----------



## eots (Nov 25, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> SO again you dismiss any evidence that does not fit into what you want to be true. It was a court of law with a Judge and lawyers on both sides and a Jury and everything, But because the evidence presented points toward the official story, you consider it a sham....
> 
> You are a fucking idiot.



no the commison and nist and you are guilty of that not me..and it is because information and testomony that did not fit the offical story was excluded and therefore is a sham..

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


----------



## Fizz (Nov 25, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> sure thats what you moron agents like to do is TRY to  brainwash people with that the government didnt kill anyone,the only terrorists are the people in the bush administration who pulled this off as we BOTH know. the only lunatics are you idiots who defend the fairy tale version of the governments lies that muslin terrorists pulled this off.No YOUR going to hell so is agent SFC ollie.i actually feel sorry for you  pathetic guys cause you both are going to suffer unbearable pain for your participation in these lies.
> 
> Neither one of you idiots have been able to refute my post that explosives brought the towers down when the planes struck.



see, this is where the the troofers lose me. its paranoid rants like this that makes everyone think you ALL are whackos. 

you claim:

1 i am trying to brainwash people.

2. because i dont agree with your whacko conspiracy theories (just like 77% of the american public) i must be a government agent (just like 77% of the american public?!!). its total paranoid lunacy.

3. you claim neither one of us have been able to refute your evidence that explosives brought down the twim towers but you dont have any evidence of explosives. how do i disprove something that doesnt exist? its like trying to prove there is no easter bunny. you need to show me something exists before i can disprove your theory.

4. i find your claim that no muslims were involved in 9/11 so absurd it's funny. they even admit they did it.

and finally, i find it interesting that there can be so many different and conflicting examples of conspiracy theories yet when two conspiracy theories contradict each other the troofers refuse to debate another troofer. its as if they dont really care about finding the truth. they are more interested in blaming the government and it doesnt matter if someone else's theory conflicts with their own. its ok as long as the government gets blamed.


----------



## eots (Nov 25, 2009)

there was clearly molten steel ..and in the presence of molten steel ..your building fires did it theory falls to pieces


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 25, 2009)

eots said:


> there was clearly molten steel ..and in the presence of molten steel ..your building fires did it theory falls to pieces




Show me the test that showed that there was molten steel, and not some other alloy.


----------



## eots (Nov 25, 2009)

the government wont allow any such test just as they wont recognize any such testimony but we have the statements of engineers..iron workers and first responders  all saying the ends if the _steel columns _were melted


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 25, 2009)

And there is only one Picture that shows a melted column. And it sure looks like a cutting torch did that one to me.

I don't buy it. You cannot look at molten metal and tell what it is. I don't care who you are.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 25, 2009)

eots said:


> the government wont allow any such test just as they wont recognize any such testimony but we have the statements of engineers..iron workers and first responders  all saying the ends if the _steel columns _were melted



eaots, i fond you one of the very few logical posters here. i dont agree with you on most things but at least you dont seem to think i'm some government secret spy just because i dont agree.

being new here i'm not sure exactly what evidence has already been posted one way or the other on this subject but it seems to me that claims of molten steel and claims the steel columns were melted arent the same thing.

put yourself in the place of a first responder looking at the ends of a steel column. obviously if you see molten metal dripping you are going to say the column is melting. but if you take a column that is twisted and bent and charred wouldnt you probably also say it melted? i think you might be taken the word "melted" too literally as meaning molten and thats not the case.


----------



## eots (Nov 25, 2009)

among other things the refusal of NIST to recognise these witnesses and allow peer reviewed testing of samples leads me to believe it was without question ..steel


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 25, 2009)

eots said:


> among other things the refusal of NIST to recognise these witnesses and allow peer reviewed testing of samples leads me to believe it was without question ..steel




 I believe nothing without question when there is doubt. You simply want it to be true. I don't understand why but............to each their own.


----------



## eots (Nov 25, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > among other things the refusal of NIST to recognise these witnesses and allow peer reviewed testing of samples leads me to believe it was without question ..steel
> ...



well then you should fully support the forensic testing of this material and for a reinvestigation with testimony under oath and full subpoena power and the archiving of all NIST DATA for full peer reviewed studies as requested by the lead investigator of NIST from 2001/20007...but you seem to prefer to just question but demand no answer...to each his own


----------



## B94 (Nov 25, 2009)

What about this -

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YXzjAKJQOg&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## eots (Nov 25, 2009)

like all of these debunkig theories it is inconstant with the findings and data of NIST


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 25, 2009)

eots said:


> like all of these debunkig theories it is inconstant with the findings and data of NIST


well, it sure showed you friend, Steven Jones as a FUCKING LIAR and a fraud


----------



## eots (Nov 25, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > like all of these debunkig theories it is inconstant with the findings and data of NIST
> ...




by using data inconsistent with NIST


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 26, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


prove it is inconsistent first
you just saying it is, doesnt pass

i dont care what the fuck NIST said
i still know it wasnt a controlled demolition
you need to grow a fucking brain


----------



## eots (Nov 26, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



you know ?...and you proof is ?  and why would I take the time to give you the inconstancy's if you already don't give a fuck what NIST says you are a diveconspirator and you don't believe in the accuracy of any study official or otherwise ..remember


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 26, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


fuck off asswipe
i dont really give a rats ass what ANY government organization says, the fact speak for themselves to anyone with a rational mind, and YOU and the rest of the fucking moronic troofers dont have one


----------



## Fizz (Nov 26, 2009)

eots said:


> you know ?...and you proof is ?  and why would I take the time to give you the inconstancy's if you already don't give a fuck what NIST says you are a diveconspirator and you don't believe in the accuracy of any study official or otherwise ..remember



Occam's Razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible.

for WTC 7 collapse you need too many unproven assumptions before you get to a controlled demolition. You assume that the fires could not have caused a collapse. you assume that damage from the tower collapse was not significant. you assume that the combination of those two things are not enough to cause collapse. you assume that explosives were used. you assume that people were able to plant those explosives. you assume they were able to do it undetected by everyone else present in the WTC area. you assume there was a need for it to be secretly demolished to begin with...... and so on.... and so on...

you see where i am going with this?


----------



## eots (Nov 26, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > you know ?...and you proof is ?  and why would I take the time to give you the inconstancy's if you already don't give a fuck what NIST says you are a diveconspirator and you don't believe in the accuracy of any study official or otherwise ..remember
> ...



the entire building fires did it theory is based by there own admission of a series of assumptions that  rare and low probability events all occurred in sequence..your example does not really apply when it comes to the physics the wtc 7 collapse  as physics does not speculate as to motives


----------



## eots (Nov 26, 2009)

> QUOTE=Fizz
> you assume that damage from the tower collapse was not significant. you assume that the combination of those two things are not enough to cause collapse.



the report notes that while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7. 
NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, 08/21/08


----------



## Fizz (Nov 26, 2009)

eots said:


> the entire building fires did it theory is based by there own admission of a series of assumptions that  rare and low probability events all occurred in sequence..your example does not really apply when it comes to the physics the wtc 7 collapse  as physics does not speculate as to motives


Occum's Razor does apply to physics. Einstein used it in developing his theory of relativity.


----------



## eots (Nov 26, 2009)

you see unlike yourself NIST understands that if the structural damage to wtc 7 is factored into the collapse there is no way they can create a scenario where a total collapse of such symmetry could occur so they are required to deem it as not contributing to the collapse and try and create a unverified computer model to show how it could have occurred.. something no amount of data manipulation could achieve with the damaged factored in


----------



## eots (Nov 26, 2009)

The investigation team considered the possibility of other factors playing a role in the collapse of WTC 7, including the possible use of explosives, fires fed by the fuel supply tanks in and under the building, and damage from the falling debris of WTC 1. 

*The team said that the smallest blast event capable of crippling the critical column would have produced a &#8220;sound level of 130 to 140 decibels at a distance of half a mile,&#8221; yet no noise this loud was reported by witnesses or recorded on videos. *
As for fuel fires, the team found that they could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to fail a critical column, and/or would have produced &#8220;large amounts of visible smoke&#8221; from Floors 5 and 6, which was not observed. 
NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, 08/21/08

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STbD9XMCOho[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw[/ame]



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9pjy3fSWYM[/ame]


----------



## Fizz (Nov 26, 2009)

eots said:


> The investigation team considered the possibility of other factors playing a role in the collapse of WTC 7, including the possible use of explosives, fires fed by the fuel supply tanks in and under the building, and damage from the falling debris of WTC 1.
> 
> *The team said that the smallest blast event capable of crippling the critical column would have produced a sound level of 130 to 140 decibels at a distance of half a mile, yet no noise this loud was reported by witnesses or recorded on videos. *
> As for fuel fires, the team found that they could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to fail a critical column, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from Floors 5 and 6, which was not observed.



in the last video people are describing being in WTC7 and hearing explosions? how do controlled demolition explosions give someone enough time to get from the 6th (or 8th, i forget) floor and out of the building before it collapses?


----------



## Fizz (Nov 26, 2009)

i believe the critical column you are talking about failing was the 13th floor, not the 5th or 6th floor.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 26, 2009)

the person claimg the red cross radio had a countdown on it is ridiculous. he admits he couldnt hear what they were saying and only heard the rhythm of what was being said. this could be anything!! i can think of a thousands things i have heard listening to radios that were said rythmically. thats the most ridiculous assumption i have heard.

its stupid leaps of logic like this that hurt the entire troofer movement.


----------



## eots (Nov 26, 2009)

Fizz said:


> i believe the critical column you are talking about failing was the 13th floor, not the 5th or 6th floor.



this is from the NISTwtc 7 final report


----------



## eots (Nov 26, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > The investigation team considered the possibility of other factors playing a role in the collapse of WTC 7, including the possible use of explosives, fires fed by the fuel supply tanks in and under the building, and damage from the falling debris of WTC 1.
> ...



the central columns are always done first then the outside is imploded inward the building wont fall from blowing the central column alone


----------



## Fizz (Nov 26, 2009)

looking at the video that claims to be explosions from WTC7. there's a huge glaring problem with it, apparently.

the video is from a documentary titled "9/11 Stories From The City" which was broadcast by Zone Reality TV in the UK". interestingly enough the phone booth location is known and also that it was recorded between 10:15am and 10:28am.


don't believe me? check it out some of the details for yourself if you like.
Google Map Link to the location of the phone booth. it is on the north side of the street. this means if you are standing in the street and facing the phone booth you are facing north. during the recording of this clip the camera turns to the right, facing east, at an approaching fireman. you can see the sun is behind him and he casts a shadow towards the camera. the sun rises in the east, gentlemen. this video was shot in the morning not in the late afternoon.

once again we have a major credibility problem with the troofer claims. it seems they we believe anything at all without questioning it as long as it is anti-government. whoever made the claim that this was an explosion from WTC 7 is simply outright LYING.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 26, 2009)

eots said:


> the central columns are always done first then the outside is imploded inward the building wont fall from blowing the central column alone



and how much time is between the two? are you saying the central columns of the building were blown up while people were still in the building yet these people still had enough time to leave the building from the 8th floor before it collapsed?


----------



## eots (Nov 26, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > the central columns are always done first then the outside is imploded inward the building wont fall from blowing the central column alone
> ...



that appears to be the case and as far as your video analysis goes. ?.what was exploding then ?..
and why reports of explosions within the wtc 7..before the second tower was hit ?? and why does NIST final report claim no explosions were witnessed or reported ?? the huge glaring problem seems to be with the NIST report


----------



## Fizz (Nov 26, 2009)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > i believe the critical column you are talking about failing was the 13th floor, not the 5th or 6th floor.
> ...



NIST report, chapter 2 page 22:

_"Fire-induced thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding Column 79 led to the collapse of Floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor failures. In this case, the floor beams on the east side of the building expanded enough that they pushed the girder connecting Columns 79 and 44 to the west on the 13th floor......

*This movement was enough for the girder to walk off it's support at column 79*."_

so there is no melting of steel or weakening of steel. the cause of the collapse is due to thermal expansion.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 26, 2009)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



wait a second!!

it's YOUR VIDEO!!!!

you tell me that it contains explosions from WTC 7 and i have proved that it happened in the morning not the afternoon as needed to be in your "explosions brought down WTC 7" scenario. YOU TELL ME WHAT YOUR VIDEO CONTAINS!!! obviously it is not what you originally claimed it was. THE HUGE GLARING PROBLEM ISNT WITH THE NIST IT IS THAT YOUR EVIDENCE IS COMPLETELY FALSE!!!

i can speculate all day as to what the explosions were at 10:30 in the morning which is shortly after the tower collapsed and there were car fires everywhere and fire trucks burning but ITS NOT MY EVIDENCE. YOU POSTED IT SO YOU TELL ME WHAT IT IS!!!

(did you ever hear what happens to a fire truck tire tire with 90 pounds of air pressure catches on fire?)


----------



## eots (Nov 26, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




thats correct in the case of wtc  7 weakend steel was the first offical explantion then it was revised to the thermal  expansion due to office fires alone  theory


----------



## eots (Nov 26, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




ludacris isn't it you can now apparently create a controlled demolition of a mammoth  building by lighting paper office furniture and carpet on fire randomly


----------



## Fizz (Nov 26, 2009)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > and how much time is between the two? are you saying the central columns of the building were blown up while people were still in the building yet these people still had enough time to leave the building from the 8th floor before it collapsed?
> ...



what appears to be the case is that once again your evidence is false. building demolition explosive detonations are calculated to the milisecond...... they dont blow up the inside of the building (in which case the guy wouldnt have been able to escape anyway) and then blow up the outside of the building several minutes later. 

your idea that someone was inside a building on the 8th floor when they heard the building demolition charges going off and then he had enough time to leave the building safely before it collapsed defies all logic (and physics).


----------



## eots (Nov 26, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



a building like the wtc 7 falling from random office fires alone defies logic and physics
the central column could of been blown first as in a standard controlled demolition


----------



## Fizz (Nov 26, 2009)

eots said:


> ludacris isn't it you can now apparently create a controlled demolition of a mammoth  building by lighting paper office furniture and carpet on fire randomly



it makes no difference what was burning. what makes a difference is how much a metal beam expands when heated. if the supports joining two beams together do not account for this expansion then the joint fails. its really not that difficult to understand.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 26, 2009)

eots said:


> a building like the wtc 7 falling from random office fires alone defies logic and physics.


it doesnt defy physics or logic.

your attempts to make it sound as if there were a few simple office trash cans on fire are a deliberate attempt to misrepresent what was happening in the building. this was an out of control fire burning for hours.

























eots said:


> the central column could of been blown first as in a standard controlled demolition



you're getting way ahead of yourself there cowboy. you need to prove explosives were used before we start worrying about what column it was used on.

there is no pause of at least 5 to 10 minutes between explosions in any "standard controlled demolition".


----------



## eots (Nov 26, 2009)

those are minor office fires


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jK9YZ2C2C_Q&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## eots (Nov 26, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8[/ame]


----------



## eots (Nov 26, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > a building like the wtc 7 falling from random office fires alone defies logic and physics.
> ...



the proof you speak of would only come with a proper investigation but there is less proof of the incredible improbable theory random office fires can create a controlled demolition for the first time in history 3 times in one day..than there is explosives can take building down in a controlled manner


----------



## JW Frogen (Nov 26, 2009)

I have never understood this conspiracy crap.

If you have to believe in something moronic and idiotic, pick a God, something that you can pretend gives something back.


----------



## eots (Nov 26, 2009)

*NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse
Report and Recommendations for Improving Building Safety Released for Comment

August 21, 2008*




GAITHERSBURG, Md.&#8212;The fall of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City late in the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, was primarily due to fires, the Commerce Department&#8217;s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced today following an extensive, three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation. *This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse *
Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an *extraordinary event,&#8221;* said NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder. &#8220;Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse  WTC 7 used a structural system design in widespread use. 
*To reach the conclusions in its report, NIST* complemented its in-house expertise with private-sector technical experts; accumulated an extensive collection of documents, photographs and videos related to the WTC events of 9/11; conducted first-person interviews of WTC 7 occupants and emergency responders; analyzed the evacuation and emergency response operations in and around WTC 7; *and performed the most complex computer simulations ever conducted to model a building&#8217;s response behavior and determine its collapse sequence due to a combination of debris impact damage, fires and a progression of structural failures from local fire-induced damage to collapse initiation, and, ultimately, to global collapse*


http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html


*Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
August 21, 2007*


*NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before *and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. *Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse*. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events.* NIST has not done that*. 



*Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ...*

*Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NIST&#8217;s failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. &#8220;And that building was not hit by anything,&#8221;* noted Dr. Quintiere. &#8220;It&#8217;s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But *other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!&#8221;*

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



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 26, 2009)

Top Ten Photos 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts Hate | The Lay Scientist

from the end of the page


> Ultimately this sort of blogging is an exercise in futility. There is no evidence, no matter how convincing, that will ever be accepted by the 9/11 "Truth" Movement's hardcore evangelists. The irony is that the people who claim to be searching for the truth are so willing to ignore evidence and react angrily to those with conflicting evidence and testimony.
> A bigger irony is that if there *is* a conspiracy, truthers with their deluge of disinformation are doing more than anyone else to help cover it up.




there is a truckload of truth in that statement


----------



## eots (Nov 26, 2009)

*there is a truckload of bullshit,,,you have no case for building fires took down wtc 7 and once agian your debunking site makes up its own facts with no regard for the official data ad findings of NIST
FOR EXAMPLE *



> _Debris from the Twin Towers falling onto WTC7. Many conspiracy theorists still believe that fires and debris couldn't have reached WTC7 (the tall building lower-right) to inflict significant damage, claiming that WTC7 must have been subjected to a controlled demolition_.



FIRST OFF USING THE TERM_ CONSIRACY THEORIST _IS LIKE USING THE TERM SOME PEOPLE BELIVE...most people that don't buy the official story are well aware of the damage  to WTC 7..and that according to NIST and the official story ..structural damage played no significant role in the collapse....*so already your debunker is  already spreading disinformation*


> WTC6 lies in ruins. Conspiracy theorists have also argued that WTC7 couldn't have been struck by debris since WTC6 - which lies between the twin towers and WTC7 - "wasn't that damaged". Note that the center has entirely collapsed. In spite of evidence like this, and reports from fire-fighters, who used instruments to measure the gradual movement and distortion of WTC7's structure over several hours up until its collapse, Truthers still prefer to believe that a controlled demolition occurred.



no where is it stated in any official document that special instruments were used to measure the movement of the wtc 7..more *lies and disinformation *and it is still operating on the flawed premise that structural damage contributed to the collapse of wtc 7



> Fires rage in WTC5 and WTC6. Many conspiracy theorists refuse to accept that fire could have spread to WTC7, even though fires clearly raged across much of the WTC complex.




MORE DISINFORMATION...the fires are not in dispute ..the theory  random office fires could cause an implosion is what is disputed


*so thanks for proving once again the disinformation and myth spread by so-called debunkers*


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 26, 2009)

eots said:


> *there is a truckload of bullshit,,,you have no case for building fires took down wtc 7 and once agian your debunking site makes up its own facts with no regard for the official data ad findings of NIST
> FOR EXAMPLE *
> 
> 
> ...


you guys are nothing but the fucking CLOWNS of the internet
everyone laughs at your delusional bullshit


----------



## eots (Nov 26, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *there is a truckload of bullshit,,,you have no case for building fires took down wtc 7 and once agian your debunking site makes up its own facts with no regard for the official data ad findings of NIST
> ...


This is what you consider a response to the *undeniable fact* that *once again * YOU have posted a debunking site that is *in complete contradiction to NIST AND THE OFFICAL STORY ???*if anyone should be laughing it should be at debunkers like yourself that don't even know the official story they defend...now that's a clown...stop posting your lies


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 26, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


except i have never(and have told you so over and over, DUMBFUCK) defended ANY "official story"
but i know YOU are totally fucking delusional

but, you are 1 level above Christophera, at least you dont claim a concrete core when there wasnt any


----------



## eots (Nov 26, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



yes you created a convenient out for yourself by not having any theory except denial of controlled demolition but it *does not change the fact *the sites* you *post that do claim to support the official story are *full of disinformation and in direct contradiction to the official story*


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 26, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


LOL no they arent
you just think they are
because you are fucking delusional


----------



## BolshevikHunter (Nov 26, 2009)

~BH


----------



## Fizz (Nov 26, 2009)

where is the proof of explosives? saying that thermal expansion could not possibly have caused the collapse is not proof explosives were used.

so far you have posted videos that i have proven were lies. now we are just supposed to think that explosives were used just because you say they were after you posted lies?


----------



## eots (Nov 26, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



you are in complete denial.. you support nothing you assert..they are without any question in direct contradiction to  NIST and the official story by claiming structural damage was a significant factor in the collapse of wtc 7 and that fire depts used _special instruments _to track the movement of the wtc before the collapse...and if you can not recognise that fact..then there is no question who is delusional....none


----------



## Fizz (Nov 26, 2009)

this is an AWESOME picture!! why dont people looking for the "truth" ever post this picture?


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 26, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


thats just ONE thing, not everything
the NIST says that structual failure was not the SOLE reason


----------



## eots (Nov 26, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



stop lying..they say it *played no significant role in the collapse *...you cant just change that to they said it *is not the sole reason*..just because it suites you...that is called.. LYING


----------



## eots (Nov 26, 2009)

Fizz said:


> this is an AWESOME picture!! why dont people looking for the "truth" ever post this picture?



