9/11 Conspiracy

[Gamolon]

What do you know about credibility, you're a member of 'We Are Criminal Clowns'

You care nothing about the truth, you question nothing about the OCT which is full of holes,

That's hysterical coming from you!

Weren't you the one blathering on about the jet engine and where it landed and how impossible that was? Weren't you using that as part of your reasoning to try and show that everything is a conspiracy? Until you were shown that story was based on incorrect information, you believed every word of it.

What questions did YOU ask about that particular piece of information to find the truth? You KNEW something was not right, but just ran with the "it was probably planted" garbage.

You're a hypocrite.

That's the furthest thing from the truth. You're crushing your own credibility by saying that and I love it- Sayit even blew smoke up my ass at the time when I (promptly) admitted I had made a mistake.

In fact, your admission is the first time any "Truther" has had the courage (and integrity) to admit the "facts" supporting their CT were not facts at all. You get big creds for having both

lol But I hardly "blathered on" about this relatively small issue in the scheme of things - and no one even disputed it with anything of substance - no one said it was the wrong corner. I've learned this is no place for a dialectic

It's not the furthest thing from the truth.

You read that crap from somewhere and ran with it. That's your version of "caring about the truth"? You even admitted it, "No one said it was in the wrong corner". You didn't even investigate anything. You just believed it.

Nooo, I thought it was the correct corner because it was at the same intersection and it was taped off in the same unusual manner, using a garbage can pulled into the middle of the street. I even stated that the engine should have traveled in a direction different from where I incorrectly thought it was found. Since "No one said it was in the wrong corner" I was not aware of my mistake. I was "investigating" the engine thing in real time and I was using this place as a sounding board. Beavis and Butthead of course were useless in calling attention to the specifics of my mistake.

What a crock!

You came into a thread and used that little piece of "evidence" to try and bolster your conspiracy beliefs. You used this in conjunction with the "how did the sizable plane parts" exit the tower. If you were truly investigating the engine location because you weren't sure, you wouldn't have come into that thread and use a piece of evidence you were "currently investigating" and "weren't sure about".

You read that crap on the the 911foreknowledge.com website where you got one of the pictures from.

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

People are so used to seeing stuff like this they'll believe anything.

How ironic for you to say this!

You're the one saying WTC7 came down like a cartoon --because of an office fire!

Like a cartoon huh?

Answer a question for me. David Chandler showed a graph of the supposed free fall period right?

If that graph supposedly shows that all the steel was cut at the same time to produce that freefall period, explain why there is .8 seconds worth of slower than freefall just before. Are you saying that the section above the cut steel just hanged in the air for a few seconds like a cartoon before deciding to drop?

Like a cartoon huh?

You got it, just like Popeye's house from cartoon termites.

 

[Gamolon]

People are so used to seeing stuff like this they'll believe anything.

How ironic for you to say this!

You're the one saying WTC7 came down like a cartoon --because of an office fire!

Like a cartoon huh?

Answer a question for me. David Chandler showed a graph of the supposed free fall period right?

If that graph supposedly shows that all the steel was cut at the same time to produce that freefall period, explain why there is .8 seconds worth of slower than freefall just before. Are you saying that the section above the cut steel just hanged in the air for a few seconds like a cartoon before deciding to drop?

Like a cartoon huh?

You got it, just like Popeye's house from cartoon termites.

So why was there a non-freefall period prior to the freefall period in Chandler's graph? What does that indicate to you?

 

[daws101]

People are so used to seeing stuff like this they'll believe anything.

How ironic for you to say this!

You're the one saying WTC7 came down like a cartoon --because of an office fire!

Like a cartoon huh?

Answer a question for me. David Chandler showed a graph of the supposed free fall period right?

If that graph supposedly shows that all the steel was cut at the same time to produce that freefall period, explain why there is .8 seconds worth of slower than freefall just before. Are you saying that the section above the cut steel just hanged in the air for a few seconds like a cartoon before deciding to drop?

sure just like the anvil in road runner cartoons

 

[daws101]

People are so used to seeing stuff like this they'll believe anything.

How ironic for you to say this!

You're the one saying WTC7 came down like a cartoon --because of an office fire!

Like a cartoon huh?

Answer a question for me. David Chandler showed a graph of the supposed free fall period right?

If that graph supposedly shows that all the steel was cut at the same time to produce that freefall period, explain why there is .8 seconds worth of slower than freefall just before. Are you saying that the section above the cut steel just hanged in the air for a few seconds like a cartoon before deciding to drop?

Like a cartoon huh?

