Victims' Families Want To Air New 9/11 Truth Ad

[Mr. Jones]

there is plenty of credible material that plenty of credible people have put out to counter the OCT

Actually, if this were true, there would already be real investigations going on and the American people, even people from all over the world would be screaming for justice and truth. Fact is sadly that there is not any truly credible material to disprove the main points of the official investigations and reports.

Get over it.

The problem is that the side that subscribes to the OCT does not want to debate the issues between them, and you people are idiots for saying they are "liars" simply because you don't agree with them, that is asinine.
What's even more stupid of you is to deny that there isn't anything that refutes the OCT, it seems you have not even seriously looked into what they have calculated or are saying, just like in another thread you try to insist that cell phones worked on the flights of 9-11 even though the FBI changed its tune about them in a trial regarding 9-11.
You people don't bother to read or look into anything that counters your beliefs, you insist on trying to avoid the obvious credible counter points and arguments by totally dismissing their claims, or by
having to look up BS like your buddy Parrot about Jones and cold fusion.
I 'll give you another example..I have tried to have rational discussions about the mechanics of the WTC towers, and what do you think Parrot does?
He posts some bogus calculations to use as an example to bolster his claims. He does not bother to think that the facts are that NIST doesn't come close to explaining the collapse, it only goes as far as the theory on the initiation of collapse.
You people don't try to reason things out, like considering many people think that a gravity collapse does indeed have tremendous kinetic energy, and that perhaps all the CD that was needed was to kick start a gravity collapse.
It is a fact that many things have not been explained, not even by the very agency that was paid, and supposed to be counted on to do the explaining.
They admit to free fall in WTC 7, but don't explain anything about it.
If that kind of explanation is good enough for you, that's fine, but it may not be for others.
The main problem from what I can tell, is that too many people are just stuck in believing what they do, and are not flexible enough to consider other things, when so much has been put forth and evolved in 10 years.
You also don't seem to understand or want to, that the very same PTB are the ones that control what is and what is not deemed worthy of credible rebuttal or evidence.
We at least try to respect what the OCT put out, and try to respond to it, we don't go around like ignorant children calling everyone a "coincitard" or a "liar" just because we don't like or believe what they say.
Many of you have turned this place into nothing more then a launching pad for personal release of frustrations and other mental or social shortcomings you people may have.
Try reading some of the hilarious and stupid posts your fellow OCT rely with, and we try to defend ourselves from, lately?
You should at least try to rebuttal with some kind of coherent and adult behavior and responses that resembles some form of human intelligence.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Wow. So all of my posts from yesterday just get removed? So, this board isn't moderated, it's actually controlled. Good to know....I'm done posting here.

Who knew it could be that easy.

I have to spread this idea to a few other places.

 

[SFC Ollie]

there is plenty of credible material that plenty of credible people have put out to counter the OCT

Actually, if this were true, there would already be real investigations going on and the American people, even people from all over the world would be screaming for justice and truth. Fact is sadly that there is not any truly credible material to disprove the main points of the official investigations and reports.

Get over it.

The problem is that the side that subscribes to the OCT does not want to debate the issues between them, and you people are idiots for saying they are "liars" simply because you don't agree with them, that is asinine.
What's even more stupid of you is to deny that there isn't anything that refutes the OCT, it seems you have not even seriously looked into what they have calculated or are saying, just like in another thread you try to insist that cell phones worked on the flights of 9-11 even though the FBI changed its tune about them in a trial regarding 9-11.

Now that is not true, I don't deny that there is nothing to refute the Official investigations and reports. I do believe that there is nothing that refutes the main points of those investigations and reports.

You people don't bother to read or look into anything that counters your beliefs, you insist on trying to avoid the obvious credible counter points and arguments by totally dismissing their claims, or by
having to look up BS like your buddy Parrot about Jones and cold fusion.

Au contraire, I have probably read as much about the conspiracies and seen as many videos as you have. The difference is that i can smell bull Shit and you can't.