IS THAT WTC 7...NO..  not only is it  is a ridiculous picture ..but it is also completely irrelevant to the dissuasion of wtc 7


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 26, 2009)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > this is an AWESOME picture!! why dont people looking for the "truth" ever post this picture?
> ...


you dont like that photo because it PROVES how fucking DELUSIONAL you nutcases are


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 26, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


"playing no significant role" is the same fucking thing you moron
as in they discounted the damage


----------



## eots (Nov 26, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



 no its an opportunity to distract and run away from your lies  and misquotes of NIST and the fact your debunking sites including the one this picture came from are in direct contradiction to the official story and NIST that they claim to support


----------



## Fizz (Nov 26, 2009)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > this is an AWESOME picture!! why dont people looking for the "truth" ever post this picture?
> ...


----------



## eots (Nov 26, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



no I am sorry my little retarded friend but  _not the sole reason_..and _no significant role _a two very different statements


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 26, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


no they are not
they discounted the damage you idiot


----------



## eots (Nov 26, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Nov 26, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



YES THEY DID INDEED  but saying damage was not the _sole cause _of the collapse is not a statement that discounts damage ..and that's why you prefer it...as it deceives that the damage was a factor n combination with one or more other factors...as opposed *played no significant role in the collapse* and *fire alone* initiated the collapse


----------



## Fizz (Nov 26, 2009)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## Fizz (Nov 26, 2009)

Where is your evidence of explosives being used?


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 26, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


they said "the damage wasnt *SIGNIFICANT*" look up the meaning of the word, numbnuts

and the red is a LIE


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 26, 2009)

Fizz said:


> Where is your evidence of explosives being used?


there is NONE


----------



## eots (Nov 26, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down

Finally, the report notes that while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7. 
NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, 08/21/08


----------



## eots (Nov 26, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...


----------



## Fizz (Nov 26, 2009)

eots said:


> This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down



and your point?


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 26, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


again, "having little effect" is not "having NO effect"
this is part of what makes you guys such fucking LIARS


----------



## eots (Nov 26, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down
> ...



yet with all the highly improbable events ( and there are a multitude of them) and so called failures that were required to occur to bring us to the point of of planes hitting the towers and it does not even begin to stop there...now with a building design in wide use the first modern building in the history of man suffers a complete and symmetrical collapse...as well as two towers that were built to withstand multiple air craft strikes and just like the wtc 7 they collapse symmetrically and completely compared to any known building collapse of any kind other than controlled demolition...oh but wait we cant find the black boxes ..but ..we found...the terrorist passport and... John O'Neils BODY !!!!


*FBI Special Agent John O'Neill was the FBI's leading expert on Al Qaeda. But to people at FBI headquarters he was too much of a maverick..*


The memo makes its way to FBI headquarters but it is not passed on to O'Neill or Mawn in the New York office -- nor is the struggle the following month of the Minnesota FBI office to investigate the alleged 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui.


Aug. 19, 2001
   The New York Times Reports on O'Neill's Briefcase Incident and Pending Retirement

 The Times story quotes an anonymous source, whom O'Neill believes is Tom Pickard. O'Neill confronts Pickard who denies that he was the source of the leak. 


Aug. 22, 2001
   Last Day at the FBI

 In his final hours on the job, O'Neill signs an authorization for the FBI to return to Yemen. Calling Fran Townsend at the Justice Department from his desk, O'Neill explains, "I wasn't leaving here until I did it, because I promised that we would send them back. When I pulled them out, I had to. But I was determined to be the one who signed the piece of paper to send them back."

O'Neill also e-mails Lou Gunn, whose son had died in the Cole attack, to tell him that he was retiring, but that the FBI was returning to Yemen.


Late August 2001
   New Job: The World Trade Center

 According to Chris Isham, O'Neill recognized the threat still posed to the World Trade Center. "When he had first gotten the job at the World Trade Center, he told me, 'I've got this great job. I'm head of security at the World Trade Center.' And I joked with him and said, 'Well, that will be an easy job. They're not going to bomb that place again.' And he said, 'Well actually -- he immediately came back and he said, 'actually they've always wanted to finish that job. I think they're going to try again." 


Sept. 10, 2001
   Intimations

 On the eve of Sept. 11, O'Neill is with friends on the town. According to Jerry Hauer, O'Neill warns him that night: "We're due for something big." O'Neill explains, "I don't like the way things are lining up in Afghanistan." Still, O'Neill tells friends that he is happy about his new job. "[It] doesn't get better than this," he says.


Sept. 11, 2001
   Two Hijacked Planes Hit World Trade Center Towers

 O'Neill is in his *34th floor office in the North Tower at 8:46 a.m*. when *American Airlines Flight 11 crashes into it. *Among others, O'Neill calls Valerie James once he is outside the building. He asks her what hit the building and tells her, "Val, it's horrible. *There are body parts everywhere.*" A few seconds later he tells her, "Okay, I'll call you in a little bit." O'Neill also sends a text message to Fran Townsend to report that he is okay. 

In the minutes after the attack, O'Neill makes his way to the command center that had been set up. There he sees FBI agent Wesley Wong. Wong would tell Esquire magazine later, "He was in FBI mode. Then he turned and kind of looked at me and went toward the interior of the complex. *From the time **John walked away to the time the building collapsed was certainly not more than a half hour or 20 minutes." Wong is the last person to see him alive.* 

Sept. 28, 2001
   Memorial Service for O'Neill

* A week after his body is found in the debris of the South Tower*, about a thousand mourners attend John O'Neill's service in Atlantic City. Barry Mawn, one of the speakers, tells the gathering that O'Neill didn't resign from the FBI because of the briefcase incident. Mawn says that he felt it was important to clear up some of the things people were saying about O'Neill's departure. "He didn't run from a fight. He didn't retire because this was a serious matter. He retired because circumstances were right and it was a good job," Mawn tells FRONTLINE.

Following the service, John O'Neill is buried in the churchyard of St. Nicholas of Tolentine Church, the church where he once served as an altar boy.

frontline: the man who knew | PBS


----------



## eots (Nov 26, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




the only effect  the attribute to the debris is that it ignited the fires..nothing more


----------



## Fizz (Nov 27, 2009)

eots said:


> .now with a building design in wide use



prove it.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 27, 2009)

and where is your proof of explosives again??? you keep trying to change the subject. where is the proof of explosives?


----------



## eots (Nov 27, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > .now with a building design in wide use
> ...



the perpetrators hold the forensic evidence under lock and key and as stated by NIST investigators was not forth coming with evidence and attempted to deter fact finding..the evidence of the total implosion of 3 buildings for the first time in history and the controlled nature of the collapse however is evidence of controlled demolition in itself


----------



## Modbert (Nov 27, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDK3b77RjGY[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 27, 2009)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


and this is why you will not accept a new investigations results
you will INSIST they didn't release the evidence that would prove your case


----------



## eots (Nov 27, 2009)

Among its many building enhancements, 7 WTC has a reinforced concrete core and a steel superstructure. *Safety systems exceed New York City building code* and Port Authority of New York and New Jersey requirements and are expected to *form the basis for future high-rise building codes*. Tishman Construction Corporation served as construction manager for 7 WTC.
7 WTC || About the WTC || World Trade Center ||


----------



## Fizz (Nov 27, 2009)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



so you are saying that the only evidence you have of an explosive demolition is that the buildings came down. you have no other evidence. and we are all supposed to support your theory over scientific evidence to the contrary.

the NIST report must be a fake because there are 3 buildings on the gorund. therefore explosives must have been used. therefore the NIST report is wrong. do you understand how ridiculous this is?

also, you said this is a common building design. prove it. i cant find even one other building designed like it. can you?


----------



## Fizz (Nov 27, 2009)

this is what implosions sound like:

http://www.youtube.com/v/7Ng5qwtR59A&hl=en_US&fs=1&

http://www.youtube.com/v/0Fpv6pxsrOQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&

http://www.youtube.com/v/ZlGmnKvOhlg&hl=en_US&fs=1&

http://www.youtube.com/v/WroEJFgtbq4&hl=en_US&fs=1&

9/11 was one of the most videoed events in the history of the world. where is your evidence of demolition explosions?

(let me help you out here. you dont have any evidence because there were no demolition charges.)


----------



## eots (Nov 27, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



I don't insist it you pathetic moron NIST investigators ..9/11 commision members and the freedom of information lawsuits do..a real investigation would have full subpoena power testimony under oath full disclose of evidence peer review of all NIST finding with media scrutiny and oversight of the family steering committee


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 27, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


only when twisted to fit your views
not one of them has ever said it was a controlled demo
not ONE
just you fucking pathetic troofer morons


----------



## eots (Nov 27, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



I posted building design information....there is no conclusive scientific evidence according to the lead investigator from 2001 to 2007...the NIST report is accused by the lead nist investigator as being deterred from fact finding and computer models were not verified.. if you prefer.. _fake..._the building fires did it theory is dependent on temperatures not found in any forensic test




James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NISTs investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, Questions on the WTC Investigations at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. I wish that there would be a peer review of this, he said, referring to the NIST investigation. I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what theyve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.


I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable, explained Dr. Quintiere.




Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NISTs failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. And that building was not hit by anything, noted Dr. Quintiere. Its more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!




Dr. Quintiere said he originally had high hopes that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. Theyre the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what _I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this_? I think its the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and *information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything. 
In his presentation, *Dr. Quintiere also criticized NISTs repeated failures to formally respond to serious questions *raised about its conclusions regarding the WTC building collapses and the process it employed to arrive at those conclusions*




"I never received one formal reply. 

"A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have *no evidence *that the *temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings *of the little steel debris they have "

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


*the building fires theory has no evidence..no precedent..is highly improbable and inconclusive*


----------



## eots (Nov 27, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



well definitely I have made a better case for controlled demolition than you have for building fires did it and I completely have kicked your ass on the fact the investigations are failed..inconclusive and a re-investigation is required...to the point you only way to weasel out of it is your.._even though it was clearly flawed there is no reason to do it right because you wont believe it anyway_ defence...you always use your little_..only when you twist them to fit your views _line but never clarify or qualify any of it ..where do I twist the words of the NIST investigator in regards to the failings of the NIST report and the need to re-investigate.?...qualify it or shut the fuck up


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 27, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


only in the delusional mind of a fucking troofer

i gave up providing facts for you fucking morons since they are anathema to you
why should i even bother when you have shown that the facts dont mean anything to you


----------



## eots (Nov 27, 2009)

Fizz said:


> this is what implosions sound like:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/v/7Ng5qwtR59A&hl=en_US&fs=1&
> 
> ...



_so let me help you out..you don't have any evidence of temperatures required to cause a collapse..because building fires did not cause it_


this is what real building fires look like and do to buildings

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8[/ame]


----------



## eots (Nov 27, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



_ya that's is your other weasel line ..you have nothing to provide your beat..so you.. pretend you have.. but will no longer bother_...what a fucking loser..you cant qualify anything you say...shut the fuck up


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 27, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


i will when YOU do
i already HAVE qualified EVERYTHING i have said, but your fucked up delusional head cant understand it


----------



## eots (Nov 27, 2009)

shuut up...


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 27, 2009)

eots said:


> shuut up...


when YOU do


----------



## Fizz (Nov 27, 2009)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > also, you said this is a common building design. prove it. i cant find even one other building designed like it. can you?
> ...



you said its a common building design. what other building uses this "common" building design? you post a video of a fire in a building that is not of the same design. WHERE IS THE PROOF OF YOUR CLAIM ITS A COMMON DESIGN?

you still have not shown any proof at all that demolitions were used to take down building 7. NONE!!! 

you keep saying "fires cant take down the building" when that is a distortion of NIST conclusions. the NIST says thermal expansion is the cause. there is evidence of thermal expansion hours before the collapse.

you have shown videos that you claimed had the sounds of explosives used to take down WTC7. i have proved those videos were taken in the morning (about 10:30am) and the collapse of WTC7 didnt happen until many many hours later. YOUR VIDEO CLAIMS ARE A PROVEN LIE.

you still cant explain how building demolition cause a bulge in 4 stories of the building hours before they are set off. 

you claim a guy inside WTC7 heard an explosion and claim this is demolitions. you have no explanation as to how this guy did the impossible task of getting out of the building before it collapses from the 8th floor.

you claim there were a few "random fires" in the building as if there were a few office trash cans on fire when in fact there were fires raging unctrolled for hours on multiple floors for HOURS.

...and here is the real humorous part. you claim you are kicking ass.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 27, 2009)

FAct is that the so called truthers cannot disprove the NIST report. All they have is,"well they are wrong"

Here's the NIST computer simulations. Have fun.

NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, 08/21/08

I'm not a scientists but they seem pretty convincing to me. Especially when you take into account that there is no physical evidence of explosions.


----------



## eots (Nov 27, 2009)

*no you have fun... wallowing in your denial*



*NIST used computer models* that they said have *never been used in such an application before *and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But *the validation of these modeling results is in question*. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is *common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that. *

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## eots (Nov 27, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



no the real humorus part is you have not a shred of conclusive proof buildinjg fires did it...none



 although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have *no evidence *that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings 

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## Fizz (Nov 27, 2009)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



lets go back to the basics.

i have proof there was fire. do you have proof there was explosives?


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 27, 2009)

eots said:


> *no you have fun... wallowing in your denial*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


yeah, dumbfuck
never used before because they DIDNT FUCKING EXIST BEFORE
that doesnt invalidate the results

just another fucking denial of truth by the moronic troofer


----------



## eots (Nov 27, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



you are still going on about this bulge ..even though it is not in any NIST computer simulations and is not considered significant...and I have proof of explosions ...so as usual point is pointless


----------



## eots (Nov 27, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *no you have fun... wallowing in your denial*
> ...



so now the lead investigator at NIST 2001-2007 is a moronic troofer and a dumfuk and divecon has decided he knows better if the computer models are valid or not...typical of divemoroncons


----------



## candycorn (Nov 27, 2009)

eots=


----------



## eots (Nov 27, 2009)

candycorn said:


> eots=



cuntycorn..


----------



## candycorn (Nov 27, 2009)

eots=


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 27, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


no, thats YOU for taking what HE said out of context
you dumbfuck


----------



## eots (Nov 27, 2009)

so put in in context divemoroncon,,,or shut the fuck up


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 27, 2009)

eots said:


> so put in in context divemoroncon,,,or shut the fuck up


i already HAVE you dumbfuck
grow a brain
you and the rest of your troofer morons are WRONG
it was NOT an inside job, it was a terrorist attack and an act of war
so YOU shut the fuck up


----------



## eots (Nov 27, 2009)

no you have not ...you delusional divemorncon all you ever do _is claim you have_..weasel out of an answer...because you are a divemeroncon and that's what _they do_


----------



## eots (Nov 27, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8[/ame]



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRaNwPGcQcM&NR=1&feature=fvwp[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 27, 2009)

eots said:


> *no you have fun... wallowing in your denial*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are basing your disagreements on a statement made about the final NIST report 2 years before it was even finalized? OK.......


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 27, 2009)

eots said:


> no you have not ...you delusional divemorncon all you ever do _is claim you have_..weasel out of an answer...because you are a divemeroncon and that's what _they do_


keep denying it asshole, just shows how fucking delusional you are


----------



## eots (Nov 27, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *no you have fun... wallowing in your denial*
> ...




Says rollie pollie ollie WITHOUT A CLUE what if anything essentially changed from *Aug **2007 *and the finalized report in* Aug 2008*


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 27, 2009)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Nope not a clue...You believe as always only what you want. But you won't be using that argument anymore.


----------



## eots (Nov 27, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



if you are self professed clueless...why would I not use the argument anymore ? I  belive what I want to believe ?...then why are you trying to pretend and implying the report had any changes of substance since the statements and failings listed  and the final report...when in fact all it did not ?


----------



## eots (Nov 27, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > no you have not ...you delusional divemorncon all you ever do _is claim you have_..weasel out of an answer...because you are a divemeroncon and that's what _they do_
> ...



brushing off a shitflake like you shows I am delusional ?....


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 27, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


LOL
since i have been brushing YOU off for so long, just who looks more like the shitFLAKE


----------



## Fizz (Nov 27, 2009)

eots said:


> you are still going on about this bulge ..even though it is not in any NIST computer simulations and is not considered significant...and I have proof of explosions ...so as usual point is pointless


it is proof of thermal expansion.

where is your proof of explosives?


----------



## candycorn (Nov 27, 2009)

eots=


----------



## eots (Nov 27, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


 

brushing me off !...this is the eots zone divemoroncon ..and _you_ are running around behind _me _everywhere I go ...shitflake...


----------



## eots (Nov 28, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > you are still going on about this bulge ..even though it is not in any NIST computer simulations and is not considered significant...and I have proof of explosions ...so as usual point is pointless
> ...



proof of thermal expansion ??? says who ?? and don't tell me the experts at popular mechanics...just don't even bother


----------



## Fizz (Nov 28, 2009)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



well it sure as hell isnt proof of explosives!!


----------



## eots (Nov 28, 2009)

it is not proof of anything..there is no proof it even exsisted


----------



## Fizz (Nov 28, 2009)

eots said:


> it is not proof of anything..there is no proof it even exsisted



you are talking about the demolitions, right?


----------



## Fizz (Nov 28, 2009)

eots said:


> this is what real building fires look like and do to buildings



and so is this:

".....the worst factory fire in history took place at the Kader Industrial toy factory on the outskirts of the Thai capital of Bangkok. Officially 188 workers, most of them young women from impoverished rural families, died in the blaze. Another 469 were injured; many seriously and permanently, after they were forced to leap from second, third and fourth floors of the buildings to avoid being burnt to death.
Hundreds of workers were packed into each of the three buildings that collapsed. There were no fire extinguishers, no alarms, no sprinkler systems and the elevated walkways between the buildings were either locked or used as storage areas. The buildings themselves were death traps, *constructed from un-insulated steel girders that buckled and gave way in less than 15 minutes.* Those who attempted to flee through the narrow ground floor exits found them jammed shut."

Thai toy factory fire: 10 years after the world&rsquo;s worst industrial inferno


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 28, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


its the eots zone because it sounds better than the shitflake zone


----------



## eots (Nov 28, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > it is not proof of anything..there is no proof it even exsisted
> ...



no the description of the bulge you speak of


----------



## JW Frogen (Nov 28, 2009)

eots said:


> no the description of the bulge you speak of



You have to turn me on to see it.

Sorry, wrong thread.


----------



## eots (Nov 28, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



which is what would be called if a zone was created for you ..in fact I coined the term shitflake just for you personally


----------



## Fizz (Nov 28, 2009)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



_Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 oclock in the afternoon, but by about 2 oclock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. _


----------



## eots (Nov 28, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > this is what real building fires look like and do to buildings
> ...



wow talk about desperation !! for one thing it is a factory not a skyscraper and secondly almost the entire article is about he complete lack of building codes or safety in this completely sub-standard building...what a joke you are



*"the Kader factory outside Bangkok was never intended to be a permanent structure. Cheap shoddy buildings, which failed to meet even the minimal Thai construction requirements"*


----------



## eots (Nov 28, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8[/ame]



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


----------



## eots (Nov 28, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




link ?...NIST verification ????...anything ??


----------



## Fizz (Nov 28, 2009)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



what difference does how tall the building is make? if steel a steel building fails then it fails.  you building code argument is EXACTLY what i was looking for. you see, the other buildings you were comparing WTC7 to had silly things like working sprinklers and water pressure to fight the fire and all that type of silly things that might help keep a building standing. Building 7 had no water and nobody fighting the fires for HOURS before it collapsed. the Kader factory is also a steel structure with no sprinkler systems and it collapsed within 15 minutes.

remember, your main argument is that fire cant cause a collapse. well, it obviously can. it did in this case.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 28, 2009)

eots said:


> *"the Kader factory outside Bangkok was never intended to be a permanent structure. Cheap shoddy buildings, which failed to meet even the minimal Thai construction requirements"*



prove it.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 28, 2009)

eots said:


> link ?...NIST verification ????...anything ??


Peter Hayden


----------



## Fizz (Nov 28, 2009)

wow... my typing about two posts above was really bad. i was eating at the time!!  sorry about that.


----------



## eots (Nov 28, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



you are comparing the mammoth concrete and iron wtc 7 and u.s building code to what is essentially a huge tin shack built without any codes never intended to even be a permanent structure ...you are a joke..and my argument is not that fire can not cause a collapse ..my argument is a fact stated clearly in the NIST report report


*"This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building"*

NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, 08/21/08


----------



## eots (Nov 28, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *"the Kader factory outside Bangkok was never intended to be a permanent structure. Cheap shoddy buildings, which failed to meet even the minimal Thai construction requirements"*
> ...



this quotes is from the article _you posted _..moron


----------



## Fizz (Nov 28, 2009)

eots said:


> "This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building"
> 
> NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, 08/21/08



and i completely agree that it is. so?


----------



## eots (Nov 28, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > link ?...NIST verification ????...anything ??
> ...



exactly it is a reprint in some firefighter mag from the popular mechanics article 
but not in any official documentation no different than firemen that reported flashes ..explosions and molten metal



August 21, 2007
Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NISTs failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. And that building was not hit by anything, noted Dr. Quintiere. Its more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And *firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!*
OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## eots (Nov 28, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > "This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building"
> ...



so you are an idiot then aren't you and once again.. your point is pointless


----------



## Fizz (Nov 28, 2009)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



see, i wasnt sure if it was you taking the quote out of context or whether it was someone else and you were quoting them. now that i know you are the moron that is intentionally trying to deceive people. i can call you on it. 