You got it, just like Popeye's house from cartoon termites.

actually that make more sense than the bad spy movie script you are pushing

 

[daws101]

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

What do you know about credibility, you're a member of 'We Are Criminal Clowns'

You care nothing about the truth, you question nothing about the OCT which is full of holes,

That's hysterical coming from you!

Weren't you the one blathering on about the jet engine and where it landed and how impossible that was? Weren't you using that as part of your reasoning to try and show that everything is a conspiracy? Until you were shown that story was based on incorrect information, you believed every word of it.

What questions did YOU ask about that particular piece of information to find the truth? You KNEW something was not right, but just ran with the "it was probably planted" garbage.

You're a hypocrite.

That's the furthest thing from the truth. You're crushing your own credibility by saying that and I love it- Sayit even blew smoke up my ass at the time when I (promptly) admitted I had made a mistake.

In fact, your admission is the first time any "Truther" has had the courage (and integrity) to admit the "facts" supporting their CT were not facts at all. You get big creds for having both

lol But I hardly "blathered on" about this relatively small issue in the scheme of things - and no one even disputed it with anything of substance - no one said it was the wrong corner. I've learned this is no place for a dialectic

It's not the furthest thing from the truth.

You read that crap from somewhere and ran with it. That's your version of "caring about the truth"? You even admitted it, "No one said it was in the wrong corner". You didn't even investigate anything. You just believed it.

Nooo, I thought it was the correct corner because it was at the same intersection and it was taped off in the same unusual manner, using a garbage can pulled into the middle of the street. I even stated that the engine should have traveled in a direction different from where I incorrectly thought it was found. Since "No one said it was in the wrong corner" I was not aware of my mistake. I was "investigating" the engine thing in real time and I was using this place as a sounding board. Beavis and Butthead of course were useless in calling attention to the specifics of my mistake.

What a crock!

You came into a thread and used that little piece of "evidence" to try and bolster your conspiracy beliefs. You used this in conjunction with the "how did the sizable plane parts" exit the tower. If you were truly investigating the engine location because you weren't sure, you wouldn't have come into that thread and use a piece of evidence you were "currently investigating" and "weren't sure about".

You read that crap on the the 911foreknowledge.com website where you got one of the pictures from.

What do you know about credibility, you're a member of 'We Are Criminal Clowns'

You care nothing about the truth, you question nothing about the OCT which is full of holes,

That's hysterical coming from you!

Weren't you the one blathering on about the jet engine and where it landed and how impossible that was? Weren't you using that as part of your reasoning to try and show that everything is a conspiracy? Until you were shown that story was based on incorrect information, you believed every word of it.

What questions did YOU ask about that particular piece of information to find the truth? You KNEW something was not right, but just ran with the "it was probably planted" garbage.

You're a hypocrite.

That's the furthest thing from the truth. You're crushing your own credibility by saying that and I love it- Sayit even blew smoke up my ass at the time when I (promptly) admitted I had made a mistake.

In fact, your admission is the first time any "Truther" has had the courage (and integrity) to admit the "facts" supporting their CT were not facts at all. You get big creds for having both

lol But I hardly "blathered on" about this relatively small issue in the scheme of things - and no one even disputed it with anything of substance - no one said it was the wrong corner. I've learned this is no place for a dialectic

It's not the furthest thing from the truth.

You read that crap from somewhere and ran with it. That's your version of "caring about the truth"? You even admitted it, "No one said it was in the wrong corner". You didn't even investigate anything. You just believed it.

Nooo, I thought it was the correct corner because it was at the same intersection and it was taped off in the same unusual manner, using a garbage can pulled into the middle of the street. I even stated that the engine should have traveled in a direction different from where I incorrectly thought it was found. Since "No one said it was in the wrong corner" I was not aware of my mistake. I was "investigating" the engine thing in real time and I was using this place as a sounding board. Beavis and Butthead of course were useless in calling attention to the specifics of my mistake.

What a crock!

You came into a thread and used that little piece of "evidence" to try and bolster your conspiracy beliefs. You used this in conjunction with the "how did the sizable plane parts" exit the tower. If you were truly investigating the engine location because you weren't sure, you wouldn't have come into that thread and use a piece of evidence you were "currently investigating" and "weren't sure about".

You read that crap on the the 911foreknowledge.com website where you got one of the pictures from.

Listen, frankly I don't care what you think. Although I do like that you think you know how I would go about doing things.
Tell me all-knowing one, what number am I thinking of?
And how dumb is this:

If you were truly investigating the engine location because you weren't sure, you wouldn't have come into that thread and use a piece of evidence you were "currently investigating" and "weren't sure about".