I 'll give you another example..I have tried to have rational discussions about the mechanics of the WTC towers, and what do you think Parrot does?
He posts some bogus calculations to use as an example to bolster his claims. He does not bother to think that the facts are that NIST doesn't come close to explaining the collapse, it only goes as far as the theory on the initiation of collapse.

Please do not confuse me with other people. I have several times stated that I am not an physicist or engineer, so I won't argue those points.

You people don't try to reason things out, like considering many people think that a gravity collapse does indeed have tremendous kinetic energy, and that perhaps all the CD that was needed was to kick start a gravity collapse.

Another new theory? You really don't think the planes did enough damage?

It is a fact that many things have not been explained, not even by the very agency that was paid, and supposed to be counted on to do the explaining.
They admit to free fall in WTC 7, but don't explain anything about it.
If that kind of explanation is good enough for you, that's fine, but it may not be for others.

The facade, not the building. there is a difference between a part of a whole and the whole. Why won't you admit that. Huge sections of the towers fell at free fall because they fell to the outside where there was nothing to stop them. Does that mean the towers came down at free fall speed?

The main problem from what I can tell, is that too many people are just stuck in believing what they do, and are not flexible enough to consider other things, when so much has been put forth and evolved in 10 years.

In ten years there has been nothing that could disprove the main points of the 911CR or the NIST reports.

You also don't seem to understand or want to, that the very same PTB are the ones that control what is and what is not deemed worthy of credible rebuttal or evidence.

Wrong again, if you had the evidence someone would have taken it to a court somewhere. There are way too many VIP's that would have loved to pin something on Bush or Cheney, The US congress wasted a whole fucking year trying it....

We at least try to respect what the OCT put out, and try to respond to it, we don't go around like ignorant children calling everyone a "coincitard" or a "liar" just because we don't like or believe what they say.
Many of you have turned this place into nothing more then a launching pad for personal release of frustrations and other mental or social shortcomings you people may have.
Try reading some of the hilarious and stupid posts your fellow OCT rely with, and we try to defend ourselves from, lately?

Again you want me to speak for someone else? Not going to happen.

You should at least try to rebuttal with some kind of coherent and adult behavior and responses that resembles some form of human intelligence.

I try, I really do try, but when the truthers can't see what is put in front of them it does make one start to feel like they have a mental problem. I present what I believe to be the truth. And what do I get? Read some of the truthers (Trinton for example) comments. And then come tell me about Patriot.........

 

[Patriot911]

What motivation does this man or his fellow scientists have for saying this. Why would they lie?
This is a big allegation, that NIST and a new investigation has to look into and disprove IMHO.

Why would you lie? Why would Gage lie? You're fucking truthtards. It's a mental disease with you guys. JONES FOUND NOTHING that could account for the destruction of the towers. That is the truth.

As for lying.... why did he lie about cold fusion?

Again the OCT believer Parrot continues to pretend all other theories that he doesn't subscribe to, and probably doesn't even understand, are just big fat lies!!
and those that bring them up, are "LIARS"

Wrong yet again, fucktard Jones. Jones' claims about having discovered cold fusion were just that; flat out lies. Maybe you should have done some research before sticking your foot up your own ass.

And that anybody that has any different opinions and views, are just lying!!

Nope. I only call people who blatantly lie liars. Like you always do and I've proven. Oh sure, you came back and tried to reword phrases or make excuses, but do you think anyone was buying that?

He can't actually prove they are actual lies, BUT, that is of no significance in his delusional sorry little mind

Wrong yet again, little fucktard! I prove it time and time again. But since you are driven by your hate and your agenda, you refuse to acknowledge the lies and instead continue to believe your little fantasies even when you can't even defend them.

Cmon you sorry little whinny crybaby, let's see how many times you can use the words "truthtard" and "liar" in your next pissass rant filled post?

Why do you get so upset when people call you what you really are? Seriously. All kidding aside. You are one of the sorriest piece of shit liars I've seen. Ever. So why shouldn't I call a fucktard a fucktard?

Oh and BTW do you have any concrete proof Steven Jones actually really lied about cold fusion?

Yeah. His "proof" turned out to be a bunch of bullshit. Otherwise we would all be swimming in nearly free energy.