"Companies such as Kader Holdings need to move their operations rapidly to take advantage of the newest areas of low-cost labour. That it why the Kader factory outside Bangkok was never intended to be a permanent structure. Cheap shoddy buildings, which failed to meet even the minimal Thai construction requirements, were simply packed to overflowing with workers and machines. Elementary safety precautions were deemed to be unnecessary overheads."

safety precautions were not followed (a smart person could even surmise that from the first paragraph but i digress). they got around the building codes by saying the building was only temporary. i lived in thailand during the late 90s and remember the uproar this fire caused and the investigations that followed. this has absolutely no bearing on on your claim that fires can not cause a steel framed building to collapse.

can i ask you a very simple question? why do you think they put fireproofing on the beams at wtc7? do you think it could possibly be to protect them from FIRES!!!!?


----------



## Fizz (Nov 28, 2009)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



my point is this. because it is the first time it has ever happened you claim that it is impossible and explosives must have been used.

do you realize how ridiculous this argument is?

it is like saying that no space shuttle has ever burnt up on re-entry so therefore explosives must have blown up the space shuttle columbia!!

it is a moronic argument.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 28, 2009)

eots said:


> exactly it is a reprint in some firefighter mag from the popular mechanics article
> but not in any official documentation no different than firemen that reported flashes ..explosions and molten metal



WRONG. the firefighter magazine is the original.

your claim that it isnt in any official documentation is rather silly. how many official documents do you have that say there were explosives used?


----------



## eots (Nov 28, 2009)

fuzz nuts you are full of shit..and a weasel..your claim is not in any official documentation and your conspiracy theory that the building was claimed to not be permanent ..but yet is permanent is just total bullshit..running in circles  as are comparisons to space shuttles ...moron// for one several launch vehicles have blown up and to compare tall steel buildings of which there are thousands and thousands for a hundred years to the number of maned space flights  is just total proof of how inane your thinking really is


----------



## eots (Nov 28, 2009)

fuzz nuts you are full of shit..and a weasel..your claim is not in any official documentation and your conspiracy theory that the building was claimed to not be permanent ..but yet is permanent is just total bullshit..running in circles  as are comparisons to space shuttles ...moron// for one several launch vehicles have blown up and to compare tall steel buildings of which there are thousands and thousands for a hundred years to the number of maned space flights  is just total proof of how inane your thinking really is


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 28, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


and you are the shitflake 
you are too fucking stupid to believe the truth when you see it
you are completely fucking delusional and i have been telling you that for fucking MONTHS asswipe


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 28, 2009)

eots said:


> fuzz nuts you are full of shit..and a weasel..your claim is not in any official documentation and your conspiracy theory that the building was claimed to not be permanent ..but yet is permanent is just total bullshit..running in circles  as are comparisons to space shuttles ...moron// for one several launch vehicles have blown up and to compare tall steel buildings of which there are thousands and thousands for a hundred years to the number of maned space flights  is just total proof of how inane your thinking really is


no, that would be YOU that is fucking NUTS


----------



## Fizz (Nov 28, 2009)

eots said:


> fuzz nuts you are full of shit..and a weasel..your claim is not in any official documentation and your conspiracy theory that the building was claimed to not be permanent ..but yet is permanent is just total bullshit..running in circles  as are comparisons to space shuttles ...moron// for one several launch vehicles have blown up and to compare tall steel buildings of which there are thousands and thousands for a hundred years to the number of maned space flights  is just total proof of how inane your thinking really is



you stutter when you post. how nice...

your right. i'm wrong. the building in thailand isnt that important. it just shows that fire can take a steel frame building despite your claims to the contrary. but this thread is about WTC 7 being an inside job. so i should be refuting your proof of that, right?

so.... ummmmmm where;s the proof?


----------



## Fizz (Nov 28, 2009)

eots said:


> fuzz nuts you are full of shit..and a weasel..your claim is not in any official documentation



ooops. guess what i found. it actually IS in official documention.

NCSTAR 1-9 vol1 p345


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 28, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > fuzz nuts you are full of shit..and a weasel..your claim is not in any official documentation
> ...


he's totally batshit crazy


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 28, 2009)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


you know everything has to have a first, right shiflake?


----------



## eots (Nov 28, 2009)

you mean like me calling you shitflake..shitflake


----------



## eots (Nov 28, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > fuzz nuts you are full of shit..and a weasel..your claim is not in any official documentation
> ...



try posting a quote and working link


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 28, 2009)

eots said:


> you mean like me calling you shitflake..shitflake


only it fits you better


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 28, 2009)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


why should he bother
you will only spin and deny its existence or its credibility
seriously, seek out professional help


----------



## eots (Nov 28, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > fuzz nuts you are full of shit..and a weasel..your claim is not in any official documentation and your conspiracy theory that the building was claimed to not be permanent ..but yet is permanent is just total bullshit..running in circles  as are comparisons to space shuttles ...moron// for one several launch vehicles have blown up and to compare tall steel buildings of which there are thousands and thousands for a hundred years to the number of maned space flights  is just total proof of how inane your thinking really is
> ...



I never made any claim on the issue other than that of offical record and not in dispute by NIST


----------



## eots (Nov 28, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



yes the divemoronconspiracy defence again....shitflakes...divemoroncons job is to try and distract by throwing his cloud of shitflakes in the air...and because he is an unimaginative simpleton his only response will be to  call one _crazy _or say.._no..thats what you_ do...lol


----------



## Fizz (Nov 28, 2009)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



do your own homework.

i gave you the page of the NIST report that you despise so much. don't tell me you've never even read it!!!!


the reason i didnt post a link is because i actually downloaded the entire report to my hard drive and am in the process of reading it. i cant really post a link to my hard drive.


----------



## eots (Nov 28, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



I post the  offical quotes and the links ..weasel


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 28, 2009)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


no, you CHERRY pick and miss the meaning of what you post
so you lose the context of it every time
you seriously need professional help
i think there is hope for you, but i have none for terral or 9/11 jim job
dumbfuck


----------



## eots (Nov 28, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...


shitflakes..nothing but shitflakes


----------



## Fizz (Nov 28, 2009)

eots said:


> I post the  offical quotes and the links ..weasel



i've already posted the official quote. you then complain it isnt in any official document. i then post what page of the official document is on. the original quote came with the link.

your pathetic whining about not being in any official documents gets you a page number of the official document. feel free to go to the NIST website and download the entire report like i did.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 28, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


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



office fires cant cause pools of molten metal NOR can they melt steel like the steel was melted as we have seen in PHOTOS Nor can they cause them come down at freefall speed like they did  Gomer Pyle. again as always,you ignore how it was easy for them to plant the explosives in there with his brother criminal Marvin Bush head of security there and his cousin Wirt Walker as well.The office workers couldnt go in and see what was going on,they had KEEP OUT signs,construction going on.They call security and you get arrested if you ignore  signs like that and go in there Gomer Pyle. the OTHER smoking gun you cant get around that explosives brought the towers down Gomer Pyle,is witness testimonys said they heard and exploison in the BASEMENTS "BEFORE" the plane stuck the towers.and people witnessed them carrying a man out badly burned who came out of a basement elevater yelling-explosions,explosions.

Not only that,first responders-"very credible people" heard and saw explosions and they said they saw bright orange yellow flashes going off before and during the collapse and there were body parts found blocks away on rooftops Gomer Pyle.You STILL want to continue to make yourself look like a moron that explosives didnt bring  the towers down and keep on being a Gomer Pyle?  seeing how you cant confess up that creative dreams and many other posters toook you to school and proved it was an inside job at that other site,I have no doubt the answer is yes.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 28, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


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


you are totally fucking INSANE


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 28, 2009)

waiting for someone to post whos posts I actualy read to come back for another continued ass beating.Not someone I have on ignore.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 28, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> office fires cant cause pools of molten metal NOR can they melt steel like the steel was melted as we have seen in PHOTOS



office fires can cause molten metal. it depends on the metal.



9/11 inside job said:


> Nor can they cause them come down at freefall speed like they did  Gomer Pyle.



they didnt



9/11 inside job said:


> again as always,you ignore how it was easy for them to plant the explosives in there with his brother criminal Marvin Bush head of security there and his cousin Wirt Walker as well.The office workers couldnt go in and see what was going on,they had KEEP OUT signs,construction going on.They call security and you get arrested if you ignore  signs like that and go in there Gomer Pyle. the OTHER smoking gun you cant get around that explosives brought the towers down Gomer Pyle,is witness testimonys said they heard and exploison in the BASEMENTS "BEFORE" the plane stuck the towers.and people witnessed them carrying a man out badly burned who came out of a basement elevater yelling-explosions,explosions.
> 
> Not only that,first responders-"very credible people" heard and saw explosions and they said they saw bright orange yellow flashes going off before and during the collapse and there were body parts found blocks away on rooftops Gomer Pyle.You STILL want to continue to make yourself look like a moron that explosives didnt bring  the towers down and keep on being a Gomer Pyle?  seeing how you cant confess up that creative dreams and many other posters toook you to school and proved it was an inside job at that other site,I have no doubt the answer is yes.



cars exploding in the basement? how completely absurd. we all know cars dant have things like fuel in them and nothing in a car can possibly burn and explode. it must be a controlled demolition because i say it is. i dont need any proof. i can just say it was a controlled demolition and you must believe me. i can jsut say that there was a hole in security and therefore it is there. and of course if there is a hole in security then there MUST be people bringing explosives into the building. and the planes that hit the building can not possibly have cut any pre-wired explosives intended to bring the building down. it happens that way because i say it happens that way. i dont need proof.

you are completely out of your friggin mind, dude.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 28, 2009)

Fizz said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > office fires cant cause pools of molten metal NOR can they melt steel like the steel was melted as we have seen in PHOTOS
> ...



office fires cant cause steel to melt like the photos show of the towers wreckage  agent and they cant emit off high extreme temps that were recorded WEEKS after the collapse either. and yes,watch the towers fall,they DID fall at freefall speed,even NIST now admits that agent.lol. whats this crap about cars? your thinking of the 93 bombing,and you dodged many points I brought up cause you know you CANT refute the facts explosives brought the towers down.you just love these ass beatings you get dont ya?


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 28, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> waiting for someone to post whos posts I actualy read to come back for another continued ass beating.Not someone I have on ignore.


funny how you respond to my every post

you're such a dumbfuck


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 28, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


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


hey dumbfuck, no one has ever claimed they made the steel MELT
you dont know anything about metal


----------



## eots (Nov 28, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > waiting for someone to post whos posts I actualy read to come back for another continued ass beating.Not someone I have on ignore.
> ...


hi..shitflakes


----------



## eots (Nov 28, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > I post the  offical quotes and the links ..weasel
> ...



so what your saying is you can not provide a link that works to this quote in any official document ??


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 28, 2009)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


no, what he is saying is he got it from a LINK YOU POSTED, shitflake


----------



## candycorn (Nov 28, 2009)

eots=


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 28, 2009)

candycorn said:


> eots=


one thing about Eots that sets him apart from the rest of the troofer morons, he does actually post on other issues than conspiracies

but on this one topic eots is totally batshit crazy


i'm not sure, but i dont believe he thinks the moon landings were faked


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 28, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


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




I'm sorry I didn't know that anyone could identify molten metal as being steel from a photograph.

I don't believe that the buildings quite fell at freefall speed, thiss has been proven to be a false statement.

No way in hell could even the head of security smuggle in the tons of explosives needed to drop these buildings and according to you plant them on every floor of the building, without someone getting suspicious or talking about it.

I would like to talk to the person who heard explosives in the basement before the planes hit, and I would have to wonder how such a tall building could stand for so long after any support was taken away.

The blast from the plane exploding could easily have traveled down an elevator shaft.

I would like to know why there are no videos of these flashes. So many hundreds of cameras were pointed at those buildings.

Body parts were flung out of the building when the planes hit. And fact is that the buildings did not exactly collapse into their own footprint. Many things were flung out from the collapse.

Gomer Pile was a Hollywood Marine Private. I am a real true to life Retired U S Army Sergeant First Class. Learn the difference.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 28, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


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


cause they used ultra super secret detonators and super thermite paint


----------



## eots (Nov 28, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


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



but according to nist only three columns were required to fail it would not require tons of explosives if fires  alone could cause this failure of three columns then...would it


----------



## eots (Nov 28, 2009)

DiveCon said:


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



before the army disclosed radar it was super secret..before the disclosed stealth technology it it was super secret the army holds experimentally patents for thermite technology's...it is not a stretch in the least that thermite or thermite like substances have been formulated for cutting purposes at all


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 28, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




You haven't a clue what the Army may or may not have. I retired in 93 (just 16 years ago) and i haven't a clue what they may or may not have. And I was in a position where I knew a lot. But I notice you didn't really answer any of my statements.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 28, 2009)

eots said:


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




Oh please let us not forget the twin towers now,,,,,,,can't leave them out....We are talking tons of explosives and weeks if not months of sneaking around.


----------



## eots (Nov 28, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



while I do not accept your assertion  as evidence fires caused it...we are discussing wtc 7 here... and lets not forget this little elephant in the room

August 21, 2007 
Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

"although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have* no evidence *that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings "

http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 28, 2009)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


so says "oped news"(AKA another fucking BLOG)


----------



## eots (Nov 28, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



and now in the face of the evidence shitflakes resorts to his divemoronconspiracy that a fake article can be created for the lead fire investigator at NIST  full of quotes denouncing NIST and its procedures unimpeded by slander lawsuits or the site being taken down or some denier proving it is a fraud...because denial is all shitflakes has left


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 28, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


that isnt evidence, shitflake
its a fucking BLOG
nothing more

it lacks credibility
has no more power of proof than any post you have ever made
so that makes YOU the shitflake once again


kinda what you fucking morons say about PM mag
except they actually DO have some credibility since they have a history of digging for the truth
and you can shove your fucking nutcase bullshit about them being a Hearst publication up your moronic troofer fucking ass


----------



## eots (Nov 28, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



you make the claim the article is fake..that these quotes are fake..prove it or shut the fuck up...it is a ludicrous accusation you can not possible substantiate..it is pure denial ..just trying to throw shitflakes in the air once again


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 28, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


i never said anything of the sort shitflake
i said oped news lacks credibility
so fuck off
learn to fucking READ


----------



## eots (Nov 28, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



the criticism of popular mechanics is there editorial opinion presented as fact and the omission of quotes that do not fit the story..no one is saying that popular mechanics gives quotes from nist investigators they have fabricated that would be...stupid


----------



## eots (Nov 28, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



what has that got to do with the words of Dr. Quintiere....shitflakes


[The full text of Dr. Quintieres statement to the Science Committee can be found at The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse: Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps ]


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 28, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


its called "cherry picking", shitflake

why don't you contact Dr. Quintiere, and ask him if he thinks it was a controlled demolition

i glanced through the list of speakers and those that submitted written reports and he(Dr. Quintiere) isnt listed there


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 28, 2009)

Dr. Quintiere made a statement before a congressional committee. Thius is true. And mr eots tries to use that statement to prove that fire was not the cause of the collapse of wtc7. However when you read the statement in it's entirety it becomes rather clear that Dr. Quintiere is upset about the lack of testing facilities and the number of fire tester in the entire United States.

No where in his statements does he even hint that there may have been any type of explosives.

"I point out some alarming facts. The fire program at NIST received a boost in the 1970's under the confluence of several forces: NSF advancing $2 million per year for fire research, consumer product safety legislation (CPSC), and the funding advanced by industry and government agencies for fire research (about $ 23 million per year). This funding has considerably dropped in real dollars. The NIST fire program continues to survive by taking contracts from government and the private sector that could otherwise support academic or private industry. The extramural research program of NIST, inherited from NSF, has shrunk from effectively $2 million to about $500k in 1970 dollars. The NSF has defaulted a fire program to NIST so investigators in academia have no program to turn to at NSF. The NASA microgravity program had taken up the slack in fire research beginning about 1985, but its current fire research budget has been decimated in a shift from space station needed research to a Mars human flight program. The Science Committee has oversight over NSF, NASA, and NIST. It should investigate how it can best support the needed fire research." 

Dr. Quintiere


----------



## eots (Nov 28, 2009)

well now that is cherry picking his complaints and criticism went well beyond just that.. but regardless
I am not claiming he supports the controlled demolition theory..I am claiming he supports an independent investigation..finds the results questionable...feels fact finding was blocked and that there is no evidence that temperatures required to initiate failure ...all of which is fact


----------



## eots (Nov 28, 2009)

well now that is cherry picking his complaints and criticism went well beyond just that.. but regardless
I am not claiming he supports the controlled demolition theory..I am claiming he supports an independent investigation..finds the results questionable...feels fact finding was blocked and that there is no evidence that temperatures required to initiate failure ...all of which is fact


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 28, 2009)

eots said:


> well now that is cherry picking his complaints and criticism went well beyond just that.. but regardless
> I am not claiming he supports the controlled demolition theory..I am claiming he supports an independent investigation..finds the results questionable...feels fact finding was blocked and that there is no evidence that temperatures required to initiate failure ...all of which is fact


he only find minutia wrong
not that it was anywhere near a controlled demo
you using his words as your excuse to claim a CD is a LIE


----------



## eots (Nov 28, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > well now that is cherry picking his complaints and criticism went well beyond just that.. but regardless
> ...



I stated.. as clear as day.. my position ..shitflakes...you rambling bumble ass


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 28, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


its still not a controlled demolition shitflake

and its ONLY on WTC7


----------



## eots (Nov 28, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...







Thermite charge - Patent # 7555986 - PatentGenius
Sustained thermite cutting technologies

Date Issued: July 7, 2009 
Application: 11/371,541 
Filed: March 8, 2006 
Inventors: Givens; Richard W. (Columbus, OH)
Klein; Jerome A. (Raymond, OH)
Burky; Thomas E. (Monroe Township, OH)
Reuther; James J. (Worthington, OH)

Assignee: Battelle Memorial Institute (Columbus, OH) 
Primary Examiner: Bergin; James S 
Assistant Examiner:  
Attorney Or Agent: MacMillan, Sobanski & Todd, LLC 
U.S. Class: 102/331; 102/293; 148/194; 266/48 
Field Of Search: 102/307; 102/331; 102/476; 102/314; 102/320; 102/321; 102/332; 102/293; 89/1.14; 266/48; 266/167; 148/194; 148/204; 148/205 
International Class: F42D 3/00; B23K 7 

Thermite charge - Patent # 7555986 - PatentGenius


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 28, 2009)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Nov 28, 2009)

20060266204 Thermite charge
... allows more expeditious and safer material removal, including entry into structures, and structural demolition. BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION [0004] Thermite reactions are well characterized and have been used for a variety of applications

7555986 Thermite charge
... provides for cutting operations using linear thermite charges; the charges cut one dimensional or two dimensional geometric shapes; the invention is useful for structure entry or demolition. Inventors: Givens; Richard W. (Columbus, OH ...  


Patent Search Results - PatentStorm


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 28, 2009)

eots said:


> 20060266204 Thermite charge
> ... allows more expeditious and safer material removal, including entry into structures, and structural demolition. BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION [0004] Thermite reactions are well characterized and have been used for a variety of applications
> 
> 7555986 Thermite charge
> ...


nice cherry picking from that search link


----------



## eots (Nov 28, 2009)

nice use of the term cherry picking to try and throw shiteflakes in the air to cover the facts


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 28, 2009)

eots said:


> nice use of the term cherry picking to try and throw shiteflakes in the air to cover the facts


eots doing that projecting again


----------



## eots (Dec 3, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah2Ku3hTnDc&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## eots (Dec 3, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah2Ku3hTnDc&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 3, 2009)

eots said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah2Ku3hTnDc&feature=related


who gives a fuck what that dipshit says any more than what YOU say


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 3, 2009)

eots said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah2Ku3hTnDc&feature=related



Another video we have seen from you before.

First off you can tell that the interviewer doesn't believe a word of it.

Unreacted Nano thermite? Really in all that heat some of it didn't go off?

The guy mentions molten metal (Not steel)

He claims it can be used as an explosion but that military scientists may not be familiar with it? Really?

He also reiterates that the non esistant explosions had to be perfectly timed, from the top down. Sorry but the explosion of the plane would have either screwed that up or set off the chain immediately.

Sorry this guy is just another nut case.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 3, 2009)

where has thermite EVER been used to bring down a building?

it isnt used in building demolition. so twoofers would have you believe that there is the massive conspiracy to crash planes into buildings and then blow up the world trade center with a product that has NEVER been used in building demolitions. it doesnt make any sense at all.

also, if explosives were used to bring down the WTC why didnt the official story just say that? why not just blame the terrorists for that also? why even bother to fly planes into the buildings? just blow them up and blame the terrorists.

seriously, the twoofers just dont make any sense.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 3, 2009)

where has thermite EVER been used to bring down a building?

it isnt used in building demolition. so twoofers would have you believe that there is the massive conspiracy to crash planes into buildings and then blow up the world trade center with a product that has NEVER been used in building demolitions. it doesnt make any sense at all.

also, if explosives were used to bring down the WTC why didnt the official story just say that? why not just blame the terrorists for that also? why even bother to fly planes into the buildings? just blow them up and blame the terrorists.

seriously, the twoofers just dont make any sense.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 3, 2009)

Fizz said:


> where has thermite EVER been used to bring down a building?
> 
> it isnt used in building demolition. so twoofers would have you believe that there is the massive conspiracy to crash planes into buildings and then blow up the world trade center with a product that has NEVER been used in building demolitions. it doesnt make any sense at all.
> 
> ...


if i went through all the hassle of wiring up a building to collapse with timed detonators from the top down(backwards from every demo ever done) why the FUCK would i risk damaging all that work by having a plane crash into the buildings
and then, why would i include a plane crash in PA as an extra?
makes ZERO sense


Occam's Razor


----------



## elvis (Dec 3, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > where has thermite EVER been used to bring down a building?
> ...