So in essence, if I were "truly investigating" something I wouldn't use what I was "currently investigating" and "weren't sure about" for that investigation??

 

[Gamolon]

So in essence, if I were "truly investigating" something I wouldn't use what I was "currently investigating" and "weren't sure about" for that investigation??

Why would you use a piece of evidence you weren't sure was correct or not to prove a point?

That's just asinine.

 

[Gamolon]

...I'd be remiss to let such a trenchant criticism slide on by without a stitch of explicit support.

So, let's take "the pieces he uses as evidence" in the order he used them in his hogwash-laden essay, shall we?

Since you made the charge, I'll allow you to start our little interactive exercise.

Let's start with Harrit's paper.

Have you read it?

While you're digesting the Harrit paper, here's a quote from Griffin's site that you linked to previously.

But when they got to the 6th floor, there was a huge explosion, which blew the landing out from under them and blocked their path. They went back up to the 8th floor, broke a window, and signaled for help.

Firemen came to rescue them, Jennings said, but then ran away. Coming back after a while, the firemen again started to rescue them, but then ran away again. They had to run away the first time, Jennings explained, because of the collapse of the South Tower, which occurred at 9:59, and the second time because of the North Tower collapse, which occurred at 10:28.

Based on the above quote, explain Barry Jennings' quote from the interview below, starting at 11:42:

When we made it back to the 8th floor... as I told you earlier...both buildings were still standing... because I looked... two... looked one way, looked the other way, now there's nothing there.

What does the "I looked one way, looked the other way, now there's nothing there" quote mean? In the time he swiveled his head to look in two directions, they collapsed?

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

So in essence, if I were "truly investigating" something I wouldn't use what I was "currently investigating" and "weren't sure about" for that investigation??

Why would you use a piece of evidence you weren't sure was correct or not to prove a point?

That's just asinine.

Holy Shit already, tell me -what was the point I was trying to prove?

 

[RoshanNair]

9/11 was done by Obama. Everyone knows that!

 

[Capstone]

Let's start with Harrit's paper.

As I said before, first things first. Obviously, an in-depth discussion on Harrit's paper alone could easily go on for days or even weeks; and if we start there, we may never get around to discussing the overwhelming majority of evidential "garbage" used by Griffin in his hogwashed essay!

YOU made the following unqualified,wide-sweeping, and completely unsupported claim...

...Griffin's essay is hogwash. The pieces he uses as evidence are garbage.

...and I'm not going to let it slide without demanding that you back it up chronologically, piece by piece.

Now, whether you choose to do so or not remains to be seen, so I'll briefly address the simpler points and questions you raised (simpler, that is, relative to fleshing-out the technical aspects of Harrit's study, which we can nonetheless take in its turn), but unless your next reply to me starts with the evidence at the beginning of Griffin's essay and works down from there, I won't continue in this discussion. I'm not going to be spun all over the place like your personal dreidel.

So, very quickly...

Are you telling me you believe people can actually tell the difference visually that something is molten steel as opposed to something else? Could it have been molten aluminum?

Hmm ... I suppose it could have been!

Too bad we don't have any other physical evidence that would justify leaning one way or the other, you know, like maybe a chunk of swiss-cheesified structural steel (documented by FEMA)...or an independent study or two that verified both massive quantities of metal spheres in WTC dust samples ...AND temperatures “at which lead would have undergone vaporization” (3,180°F - per the RJ Lee study) and at which “molybdenum had been melted” (4,753°F - per the USGS study).

Oh well.

What does the "I looked one way, looked the other way, now there's nothing there" quote mean? In the time he swiveled his head to look in two directions, they collapsed?

Well, just like you, I can only hazard a guess; but probably unlike yours, mine would be based on the totality of Jennings' testimony (which, it should be noted, remained consistent from the day of the incident right up to the day of his death); and that is that he looked at both buildings prior to their respective collapses from his position on the 8th floor. Accordingly, by "now [I.E. upon his arrival at the 8th floor following the explosion that destroyed everything from the 6th floor down) there's nothing there", he meant there was "nothing there" in the way of post-collapse destruction from either of the Twins. This interpretation, BTW, is immediately supported by Jennings in the video you posted. From 12:06 to 12:15, "Keep in mind, I told you the fire department came and ran - they came twice. Why? Because building-tower 1 fell; then tower 2 fell." - this indicates that he was on the 8th floor before either tower fell.

Now let's get on with you supporting your claim.