I will admit to not having heard too much about this allegation, and found this article about him.

Really? A quick google search shows up lots of articles. Of course, many of them are from fucktards like yourself who turn on Steven Jones and pretend he is covering up the discovery of cold fusion and is helping to cover up 9/11.

See, that's the great thing about you truthtards. You have no morals or character at all, so it is downright hysterical to see you turn on one another and rip each other's throats out when you don't agree. You must not have gotten the memo.

In the mid-1980s, Jones and other BYU scientists worked on what he then referred to as Cold Nuclear Fusion in a Scientific American article, but is today known as muon-catalyzed fusion to avoid confusion with the cold fusion concept of Pons and Fleischman . Muon-catalyzed fusion was a field of some interest in the 1980s, but its low energy output appears to be unavoidable (due to alpha-muon sticking losses). Jones led a research team that in 1986 achieved 150 fusions per muon (average), releasing over 2,600 MeV of fusion energy per muon, a record which still stands.[7]

Except he could never reproduce his experiment in front of anyone else. Neither could anyone else reproduce his experiment from his notes. What does that tell you?

Around 1985 Jones then became interested in the anomalous concentration of helium-3 found in the gases escaping from volcanoes. He hypothesized that the high pressures in the Earth's interior might make fusion more likely, and began a series of experiments on what he referred to as piezofusion, or high-pressure fusion. In order to characterize the reactions, Jones designed and built a neutron counter able to accurately measure the tiny numbers of neutrons being produced in his experiments. The counter suggested a small amount of fusion was going on. Jones said the result suggested at least the possibility of fusion, though the process was unlikely to be useful as an energy source.

So what part of that confuses you. He didn't know what he found and didn't know how useful it could ever be. He STILL never found cold fusion.

Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann (Pons and Fleischmann or P&F) started their work around the same time. Their work was brought to Jones' attention when they applied for research funding from the Department of Energy, after which the DOE passed their proposal along to Jones for peer review. Realizing their work was very similar, Jones and P&F agreed to release their papers to Nature on the same day, March 24, 1989. However, P&F announced their results at a press event the day before. Jones faxed his paper to Nature.[8]

Yet they were all found to be flawed to the point of insanity. I never claimed Jones had a monopoly on lying about cold fusion.

A New York Times article says that while peer reviewers were quite critical of Pons and Fleishchmann's research they did not apply such criticism to Jones' much more modest, theoretically supported findings. Although critics insisted that his results likely stemmed from experimental error,[9] most of the reviewing physicists indicated that he was a careful scientist. Later research and experiments supported the metallic cold fusion reports by Jones.[10]

Yet none of the experiments reproduced the results. Why is that do you suppose?

But go ahead and continue to believe him to be the 9/11 messiah.

Tell you what. You've steadfastly refused to accept Leslie Robertson as a credible source and just ignore anything he says. Can you find anyone ANYWHERE saying Leslie Robertson is a liar? He is one of the premier structural engineers in the world, yet he doesn't make the claims of others like Richard Gage who aren't credible enough in engineering to lick Robertson's boots. Why is that? Hmmmm. Funny how you tie your credibility to known losers while ignoring the true experts.

 

[Patriot911]

there is plenty of credible material that plenty of credible people have put out to counter the OCT

Actually, if this were true, there would already be real investigations going on and the American people, even people from all over the world would be screaming for justice and truth. Fact is sadly that there is not any truly credible material to disprove the main points of the official investigations and reports.

Get over it.