If the planes were not your plan but someone else's.  you just know about the planes and rig the buildings independent of the plane plot.  
of course it's already been proven the towers were not brought down by demolition, but just for shits and giggles.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 3, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


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


but then I would have been pissed that they ruined my perfect plan
i would have come out and exposed them
LOL

but also, i would have had to rig the explosives to time with the plane crashes and the point of entry


----------



## elvis (Dec 3, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Cheney was in WTC 7 with the remote control to set off the explosives.


----------



## eots (Dec 4, 2009)

Fizz said:


> where has thermite EVER been used to bring down a building?
> 
> it isnt used in building demolition. so twoofers would have you believe that there is the massive conspiracy to crash planes into buildings and then blow up the world trade center with a product that has NEVER been used in building demolitions. it doesnt make any sense at all.
> 
> ...



when before has a building fully collapsed due to fire....never...when before have two buildings fully collapsed due primarily to fire ...never


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 4, 2009)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > where has thermite EVER been used to bring down a building?
> ...


the madrid building did
the parts that DIDNT have concrete
which would be the only parts similar to the WTC


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 4, 2009)

Gee when has a Battleship ever been sunk by an airplane? 3 times, all on Dec 7th 1942. Never before and never since.


Coincidence? NO Understandable , yes.

When have 3 skyscrapers collapse due to airplanes and fire? September 11th 2001, never before and never since.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 4, 2009)

eots said:


> when before has a building fully collapsed due to fire....never...when before have two buildings fully collapsed due primarily to fire ...never



So you are saying that it is possible for a structural steel building to PARTIALLY collapse due to fire?

How is that possible if fire cannot affect steel like you and your buddies claim?


----------



## manu1959 (Dec 4, 2009)

eots said:


> when before has a building fully collapsed due to fire....never...when before have two buildings fully collapsed due primarily to fire ...never



how many of these other buildings had a structural steel core....a truss curtain wall design and a column free interior ....that were hit by an aiplane compromising the sturctural and fire supression systems on multiple floors....


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 4, 2009)

manu1959 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > when before has a building fully collapsed due to fire....never...when before have two buildings fully collapsed due primarily to fire ...never
> ...



Now don't go asking questions like this manu. You'll just confuse them.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 4, 2009)

manu1959 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > when before has a building fully collapsed due to fire....never...when before have two buildings fully collapsed due primarily to fire ...never
> ...


too logical for troofers


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 4, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


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



only in the minds of frady cat deniars like you Bush dupes has it been proven explosives did not bring down the towers.


----------



## manu1959 (Dec 4, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



sorry but bush had only been in office what...7 months.....it takes longer than that to plan and wire a 100 story tall building....it would have to have been clinton.....


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 4, 2009)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > where has thermite EVER been used to bring down a building?
> ...




yet these coincidence theorists automatically except the THEORY that fires caused the buildings to collapse and their logic is doesnt matter to them that hundreds of credible people such as architects,engineers,scientists,first responders and firemen dont accept the theory that the fires caused the buildings to collapse,only what the corporate controlled media and government agencys tell them.its priceless logic,I love it.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 4, 2009)

manu1959 said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



a few months is all it takes to wire the buildings dude and I guarantee you,Bush's buddy Clinton knew it was going to happen during his years in office.Before Bush jr came along,he was the most evil corrupted president there ever was.Every president that gets into office these days is always worse and more evil than the previous one.It was broadcast all over the mainstream news channels back during his term that the military had closed in on Bin Laden and 3 different countries offered to turn him over to Clinton and Clinton told the military to back off of  him.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 4, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




You fail to understand. It has not been proven that Explosives did not bring down the buildings, It has never been proven that explosives did either. The official investigation says that there were no additional explosives other than blunt force of the planes and the explosion of the fuel.

You believe otherwise, you prove otherwise. You have failed to present a case for explosives.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 4, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...




Actually about a third of that may be true. But no one actually offered Bin Laden to us. And Clinton had nothing to do with 9-11 either.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 4, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> Every president that gets into office these days is always worse and more evil than the previous one.


well, at least we can agree that Obama is worse than Bush.


----------



## manu1959 (Dec 4, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...



too funny.... it takes a 2-4 months to do the engineering .... 2-4 months to get the permits (but hey who gets permits for this) and a 100 story building would take about 4-6 to wire and do pre-demo .... 

so now you are saying that clinton and bush cooked this up.....


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 4, 2009)

Fizz said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Every president that gets into office these days is always worse and more evil than the previous one.
> ...


i'd say they are about the same

only Bush didnt have the same people in congress to make things worse


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 5, 2009)

manu1959 said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > manu1959 said:
> ...



Okay YOU I will address.your not a government plant disinfo agent sent here to tell lies and bullshit about 9/11 like agents Gomer Pyle Ollie and Fizz are.Your just a brainwashed Bush dupe that has been brainwashed by agents like them  and the mainstream media so I will try and reason with you to get you unbrainwashed.why dont you read the ENTIRE post instead of PARTS of it.? those are facts,I just told you how it was broadcast all over the mainstream news back then that Clinton told the military to back off from going after Bin Laden after 3 different countries offered to turn him over.
that part of the permits is so laughable dont know why you would even bring it up when its an inside job. seriously,your too funny.I just said it takes a few months to do it,2 to 4 months is about right so whats your point? 

Easy as hell to pull off when you got Bushs brother Marvin Bush and his cousin Wirt Walker in charge of the security towers.
If you would bother to do some research you would KNOW witnesses said in the prior months before 9/11 there were a lot of strange unusual construction work going on inside the towers that they thought was really weird.You seriously need to stop listening to the corporate controlled media and agents like gomer pyle ollie and fizz here and START listening to what the witnesses and experts say.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 5, 2009)

manu1959 said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > manu1959 said:
> ...


figures rimjob couldnt begin to understand


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 5, 2009)

still more evidence of highly credible people who do not accept the lies and fairy tales of the government and media that the fires caused the towers to collapse.eat shit Gomer Pyle, Ditzcon and agent Gam.hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

People with demolition expertise questioning 9/11


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 5, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> still more evidence of highly credible people who do not accept the lies and fairy tales of the government and media that the fires caused the towers to collapse.eat shit Gomer Pyle, Ditzcon and agent Gam.hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> People with demolition expertise questioning 9/11


so ironic for a dipshit like you to call anyone a ditz
fuck off you fucking moronic piss-ant

and the fucking idiot uses a blog that ANYONE can start to claim "experts"

too fucking funny


----------



## Tom Clancy (Dec 5, 2009)

Idiots.. 

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



> Update:
> 
> Structure Magazine explains one probable cause of the WTC 7 collapse. "Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7"
> 
> ...









And so on... Read the whole story.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 5, 2009)

Tom Clancy said:


> Idiots..
> 
> Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7
> 
> ...


well, clearly, structure mag is PART of the conspiracy 
same for PM and every other mainstream science mag


these morons will ignore the truth and stay in their delusions
but nice try, but i know they will find something totally fucking assinine to reject this source


----------



## eots (Dec 5, 2009)

James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST&#8217;s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.


Dr. Quintiere said he originally &#8220;had high hopes&#8221; that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. &#8220;They&#8217;re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what* I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], *which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get *gumshoe-type information. *What prevented all of this? I think it&#8217;s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers *as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.&#8221; *


"All of these have been submitted to NIST, but never acknowledged or answered. I will list some of these. 



although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have *no evidence* that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure 


. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the *validation of these modeling results is in question *others have computed aspects with different conclusions 


Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ... 

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


*NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse*

This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building, the agency stated as it released for public comment its WTC investigation report and 13 recommendations for improving building and fire safety.



*otherwise similar* to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an *extraordinary event,&#8221;* said NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder


debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7.&#8221; 


NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, 08/21/08


----------



## Tom Clancy (Dec 6, 2009)

> *Claim:* Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded the events of 9/11. "The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before falling debris struck the earth," reports the Web site WhatReallyHappened.com.
> 
> A columnist on Prisonplanet.com, a Web site run by radio talk show host Alex Jones, claims the seismic spikes (boxed area on Graph 1) are "indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down" the towers. The Web site says its findings are supported by two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Each "sharp spike of short duration," says Prisonplanet.com, was consistent with a "demolition-style implosion."
> 
> ...


----------



## eots (Dec 6, 2009)

July 16, 2007:  *Former California Seismic Safety Commissioner* Endorses 9/11 Truth Movement
Prominent Engineer Calls for a New Investigation of 9/11

Summary: J. Marx Ayres, MS, former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council and former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission called for a new investigation of 9/11, "Steven Jones' call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that the WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fire, but through the use of pre-positioned 'cutter-charges' must be the rallying cry for all building design experts to speak out."



Jan. 14, 2008: *Twenty-five U.S. Military Officers Challenge Official Account of 9/11 *&#8211; Official Account of 9/11 &#8220;Impossible&#8221;, &#8220;A Bunch of Hogwash&#8221;, &#8220;Total B.S.&#8221;, &#8220;Ludicrous&#8221;, &#8220;A Well-Organized Cover-up&#8221;, &#8220;A White-Washed Farce&#8221;
Article on OpEdNews

Summary: Twenty-five U.S. military officers condemn the official account of 9/11.  The article details severe criticism of the official account of 9/11 by: General Albert Stubblebine, former commander of U.S. Army Intelligence, Col. Ronald D. Ray, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Major John M. Newman, PhD, former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency, Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, former staff member of the Director of the National Security Agency, Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, and 20 other officers

http://patriotsquestion911.com/


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


----------



## Fizz (Dec 7, 2009)

eots said:


> July 16, 2007:  *Former California Seismic Safety Commissioner* Endorses 9/11 Truth Movement
> Prominent Engineer Calls for a New Investigation of 9/11
> 
> Summary: J. Marx Ayres, MS, former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council and former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission called for a new investigation of 9/11, "Steven Jones' call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that the WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fire, but through the use of pre-positioned 'cutter-charges' must be the rallying cry for all building design experts to speak out."
> ...



hmmmm... one seismologist.

oh wait. he isnt a seismologist at all. he is a heating and cooling expert for buildings. 
from his website:
" I am an expert in heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) and fire protection for buildings. I have authored 41 technical papers and I am a chapter author in 3 books covering HVAC systems, building and energy requirements, solar heating and cooling applications, thermal energy storage and earthquake damage to building* nonstructural systems.*"

its nice he signed the petition for a new investigation though. i guess every little bit helps.

next we have 25 military officers. 

hmmm..... a whole 25 huh? out of how many military officers in the services? i have no idea how many officers there are but i'm guessing that 25 is going to be less than .001% of all officers.


----------



## eots (Dec 7, 2009)

how many of this caliber in this positions and with careers of meritorious service then do the math again..dipshit

*
Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) &#8211; Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter*.  U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. (PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Cal Tech).   *Former Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology*.  22-year Air Force career.  Also taught Mathematics and English at the University of Southern California, the University of Maryland, and Phillips University. 
Member: Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth Association Statement: 

"Scholars and professionals with various kinds of expertise---including architects, engineers, firefighters, intelligence officers, lawyers, medical professionals, military officers, philosophers, religious leaders, physical scientists, and pilots---have spoken out about radical discrepancies between the official account of the 9/11 attacks and what they, as independent researchers, have learned. 

*They have established beyond any reasonable doubt that the official account of 9/11 is false and that, therefore, the official &#8220;investigations&#8221; have really been cover-up operations.* 

Thus far, however, there has been no response from political leaders in Washington or, for that matter, in other capitals around the world. Our organization, Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth, has been formed to help bring about such a response. 

We believe that the truth about 9/11 needs to be exposed now---not in 50 years as a footnote in the history books---so the policies that have been based on the Bush-Cheney administration&#8217;s interpretation of the 9/11 attacks can be changed. 

We are, therefore, calling for a new, independent investigation of 9/11 that takes account of evidence that has been documented by independent researchers but thus far ignored by governments and the mainstream media." 


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

Who gained from 9/11?  Who covered up crucial information about 9/11?  And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place?  When you take those three things together, I think the case is pretty clear that it&#8217;s highly placed individuals in the administration with all roads passing through Dick Cheney. 

*I think the very kindest thing that we can say about George W. Bush and all the people in the U.S. Government that have been involved in this massive cover-up, the very kindest thing we can say is that they were aware of impending attacks and let them happen.  Now some people will say that&#8217;s much too kind, however even that is high treason and conspiracy to commit murder." * http://video.go 

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

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

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

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

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


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


Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition: 

"The government conspiracy theory does not hold up to scrutiny. As a professional with over 30 years experience working with gas turbines (jet engines) and fuels - kerosene (jet fuel) does not burn in any open flame hot enough to effect steel - well under 1000 deg F. Also bogus are the explanations regarding why no planes were intercepted. SOP [Standard Operating Procedure] is they are always, always intercepted if they stray off course and/or turn off the transponder like these flights all did. No command decision needed. Has our government ever been untruthful to us?"  AE911Truth 

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

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

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

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

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


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


Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition: 

*"The government conspiracy theory does not hold up to scrutiny. As a professional with over 30 years experience working with gas turbines (jet engines) and fuels - kerosene (jet fuel) does not burn in any open flame hot enough to effect steel* - well under 1000 deg F. *Also bogus are the explanations regarding why no planes were intercepted. SOP *[Standard Operating Procedure] is they are always, always intercepted if they stray off course and/or turn off the transponder like these flights all did. No command decision needed. Has our government ever been untruthful to us?"  AE911Truth 
Col. Michael Harley, U.S. Air Force (ret) &#8211; Retired Chief of Standardization of a Strategic Air Command Wing equipped with Boeing B-52 bombers, Boeing RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft and Boeing KC-135 Stratotankers.  Command pilot and U.S. Air Force accident investigator.  6,000+ total hours flown.  Aircraft flown: Boeing B-52 Stratofortress bomber, Lockheed C130A, B, E,& prototype H Hercules, K-135 Stratotanker, DeHavilland U6 Beaver, Lockheed T-33 Shooting Star, Cessna T-37 Dragonfly "Tweet", Northrup T-38 Talon, North American T-39 Sabreliner, Bell UH-1 Iroquois "Huey" Helicopter.  26 years commissioned officer and 34 total years of U.S. Air Force service.  Former Instructor, Accident Investigation, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.  Management analyst and IG.  Simulator instructor.  Instructor Pilot and Standardization Evaluation Pilot.  Civilian aircraft flown: Cessna 177, Beechcraft Twin Bonanza, Piper Cherokee-6.  Newspaper columnist and freelance writer. 
Member: Pilots for 9/11 Truth  Association Statement: "Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe that have gathered together for one purpose. We are committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001. Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots. We do not offer theory or point blame. However, we are focused on determining the truth of that fateful day since the United States Government doesn't seem to be very forthcoming with answers." 

*Senator Max Cleland &#8211; Former member of the 9/11 Commission, *resigned in December 2003.  Currently serves on the board of directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States.  U.S. Senator from Georgia 1997 - 2002.  Secretary of State of Georgia 1982 - 1996.  Administrator of the U.S. Veterans Administration 1977 - 1981.  Former *Captain, U.S. Army.  Awarded Silver Star and Bronze Star for bravery in Viet Nam.  Triple amputee from war injuries.  *Article New York Times 10/26/03: "As each day goes by, we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before Sept. 11 than it has ever admitted." Common Dreams | News & Views 


Article Boston Globe 11/13/03: "If this decision stands [to limit access to White House documents], I*, as a member of the [9/11] Commission, cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, *and say the Commission had full access. This investigation is now compromised. . . . *This is `The Gong Show'*; this isn't protection of national security." ... fIENDISH.net .... 


Article Salon 11/21/03: Regarding the 9/11 Commission "It is a national scandal." Directory - Salon.com 


Resigned from the 9/11 Commission, 12/03, after having served on it for 12 months.  Former Senator Bob Kerrey from Nebraska was selected to replace him.  The 9/11 Commission Report was issued 7 months later. 


Interview Democracy Now 3/23/04: "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But *this White House wants to cover it up."   *
*
Capt. Eric H. May, U.S. Army (ret) &#8211; Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer. Former inspector and interpreter for the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty team. *

Essay 9/11 and Non-investigation: "*As a former Army officer, my tendency immediately after 911 was to rally 'round the colors and defend the country against what I then thought was an insidious, malicious all-Arab entity called Al-Qaida*.  In fact, in April of 2002, I attempted to reactivate my then-retired commission to return to serve my country in its time of peril. ... 

*Now I view the 911 event as Professor David Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor, views it: as a matter that implies either *

A)  passive participation by the Bush White House through a deliberate stand-down of proper defense procedures that (if followed) would have led US air assets to a quick identification and confrontation of the passenger aircraft that impacted WTC 1 and WTC 2, or worse ... 

B) active execution of a plot by rogue elements of government, starting with the White House itself, in creating a spectacle of destruction that would lead the United States into an invasion of the Middle East ..."  Captain Eric May 
Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## eots (Dec 7, 2009)

how many of this caliber in this positions and with careers of meritorious service then do the math again..dipshit

*
Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret)  Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter*.  U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. (PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Cal Tech).   *Former Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology*.  22-year Air Force career.  Also taught Mathematics and English at the University of Southern California, the University of Maryland, and Phillips University. 
Member: Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth Association Statement: 

"Scholars and professionals with various kinds of expertise---including architects, engineers, firefighters, intelligence officers, lawyers, medical professionals, military officers, philosophers, religious leaders, physical scientists, and pilots---have spoken out about radical discrepancies between the official account of the 9/11 attacks and what they, as independent researchers, have learned. 

*They have established beyond any reasonable doubt that the official account of 9/11 is false and that, therefore, the official investigations have really been cover-up operations.* 

Thus far, however, there has been no response from political leaders in Washington or, for that matter, in other capitals around the world. Our organization, Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth, has been formed to help bring about such a response. 

We believe that the truth about 9/11 needs to be exposed now---not in 50 years as a footnote in the history books---so the policies that have been based on the Bush-Cheney administrations interpretation of the 9/11 attacks can be changed. 

We are, therefore, calling for a new, independent investigation of 9/11 that takes account of evidence that has been documented by independent researchers but thus far ignored by governments and the mainstream media." 


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

Who gained from 9/11?  Who covered up crucial information about 9/11?  And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place?  When you take those three things together, I think the case is pretty clear that its highly placed individuals in the administration with all roads passing through Dick Cheney. 

*I think the very kindest thing that we can say about George W. Bush and all the people in the U.S. Government that have been involved in this massive cover-up, the very kindest thing we can say is that they were aware of impending attacks and let them happen.  Now some people will say thats much too kind, however even that is high treason and conspiracy to commit murder." * http://video.go 

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

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

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

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

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


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


Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition: 

"The government conspiracy theory does not hold up to scrutiny. As a professional with over 30 years experience working with gas turbines (jet engines) and fuels - kerosene (jet fuel) does not burn in any open flame hot enough to effect steel - well under 1000 deg F. Also bogus are the explanations regarding why no planes were intercepted. SOP [Standard Operating Procedure] is they are always, always intercepted if they stray off course and/or turn off the transponder like these flights all did. No command decision needed. Has our government ever been untruthful to us?"  AE911Truth 

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

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

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

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

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


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


Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition: 

*"The government conspiracy theory does not hold up to scrutiny. As a professional with over 30 years experience working with gas turbines (jet engines) and fuels - kerosene (jet fuel) does not burn in any open flame hot enough to effect steel* - well under 1000 deg F. *Also bogus are the explanations regarding why no planes were intercepted. SOP *[Standard Operating Procedure] is they are always, always intercepted if they stray off course and/or turn off the transponder like these flights all did. No command decision needed. Has our government ever been untruthful to us?"  AE911Truth 
Col. Michael Harley, U.S. Air Force (ret)  Retired Chief of Standardization of a Strategic Air Command Wing equipped with Boeing B-52 bombers, Boeing RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft and Boeing KC-135 Stratotankers.  Command pilot and U.S. Air Force accident investigator.  6,000+ total hours flown.  Aircraft flown: Boeing B-52 Stratofortress bomber, Lockheed C130A, B, E,& prototype H Hercules, K-135 Stratotanker, DeHavilland U6 Beaver, Lockheed T-33 Shooting Star, Cessna T-37 Dragonfly "Tweet", Northrup T-38 Talon, North American T-39 Sabreliner, Bell UH-1 Iroquois "Huey" Helicopter.  26 years commissioned officer and 34 total years of U.S. Air Force service.  Former Instructor, Accident Investigation, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.  Management analyst and IG.  Simulator instructor.  Instructor Pilot and Standardization Evaluation Pilot.  Civilian aircraft flown: Cessna 177, Beechcraft Twin Bonanza, Piper Cherokee-6.  Newspaper columnist and freelance writer. 
Member: Pilots for 9/11 Truth  Association Statement: "Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe that have gathered together for one purpose. We are committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001. Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots. We do not offer theory or point blame. However, we are focused on determining the truth of that fateful day since the United States Government doesn't seem to be very forthcoming with answers." 

*Senator Max Cleland  Former member of the 9/11 Commission, *resigned in December 2003.  Currently serves on the board of directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States.  U.S. Senator from Georgia 1997 - 2002.  Secretary of State of Georgia 1982 - 1996.  Administrator of the U.S. Veterans Administration 1977 - 1981.  Former *Captain, U.S. Army.  Awarded Silver Star and Bronze Star for bravery in Viet Nam.  Triple amputee from war injuries.  *Article New York Times 10/26/03: "As each day goes by, we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before Sept. 11 than it has ever admitted." Common Dreams | News & Views 


Article Boston Globe 11/13/03: "If this decision stands [to limit access to White House documents], I*, as a member of the [9/11] Commission, cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, *and say the Commission had full access. This investigation is now compromised. . . . *This is `The Gong Show'*; this isn't protection of national security." ... fIENDISH.net .... 


