911 WTC Demolition! The Final Nail in the Debunker/Posers Coffin!

[daws101]

Elvis planned the whole thing. He faked his death, and has been pissed off ever since his daughter married Michael Jackson. Then his records almost stopped selling, and old women stopped leaving wreaths on the gates of Graceland. He was fired as a gas station attendant in Wisconsin, when they converted to self service pumps. Now he is just a bitter old man with a big chip on his shoulder.

another fool that can not support the NIST report so resorts to strawmen and inane babble

say's the man that cannot find after 14 years of zealot like devotion to his fantasy a single credible scrap of evidence to refute nist's findings.
so he resorts to strawmen and inane babble...

 

[eots]

Occasionally I come over here to just verify for myself that there really are people wander around loose who lost their minds long ago. This makes me feel a little better about those people that I come across in the real world who are only half crazy. It reminds me that it could be worse!

...and now, back to the real world!

you can not support the NIST report or explain the free fall collapse...bye

 

[daws101]

On Debunking 9/11 Debunking


Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin’s Latest Criticism

of the NIST World Trade Center Investigation

Ryan Mackey

Version 2.1, 24 May 2008

Original Release 31 August 2007

Abstract


In this paper, we examine the claims of Dr. David Ray Griffin regarding the NIST

investigation into the World Trade Center disasters, and find those claims to be

unfounded. All 18 major claims are discussed and rigorously dismissed, and a further

analysis of the text reveals an overwhelming density of factual and logical errors. This

paper refutes Dr. Griffin’s major claims, supporting with evidence that the aircraft

impacts were expected to significantly damage the structures, that the resulting fires were

of both sufficient temperature and duration to cause structural collapse, that a progressive

collapse resulting in total destruction of the Towers was the likely result, and that the

“controlled demolition” hypothesis is speculative and unsupported by any evidence. We

also discuss the anticipated NIST report on World Trade Center Seven. The author

highlights the fundamental sources of errors present in Dr. Griffin’s research and

provides a template to evaluate future claims using resources available in open literature.

http://jod911.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 4

Peer-Reviewed Papers:

On Debunking 9/11 Debunking: Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin’s Latest Criticism of the NIST World Trade Center InvestigationRyan Mackey



Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 3

Peer-Reviewed Papers:

World Trade Center Building 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 “Truth Movement”
Mark Roberts



Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 2

Peer-Reviewed Papers:
Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 2

Peer-Reviewed Papers:

There Are No Missile Defenses at the Pentagon
JamesB
Firefighter’s Interviews - Sounds of Explosives or Explosive Sounds in the Towers Debunking911

Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories - An online paper
Mike King

A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1,2&7 From a Conventional Explosives and Demolitions Industry Viewpoint
Brent Blanchard





Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 1

Peer-Reviewed Papers:


Fleas under a Microscope: Evidence there was no third jet involved in the World Trade Center attacks
Debunking911

The PNAC and Other Myths: A Short List of Observations
JamesB
Evidence of Controlled Deception: A long list of observations - Part I
Debunking911

Evidence of Controlled Deception: A long list of observations - Part II
James Bennett

Oh no! not another expert

Giulio Bernacchia

Journal Of Debunking 9 11 Conspiracy Theories

lol these are not peer reviewed papers you just titled them that..these are debwunking sites and a book reveiw

“given the sheer number of errors”, as Mackey puts it, his paper is, at best, just a tiresome blunder. The author simply states the opposite of every point made in Griffin’s chapter, and then supports that bizarre approach with 11 false claims and diversionary chatter. Of course, it’s very possible that this 200-page anniversary surprise was just another well-timed attempt to distract those looking into the evidence for the alternative hypothesis of 9/11

.http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf

criticism of the above you tube piece

The reality of the Bush administration and its ineptness simply doesn’t gel with the massive, absurd and physically impossible conspiracy that 9/11 “truthers” would have us believe they orchestrated.

The biggest issue for “truthers” is depending on which one you engage with, they have their own angle on the conspiracy and usually its mutually incompatible with the truther next to them. Some of them think controlled demolition, some thermite, some military planes painted in civilian livery, some suitcase nukes and orbiting space platforms, some missiles etc. etc. What they all have in common is a lack of evidence and helpings and helpings of unbridled paranoia.