 

[Gamolon]

...and I'm not going to let it slide without demanding that you back it up chronologically, piece by piece.

Now, whether you choose to do so or not remains to be seen, so I'll briefly address the simpler points and questions you raised (simpler, that is, relative to fleshing-out the technical aspects of Harrit's study, which we can nonetheless take in its turn), but unless your next reply to me starts with the evidence at the beginning of Griffin's essay and works down from there, I won't continue in this discussion. I'm not going to be spun all over the place like your personal dreidel.

I guess the discussion is ended then.

You're not going to ask me to present what I think is garbage and then dictate the way I present it. I presented Harrit' paper first. If you want to use lame "chronological" and "it'll take too long" excuses as reasons to not discuss items I bring to the table, that's your problem.

I brought Harrit's paper to the table first. Either discuss it or hide behind your excuses. Your choice.

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

People are so used to seeing stuff like this they'll believe anything.

How ironic for you to say this!

You're the one saying WTC7 came down like a cartoon --because of an office fire!

Like a cartoon huh?

Answer a question for me. David Chandler showed a graph of the supposed free fall period right?

If that graph supposedly shows that all the steel was cut at the same time to produce that freefall period, explain why there is .8 seconds worth of slower than freefall just before. Are you saying that the section above the cut steel just hanged in the air for a few seconds like a cartoon before deciding to drop?

Like a cartoon huh?

You got it, just like Popeye's house from cartoon termites.

So why was there a non-freefall period prior to the freefall period in Chandler's graph? What does that indicate to you?

I did not see the graph, however:

A non-freefall period would indicate nothing in terms of how the building was brought down. A non-freefall period (a small one at that) and the use of explosives for example would not necessarily be mutually exclusive.
On the the other hand, the freefall period could only occur after total removal of any and all supporting structures - no resistance to the falling mass. < This happened!

 

[daws101]

That's hysterical coming from you!

Weren't you the one blathering on about the jet engine and where it landed and how impossible that was? Weren't you using that as part of your reasoning to try and show that everything is a conspiracy? Until you were shown that story was based on incorrect information, you believed every word of it.

What questions did YOU ask about that particular piece of information to find the truth? You KNEW something was not right, but just ran with the "it was probably planted" garbage.

You're a hypocrite.

That's the furthest thing from the truth. You're crushing your own credibility by saying that and I love it- Sayit even blew smoke up my ass at the time when I (promptly) admitted I had made a mistake.

In fact, your admission is the first time any "Truther" has had the courage (and integrity) to admit the "facts" supporting their CT were not facts at all. You get big creds for having both

lol But I hardly "blathered on" about this relatively small issue in the scheme of things - and no one even disputed it with anything of substance - no one said it was the wrong corner. I've learned this is no place for a dialectic

It's not the furthest thing from the truth.

You read that crap from somewhere and ran with it. That's your version of "caring about the truth"? You even admitted it, "No one said it was in the wrong corner". You didn't even investigate anything. You just believed it.

Nooo, I thought it was the correct corner because it was at the same intersection and it was taped off in the same unusual manner, using a garbage can pulled into the middle of the street. I even stated that the engine should have traveled in a direction different from where I incorrectly thought it was found. Since "No one said it was in the wrong corner" I was not aware of my mistake. I was "investigating" the engine thing in real time and I was using this place as a sounding board. Beavis and Butthead of course were useless in calling attention to the specifics of my mistake.

What a crock!

You came into a thread and used that little piece of "evidence" to try and bolster your conspiracy beliefs. You used this in conjunction with the "how did the sizable plane parts" exit the tower. If you were truly investigating the engine location because you weren't sure, you wouldn't have come into that thread and use a piece of evidence you were "currently investigating" and "weren't sure about".

You read that crap on the the 911foreknowledge.com website where you got one of the pictures from.

That's hysterical coming from you!

Weren't you the one blathering on about the jet engine and where it landed and how impossible that was? Weren't you using that as part of your reasoning to try and show that everything is a conspiracy? Until you were shown that story was based on incorrect information, you believed every word of it.

What questions did YOU ask about that particular piece of information to find the truth? You KNEW something was not right, but just ran with the "it was probably planted" garbage.

You're a hypocrite.

That's the furthest thing from the truth. You're crushing your own credibility by saying that and I love it- Sayit even blew smoke up my ass at the time when I (promptly) admitted I had made a mistake.

In fact, your admission is the first time any "Truther" has had the courage (and integrity) to admit the "facts" supporting their CT were not facts at all. You get big creds for having both

lol But I hardly "blathered on" about this relatively small issue in the scheme of things - and no one even disputed it with anything of substance - no one said it was the wrong corner. I've learned this is no place for a dialectic

It's not the furthest thing from the truth.