Article Salon 11/21/03: Regarding the 9/11 Commission "It is a national scandal." Directory - Salon.com 


Resigned from the 9/11 Commission, 12/03, after having served on it for 12 months.  Former Senator Bob Kerrey from Nebraska was selected to replace him.  The 9/11 Commission Report was issued 7 months later. 


Interview Democracy Now 3/23/04: "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But *this White House wants to cover it up."   *
*
Capt. Eric H. May, U.S. Army (ret)  Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer. Former inspector and interpreter for the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty team. *

Essay 9/11 and Non-investigation: "*As a former Army officer, my tendency immediately after 911 was to rally 'round the colors and defend the country against what I then thought was an insidious, malicious all-Arab entity called Al-Qaida*.  In fact, in April of 2002, I attempted to reactivate my then-retired commission to return to serve my country in its time of peril. ... 

*Now I view the 911 event as Professor David Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor, views it: as a matter that implies either *

A)  passive participation by the Bush White House through a deliberate stand-down of proper defense procedures that (if followed) would have led US air assets to a quick identification and confrontation of the passenger aircraft that impacted WTC 1 and WTC 2, or worse ... 

B) active execution of a plot by rogue elements of government, starting with the White House itself, in creating a spectacle of destruction that would lead the United States into an invasion of the Middle East ..."  Captain Eric May 
Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## eots (Dec 7, 2009)

how many of this caliber in this positions and with careers of meritorious service then do the math again..dipshit

*
Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret)  Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter*.  U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. (PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Cal Tech).   *Former Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology*.  22-year Air Force career.  Also taught Mathematics and English at the University of Southern California, the University of Maryland, and Phillips University. 
Member: Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth Association Statement: 

"Scholars and professionals with various kinds of expertise---including architects, engineers, firefighters, intelligence officers, lawyers, medical professionals, military officers, philosophers, religious leaders, physical scientists, and pilots---have spoken out about radical discrepancies between the official account of the 9/11 attacks and what they, as independent researchers, have learned. 

*They have established beyond any reasonable doubt that the official account of 9/11 is false and that, therefore, the official investigations have really been cover-up operations.* 

Thus far, however, there has been no response from political leaders in Washington or, for that matter, in other capitals around the world. Our organization, Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth, has been formed to help bring about such a response. 

We believe that the truth about 9/11 needs to be exposed now---not in 50 years as a footnote in the history books---so the policies that have been based on the Bush-Cheney administrations interpretation of the 9/11 attacks can be changed. 

We are, therefore, calling for a new, independent investigation of 9/11 that takes account of evidence that has been documented by independent researchers but thus far ignored by governments and the mainstream media." 


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

Who gained from 9/11?  Who covered up crucial information about 9/11?  And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place?  When you take those three things together, I think the case is pretty clear that its highly placed individuals in the administration with all roads passing through Dick Cheney. 

*I think the very kindest thing that we can say about George W. Bush and all the people in the U.S. Government that have been involved in this massive cover-up, the very kindest thing we can say is that they were aware of impending attacks and let them happen.  Now some people will say thats much too kind, however even that is high treason and conspiracy to commit murder." * http://video.go 

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

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

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

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

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


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


Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition: 

"The government conspiracy theory does not hold up to scrutiny. As a professional with over 30 years experience working with gas turbines (jet engines) and fuels - kerosene (jet fuel) does not burn in any open flame hot enough to effect steel - well under 1000 deg F. Also bogus are the explanations regarding why no planes were intercepted. SOP [Standard Operating Procedure] is they are always, always intercepted if they stray off course and/or turn off the transponder like these flights all did. No command decision needed. Has our government ever been untruthful to us?"  AE911Truth 

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

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

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

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

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


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


Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition: 

*"The government conspiracy theory does not hold up to scrutiny. As a professional with over 30 years experience working with gas turbines (jet engines) and fuels - kerosene (jet fuel) does not burn in any open flame hot enough to effect steel* - well under 1000 deg F. *Also bogus are the explanations regarding why no planes were intercepted. SOP *[Standard Operating Procedure] is they are always, always intercepted if they stray off course and/or turn off the transponder like these flights all did. No command decision needed. Has our government ever been untruthful to us?"  AE911Truth 
Col. Michael Harley, U.S. Air Force (ret)  Retired Chief of Standardization of a Strategic Air Command Wing equipped with Boeing B-52 bombers, Boeing RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft and Boeing KC-135 Stratotankers.  Command pilot and U.S. Air Force accident investigator.  6,000+ total hours flown.  Aircraft flown: Boeing B-52 Stratofortress bomber, Lockheed C130A, B, E,& prototype H Hercules, K-135 Stratotanker, DeHavilland U6 Beaver, Lockheed T-33 Shooting Star, Cessna T-37 Dragonfly "Tweet", Northrup T-38 Talon, North American T-39 Sabreliner, Bell UH-1 Iroquois "Huey" Helicopter.  26 years commissioned officer and 34 total years of U.S. Air Force service.  Former Instructor, Accident Investigation, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.  Management analyst and IG.  Simulator instructor.  Instructor Pilot and Standardization Evaluation Pilot.  Civilian aircraft flown: Cessna 177, Beechcraft Twin Bonanza, Piper Cherokee-6.  Newspaper columnist and freelance writer. 
Member: Pilots for 9/11 Truth  Association Statement: "Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe that have gathered together for one purpose. We are committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001. Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots. We do not offer theory or point blame. However, we are focused on determining the truth of that fateful day since the United States Government doesn't seem to be very forthcoming with answers." 

*Senator Max Cleland  Former member of the 9/11 Commission, *resigned in December 2003.  Currently serves on the board of directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States.  U.S. Senator from Georgia 1997 - 2002.  Secretary of State of Georgia 1982 - 1996.  Administrator of the U.S. Veterans Administration 1977 - 1981.  Former *Captain, U.S. Army.  Awarded Silver Star and Bronze Star for bravery in Viet Nam.  Triple amputee from war injuries.  *Article New York Times 10/26/03: "As each day goes by, we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before Sept. 11 than it has ever admitted." Common Dreams | News & Views 


Article Boston Globe 11/13/03: "If this decision stands [to limit access to White House documents], I*, as a member of the [9/11] Commission, cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, *and say the Commission had full access. This investigation is now compromised. . . . *This is `The Gong Show'*; this isn't protection of national security." ... fIENDISH.net .... 


Article Salon 11/21/03: Regarding the 9/11 Commission "It is a national scandal." Directory - Salon.com 


Resigned from the 9/11 Commission, 12/03, after having served on it for 12 months.  Former Senator Bob Kerrey from Nebraska was selected to replace him.  The 9/11 Commission Report was issued 7 months later. 


Interview Democracy Now 3/23/04: "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But *this White House wants to cover it up."   *
*
Capt. Eric H. May, U.S. Army (ret)  Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer. Former inspector and interpreter for the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty team. *

Essay 9/11 and Non-investigation: "*As a former Army officer, my tendency immediately after 911 was to rally 'round the colors and defend the country against what I then thought was an insidious, malicious all-Arab entity called Al-Qaida*.  In fact, in April of 2002, I attempted to reactivate my then-retired commission to return to serve my country in its time of peril. ... 

*Now I view the 911 event as Professor David Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor, views it: as a matter that implies either *

A)  passive participation by the Bush White House through a deliberate stand-down of proper defense procedures that (if followed) would have led US air assets to a quick identification and confrontation of the passenger aircraft that impacted WTC 1 and WTC 2, or worse ... 

B) active execution of a plot by rogue elements of government, starting with the White House itself, in creating a spectacle of destruction that would lead the United States into an invasion of the Middle East ..."  Captain Eric May 
Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## Fizz (Dec 7, 2009)

eots said:


> how many of this caliber in this positions and with careers of meritorious service then do the math again..dipshit



ok. 3,467 recipients of the Medal of Honor. you have 25 signers of the petition. even if all of them received the medal of honor thats 0.7%

please stop stuttering when you post.


----------



## Tom Clancy (Dec 7, 2009)

Wait wait... So the only facts you can throw are not actually facts but Superstitions from these folks? 

Just because they're Officers/Enlisted men in the Military doesn't mean they're right. 


But yet again, you fail to come at me with facts..


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 7, 2009)

well, after you delete all those duplicate posts, why don't you ask a few of them to join here so they can be a part of the discussion and we can ask what they REALLY think happened and see if they actually agree with your bullshit


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 7, 2009)

Tom Clancy said:


> Wait wait... So the only facts you can throw are not actually facts but Superstitions from these folks?
> 
> Just because they're Officers/Enlisted men in the Military doesn't mean they're right.
> 
> ...


its just another troofer thing, an appeal to authority without anything to back it up
just try and find info on ANY of those people and find a source that ISNT a troofer nutcase site


----------



## eots (Dec 7, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > how many of this caliber in this positions and with careers of meritorious service then do the math again..dipshit
> ...



it is not the medals alone it is the positions critical to national security and with direct expertise in NORAD..aircraft.. explosives and counter terrorism
and because someone does not speak out it does not mean they accept the official lie...you are once again in denial


----------



## eots (Dec 7, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> > Wait wait... So the only facts you can throw are not actually facts but Superstitions from these folks?
> ...



your authority is bush lies and PM you moron


----------



## eots (Dec 7, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> > Wait wait... So the only facts you can throw are not actually facts but Superstitions from these folks?
> ...



the divemoronconspiracy again ..as you flail in your denial


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 7, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Tom Clancy said:
> ...


there is no denial of reality from me, asswipe
that's what YOU live in


----------



## eots (Dec 7, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



sorry you are a pathetic divemoronconspacy nut job that has a whacked out theory that the patriots site and the NIST article are fakes...it is a moronic theory that you made up...it is stupid weak and pathetic like its originator
and name sake the divemoroncon


----------



## Tom Clancy (Dec 7, 2009)

Hey Eots, i love your Neg Rep on me.. 

Classy, but hey, the way you post around here doesn't surprise me..

You don't see me going around Neg repping people for having a different View.. 


Just sayin'


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 7, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


STRAWMAN ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

never made any such claim asshole


----------



## Tom Clancy (Dec 7, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



You still haven't Responded to *Both* my posts questioning you about the other hundreds of people who supposedly took part in this Massive Conspiracy.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 7, 2009)

Tom Clancy said:


> Hey Eots, i love your Neg Rep on me..
> 
> Classy, but hey, the way you post around here doesn't surprise me..
> 
> ...


meh, dont let a neg rep bother ya
its a peer review system and he knows you will shortly have more than he does, so he's getting in the hits before you get there


----------



## eots (Dec 7, 2009)

Tom Clancy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



you cant find what you don't investigate..people in the mafia dont give themselves up because they feel guilty they do it because of extensive investigation and threat of prosecution


----------



## Tom Clancy (Dec 7, 2009)

eots said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Buddy, if that were true we wouldn't have known about Watergate, Iran/Contra and etc.. 

Somebody would have blown the whistle to reveal the so Called "Truth".. It's logic.  

And in this case it's more than 100+ people, who according to you are part of this Massive Conspiracy.


----------



## eots (Dec 7, 2009)

there is no comparison with Watergate or Iran/contra...try operation big city or MK ultra or the bay of Tomkin or the over throw of mosadec..the dole fruit company and Hearst in south America..the manhattan project..the mafia


----------



## Tom Clancy (Dec 7, 2009)

How is there not a Comparison with Watergate and Iran/Contra? 

You seriously make me wonder what made you believe in this whole Conspiracy shit..


----------



## Fizz (Dec 7, 2009)

Tom Clancy said:


> How is there not a Comparison with Watergate and Iran/Contra?
> 
> You seriously make me wonder what made you believe in this whole Conspiracy shit..



some of the people here are totally insane. eots isnt one of them. hes actually logical (but wrong). i have no idea why he holds onto his beliefs so strongly when faced with logic that contradicts his preconceived belief that there is this huge conspiracy.

maybe he just likes to argue for the sake of arguing.


----------



## eots (Dec 7, 2009)

The facts..Investigated with an open mind


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 7, 2009)

eots said:


> The facts..Investigated with an open mind


which you will reject
you have already shown you will reject facts


----------



## eots (Dec 7, 2009)

oh bullshit what facts ?..no it was a long process that stared on 9/11 when my father who was involved in covert operations...in fact after the cold war was over he received medals from operations he never spoke of that were now declassified so secrets can be kept..and he was a murder homicide detective..anyway it was he on 9/11 that said bullshit..could not happen without inside involvement..and i thought he was nuts then I heard other CIA AND FBI say the same thing..so i started to investigate the facts and that lead to ..let it happen ...then I looked at the case of wtc7..the commision cover up....the rest is history


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 7, 2009)

eots said:


> oh bullshit what facts ?..no it was a long process that stared on 9/11 when my father who was involved in covert operations...in fact after the cold war was over he received medals from operations he never spoke of that were now declassified so secrets can be kept..and he was a murder homicide detective..anyway it was he on 9/11 that said bullshit..could not happen without inside involvement..and i thought he was nuts then I heard other CIA AND FBI say the same thing..so i started to investigate the facts and that lead to ..let it happen ...then I looked at the case of wtc7..the commision cover up....the rest is history


SEE^^^

a new investigation would be a waste of time money and resources


----------



## Fizz (Dec 7, 2009)

eots said:


> oh bullshit what facts ?..no it was a long process that stared on 9/11 when my father who was involved in covert operations...in fact after the cold war was over he received medals from operations he never spoke of that were now declassified so secrets can be kept..and he was a murder homicide detective..anyway it was he on 9/11 that said bullshit..could not happen without inside involvement..and i thought he was nuts then I heard other CIA AND FBI say the same thing..so i started to investigate the facts and that lead to ..let it happen ...then I looked at the case of wtc7..the commision cover up....the rest is history



actually, i was kinda with you until you got to the wtc7 part.

i think its a big leap from not doing anything to stop it to planting explosives in the buildings.


----------



## eots (Dec 7, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > oh bullshit what facts ?..no it was a long process that stared on 9/11 when my father who was involved in covert operations...in fact after the cold war was over he received medals from operations he never spoke of that were now declassified so secrets can be kept..and he was a murder homicide detective..anyway it was he on 9/11 that said bullshit..could not happen without inside involvement..and i thought he was nuts then I heard other CIA AND FBI say the same thing..so i started to investigate the facts and that lead to ..let it happen ...then I looked at the case of wtc7..the commision cover up....the rest is history
> ...



yes it is but the fact is office fires don't cause collapses of highrises and that the proof it did in this one rare event is just not sound and the insuing cover-up  at both NIST and the 9/11 commision  is proof the truth is not being told and in fact is  intentional being impeded


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 7, 2009)

eots said:


> Jan. 14, 2008: *Twenty-five U.S. Military Officers Challenge Official Account of 9/11 * Official Account of 9/11 Impossible, A Bunch of Hogwash, Total B.S., Ludicrous, A Well-Organized Cover-up, A White-Washed Farce
> Article on OpEdNews
> 
> Summary: Twenty-five U.S. military officers condemn the official account of 9/11.  The article details severe criticism of the official account of 9/11 by: General Albert Stubblebine, former commander of U.S. Army Intelligence, Col. Ronald D. Ray, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Major John M. Newman, PhD, former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency, Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, former staff member of the Director of the National Security Agency, Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, and 20 other officers
> ...





And an additional 25,000 Military officers and 250,000 NCO's say that they are out of their ever loving minds.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 7, 2009)

LOL I just had to stop while I laughed so hard. I was going to actually research some of these Officers that Eots keeps trowing in front of us. But then I noticed this one.

C





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




Now why does this statement about the soldiers medal jump out at me? Here is the criteria for earning the soldiers medal:



> Criteria: The Soldiers Medal is awarded to any person of the Armed Forces of the United States, or of a friendly foreign nation who while serving in any capacity with the Army of the United States, distinguished him/herself by heroism not involving actual conflict with an enemy. The same degree of heroism is required as for the award of the Distinguished Flying Cross. The performance must have involved personal hazard or danger and the voluntary risk of life under conditions not involving conflict with an armed enemy. Awards will not be made solely on the basis of having saved a life.




Not involving actual conflict with the enemy.....So how can we believe any of this BS if they can't even get the mans awards right? You simply do not get the Soldiers Medal for Bravery under fire. I don't need to see any more of these heroes.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 7, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Eots, i love your Neg Rep on me..
> ...




Yeah he got me once too, But he'll grow up someday.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 7, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> LOL I just had to stop while I laughed so hard. I was going to actually research some of these Officers that Eots keeps trowing in front of us. But then I noticed this one.
> 
> C
> 
> ...


troofers will believe anything if they support the bullshit the same as they do
they lack common sense and reason


----------



## Fizz (Dec 7, 2009)

eots said:


> yes it is but the fact is office fires don't cause collapses of highrises and that the proof it did in this one rare event is just not sound and the insuing cover-up  at both NIST and the 9/11 commision  is proof the truth is not being told and in fact is  intentional being impeded



i can show you fire. can you show me explosions?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 7, 2009)

Tom Clancy said:


> Idiots..
> 
> Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7
> 
> ...



hey disinfo agent,David Ray Griffiths book Deunking the 9/11 Debunking,an answer to popular mechanics and other defenders of the official conspiracy theory debunk that crap you posted.if you were open minded and interested in the truth,you would KNOW that to be true.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 7, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> > Idiots..
> ...




So buy us the book, he's not getting my money.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 7, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> if you were open minded and interested in the truth,you would KNOW that to be true.



i am. as soon as you show any physical evidence that the truth is other than the official story i'm willing to change my mind. until then all the "this could have happened or that could have happened" nonsense is just silly.....

show me proof.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 7, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Tom Clancy said:
> ...



LOL He did it again. Way to go EOTS, throw that Neg rep around some more. It doesn't hurt at all. And all it proves is that you are immature and cannot handle the real world. But that's OK I understand, in your world everyone believes you.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 7, 2009)

Hey  gomer pyle agent, havent you learned yet that since your posts are as moronic as cornboy trolls  and that like him,your a paid disinfo agent as well and the fact that he has so many other socks there at that site that I made the easy mistake of thinking you were him,that because your posts are as moronic as his,Im done with you? havent you figured that fact out yet agent? same goes for you agent fizz. I know you guys like Ditzcon,will blatantly ignore facts and evidence of experts since thats all they do is pay you guys here to post bullshit and lies,and are too arrogant to admit it when you have been proven wrong so im done with you trolls.

Its just the ones that are not disinfo agents that are only Bush/Obama dupes such as manu that have been brainwashed by not only the media and government agencys but agents like yourselfs that have been sent here,that I TRY to reason with.Since he isnt an agent and just a Bush/Obama dupe brainwashed by the government and media,I have at least SOME hope that they will listen someday and wake up.you agents dont give a fuck about those 3000 plus people that the the government and mossad murdered,just the paychecks these agencys are paying you.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 7, 2009)

accidental double post.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 7, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> Hey  gomer pyle agent, havent you learned yet that since your posts are as moronic as cornboy trolls  and that like him,your a paid disinfo agent as well and the fact that he has so many other socks there at that site that I made the easy mistake of thinking you were him,that because your posts are as moronic as his,Im done with you? havent you figured that fact out yet agent? same goes for you agent fizz. I know you guys like Ditzcon,will blatantly ignore facts and evidence of experts since thats all they do is pay you guys here to post bullshit and lies,and are too arrogant to admit it when you have been proven wrong so im done with you trolls.
> 
> Its just the ones that are not disinfo agents that are only Bush/Obama dupes such as manu that have been brainwashed by not only the media and government agencys but agents like yourselfs that have been sent here,that I TRY to reason with.Since he isnt an agent and just a Bush/Obama dupe brainwashed by the government and media,I have at least SOME hope that they will listen someday and wake up.you agents dont give a fuck about those 3000 plus people that the the government and mossad murdered,just the paychecks these agencys are paying you.




Fuck you asswipe, what have you ever cared about your fellow man? I served on active duty for 22 years, I care more than you will ever know. But that does not mean that I will allow people like you to post their poison in a forum without responding with the truth. You don't post facts, you post lies that prove you want to tear this great nation down. You are done with me? Not in a long shot, because where i come from there are millions more.

Fuck you very much and have a great day.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 7, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Hey  gomer pyle agent, havent you learned yet that since your posts are as moronic as cornboy trolls  and that like him,your a paid disinfo agent as well and the fact that he has so many other socks there at that site that I made the easy mistake of thinking you were him,that because your posts are as moronic as his,Im done with you? havent you figured that fact out yet agent? same goes for you agent fizz. I know you guys like Ditzcon,will blatantly ignore facts and evidence of experts since thats all they do is pay you guys here to post bullshit and lies,and are too arrogant to admit it when you have been proven wrong so im done with you trolls.
> ...


dont let 9/11 rimjob bother you
he's the moron


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 7, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> accidental double post.


too bad you dont delete the rest of your worthless posts
since none of them have any value at all


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 7, 2009)

DiveCon said:


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



Bother me? I was a Platoon Sergeant, there is no way this little asswipe can bother me. No more than a sand flea.