An interesting question to put to any truther is to ask them what happened, exactly and what evidence they have to support that. You will never get a direct answer. If you’re “lucky” you’ll be on the receiving end of the usual truther tropes – quote mining, cherry picking of facts, pseudo science by the shovelful and wishful thinking.

this is daws way of explaining the free fall collapse of the WTC buildings

this is eots way of rationalizing the freefall fallacy
fact wtc 7 free fall was 2.5 sec not significant
the towers did not even come close to free fall
see video

 

[daws101]

Occasionally I come over here to just verify for myself that there really are people wander around loose who lost their minds long ago. This makes me feel a little better about those people that I come across in the real world who are only half crazy. It reminds me that it could be worse!

...and now, back to the real world!

you can not support the NIST report or explain the free fall collapse...bye

he not trying to, he like all reasonable people are questioning the mental stability of crapspiracy zealots..

 

[eots]

Freefall Collapse Impossible David Chandler PDX 9-11 ...

 

[eots]

lol these are not peer reviewed papers you just titled them that..these are debwunking sites and a book reveiw

“given the sheer number of errors”, as Mackey puts it, his paper is, at best, just a tiresome blunder. The author simply states the opposite of every point made in Griffin’s chapter, and then supports that bizarre approach with 11 false claims and diversionary chatter. Of course, it’s very possible that this 200-page anniversary surprise was just another well-timed attempt to distract those looking into the evidence for the alternative hypothesis of 9/11

.http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf

criticism of the above you tube piece

The reality of the Bush administration and its ineptness simply doesn’t gel with the massive, absurd and physically impossible conspiracy that 9/11 “truthers” would have us believe they orchestrated.

The biggest issue for “truthers” is depending on which one you engage with, they have their own angle on the conspiracy and usually its mutually incompatible with the truther next to them. Some of them think controlled demolition, some thermite, some military planes painted in civilian livery, some suitcase nukes and orbiting space platforms, some missiles etc. etc. What they all have in common is a lack of evidence and helpings and helpings of unbridled paranoia.

An interesting question to put to any truther is to ask them what happened, exactly and what evidence they have to support that. You will never get a direct answer. If you’re “lucky” you’ll be on the receiving end of the usual truther tropes – quote mining, cherry picking of facts, pseudo science by the shovelful and wishful thinking.

this is daws way of explaining the free fall collapse of the WTC buildings

this is eots way of rationalizing the freefall fallacy
fact wtc 7 free fall was 2.5 sec not significant
the towers did not even come close to free fall
see video

Really because NIST stated the twin towers fell at virtual free -fall...so was NIST wrong ?

 

[eots]

lol these are not peer reviewed papers you just titled them that..these are debwunking sites and a book reveiw

“given the sheer number of errors”, as Mackey puts it, his paper is, at best, just a tiresome blunder. The author simply states the opposite of every point made in Griffin’s chapter, and then supports that bizarre approach with 11 false claims and diversionary chatter. Of course, it’s very possible that this 200-page anniversary surprise was just another well-timed attempt to distract those looking into the evidence for the alternative hypothesis of 9/11

.http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf

criticism of the above you tube piece

The reality of the Bush administration and its ineptness simply doesn’t gel with the massive, absurd and physically impossible conspiracy that 9/11 “truthers” would have us believe they orchestrated.

The biggest issue for “truthers” is depending on which one you engage with, they have their own angle on the conspiracy and usually its mutually incompatible with the truther next to them. Some of them think controlled demolition, some thermite, some military planes painted in civilian livery, some suitcase nukes and orbiting space platforms, some missiles etc. etc. What they all have in common is a lack of evidence and helpings and helpings of unbridled paranoia.