You read that crap from somewhere and ran with it. That's your version of "caring about the truth"? You even admitted it, "No one said it was in the wrong corner". You didn't even investigate anything. You just believed it.

Nooo, I thought it was the correct corner because it was at the same intersection and it was taped off in the same unusual manner, using a garbage can pulled into the middle of the street. I even stated that the engine should have traveled in a direction different from where I incorrectly thought it was found. Since "No one said it was in the wrong corner" I was not aware of my mistake. I was "investigating" the engine thing in real time and I was using this place as a sounding board. Beavis and Butthead of course were useless in calling attention to the specifics of my mistake.

What a crock!

You came into a thread and used that little piece of "evidence" to try and bolster your conspiracy beliefs. You used this in conjunction with the "how did the sizable plane parts" exit the tower. If you were truly investigating the engine location because you weren't sure, you wouldn't have come into that thread and use a piece of evidence you were "currently investigating" and "weren't sure about".

You read that crap on the the 911foreknowledge.com website where you got one of the pictures from.

Listen, frankly I don't care what you think. Although I do like that you think you know how I would go about doing things.
Tell me all-knowing one, what number am I thinking of?
And how dumb is this:

If you were truly investigating the engine location because you weren't sure, you wouldn't have come into that thread and use a piece of evidence you were "currently investigating" and "weren't sure about".

So in essence, if I were "truly investigating" something I wouldn't use what I was "currently investigating" and "weren't sure about" for that investigation??

since it's an impossibility for you or any twoofer to investigate objectively none of the above is relevant

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

Yes that would be your type of logic, dismiss basic physics or other facts because they don't fit your agenda.

You're a fraud and you prove it over and over and over again.

 

[daws101]

How ironic for you to say this!

You're the one saying WTC7 came down like a cartoon --because of an office fire!

Like a cartoon huh?

Answer a question for me. David Chandler showed a graph of the supposed free fall period right?

If that graph supposedly shows that all the steel was cut at the same time to produce that freefall period, explain why there is .8 seconds worth of slower than freefall just before. Are you saying that the section above the cut steel just hanged in the air for a few seconds like a cartoon before deciding to drop?

Like a cartoon huh?

You got it, just like Popeye's house from cartoon termites.

So why was there a non-freefall period prior to the freefall period in Chandler's graph? What does that indicate to you?

I did not see the graph, however:

A non-freefall period would indicate nothing in terms of how the building was brought down. A non-freefall period (a small one at that) and the use of explosives for example would not necessarily be mutually exclusive.
On the the other hand, the freefall period could only occur after total removal of any and all supporting structures - no resistance to the falling mass. < This happened!

for only 2.5 seconds all that means is that for that tiny amount of time the face of wtc7 hit nothing as it fell. well within the laws of probability
and is no indication of explosive use.

 

[daws101]

nowhere do these folks mention conspiracy or a trace of explosives.

 

[daws101]

Yes that would be your type of logic, dismiss basic physics or other facts because they don't fit your agenda.

You're a fraud and you prove it over and over and over again.

you don't know dick about physics or what constitutes fact.
it's laughable you yammer on about agendas that is all you have, no evidence no credibility
my agenda if I had one is to separate fact for the fiction you assholes have created about 9/11/01.

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

You're the one saying WTC7 came down like a cartoon --because of an office fire!

Like a cartoon huh?

Answer a question for me. David Chandler showed a graph of the supposed free fall period right?

If that graph supposedly shows that all the steel was cut at the same time to produce that freefall period, explain why there is .8 seconds worth of slower than freefall just before. Are you saying that the section above the cut steel just hanged in the air for a few seconds like a cartoon before deciding to drop?

Like a cartoon huh?

You got it, just like Popeye's house from cartoon termites.

So why was there a non-freefall period prior to the freefall period in Chandler's graph? What does that indicate to you?

I did not see the graph, however:

A non-freefall period would indicate nothing in terms of how the building was brought down. A non-freefall period (a small one at that) and the use of explosives for example would not necessarily be mutually exclusive.
On the the other hand, the freefall period could only occur after total removal of any and all supporting structures - no resistance to the falling mass. < This happened!

for only 2.5 seconds all that means is that for that tiny amount of time the face of wtc7 hit nothing as it fell. well within the laws of probability
and is no indication of explosive use.

well within the laws of probability

hahahaaa

It free fell through 8 stories of the building!!