----------



## eots (Dec 7, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Hey  gomer pyle agent, havent you learned yet that since your posts are as moronic as cornboy trolls  and that like him,your a paid disinfo agent as well and the fact that he has so many other socks there at that site that I made the easy mistake of thinking you were him,that because your posts are as moronic as his,Im done with you? havent you figured that fact out yet agent? same goes for you agent fizz. I know you guys like Ditzcon,will blatantly ignore facts and evidence of experts since thats all they do is pay you guys here to post bullshit and lies,and are too arrogant to admit it when you have been proven wrong so im done with you trolls.
> ...



are you sure you didn't do that for a paycheck and not knowing what else to do ??...with the  lack of respect you have for your fellow servicemen that disagree with you,,,why should you receive any ??


----------



## Tom Clancy (Dec 7, 2009)

eots said:


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



How many Servicemen.. 25? out of... thousands?  

Like i said before, just because they serve or have served and agree with you doesn't mean with they're right.  But, I bet you don't give a shit about these Servicemen, I bet you're one of those that Bad-mouth the Military and Disrespect it. 

If it weren't for them being on your side you wouldn't even bother calling them Patriots.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 7, 2009)

eots said:


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



yeah great point,funny how he blatantly has no respect whatsoever for his fellow servicemen who unlike him,are objective and open minded about this issue and have called it an inside job.funny how the truth hurts him.I obviously struck a nerve that hurt him.the truth seems to do that to people. honestly I dont know why you bother with these agents,their a waste of time.the only ones I try to reason with anymore are the loyal Bush/Obama dupes such as Manu and a few others that are not agents.


----------



## eots (Dec 7, 2009)

Tom Clancy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



you bet this and you bet that..I bet your an idiot..and actually it is hundreds and in areas of high responsibility critical to national security and silence by others does not mean agreement ..those that speak out  are always in the minority in any situation


----------



## Tom Clancy (Dec 7, 2009)

So, you're not denying it are you? 

Interesting. 

And i'm not an idiot, but according to you everybody who agrees with me is.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 7, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




You two morons don't even know what respect is. And to question me and if I show any respect to fellow veterans, well that is simply laughable. You do not know me and you obviously do not understand the military. And do not tell me your BS lies about who served in your families again. After you have worn the Uniform then you have some bragging rights.

I respect the truth, I am still waiting to hear it from you two clowns.


----------



## eots (Dec 7, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


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



Lies? ...fuck you..what war did you serve in little Ollie blowhard ..a week in the gulf war ...mabey...fuck off...I grew up on the knees of real fighting soldiers and my childhood although wonderful was as rigorous training as any boot camp..I was hiking 25 miles with one canteen into the bush when I was 9


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 7, 2009)

eots said:


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



1971 to 1993 you figure it out. I do not Bragg about anywhere I have been. Though on occasion I might talk about a single incident or Unit. 

 Into the bush? Are you Australian?


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 8, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


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





Lol....still trying to wave his service around as a universal license to say whatever he wants.  He's also full of shit about his respect for other Vets but he'll say whatever he thinks he needs to in order to score emotional points with his peanut gallery.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 8, 2009)

CurveLight said:


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


you just get everything wrong


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 8, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




From what I've seen so far, it's a strong signal of being in the right direction if you disagree.  Thank you.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 8, 2009)

CurveLight said:


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


and you would be wrong once again


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 8, 2009)

DiveCon said:


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




Lol......okay....if you say so!  Rotfl......could you do Maine a favor?  Could you not broadcast that is where you are or are from because I've been there a few times and even the fucking ground hogs display more usefulness than your bullshit.  Why don't you tell us again how plumbing has never been cast into concrete walls? That little backpedal job you pulled was truly entertaining!


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 8, 2009)

CurveLight said:


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


wow
you just described your own posts to a T

and you are a fucking liar as well
i NEVER said it had never been done you asswipe

some day you will actually learn how to read for comprehension, till then, fuck off


----------



## manu1959 (Dec 8, 2009)

CurveLight said:


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



found any pictures of the rebar cages yet.....


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 8, 2009)

manu1959 said:


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




Once again....I've never said anything about rebar....why do you keep asking me about something I've not claimed?


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 8, 2009)

DiveCon said:


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




You have no shame.  You kept claiming plumbing is never cast into concrete until I posted a link that said that word for word.  Then you tried to backpedal and say you only meant they haven't done that in 30 years.....after Manu posted a link about building codes.

You're a fucking suicide waiting to happen. Man up!


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 8, 2009)

CurveLight said:


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


it never IS 
you dumbfuck
learn verb tense


you are by far more likely to do harm to yourself or others than I am
so seek out professional help for yourself


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 8, 2009)

manu1959 said:


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


HE(curvelight) never actually claimed that
but he got on the dumbfuck wagon when christophera made that claim


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 8, 2009)

DiveCon said:


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




Lol....so you go from saying:

It never is cast into concrete

To

They haven't done it in 30 years

To 

I never said it hasn't been

To

Well no they have never done it cause you need to learn "verb tense!"

ROFTL!  All I can say is thank you for the free entertainment.  Full steam backpedal!


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 8, 2009)

CurveLight said:


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


fucking idiot
i'm not going to give you a grammar lesson cause i fucking hate doing that shit
but you are too fucking stupid for words


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 8, 2009)

DiveCon said:


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



Nobody needs a grammar lesson to see you changed your position at least three times.......if I thought you were capable of admitting a fuck up I'd link those posts but you aren't important enough.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 8, 2009)

CurveLight said:


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


you do, because i havent changed my position at all
only delusional fucks like you would think i have


----------



## Liability (Dec 8, 2009)

DiveCon said:


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



It's not "delusion" if it's just another outright lie.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 8, 2009)

Liability said:


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


it would only be a lie if he actually understands the difference
but since he has shown he doesn't understand grammar very well, that it is a delusion and not a lie


----------



## Liability (Dec 8, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



The list of things that _Id-eots_ {_EDIT -- my bad.  the reference SHOULD have been to Bent Light_}  does not understand very well is too long to set forth here.

I concede that it is POSSIBLE that his bogus assertion about you having allegedly changed your position is based on his abject ignorance.  

But it nevertheless remains possible that he is just intentionally lying his stupid ass off.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 8, 2009)

Liability said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


rut roh
counselor, you need to go back and read

Id-Eots, was not the one doing that


----------



## Liability (Dec 8, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Yup.  My bad.  Wrong idiot I had in mind.


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 22, 2010)

Terral said:


> The melting point of WTC-7 structural steel is 1535 degrees Celsius or 2795 degrees Fahrenheit.



Here is a quote that you have asked me to provide that shows mistakes or contradictions.

Can you please explain why you continue to use the MELTING point of steel as part of your argument? Please point out where anyone has said that any part of the WTC7 steel structure melted.

Are you trying to say that the only way a steel structure can fail is if it melts?


----------



## Fizz (Jan 22, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > The melting point of WTC-7 structural steel is 1535 degrees Celsius or 2795 degrees Fahrenheit.
> ...



never let facts get in the way of a good story....


----------



## CurveLight (Jan 22, 2010)

Fizz said:


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




Your admission is redundant and not necessary.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 22, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



Just like you and a pile of shit.


----------



## CurveLight (Jan 22, 2010)

candycorn said:


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



Yes I am a pile of shit.  How does that change others ignoring facts to tell a good story?


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 22, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


then you and the rest of the fucking moronic troofers should stop ignoring facts


----------



## CurveLight (Jan 23, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




What facts have I ignored?  (it should be fun to watch you continue to be dishonest and please do leave some more childish remarks with the rep button.  It's always very encouraging to know you get frustrated so easily you have to live in the first grade just to have something to say)


----------



## candycorn (Jan 23, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Damn junior.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 23, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


ROFLMAO
i'm not frustrated asswipe
i'm LAUGHING at your stupid ass


and you and the rest of the fucking moronic troofers ignore ALL the facts and replace them with your paranoid delusions of it being an inside job


----------



## cbi0090 (Jan 23, 2010)

Every now and then I check in on this crazy thread for a laugh and based on the most recent posts I see it seems to be as silly as ever.  Thanks for the giggles


----------



## Terral (Jan 24, 2010)

Hi CBI:



cbi0090 said:


> Every now and then I check in on this crazy thread for a laugh and based on the most recent posts I see it seems to be as silly as ever.  Thanks for the giggles



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo]"Two" Controlled Demolition Implosions[/ame]

Thousands of innocent Americans were murdered on 9/11 by a rogue element working inside our Federal, State and Local Govts, which means this WTC-7 CD Implosion Topic is '*no*' laughing matter ...

GL,

Terral


----------



## cbi0090 (Jan 24, 2010)

Terral said:


> Hi CBI:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It doesn't even closely resemble a controlled demolition.  You don't know enough about it to even recognise it.  There are plenty of controlled demolitions going on, visit one.  Ask if you could please go on site see what it takes.  Tell them your doing a article for someone and let a demolition expert show you around and explain what it entails  It won't take long for you to realize the truth...that is if your capable of still discerning such a thing.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 24, 2010)

cbi0090 said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > Hi CBI:
> ...



He's not.


----------



## Terral (Jan 24, 2010)

Hi CBI cuckoo:



cbi0090 said:


> It doesn't even closely resemble a controlled demolition.  You don't know enough about it to even recognise it ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo]Again. We 'Are' Looking At 'Two' Controlled Demolition Implosions With WTC-7 On The Left ...[/ame]

Yes. I '*do*' (#3) know 'much' more about the Demolition of Commercial Buildings than you and these *Architects and Engineers* (AE911Truth.org) and *Scholars* (ScholarsFor911Truth) also agree with me. 

This guy cannot even spell 'recognize' ... 

GL,

Terral


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Feb 9, 2010)

WTC-7 is interesting. I don't subscribe to the "Inside Job" theories but i must admit that the WTC-7 building did look to be intentionally dropped. It really did look like a controlled demolition. Maybe officials decided to drop the building in a controlled fashion for safety reasons. Later they may have decided to keep this a secret because of the wild conspiracy theories it would have encouraged. Something to think about anyway.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 9, 2010)

LibocalypseNow said:


> WTC-7 is interesting. I don't subscribe to the "Inside Job" theories but i must admit that the WTC-7 building did look to be intentionally dropped. It really did look like a controlled demolition. Maybe officials decided to drop the building in a controlled fashion for safety reasons. Later they may have decided to keep this a secret because of the wild conspiracy theories it would have encouraged. Something to think about anyway.



There really isn't anything to think about. the initial damage to the building pretty much sealed its fate by cutting off the water mains. Then with the various diesel generators and their fuel scattered around the building and the fires left completely unchecked...It was coming down.


----------



## Terral (Feb 9, 2010)

Hi Libo:



LibocalypseNow said:


> WTC-7 is interesting. I don't subscribe to the "Inside Job" theories but i must admit that the WTC-7 building did look to be intentionally dropped.



Your statement makes no sense at all for many reasons:

WTC-7 was definitely dropped on purpose:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo]This Is "Two" Deliberate Controlled Demolition Implosions[/ame]

This side-by-side video demonstration confirms your statement that WTC-7 appears to be intentionally dropped, because the second CD Implosion looks just the same. The amazing fact is that millions and millions of people (#9) conclude that WTC-7 collapsed from building fires/debris,  but NONE of them would make that claim for the second building in the video. :0) If WTC-7 'was' taken down using *Controlled Demolition* (A Fact), then we are definitely looking at a deliberate Inside-Job Attack. Why? Thank you for asking: The reason is that the Official Cover Story says WTC-7 collapsed from building fires and nothing like that has ever happened in the history of this planet before or after 9/11.  



LibocalypseNow said:


> It really did look like a controlled demolition.



No kidding! This is the conclusion of all these *Demo Experts* (see #3).  



LibocalypseNow said:


> Maybe officials decided to drop the building in a controlled fashion for safety reasons.



No sir. The problem with your theory is that a 47-story Skyscraper takes weeks to wire for a Controlled Demolition Implosion and only 'if' you use *51 Mossad *(Israeli Intelligence)* Demolition Specialists* (story).  



LibocalypseNow said:


> Later they may have decided to keep this a secret because of the wild conspiracy theories it would have encouraged. Something to think about anyway.



Please... *9/11 Was Definitely An Inside Job* (my 911Truth Blog). This is *What Really Happened *(my Topic).

GL,

Terral


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 9, 2010)

Terral said:


> Hi Libo:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

How many explosions were heard when WTC7 fell? And how many are heard when you do a controlled Demolition? Nuff said.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 9, 2010)

other than on 9/11, how many building collapses have you seen that were not controlled demolitions to give you the ability to compare what a controlled demolition looks like compared to a structural failure?


----------



## eots (Feb 9, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uSiBXEHats]YouTube - 9/11 Hero Remembers WTC7[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 9, 2010)

eots said:


> YouTube - 9/11 Hero Remembers WTC7



Gptta wonder what sounds was the music covering up? Besides it being simply more BS.


----------



## eots (Feb 9, 2010)

Ollie hates veterans and first responders


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 9, 2010)

eots said:


> Ollie hates veterans and first responders



Yeap that's why I wear this hat and participate in the parades and all that good stuff.

Moron.


----------



## eots (Feb 9, 2010)

poser..


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 9, 2010)

eots said:


> poser..



LOL, that's me in the picture asshat. Would you also like to see my Retiree ID card? Well you can't. 

Why? Because I damned sure do not have to prove my service to an idiot like you.


----------



## vachelmathews (Feb 10, 2010)

Toro said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > I've never actually been to Palm Springs, but I am excited for the start of Spring on Saturday.  This winter has been long and cold and the skin on my hands get so dry and chapped - particularly on my palms.
> ...



I use desktop at my home and laptop at my office to carry my data...


----------



## eots (Feb 10, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > poser..
> ...



oh I  believe your service asshat..but your contempt for veterans and first responders remains


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 10, 2010)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...




And you have had this reality problem for how long?


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 10, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


for quite some time
hes a troofer, remember


----------



## eots (Feb 10, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



since you joined in with your screwloose change guy in the unfounded slander of your fellow veterans at patriotsquestion 9/11


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 10, 2010)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I support veterans more than most people, I support 5 different veteran organizations with a donation each year, I do volunteer work at the Local VA clinic, And of course I am the Vice Commander of my local American legion Post.

If a veteran is one of you truthers that simply means that he or she is mistaken and needs mental assistance. When have I slandered a veteran? I don't like some veterans on a personal level. But hell that's personal.

I don't like you either come to think of it. Must be something about you being a moron.


----------



## Terral (Mar 8, 2010)

Greetings to All:

Here is more evidence of Secondary Explosions at the WTC Complex on 9/11:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2XsZgN3O0Q]Secondary Explosions at WTC 9_11[/ame]

GL,

Terral


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 8, 2010)

Terral said:


> Greetings to All:
> 
> Here is more evidence of Secondary Explosions at the WTC Complex on 9/11:
> 
> ...


there are secondary explosions at virtually every fire
not proof of explosives being present


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 10, 2010)

Terral said:


> Greetings to All:
> 
> Here is more evidence of Secondary Explosions at the WTC Complex on 9/11:
> 
> ...



To borrow a line from a movie...

"You're about as useful as a poop flavored lollipop."

Come back when you get something right or you're done pushing over-hyped garbage like you admitted to doing in the past.

Go cry wolf somewhere else moron.


----------



## Terral (Apr 3, 2010)

Greetings to All:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqAAXUu6x3U]WTC-7 Was Taken Down Using Controlled Demolition Explosions[/ame]

The notion that WTC-7 collapsed from building fires is perhaps the most ridiculous 'conspiracy theory' that anyone has ever tried to pass off as the 911Truth. WTC-7 imploded at freefall speed in 6.6 seconds 'and' massive 2800-degree red-iron structural steel members were deliberately 'cut,' so the massive 47-story skyscraper ...







... collapsed into its own footprint into this little pile:






If any of the Loyal Bushie/Obama DUPES around this place want to stand up and defend Official Govt LIES, that WTC-7 collapsed from building fires cuckoo, then accept *my Challenge* (Topic) and start your "Building Fires Did It" Topic ASAP. Nobody will accept the challenge, because there is no precedent and no evidence that 800-degree building fires can melt 2800-degree red-iron structural steel ...

GL,

Terral


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 3, 2010)

Terral said:


> Greetings to All:
> 
> WTC-7 Was Taken Down Using Controlled Demolition Explosions
> 
> ...



yeah its funny Terral that the 9/11 official conspiracy theory apologists wont accept your challenge to do that because they know they CANT do it.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 3, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > Greetings to All:
> ...


lick that ass, rimjob, lick that ass


(for the moronic troofer dipshits that dont understand sarcasm, this is not saying he actually licks ass, but that he symbolically does on this message board)


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 3, 2010)

Terral said:


> Greetings to All:
> 
> Here is more evidence of Secondary Explosions at the WTC Complex on 9/11:
> 
> ...





yeah thats a great video Terral.One that the 9/11 official conspiracy theory apologists that have responded so far cant get around, and make themselves look like fools for defending the official version.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 3, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > Greetings to All:
> ...


another example of rimjob symbolically licking ass


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 3, 2010)

Terral said:


> Greetings to All:
> 
> WTC-7 Was Taken Down Using Controlled Demolition Explosions
> 
> ...



So sorry but there is no recorded explosions that sound like those needed to bring down a building. and why is there several seconds of your video edited out? Right at 5:23 when the video tries to make you believe was the beginning of the collapse. They edited out the first seconds of it when the penthouse went first...Now why not show the whole thing? I guess that would mean your free fall speeds wouldn't work anymore.


----------



## eots (Apr 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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



another example of dwivecon homosexual thoughts


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 3, 2010)

It should sound like this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiftDBtCFt8]YouTube - Controlled Demolition, Inc.: Kingdome - GUINNESS WORLD RECORD![/ame]

Or this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ]YouTube - Landmark Implosion[/ame]

*
You got nothing even close........*


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 3, 2010)

"Nutbars;

Makes 20 bars

You will need:

1  cup of mixed nuts
1/3  cup of butter
1  cup of packed brown sugar
1  beaten egg
½  teaspoon of vanilla
1  cup of all purpose flour
½  teaspoon of baking powder

1.Preheat oven to 350. Grease an 8x8x2 inch baking pan. Set aside. In
a medium sauce pan, heat butter and brown sugar stirring constantly
until sugar dissolves. Remove from heat and let it cool slightly.

2.Stir in vanilla and egg. Stir in flour and baking powder until well
combined. Stir in the nuts and spread batter onto greased pan.

3.Bake for 25 minutes and test to see if center is ready by inserting a
toothpick in the center of the pan. If it comes out clean remove from the
oven and let it cool slightly on a wire rack. Cut into bars while still warm.
Let it cool completely in the pan."
from 
Nut Bar recipe


----------



## eots (Apr 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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



and you are symbolically..... A CLOSET CASE


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 3, 2010)

eots said:


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


^^^^^^more TPP


----------



## Terral (Apr 21, 2010)

Greetings to All:

This leading Texas Engineer does a very good job of exposing the 9/11 Inside Job Cover Story ...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48XHVYeyb2s&feature=PlayList&p=DF2F2C383DB2E7EB&playnext_from=PL&index=0&playnext=1]Texas Engineer Demolitions the 9/11 WTC 7 Fairy Tale Part 1 of 8[/ame]

GL,

Terral


----------



## eots (Apr 23, 2010)

_A Fox News hit piece against Jesse Ventura and the 9/11 truth movement written by former Washington D.C. prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro inadvertently reveals a shocking truth, that World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein, who collected nearly $500 million dollars in insurance as a result of the collapse of Building 7, a 47-story structure that was not hit by a plane but collapsed within seven seconds on September 11, was on the phone to his insurance carrier attempting to convince them that the building should be brought down via controlled demolition._

*Shame On Jesse Ventura!
By Jeffrey Scott Shapiro
 - FOXNews.com *

The former Minnesota governor has discredited himself, and dishonored and defamed his country by promoting the mistaken view that our government was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.



Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building &#8211; since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building&#8217;s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.
While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was.
FOXNews.com - Shame On Jesse Ventura!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 23, 2010)

As  most of the other damaged buildings were eventually brought down by controlled demolitions. Or pulled down with cables.


----------



## eots (Apr 23, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> As  most of the other damaged buildings were eventually brought down by controlled demolitions. Or pulled down with cables.



wtc 7 was much larger and had much less damage,the other damaged buildings were not claimed to be unstable in there foundations and expected to fall.  the call was made on 9/11 then the implication was the controlled demolition would have to occur_ immediately _to insure a safer collapse
this information should be investigated


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 23, 2010)

eots said:


> _A Fox News hit piece against Jesse Ventura and the 9/11 truth movement written by former Washington D.C. prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro inadvertently reveals a shocking truth, that World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein, who collected nearly $500 million dollars in insurance as a result of the collapse of Building 7, a 47-story structure that was not hit by a plane but collapsed within seven seconds on September 11, was on the phone to his insurance carrier attempting to convince them that the building should be brought down via controlled demolition._
> 
> *Shame On Jesse Ventura!
> By Jeffrey Scott Shapiro
> ...


because a nutball like Ventura claims this, he is to be believed?????


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 23, 2010)

I want to shake the hands of the guys with the guts to take those silent explosives into that damaged,  fire ravished building and wire it up.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 23, 2010)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > As  most of the other damaged buildings were eventually brought down by controlled demolitions. Or pulled down with cables.
> ...



you moron.... do you even know what "pulled" means in demolition terms?

if you think silverstein was tallking about demolition when he said "pull it" then why were explosives used (according to you)??


----------



## Tom Clancy (Apr 23, 2010)

I'm guessing the Madrid Train bombings and the London Bus Bombings were also carried out by Bush right?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 23, 2010)

Tom Clancy said:


> I'm guessing the Madrid Train bombings and the London Bus Bombings were also carried out by Bush right?



But of course, but then again it could have been Martians.