The problem is that the side that subscribes to the OCT does not want to debate the issues between them, and you people are idiots for saying they are "liars" simply because you don't agree with them, that is asinine.
What's even more stupid of you is to deny that there isn't anything that refutes the OCT, it seems you have not even seriously looked into what they have calculated or are saying, just like in another thread you try to insist that cell phones worked on the flights of 9-11 even though the FBI changed its tune about them in a trial regarding 9-11.
You people don't bother to read or look into anything that counters your beliefs, you insist on trying to avoid the obvious credible counter points and arguments by totally dismissing their claims, or by
having to look up BS like your buddy Parrot about Jones and cold fusion.
I 'll give you another example..I have tried to have rational discussions about the mechanics of the WTC towers, and what do you think Parrot does?
He posts some bogus calculations to use as an example to bolster his claims. He does not bother to think that the facts are that NIST doesn't come close to explaining the collapse, it only goes as far as the theory on the initiation of collapse.
You people don't try to reason things out, like considering many people think that a gravity collapse does indeed have tremendous kinetic energy, and that perhaps all the CD that was needed was to kick start a gravity collapse.
It is a fact that many things have not been explained, not even by the very agency that was paid, and supposed to be counted on to do the explaining.
They admit to free fall in WTC 7, but don't explain anything about it.
If that kind of explanation is good enough for you, that's fine, but it may not be for others.
The main problem from what I can tell, is that too many people are just stuck in believing what they do, and are not flexible enough to consider other things, when so much has been put forth and evolved in 10 years.
You also don't seem to understand or want to, that the very same PTB are the ones that control what is and what is not deemed worthy of credible rebuttal or evidence.
We at least try to respect what the OCT put out, and try to respond to it, we don't go around like ignorant children calling everyone a "coincitard" or a "liar" just because we don't like or believe what they say.
Many of you have turned this place into nothing more then a launching pad for personal release of frustrations and other mental or social shortcomings you people may have.
Try reading some of the hilarious and stupid posts your fellow OCT rely with, and we try to defend ourselves from, lately?
You should at least try to rebuttal with some kind of coherent and adult behavior and responses that resembles some form of human intelligence.

More bullshit lies and ad hominem from the king of the fucktards. You "respect" what the OCT put out? You're SUCH a fucking liar!

You're a fucking loser. I bet you always have been. I know you always will be. There is no redemption for someone as lowlife as you.

 

[Mr. Jones]

[

Wrong yet again, fucktard Jones. Jones' claims about having discovered cold fusion were just that; flat out lies. Maybe you should have done some research before sticking your foot up your own ass.

Again with the "liars" BS. Did you not read the article I linked, that did not mention any such allegations? Sure some scientists had a disagreement, but they don't go around yelling "liar" and 'truthtard" and any other school yard rants like immature children as you do, try to grow up and act like an adult, and like your fellow OCT said, what does it have to do with 9-11 anyway? Nothing.

Nope. I only call people who blatantly lie liars. Like you always do and I've proven. Oh sure, you came back and tried to reword phrases or make excuses, but do you think anyone was buying that?

Still haven't been able to come up with any of these blatant lies I see.

Wrong yet again, little fucktard! I prove it time and time again. But since you are driven by your hate and your agenda, you refuse to acknowledge the lies and instead continue to believe your little fantasies even when you can't even defend them.

Oh yes my super agenda to take over the government with the help of all the "lies" The only thing you prove time and time again is just what a nutcase, paranoid, conspiracy theorist you really are that uses logical fallacy arguments, and evades facts and points in a discussion. This about 9-11, go start a cold fusion thread.

Why do you get so upset when people call you what you really are? Seriously. All kidding aside. You are one of the sorriest piece of shit liars I've seen. Ever. So why shouldn't I call a fucktard a fucktard?

That is all you can do. That and adhere to a theory of BS that has a low or no probability of being accurate, and when it's pointed out to you you throw little hissy fits like a child.
You really do nothing to advance any cause for your camp and bring nothing but shame to any serious discussion of any topic you claim to believe in. Do you think any self respecting organization with a cause would want such a stupid, ignorant, twit, that shows no self control and proves it every time with such childish name calling rants in their camp?..Think about it, all kidding aside..you are making a complete ass of your self....Truthers want to take over the government... With an arsenal of lies... OMG are you stupid!

Yeah. His "proof" turned out to be a bunch of bullshit. Otherwise we would all be swimming in nearly free energy.

Again this has nothing to do with 9-11, and you again are a stupid moron, how many people in different countries agreed with him?
Apart from the media attention, in cold fusion we see scientific controversy as normal.
You just bring it up to try to discredit him in anyway you can, but you fail..yet again. The only thing you are swimming in is your own BS.