An interesting question to put to any truther is to ask them what happened, exactly and what evidence they have to support that. You will never get a direct answer. If you’re “lucky” you’ll be on the receiving end of the usual truther tropes – quote mining, cherry picking of facts, pseudo science by the shovelful and wishful thinking.

this is daws way of explaining the free fall collapse of the WTC buildings

this is eots way of rationalizing the freefall fallacy
fact wtc 7 free fall was 2.5 sec not significant
the towers did not even come close to free fall
see video

8 Floors of free-fall..100 ft is not insignificant
how could that possible happen and the rest of the collapse at near free-fall

 

[eots]

lol these are not peer reviewed papers you just titled them that..these are debwunking sites and a book reveiw

“given the sheer number of errors”, as Mackey puts it, his paper is, at best, just a tiresome blunder. The author simply states the opposite of every point made in Griffin’s chapter, and then supports that bizarre approach with 11 false claims and diversionary chatter. Of course, it’s very possible that this 200-page anniversary surprise was just another well-timed attempt to distract those looking into the evidence for the alternative hypothesis of 9/11

.http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf

criticism of the above you tube piece

The reality of the Bush administration and its ineptness simply doesn’t gel with the massive, absurd and physically impossible conspiracy that 9/11 “truthers” would have us believe they orchestrated.

The biggest issue for “truthers” is depending on which one you engage with, they have their own angle on the conspiracy and usually its mutually incompatible with the truther next to them. Some of them think controlled demolition, some thermite, some military planes painted in civilian livery, some suitcase nukes and orbiting space platforms, some missiles etc. etc. What they all have in common is a lack of evidence and helpings and helpings of unbridled paranoia.

An interesting question to put to any truther is to ask them what happened, exactly and what evidence they have to support that. You will never get a direct answer. If you’re “lucky” you’ll be on the receiving end of the usual truther tropes – quote mining, cherry picking of facts, pseudo science by the shovelful and wishful thinking.

this is daws way of explaining the free fall collapse of the WTC buildings

this is eots way of rationalizing the freefall fallacy
fact wtc 7 free fall was 2.5 sec not significant
the towers did not even come close to free fall
see video

your video is in contradiction with the NIST Final report and debwunks statements made about building 7s collapse time by using the collapse time of the towers

 

[daws101]

Freefall Collapse Impossible David Chandler PDX 9-11 ...

like I said 14 years no credible evidence.

 

[daws101]

“given the sheer number of errors”, as Mackey puts it, his paper is, at best, just a tiresome blunder. The author simply states the opposite of every point made in Griffin’s chapter, and then supports that bizarre approach with 11 false claims and diversionary chatter. Of course, it’s very possible that this 200-page anniversary surprise was just another well-timed attempt to distract those looking into the evidence for the alternative hypothesis of 9/11

.http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf

criticism of the above you tube piece

The reality of the Bush administration and its ineptness simply doesn’t gel with the massive, absurd and physically impossible conspiracy that 9/11 “truthers” would have us believe they orchestrated.

The biggest issue for “truthers” is depending on which one you engage with, they have their own angle on the conspiracy and usually its mutually incompatible with the truther next to them. Some of them think controlled demolition, some thermite, some military planes painted in civilian livery, some suitcase nukes and orbiting space platforms, some missiles etc. etc. What they all have in common is a lack of evidence and helpings and helpings of unbridled paranoia.

An interesting question to put to any truther is to ask them what happened, exactly and what evidence they have to support that. You will never get a direct answer. If you’re “lucky” you’ll be on the receiving end of the usual truther tropes – quote mining, cherry picking of facts, pseudo science by the shovelful and wishful thinking.

this is daws way of explaining the free fall collapse of the WTC buildings

this is eots way of rationalizing the freefall fallacy
fact wtc 7 free fall was 2.5 sec not significant
the towers did not even come close to free fall
see video

Really because NIST stated the twin towers fell at virtual free -fall...so was NIST wrong ?

virtual
[ ˈvərCHo͞oəl ]
http://www.usmessageboard.com/javascript:void(0)
ADJECTIVE
adjective: virtual

1. 
   almost or nearly as described, but not completely or according to strict definition:
   
   stop using words you don't know.
   