----------



## Tom Clancy (Apr 23, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> > I'm guessing the Madrid Train bombings and the London Bus Bombings were also carried out by Bush right?
> ...



Interesting..  I think we should Investigate then call for someone else to Investigate what we investigated..  Yeah?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 23, 2010)

Tom Clancy said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Tom Clancy said:
> ...



Well, first we would have to investigate those who would be investigating the investigators.


----------



## Tom Clancy (Apr 23, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Excellent. 

It's all coming together perfectly..


----------



## eots (Apr 23, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > _A Fox News hit piece against Jesse Ventura and the 9/11 truth movement written by former Washington D.C. prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro inadvertently reveals a shocking truth, that World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein, who collected nearly $500 million dollars in insurance as a result of the collapse of Building 7, a 47-story structure that was not hit by a plane but collapsed within seven seconds on September 11, was on the phone to his insurance carrier attempting to convince them that the building should be brought down via controlled demolition._
> ...



its not Ventura you morons..it the testimony of a washington  prosucuter and fox news reporter claiming he heard Silverstein on the telephone disusing the use of controlled demolition  to take down wtc 7 9/11

*Washington D.C. prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro inadvertently reveals a shocking truth, that World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein, who collected nearly $500 million dollars in insurance as a result of the collapse of Building 7, a 47-story structure that was not hit by a plane but collapsed within seven seconds on September 11, was on the phone to his insurance carrier attempting to convince them that the building should be brought down via controlled demolition.*


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 23, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



And I'm sure he figured that was going to have to happen in the following weeks.
Since he had no idea the building would collapse.


----------



## eots (Apr 23, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



this is not the pull it comment ...moron


----------



## eots (Apr 23, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



the claim was the foundation was gone and the building would most likely collapse and controlled demolition would be safer I am sure nom demo plans were made on 9/11 for the other damaged buildings taken down months later


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 23, 2010)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



But then of course all you are basing this on is someone claims to have overheard a phone conversation..... OK...


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 23, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


not according to the LINK YOU provided, dipshit


----------



## Fizz (Apr 23, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



wait... let me call my insurance company and make sure they will still pay if i sneak explosives into the building while its on fire and wire it up because we are in a really big hurry to bring this building down before it gets dark.... or because.... ehhh....

what was the big hurry to bring the building down again???


----------



## eots (Apr 23, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



stfu...idiot

*Shame On Jesse Ventura!
By Jeffrey Scott Shapiro
- FOXNews.com 0.z*
FOXNews.com - Shame On Jesse Ventura!


----------



## Terral (Sep 21, 2010)

Greetings to All:

WTC-7 was definitely taken down using *Controlled Demolition* (see Opening Post) and nobody can prove that any skyscraper in history has burned down from building fires cuckoo ...

GL,

Terral


----------



## ohio_golfer (Oct 4, 2010)

Terral said:


> ...is actually a red-iron I-beam like this:
> 
> 
> ...to melt one pound of 2800-degree red-iron steel.



What are you babbling about? What is "red-iron"? Don't your realize your photo was just a steel I-beam with paint on it?

People quit using iron when they learned how to make steel (by burning off carbon and adding other elements).


----------



## ohio_golfer (Oct 4, 2010)

Terral said:


> Greetings to All:
> 
> WTC-7 was definitely taken down using *Controlled Demolition* (see  /conspiracy-theories/71775-wtc-7-was-a-controlled-demolition-inside-job.html Opening Post) and nobody can prove that any skyscraper in history has burned down from building fires cuckoo ...
> 
> ...



All I can say is "wow".


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 4, 2010)

ohio_golfer said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > ...is actually a red-iron I-beam like this:
> ...




Nice catch! I didn't even see that one!


----------



## ohio_golfer (Oct 4, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Nice catch! I didn't even see that one!



Are *Terral *and *eots *for real or just trolls?

Have you had the fortune (LOL) of reading some of *9/11 was an inside job*'s posts? That dude is 51 cards short of a full deck.


----------



## eots (Oct 4, 2010)

ohio_golfer said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Nice catch! I didn't even see that one!
> ...



your post is  a perfect example of what losers do when they cant support there argument


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 4, 2010)

ohio_golfer said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Nice catch! I didn't even see that one!
> ...



9/11 has his head so far up Terral's and eots' behinds that he doesn't know which way is up anymore.

He supports Terral'sWTC7 ramblings even though there are mistakes all over them.

Go figure.

I guess it's better to believe in a mistake laden theory then anything else.

Oh well.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 4, 2010)

eots said:


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



So I guess you think Terral is a loser because his WTC7 theory is full of lies, mistakes, and incorrect information?

Got it.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 4, 2010)

eots said:


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



Hey pot, meet kettle...



eots said:


> stfu...idiot


----------



## eots (Oct 4, 2010)

> I guess it's better to believe in a mistake laden theory then anything else.
> 
> Oh well


.

so thats your philosophy ..explains a lot is this how you deal with the fact the NIST computer simulations are clearly a fraud


----------



## eots (Oct 4, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > ohio_golfer said:
> ...



no I think you are because you cant address the points


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 4, 2010)

eots said:


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



So you believe Terral and support his WTC7 theory even though his theory is laden with mistakes AND that he debunks himself with his own photo?

I just wanted to make sure I was correctly interpreting your intelligence level.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 4, 2010)

eots said:


> explains a lot is this how you deal with the fact the NIST computer simulations are clearly a fraud



Can you explain in your own words how the simulations are frauds? Or do you just parrot videos and other people's quotes because you truly don't understand?


----------



## eots (Oct 4, 2010)

the collapse sequence only runs to the initiation of the collapse it tweaks all  of the data no matter how improbable to create a collapse and even then it clearly does not represent the reality of what is seen in the collapse

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY]YouTube - WTC 7 NIST Model vs. Reality[/ame]


----------



## eots (Oct 4, 2010)

4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.
OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 4, 2010)

eots said:


> 4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.
> OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation



So I guess since you repsect Mr. Quintiere's opinion so much and that he is a well educated person in his field, then I guess his conclusion in his paper which STILL BLAMES fire induced collapse, just that the fire affected a different structural element, that you believe him right?


			
				Quintiere's paper said:
			
		

> I contend that the NIST analysis used a fuel load that was too low and
> their fire durations are consequently too short. Only these short fires could
> then heat the bare core columns as NIST reports. The fires were too short
> to heat the insulated trusses to failure. The NIST analysis has flaws, is
> ...



Well eots?


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 4, 2010)

Gamolon said:


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


he supports goof-o-pheras crap too, and both terral and goof-o-phera think the other are disinfo agents


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 4, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > 4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.
> ...


btw, thats *Dr*. Quintiere
and i have emailed the man and he is not a troofer


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 4, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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



Come on eots. What have you got to say now? He supports fire induced collapse, just that a different structural element failed due to fire, that being the floor trusses.


----------



## eots (Oct 4, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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



ONLY A FOOL LIKE YOU WOULD SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT DIVE.. STOP LYING..THE MAN SAYS HE BELIVES OTHER SCENRIOES ARE *MORE LIKELY* THAN CONTROLLED DEMOLITION..WHY DONT YOU JUST LET THE MAN SPEAK FOR HIMSELF


Dr. Quintiere, one of the worlds leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way, he said.


----------



## eots (Oct 4, 2010)

Gamolon said:


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



*THATS FINE THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT IS NIST FAILED TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE COLLAPSE*

James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST&#8217;s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, &#8220;Questions on the WTC Investigations&#8221; at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. &#8220;I wish that there would be a peer review of this,&#8221; he said, referring to the NIST investigation. &#8220;I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they&#8217;ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.&#8221;
OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 4, 2010)

eots said:


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


i have'
you dont
you try to twist his words


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 4, 2010)

eots said:


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


he doesnt support your "controlled demolition" BS and he thinks you troofers are nutters


----------



## Hollybaere (Oct 4, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> So you believe Terral and support his WTC7 theory even though his theory is laden with mistakes AND that he debunks himself with his own photo?
> 
> I just wanted to make sure I was correctly interpreting your intelligence level.



Then how about YOU Gamolon, point by point, show us ALL, how Terral's WTC7 theory is "laden with mistakes"?? 

Before you begin, you cannot use anything from NIST, because their facts have already been proven to have been altered and changed as new and real scientific information has been brought to light. 

Also, you might want to explain how BBC knew that WTC7 fell BEFORE it fell. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW_JRe67v1g&p=612A3AC9E574DB5B&playnext=1&index=18]YouTube - BBC Announces WTC7 Collapse Before It Happens![/ame]

Also, you might want to explain what the explosions that were heard just before WTC7 fell, and why the Fireman said "that building is gonna come down soon". 

You Fairy Tale Believers can change threads into peanut butter conversations, you can make fun and ridicule., you can claim anything you want, BUT..............
You cannot dispute the truth. 

I know it is hard to accept the fact that people we are supposed to trust, look up to and rely on, are able to lie to and decieve us for their own greed. And that is why they have gotten away with their crimes for so long. They know that the truth is much to painful to believe, so they hide behind lies and Fairy Tales and IDIOTS like you not only promote them, but believe them too.

Oh, and then while you are at it, please explain how when The 5 Dancing Israeli's were questioned about why they were seen on that roof-top dancing and high-fiving while filming the Twin Towers collapse, why they said they were "there to document the event."? How did they know about something that was going to happen when NO ONE was supposed to know? Do you think the 19 Hijackers let them in on the plot? And what about the other white van that was stopped on the GW Bridge with traces of  or explosives inside, also driven by Israeli Mossad agents?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06VX8ijYihU]YouTube - 9/11 George Washington Bridge[/ame]

You might want to go here also, before you reply: Hidden Facts of 9/11

Now then, with all that being said, if you do so choose to make fun of me, or ridicule, or totally ignore this, we will know that you have no proof, would rather believe lies than truth and need to either inform yourself or shut up.

Thank you.


----------



## eots (Oct 4, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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



he told me you were his homosexual stalker...true story


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 4, 2010)

eots said:


> THE MAN SAYS HE BELIVES OTHER SCENRIOES ARE *MORE LIKELY* THAN CONTROLLED DEMOLITION..WHY DONT YOU JUST LET THE MAN SPEAK FOR HIMSELF
> 
> 
> Dr. Quintiere, one of the worlds leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way, he said.



Can you show me how "*I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way, he said*" is the same as him saying "*there are other scenarios "MORE LIKELY" than controlled demoltion*"?



			
				 Quintiere's paper said:
			
		

> Because I'll tell you what eots. He CLEARLY states in his paper that his only other hypothesis is that the fire and heat failed the floor trusses. Here, I'll even quote his paper again for you:
> *An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
> appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
> the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
> ...



So please provide the evidence that you have to show that he believes in more than one hypothesis because that would go against the conclusion in his paper.

Your turn.


----------



## eots (Oct 4, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



*no I post his direct quotes released to the public..shit for brains*

Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST&#8217;s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. &#8220;If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the &#8216;conspiracy theories&#8217; that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it&#8217;s one of the floors falling down.&#8221;

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


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 4, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > So you believe Terral and support his WTC7 theory even though his theory is laden with mistakes AND that he debunks himself with his own photo?
> ...



I'll do that for you. Here we go.

First,
He claims that one of his photos contains a 45 degree cut column as proof that thermite was used. After I provided him with PROOF that he was sadly mistaken, he admitted to being wrong. Here's is the exact quote and the proof from me.


Gamolon said:


> In case you missed it 9/11, here is Terral's admission of being wrong...
> 
> 
> Terral said:
> ...



Second,
Here is a part of one of Terral's images that he annotated.




How can ANYONE say that the photo he uses contains "thermite signatures" and then turn around with a straight face and say that "none of the beams show signs of burns by fire"???? What???? Are you kidding me? I guess thermite doesn't burn that hot...

Third, 
Terral tries to imply that the steel MELTED. That is not the case. As been stated throughout this board, steel does not need to melt in order to fail. This is a tactic used by Terral to mislead people.

Fourth,
He claims the entire collapse of WTC7 happened in 6.6 seconds. It has been proven that this is complete idiocy with videos. Go find them if you don't believe me.

Fifth,
He claims that beams are never cut at angles for a demolition, yet there are VIDEOS and photos showing workers doing just that. And look! He's using a torch!!! No thermite needed. See the sixth point below.





Sixth,
He claims that this photo is clear evidence of thermite residue:




Yet look here. A picture of torch cutting a steel block! Uh oh! Look at the "thermite slag" on that block!





Is that enough for you?


----------



## eots (Oct 4, 2010)

. Why were not alternative collapse* hypotheses *investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ...OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 4, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Really? Can you show me why this quote, supposedly his DIRECT QUOTE: 


eots said:


> THE MAN SAYS *HE BELIVES OTHER SCENRIOES ARE MORE LIKELY  THAN CONTROLLED DEMOLITION*



Does not match his ACTUAL quote here that you posted?:


			
				Quintiere said:
			
		

> If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the conspiracy theories that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, its one of the floors falling down



I thought you quoted him directly?


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 4, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


in other words, dipshit, it was not an explosive


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 4, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


no, that was YOU he was talking about


----------



## eots (Oct 4, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



ya I posted that direct qoute did I not


----------



## Jeremy (Oct 4, 2010)

*Why did WTC-7 collapse?​*




...gravity.


----------



## eots (Oct 4, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



no I have the e-mail ..it most definitely says divecon..I would post it but he is worried more homosexual stalkers would follow your lead


----------



## eots (Oct 4, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



in other words ? ? lol...you mean like your made up words


----------



## ohio_golfer (Oct 4, 2010)

eots said:


> your post is  a perfect example of what losers do when they cant support there argument



You mean point out that a poster (Terral) was using the words "red-iron" to describe structural steel with paint.

Or the fact that people quit using iron when we learned how to make steel?

Color me a "loser" if you must.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 4, 2010)

eots said:


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



How come the first one doesn't match his actual quote eots? You aren't twisting words are you?


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 4, 2010)

eots said:


> *he told me you were his homosexual stalker...true story*



Boy this thread DRIPS with irony doesn't it eots?



eots said:


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


----------



## topspin (Oct 4, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZT_3_N5CGM]YouTube - Jah Roots - Truth[/ame]


----------



## eots (Oct 4, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *he told me you were his homosexual stalker...true story*
> ...



No not really it is called sarcasm to show how ridiculous  divecon  is as he try to debate the subject by pretending he has a e-mail from Q thats says toofers are morons ..but cant post it for safety concerns...I was not the one to inject such nonsense into the discussion I just responded appropriately to it


----------



## eots (Oct 4, 2010)

further more your response to this is yet another example of how you try to distract from the fact no words were twisted and they are direct quotes that speak for themselves


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 4, 2010)

eots said:


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



Riiiiggghhhtt...

*wink wink*


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 4, 2010)

eots said:


> further more your response to this is yet another example of how you try to distract from the fact no words were twisted and they are direct quotes that speak for themselves



WRONG!

Read the other thread. You clearly are trying to mislead people about what Quintiere says and means. I see NOWHERE where he thinks "OTHER SCENARIOS" are likely. He say one.

The heat and fore failed the floor trusses. 

Did you not read his conclusion in the paper her wrote? Are you blind?


----------



## eots (Oct 4, 2010)

ohio_golfer said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > your post is  a perfect example of what losers do when they cant support there argument
> ...



lol..he said _red iron_ it is a term used for structural steel..thanks for the chuckle


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 4, 2010)

heres a good article on wt7.Of course the OCTA'S here will close their eyes and cover their ears since it doesnt along with their version of events.

Top Construction Firm: WTC Destroyed By Controlled Demolition


----------



## Jeremy (Oct 4, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> heres a good article on wt7.Of course the OCTA'S here will close their eyes and cover their ears since it doesnt along with their version of events.
> 
> Top Construction Firm: WTC Destroyed By Controlled Demolition



*la la la la la la​*




*I can't hear you!!!*​


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 4, 2010)

Jeremy said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > heres a good article on wt7.Of course the OCTA'S here will close their eyes and cover their ears since it doesnt along with their version of events.
> ...



thanks for being brave enough to admit the truth scares you.wish more people here would acknowledge that truth.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 4, 2010)

Also Barry Jennings testimony ALONE proves wt7 was a controlled demolition.Jennings died after being admitted into a hospital only days before the release of the NIST report on wt7.as it says,its very unusual and controversial that a very prominent 9/11 witness would die only days before the release of the NIST report on wt7.
Key Witness to WTC 7 Explosions Dead at 53

especially after a firestorm erupted over his testimony that he heard explosions inside the buildings prior to the collapse of either tower and that there were dead bodies in the buildings blown out lobby. Coincidental? like hell.Just like the kennedy assassination where so many witnesses who reported seeing a second gunman behind the picket fence started dying in mysterious deaths since their version did not go along with the warren commissions.

History repeats itself.

everything else said on this thread ia all for naught because his witness testimony along with the fact that NASA recorded fire temperatures weeks later after 9/11 to be far too intense to be that of office or jet fuel fires makes everhting else mentioned on this thread pointless and all for naught.wt7 is the crox of the 9/11 coverup that the OCTA'S here cant get around and they know it.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 4, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> heres a good article on wt7.Of course the OCTA'S here will close their eyes and cover their ears since it doesnt along with their version of events.
> 
> Top Construction Firm: WTC Destroyed By Controlled Demolition



Nutjob, we always look to see what you come up with. this one is almost as funny as most of them.

"Respected Middle East expert and former BBC presenter Alan Hart has broken his silence on 9/11, by revealing that *the worlds most prominent civil engineering company* told him directly that the collapse of the twin towers was a controlled demolition."

That is from your link. Please explain to us why he doesn't bother to and in fact steers clear of naming this company.......


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 4, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > heres a good article on wt7.Of course the OCTA'S here will close their eyes and cover their ears since it doesnt along with their version of events.
> ...


because it is a total LIE


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 4, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> Also Barry Jennings testimony ALONE proves wt7 was a controlled demolition.Jennings died after being admitted into a hospital only days before the release of the NIST report on wt7.as it says,its very unusual and controversial that a very prominent 9/11 witness would die only days before the release of the NIST report on wt7.
> Key Witness to WTC 7 Explosions Dead at 53
> 
> especially after a firestorm erupted over his testimony that he heard explosions inside the buildings prior to the collapse of either tower and that there were dead bodies in the buildings blown out lobby. Coincidental? like hell.Just like the kennedy assassination where so many witnesses who reported seeing a second gunman behind the picket fence started dying in mysterious deaths since their version did not go along with the warren commissions.
> ...



People die, none of us will get out of here alive.

And the temperatures, what is it that caused these readings? Is this your nano thermite? I don't think so since thermite only burns for a few moments. You've got some explaining to do on that one.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 4, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Also Barry Jennings testimony ALONE proves wt7 was a controlled demolition.Jennings died after being admitted into a hospital only days before the release of the NIST report on wt7.as it says,its very unusual and controversial that a very prominent 9/11 witness would die only days before the release of the NIST report on wt7.
> ...


hey hearing explosive sounds 5 hours before a building collapses is proof positive it was a controlled demolition'


----------



## eots (Oct 4, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Also Barry Jennings testimony ALONE proves wt7 was a controlled demolition.Jennings died after being admitted into a hospital only days before the release of the NIST report on wt7.as it says,its very unusual and controversial that a very prominent 9/11 witness would die only days before the release of the NIST report on wt7.
> ...



dont be stupid.. if it is hot enough to melt through the steel iit matters not how long it burns for the temperature required is still the same...here is a clue.. the steel gets hot


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 4, 2010)

eots said:


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



No shit Sherlock? Ever used thermite? I have.


----------



## eots (Oct 4, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



yes indeed I did..and I would not surprised if much more so than you...but regardless that is the answer to your question


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 4, 2010)

In general, has anyone else ever noticed that people always know more than you, or did more than you , or is better than you? Do you ever believe them?


----------



## eots (Oct 4, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> In general, has anyone else ever noticed that people always know more than you, or did more than you , or is better than you? Do you ever believe them?



I worked for over ten years in ship husbandry doing underwater maintenance and repairs..what else I am supposed to say...you are the one that asked...further more the answer to your question remains the same


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 4, 2010)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > In general, has anyone else ever noticed that people always know more than you, or did more than you , or is better than you? Do you ever believe them?
> ...


do you have a link showing that thermite is used in that industry?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 4, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



I have to wonder what one would use thermite for when doing repairs on a ship........


----------



## Jeremy (Oct 4, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Just ask the Titanic conspiritors. 

Than again, the "White Star Line" lied about the hull being made of steel. It was actualy made of concrete.


----------



## eots (Oct 4, 2010)

yes of course you do Ollie..because you are i_nexperienced_


​An underwater cutting tool for steel, concrete, or the like, comprising a tubular oxygen lance (10) adapted to be connected to an oxygen source (24, 25) and having a pistol grip-like handle (16).*The priming or firing substance preferably is iron thermite.* Prior to its first use the lance is sealed so as to be ignited safely under water. This seal (12) is adapted to be blasted off or fused by means of an igniter unit (14) which is operable under water, at the same time, firing the oxygen flowing out of the lance (10). The seal (12) preferably is formed by a plug of a material which is easily inflammable or contains such material and hermetically seals the free end of the lance (10).