 

[daws101]

“given the sheer number of errors”, as Mackey puts it, his paper is, at best, just a tiresome blunder. The author simply states the opposite of every point made in Griffin’s chapter, and then supports that bizarre approach with 11 false claims and diversionary chatter. Of course, it’s very possible that this 200-page anniversary surprise was just another well-timed attempt to distract those looking into the evidence for the alternative hypothesis of 9/11

.http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf

criticism of the above you tube piece

The reality of the Bush administration and its ineptness simply doesn’t gel with the massive, absurd and physically impossible conspiracy that 9/11 “truthers” would have us believe they orchestrated.

The biggest issue for “truthers” is depending on which one you engage with, they have their own angle on the conspiracy and usually its mutually incompatible with the truther next to them. Some of them think controlled demolition, some thermite, some military planes painted in civilian livery, some suitcase nukes and orbiting space platforms, some missiles etc. etc. What they all have in common is a lack of evidence and helpings and helpings of unbridled paranoia.

An interesting question to put to any truther is to ask them what happened, exactly and what evidence they have to support that. You will never get a direct answer. If you’re “lucky” you’ll be on the receiving end of the usual truther tropes – quote mining, cherry picking of facts, pseudo science by the shovelful and wishful thinking.

this is daws way of explaining the free fall collapse of the WTC buildings

this is eots way of rationalizing the freefall fallacy
fact wtc 7 free fall was 2.5 sec not significant
the towers did not even come close to free fall
see video

8 Floors of free-fall..100 ft is not insignificant
how could that possible happen and the rest of the collapse at near free-fall

asked and answered ..

 

[eots]

criticism of the above you tube piece

The reality of the Bush administration and its ineptness simply doesn’t gel with the massive, absurd and physically impossible conspiracy that 9/11 “truthers” would have us believe they orchestrated.

The biggest issue for “truthers” is depending on which one you engage with, they have their own angle on the conspiracy and usually its mutually incompatible with the truther next to them. Some of them think controlled demolition, some thermite, some military planes painted in civilian livery, some suitcase nukes and orbiting space platforms, some missiles etc. etc. What they all have in common is a lack of evidence and helpings and helpings of unbridled paranoia.

An interesting question to put to any truther is to ask them what happened, exactly and what evidence they have to support that. You will never get a direct answer. If you’re “lucky” you’ll be on the receiving end of the usual truther tropes – quote mining, cherry picking of facts, pseudo science by the shovelful and wishful thinking.

this is daws way of explaining the free fall collapse of the WTC buildings

this is eots way of rationalizing the freefall fallacy
fact wtc 7 free fall was 2.5 sec not significant
the towers did not even come close to free fall
see video

Really because NIST stated the twin towers fell at virtual free -fall...so was NIST wrong ?

virtual
[ ˈvərCHo͞oəl ]
ADJECTIVE
adjective: virtual

1. 
   almost or nearly as described, but not completely or according to strict definition:
   
   stop using words you don't know.

that is correct NIST states that wtc 7 fell for 100 ft of free fall...and the twin towers fell at almost, nearly but not completely by strictly definition at freefall speed....
whereas daws says "the towers did not even come close to free fall"...so you are wrong or NIST IS wrong

 

[Hollie]

Freefall Collapse Impossible David Chandler PDX 9-11 ...

And still nothing from the sweaty, chest-heaving twoofer that connects 9/11 to the vast conspiracy the twoofers have invented.

Still, not a single link that connects the gubmint, CIA, Illuminati, Jooooooos, or any other collection of supposed conspirators to their goofy conspiracy.

All we have is ideots cutting and pasting the same decade old YouTube videos half a dozen times.

 

[Hollie]

criticism of the above you tube piece

The reality of the Bush administration and its ineptness simply doesn’t gel with the massive, absurd and physically impossible conspiracy that 9/11 “truthers” would have us believe they orchestrated.

The biggest issue for “truthers” is depending on which one you engage with, they have their own angle on the conspiracy and usually its mutually incompatible with the truther next to them. Some of them think controlled demolition, some thermite, some military planes painted in civilian livery, some suitcase nukes and orbiting space platforms, some missiles etc. etc. What they all have in common is a lack of evidence and helpings and helpings of unbridled paranoia.

An interesting question to put to any truther is to ask them what happened, exactly and what evidence they have to support that. You will never get a direct answer. If you’re “lucky” you’ll be on the receiving end of the usual truther tropes – quote mining, cherry picking of facts, pseudo science by the shovelful and wishful thinking.

this is daws way of explaining the free fall collapse of the WTC buildings

this is eots way of rationalizing the freefall fallacy
fact wtc 7 free fall was 2.5 sec not significant
the towers did not even come close to free fall
see video

Really because NIST stated the twin towers fell at virtual free -fall...so was NIST wrong ?

virtual
[ ˈvərCHo͞oəl ]
ADJECTIVE
adjective: virtual

1. 
   almost or nearly as described, but not completely or according to strict definition:
   
   stop using words you don't know.

that is correct NIST states that wtc 7 fell for 100 ft of free fall...and the twin towers fell at almost, nearly but not completely by strictly definition at freefall speed....
whereas daws says "the towers did not even come close to free fall"...so you are wrong or NIST IS wrong

".......nearly but not completely by strictly definition at freefall speed....."

Sheesh, Bunky. You're so befuddled you're reduced to stuttering and mumbling.

 

[SAYIT]

Freefall Collapse Impossible David Chandler PDX 9-11 ...

And still nothing from the sweaty, chest-heaving twoofer that connects 9/11 to the vast conspiracy the twoofers have invented.

Still, not a single link that connects the gubmint, CIA, Illuminati, Jooooooos, or any other collection of supposed conspirators to their goofy conspiracy.

All we have is ideots cutting and pasting the same decade old YouTube videos half a dozen times.

Contrary to Ideot's complaints, I believe you have handled the "Truther" claims with all the seriousness and respect they deserve. Thanks.

 

[Hollie]

Illuminati symbolism of 9 11 Memorial Museum - IlluminatiWatcher

 

[SAYIT]

Meanwhile, in today's hot 9/11 CT news ...

 

[LA RAM FAN]

three farts in a row from the agent trolls.

Boy their handlers sure pay them well to troll here Eots.No way would they keep coming back constantly here everyday for their constant ass beatings they keep getting here everyday from you that they have on this thread and like they did from myself and others on that other 9/11 thread.no way in hell would they keep coming back for them for free. no way in hell.


they of course will deny reality and of course lie saying you and myself have never given them any ass beatings.thats a given.

 

[eots]

this is daws way of explaining the free fall collapse of the WTC buildings

this is eots way of rationalizing the freefall fallacy
fact wtc 7 free fall was 2.5 sec not significant
the towers did not even come close to free fall
see video

Really because NIST stated the twin towers fell at virtual free -fall...so was NIST wrong ?

virtual
[ ˈvərCHo͞oəl ]
ADJECTIVE
adjective: virtual

1. 
   almost or nearly as described, but not completely or according to strict definition:
   
   stop using words you don't know.

that is correct NIST states that wtc 7 fell for 100 ft of free fall...and the twin towers fell at almost, nearly but not completely by strictly definition at freefall speed....
whereas daws says "the towers did not even come close to free fall"...so you are wrong or NIST IS wrong

".......nearly but not completely by strictly definition at freefall speed....."

Sheesh, Bunky. You're so befuddled you're reduced to stuttering and mumbling.

Virtual free fall is NISTs description of the collapses

 

[eots]

based on a purely commonsense analysis, was confirmed by a technical analysis of the North Tower collapse by mechanical engineer Gordon Ross. Far from failing to retard the downward movement of the building’s upper portion, his analysis showed, the lower portion would have quickly and completely stopped the top portion’s descent. Having made the necessary calculations (which NIST failed to do), Ross concluded that the “vertical movement of the falling section would [have been] arrested . . . within 0.02 seconds after impact. A collapse driven only by gravity would not continue to progress beyond that point.”70



If Ross’s calculations are even close to accurate, then NIST’s account – according to which the Twin Towers came down “essentially in free fall,” even though they were not professionally demolished - implied two enormous miracles (one for each building).

David Ray Griffin Miracles