Underwater cutting tool - Patent 4477060


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 4, 2010)

I'll have to ask my Grandson about this, he is a damage control specialist in the Navy. I'm sure he can tell me all about it. And I am far from inexperienced dipshit.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 4, 2010)

eots said:


> yes of course you do Ollie..because you are i_nexperienced_
> 
> 
> ​An underwater cutting tool for steel, concrete, or the like, comprising a tubular oxygen lance (10) adapted to be connected to an oxygen source (24, 25) and having a pistol grip-like handle (16).*The priming or firing substance preferably is iron thermite.* Prior to its first use the lance is sealed so as to be ignited safely under water. This seal (12) is adapted to be blasted off or fused by means of an igniter unit (14) which is operable under water, at the same time, firing the oxygen flowing out of the lance (10). The seal (12) preferably is formed by a plug of a material which is easily inflammable or contains such material and hermetically seals the free end of the lance (10).
> ...


notice the thermite is only to IGNITE it
and its not cutting/welding anything


----------



## eots (Oct 4, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > yes of course you do Ollie..because you are i_nexperienced_
> ...



are you trying to imply you can not weld or cut with thermite ?


----------



## eots (Oct 4, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> I'll have to ask my Grandson about this, he is a damage control specialist in the Navy. I'm sure he can tell me all about it. And I am far from inexperienced dipshit.



ya you do that...and then ask them if the navy contracts out the majority of its underwater ship husbandry  to the private sector...ie.. hull maintenance..cathodic protection systems repairs,zinc replacement.propeller polishing,non-destructive testing ,hull surveys. replacement and repairs of sonar domes etc...


----------



## eots (Oct 4, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> I'll have to ask my Grandson about this, he is a damage control specialist in the Navy. I'm sure he can tell me all about it. And I am far from inexperienced dipshit.



in the field of welding and diving, you most certainly are


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 4, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


not saying that at all

but what you posted DOES
you havent shown proof that thermite is used to either WELD or CUT underwater


----------



## eots (Oct 4, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



oh STFU


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 4, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


typical response when you are proven to not know what the fuck you are talking about


----------



## eots (Oct 4, 2010)

These and other objects are achieved by a new gelatinous coating for underwater arc welding applications. The gelatinous coating comprises particles of electrode coating and thermite suspended in a gel which is of a viscosity sufficient to retard heat transfer by convection while not so viscous as to be difficult to handle.* Thermite, a mixture of ferric oxide and powered aluminum, provides additional heat to compensate for heat lost during the **welding process,* providing greater ductility and less embrittlement of the deposited weld than possible with conventional underwater welding techniques.


When welding in air, the electrode coating provides a slag deposit which covers and protects the deposited weld. However, thermal shock created in underwater welding can cause the slag formed from the electrode coating to pop off the weld. The resultant quenching and undesirably rapid cooling of the deposited weld may cause embrittlement of the deposited weld. Thus, if the weld is not adequately protected from the water, the strength and ductility of welds formed under water are typically lower than that obtainable in above surface welding


http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Sci/sci.engr.joining.welding/2007-08/msg01031.html


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 4, 2010)

eots said:


> These and other objects are achieved by a new gelatinous coating for underwater arc welding applications. The gelatinous coating comprises particles of electrode coating and thermite suspended in a gel which is of a viscosity sufficient to retard heat transfer by convection while not so viscous as to be difficult to handle.* Thermite, a mixture of ferric oxide and powered aluminum, provides additional heat to compensate for heat lost during the **welding process,* providing greater ductility and less embrittlement of the deposited weld than possible with conventional underwater welding techniques.
> 
> 
> When welding in air, the electrode coating provides a slag deposit which covers and protects the deposited weld. However, thermal shock created in underwater welding can cause the slag formed from the electrode coating to pop off the weld. The resultant quenching and undesirably rapid cooling of the deposited weld may cause embrittlement of the deposited weld. Thus, if the weld is not adequately protected from the water, the strength and ductility of welds formed under water are typically lower than that obtainable in above surface welding
> ...


it helps, but it isnt actually DOING the weld/cutting


----------



## Fizz (Oct 5, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> Also Barry Jennings testimony ALONE proves wt7 was a controlled demolition.Jennings died after being admitted into a hospital only days before the release of the NIST report on wt7.as it says,its very unusual and controversial that a very prominent 9/11 witness would die only days before the release of the NIST report on wt7.
> Key Witness to WTC 7 Explosions Dead at 53
> 
> especially after a firestorm erupted over his testimony that he heard explosions inside the buildings prior to the collapse of either tower and that there were dead bodies in the buildings blown out lobby. Coincidental? like hell.Just like the kennedy assassination where so many witnesses who reported seeing a second gunman behind the picket fence started dying in mysterious deaths since their version did not go along with the warren commissions.
> ...



if barry jennings was in WTC7 when the explosive demolitions were set off then how is he alive after the building collapses? 

sorry to confuse you with something as silly as REALITY.


----------



## eots (Oct 5, 2010)

Fizz said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Also Barry Jennings testimony ALONE proves wt7 was a controlled demolition.Jennings died after being admitted into a hospital only days before the release of the NIST report on wt7.as it says,its very unusual and controversial that a very prominent 9/11 witness would die only days before the release of the NIST report on wt7.
> ...



there are other  reports of huge explosions in the wtc 7  and according to the NIST report fire could bring down the building so why not a few well place explosives and fire ?


----------



## Fizz (Oct 5, 2010)

eots said:


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



you realize you make absolutely zero sense, right?

ahhhhh.... probably not.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 5, 2010)

Gamolon said:


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



What, no comments Hollybaere?



One other thing I forgot to mention. Do you see Terral's photo he annotated with all the white text boxes? He also points to a few beam ends and asks *"Where is any melting by fire?"*?!?!?!?!

Really?!?!?!? He claims that there are thermite signatures everywhere for WTC7, yet turns around in the same photo and points out that there is neither burn marks from fire or any melting!!!!!

This is outstanding. He debunks his own theory right in front of your eyes and you want to defend him!

Wow.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 5, 2010)

eots said:


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



Hey 9/11. Question for you. What maintained the temperatures at that level for weeks?


----------



## ohio_golfer (Oct 5, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> Also Barry Jennings testimony ALONE proves wt7 was a controlled demolition.Jennings died after being admitted into a hospital only days before the release of the NIST report on wt7.as it says,its very unusual and controversial that a very prominent 9/11 witness would die only days before the release of the NIST report on wt7.
> Key Witness to WTC 7 Explosions Dead at 53
> 
> especially after a firestorm erupted over his testimony that he heard explosions inside the buildings prior to the collapse of either tower and that there were dead bodies in the buildings blown out lobby. Coincidental? like hell.Just like the kennedy assassination where so many witnesses who reported seeing a second gunman behind the picket fence started dying in mysterious deaths since their version did not go along with the warren commissions.
> ...





Fizz said:


> you realize you make absolutely zero sense, right?
> 
> ahhhhh.... probably not.



I kicked *9/11 inside job*'s butt all over the place at AWE. He/she/it was the joke of the forum.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 5, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



Actually I would love to see eots answer to that. Since he is this super duper thermite expert. Also tell us how long it takes thermite to cool, when you are using it underwater to weld something on a ship......... I know we could remove the debris left behind within about an hour when we used thermite to destroy Communications equipment.....


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 5, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> NASA recorded fire* temperatures weeks later after 9/11 to be far too intense to be that of office or jet fuel fires*



What does this mean exactly 9/11?

Are you suggesting that thermite was still being burned in the debris pile weeks later?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 5, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > NASA recorded fire* temperatures weeks later after 9/11 to be far too intense to be that of office or jet fuel fires*
> ...



That is what they want us to believe. Which is why I really want to hear all about it..


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 5, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


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



I would also like to know what temperatures they are talking about? I looked and found some documentation on the temperatures found. I want to see if these guys have the same information.


----------



## eots (Oct 5, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


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



it cools very quickly and produces a brittle weld only good for attaching zincs and minor repairs.. a dry welds is  required for more advanced repairs, a hyperbaric weld or dry weld is required achieved through creating a dry environment around the area to be repaired


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 5, 2010)

ohio_golfer said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Nice catch! I didn't even see that one!
> ...



yeah everybody knows your a troll Ohio Goofer.thats why you got banned at AWE. and how you always ran away with you tail between your legs like all Bush dupes do when asked to refute those canada wants the truth videos.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 5, 2010)

eots said:


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



thats Ohio Goofer for you.thats ALWAYS how he debates all the time with comments like that when you present him evidence.another agent that has penetrated this site to troll.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 5, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > ohio_golfer said:
> ...



so says the other disinformation agent troll. btw agent Gam,hate to break your heart but Eots and Terral have had NOTHING whatsoever to do with me not accepting your lies and propaganda that you have been able to brainwash other members with here at this to accept.as soon as 9/11 happened and I saw those towers collapse like that,i knew right there and then it was an inside job and explosives were used.

cause as i have said a million times here. to accept the 9/11 coverups version of events,you got to say that the laws of physics that scientists have gone by for thousands of years no longer applies anymore. thats why you agents make idiots out of yourselfs in these debates and in the kennedy assassination as well that oswald was the lone assassian because thats what has to occur in BOTH cases. unlike many people here,I DIDNT sleep through science classes and I dont ignore witness testimonys.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 5, 2010)

9/11 inside job Simply dismisses any physical evidence that doesn't fit in.....

By the way 9/11 inside job, do you actually have any physical evidence yet?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 5, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> 9/11 inside job Simply dismisses any physical evidence that doesn't fit in.....
> 
> By the way 9/11 inside job, do you actually have any physical evidence yet?



yeah thats old news that you simply dismiss any physical evidence that doesnt fit your version of events.no need to broadcast that. sure I do,but as we both know,you only see what you want to see and always cover your ears and close your eyes when its shown to you like all disinformation agents do so why continue wasting my time  showing it to a brick wall like you? I sure as hell am not about to waste my time showing it to an agent like YOU thats for sure. someone who is just in denial I MIGHT.but not an agent like you.give me a break.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 5, 2010)

So all you have is the same old opinions. Got it. You have no physical evidence to disprove the official physical evidence. That is what we thought.


----------



## eots (Oct 5, 2010)

sfc ollie said:


> so all you have is the same old opinions. Got it. You have no physical evidence to disprove the official physical evidence. That is what we thought.



nist has no evidence of its theory except computer simulations by their own admission


----------



## Hollybaere (Oct 5, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> What, no comments Hollybaere?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There was no melting from any fire because the heat created from the fires were NOT HOT ENOUGH to melt steel as claimed in the 911 Commission Report and the NIST study.

You cannot deny the wittnesses who actually HEARD and SAW explosions in all 3 buildings. In fact I have even posted videos where you can hear the explosions.

You really need to read Dr, Steven Jones' study. 

Read this: http://www.journalof911studies.com/...rldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf

Thermite or Thermate cut apart, not melted the steel beams.

You also might want to take a look at this: World Trade Center Employee Discusses pre 9-11 Power Downs | 9-11 News | World for 9-11 Truth | W9T.org

It certainly explains how the charges could have been placed without anyone noticing.

Also, can you explain how 19 bumbling "hijackers" who could not even fly small single engine planes could perform feats with Jumbo Jets that even EXPERIENCED pilots could not duplicate?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 5, 2010)

eots said:


> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> > so all you have is the same old opinions. Got it. You have no physical evidence to disprove the official physical evidence. That is what we thought.
> ...



You ignore so much....... you really need to get over that lie.

"Some 200 technical expertsincluding about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia_reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests_ and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse. "

Reviewed tens of thousands of documents.
Interviewed more than a thousand people.
Reviewed 7000 segments of video footage
Reviewed 7000 photographs.
Analyzed 236 pieces of steel.
Performed laboratory tests.
And Sophisticated computer simulations.


And all Eots will admit to is the simulations. In fact eots, don't you make the claim that they ignore testimony? Is that before or after they didn't do any interviews?


----------



## ohio_golfer (Oct 5, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> You also might want to take a look at this: World Trade Center Employee Discusses pre 9-11 Power Downs | 9-11 News | World for 9-11 Truth | W9T.org
> 
> It certainly explains how the charges could have been placed without anyone noticing.



Even if any of that was true, where are the eyewitness accounts of "power downs" in WTC1 and WTC7?

And are you seriously suggesting an entire skyscraper could be rigged for demolition in 36 hours WITHOUT leaving any evidence for people to see the following days?

Of course those simple questions never came up in any of your conversations.


----------



## ohio_golfer (Oct 5, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> Also, can you explain how 19 bumbling "hijackers" who could not even fly small single engine planes could perform feats with Jumbo Jets that even EXPERIENCED pilots could not duplicate?



First, they didn't perform any take-offs.

And second, they didn't perform any landings.

<as a matter of fact, they all crashed>


----------



## eots (Oct 5, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > sfc ollie said:
> ...



263 pieces of steel almost all from wtc 1 and 2 which reveled nothing in these is the only thing remotely close to physical evidence all the rest is just blah blah blah like writing a resume.._.segments of video footage _..they are counting the frames to make it seem substantial  !! but it is all the videos we have all seen..same with the still photos..the interviewed people..but then omitted testimony that contradicted their theory.. revived documents ??
all they have to back their claims is a flawed computer simulation the investigation is junk science and does not explain these collapses


----------



## eots (Oct 5, 2010)

Your entire investigation included no physical evidence. How can you be so sure you know what happened?

the NIST investigation of WTC 7 is based on a huge amount of data. These data come from extensive research, interviews, and studies of the building, including audio and video recordings of the collapse. Rigorous, state-of-the-art computer methods were designed to study and model the building's collapse. These validated computer models produced a collapse sequence that was confirmed by observations of what actually occurred. In addition to using its in-house expertise, NIST relied upon private sector technical experts; accumulated copious documents, photographs and videos of this disaster; conducted first-person interviews of building occupants and emergency responders; analyzed the evacuation and emergency response operations in and around WTC 7; performed computer simulations of the behavior of WTC 7 on Sept. 11, 2001, and combined the knowledge gained into a probable collapse sequence.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation


----------



## eots (Oct 5, 2010)

Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, *although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they ha*ve. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## eots (Oct 5, 2010)

ohio_golfer said:


> Hollybaere said:
> 
> 
> > Also, can you explain how 19 bumbling "hijackers" who could not even fly small single engine planes could perform feats with Jumbo Jets that even EXPERIENCED pilots could not duplicate?
> ...



dont be stupid the made highly skilled maneuverer at incredible speeds by all accounts


----------



## ohio_golfer (Oct 5, 2010)

eots said:


> ohio_golfer said:
> 
> 
> > Hollybaere said:
> ...



You can't help but be stupid, but I bet you could pull off those same maneuvers. If you haven't tried, you aren't honest by saying they were "highly skilled" maneuvers.

C'mon man, give it a the good old college try. Fly a plane into a building to prove your point.


----------



## eots (Oct 5, 2010)

ohio_golfer said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > ohio_golfer said:
> ...



I dont need to..I have the expert opinion of top level aviation personal ,Apollo astronauts, , NORAD tac directors.. military and civilian air crash investigators
Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## ohio_golfer (Oct 6, 2010)

eots said:


> I dont need to..I have the expert opinion of top level aviation personal ,Apollo astronauts, , NORAD tac directors.. military and civilian air crash investigators
> Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report



Seriously? Their argument is there is no evidence Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

ALL the evidence (physical, recorded, eye witness, etc) points to Flight 77 being crashed into the Pentagon, but those morons at PatriotsQuestion911.com aren't convinced? Who gives a shit.

No wonder nobody takes you serious.


----------



## Fizz (Oct 6, 2010)

eots said:


> ohio_golfer said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



_The website does not represent any organization and it should be made clear that none of these individuals are affiliated with this website._

you gotta laugh when the website is bragging about how many people belong to twoofer groups and yet that represents only .001% of the population of the usa.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 6, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> There was no melting from any fire because the heat created from the fires were NOT HOT ENOUGH to melt steel as claimed in the 911 Commission Report and the NIST study.



Do you understand what you are arguing? You asked me to give you points as to what was in error in Terral's WTC7 theory.

He says that his annotated photo shows NO SIGNS OF MELTING OR BURNS on the columns, yet he says THERMITE signatures are everywhere and that the columns of WTC7 were cut with thermite.

Do you understand yet?

I'll spell it out for you. How can you say that thermite was used to cut the beams and then turn around in the same photo and admit that there are no burns marks or melting ON THE SAME BEAMS THAT WERE SUPPOSEDLY CUT BY THERMITE?!?!?!

I mean for crying out loud, here is a photo that Terral uses to show supposed thermite residue on columns!!!!!





Do you understand yet?


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 6, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> What happened to discussing Terral's mistakes in his WTC7 theory? You asked me to make a point by point post of what I found and address only one of them? Then switch the topic around to the other towers?
> 
> 
> Ok then.
> ...


----------



## Fizz (Oct 6, 2010)

eots said:


> dont be stupid the made highly skilled maneuverer at incredible speeds by all accounts



and CRASHED!!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 6, 2010)

Truther rule number one: When truth prevails, Ignore it.


----------



## eots (Oct 6, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Truther rule number one: When truth prevails, Ignore it.



debwunker rule number one make nonspecific empty statements....so.what truth is being ignored lil Ollie ?


----------



## eots (Oct 6, 2010)

ohio_golfer said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > I dont need to..I have the expert opinion of top level aviation personal ,Apollo astronauts, , NORAD tac directors.. military and civilian air crash investigators
> ...



really and you speak for everyone now..in your deluded state   and we were talking about the flight maneuver required to fly these planes into their targets  why are you changing topic now??


----------



## Jos (Oct 6, 2010)

eots said:


> ohio_golfer said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...





> Astute observers of history are aware that for every notable event there will usually be at least one ,often several wild conspiracy theories which spring up around it. The CIA killed Hendrix; the Pope had John Lennon murdered; Hitler was half Werewolf; Space aliens replaced Nixon with a clone, etc, etc. The bigger the event, the more ridiculous and more numerous are the fanciful rantings which circulate in relation to it.
> 
> So its hardly surprising that the events of Sept. 11, 2001, have spawned their fair share of these ludicrous fairy tales. And as always, there is -- sadly -- a small but gullible percentage of the population eager to lap up these tall tales, regardless of facts or rational analysis.
> 
> ...


read more here
Idaho Observer: The looniest of all 9/11 conspiracy theories


----------



## eots (Oct 6, 2010)

PENTAGON

EXCLUSIVE: Witnesses in Defense Dept. Report Suggest Cover-Up of 9/11 Findings


A document obtained and witnesses interviewed by Fox News raise new questions over whether there was an effort by the Defense Department to cover up a pre-9/11 military intelligence program known as "Able Danger."
EXCLUSIVE: Witnesses in Defense Dept. Report Suggest Cover-Up of 9/11 Findings - FoxNews.com


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 6, 2010)

able danger is old news


----------



## eots (Oct 6, 2010)

shut up... dwivy


EXCLUSIVE: Witnesses in Defense Dept. Report Suggest Cover-Up of 9/11 Findings
By Catherine Herridge
*Published October 04, 2010 | FoxN*



Atta is believed to have been the ringleader of the Sept. 11 hijackers who piloted American Airlines Flight 11 into the World Trade Center. Claims about how early Atta first tripped the radar of the Department of Defense date back to 2005, but those claims never made it into the Inspector General's report. *The report was completed in 2006* and, *until now,* has been available only in a version with the names of virtually all of the witnesses blacked out.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 6, 2010)

again, dipshit, able danger is old news, and it doesnt support your inside job BS'
what it does show is a cover up for the FAILURES not a planned event


----------



## ohio_golfer (Oct 6, 2010)

eots said:


> ohio_golfer said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



What is it, specifically, about the maneuvers that makes you question the legitimacy?


----------



## eots (Oct 6, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEQtxTnDusk]YouTube - Pilots for 9/11 Truth: Airplane controllability[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdbBly5iz0E&feature=related]YouTube - Pilots for 9/11 Truth: Airplane speed[/ame]


----------



## breaker19 (Oct 7, 2010)

Congrats on your *theory*, professors - I am certain that future historians will marvel at your amazing insights.

The only conspiracy I see afoot is this:  Each of you (ostensibly) has a brain composed chiefly of two hemispheres - a right and a left.  In other words, 1/2 of your brain is the right hemisphere, and the other 1/2 is the left hemisphere.  

However, my calculations have caused me to conclude that approximately 1/2 of your thinking is done via regurgitation of electronic data from the WWW/Internet.  Thus, it follows that each of you has three halves of a brain - quite impossible according to my understanding of basic arithmetic.  Therefore, something really stinks here...and it isn't thermite residue!

Someone please solve this mystery, before the spirit of Bartleby possesses us all!

Oh...and Best of Luck in your pursuit of the 'thermite' thing.  Personally, I think that Kryptonite will ultimately prove to be the core instigator of this disaster, but what do I know?  I just sell ice cream from a truck that plays 'Oh Susanna' 12 hours per day.


----------



## eots (Oct 7, 2010)

breaker19 said:


> Congrats on your *theory*, professors - I am certain that future historians will marvel at your amazing insights.
> 
> The only conspiracy I see afoot is this:  Each of you (ostensibly) has a brain composed chiefly of two hemispheres - a right and a left.  In other words, 1/2 of your brain is the right hemisphere, and the other 1/2 is the left hemisphere.
> 
> ...



you forgot to factor in your lack of wit and lameness into the equation 
this is a gross error and voids your calculations


----------



## Triton (May 3, 2011)

breaker19 said:


> Congrats on your *theory*, professors - I am certain that future historians will marvel at your amazing insights.
> 
> The only conspiracy I see afoot is this:  Each of you (ostensibly) has a brain composed chiefly of two hemispheres - a right and a left.  In other words, 1/2 of your brain is the right hemisphere, and the other 1/2 is the left hemisphere.
> 
> ...






Ignore the overwhelming evidence, attack the messenger with obscene vulgarity, don't present a semblance of an argument to counter with, simply take up space in a post.



Well Done


----------