Really? A quick google search shows up lots of articles. Of course, many of them are from fucktards like yourself who turn on Steven Jones and pretend he is covering up the discovery of cold fusion and is helping to cover up 9/11.

they are like you you mean. It is a fact that there are people dedicated to discredit anybody that doesn't go along with the OCT program. He has more integrity then any of you,... at least he speaks his mind and is not afraid to do so.

See, that's the great thing about you truthtards. You have no morals or character at all, so it is downright hysterical to see you turn on one another and rip each other's throats out when you don't agree. You must not have gotten the memo.

What a joke... you of all people talking about the lack of morals or charactor in other people When you have a sum total of ZERO in that dept.

I stick to my own opinions formed from credible intelligent engineers hard work, and I don't follow the herd like you pussies do.
You fucks are more worried about your little reputation points and acquiescing to anything the "crowd" is doing or saying. You got no balls.

Except he could never reproduce his experiment in front of anyone else. Neither could anyone else reproduce his experiment from his notes. What does that tell you?

Are you suggesting that others couldn't get any of the material Jones used in his experiments?

Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann (Pons and Fleischmann or P&F) started their work around the same time. Their work was brought to Jones' attention when they applied for research funding from the Department of Energy, after which the DOE passed their proposal along to Jones for peer review. Realizing their work was very similar, Jones and P&F agreed to release their papers to Nature on the same day, March 24, 1989. However, P&F announced their results at a press event the day before. Jones faxed his paper to Nature.[8]

Yet they were all found to be flawed to the point of insanity. I never claimed Jones had a monopoly on lying about cold fusion.

Figures you would try to slime your way out of your own flawed BS. Remember you said you would provide links to back up your claims, and so far you have lied and not done so, but anyway what exactly does this have to do with the 9-11 attacks again? Oh yeah absolutely nothing you fucking loser.

A New York Times article says that while peer reviewers were quite critical of Pons and Fleishchmann's research they did not apply such criticism to Jones' much more modest, theoretically supported findings. Although critics insisted that his results likely stemmed from experimental error,[9] most of the reviewing physicists indicated that he was a careful scientist. Later research and experiments supported the metallic cold fusion reports by Jones.[10]

Yet none of the experiments reproduced the results. Why is that do you suppose?

WTF are you talking about?
" Later research and experiments supported the metallic cold fusion reports by Jones." Why do you insist on sidetracking the issue you lying POS? Because you got nothing but ad hominem BS, and BS LIES that you presume to support you illogical train of thought.

But go ahead and continue to believe him to be the 9/11 messiah.

Until someone other then some paranoid retard like you refutes his paper in a published peer reviewed journal, my opinion is that his work is valid.

Tell you what. You've steadfastly refused to accept Leslie Robertson as a credible source and just ignore anything he says. Can you find anyone ANYWHERE saying Leslie Robertson is a liar?

See, unlike you I don't go around calling people a liar, even though something they say may not be accurate, people do make mistakes you know. But I'll discuss Robertson and what I know of him in a debate between him and Jones.

 

[Mr. Jones]

[

He is one of the premier structural engineers in the world, yet he doesn't make the claims of others like Richard Gage who aren't credible enough in engineering to lick Robertson's boots. Why is that? Hmmmm. Funny how you tie your credibility to known losers while ignoring the true experts.

There are many many more people other the Gage and architects you stupid fool! Real engineers, scientists, physicists, mathematicians, who took their time and didn't rush a BS theorie out 2 days after the attack like Bazant and Zhou, as if they actually had time to address something so complicated in just 2 fucking days!?

First of all, Mr. Robertson was NOT the chief engineer as you stated in a prior post of yours, that would be John Skilling, but they both have been quoted as saying the towers were built with consideration of the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of the fires.
Robertson also admits there were a lot of modifications made throughout the years for different tenant requirements
strengthening done here or there to satisfy their needs-
He's not surprised the towers stood up well after the impacts-

Jones says the NIST report says they contracted with UL to test the trusses, they tested 4 test specimens and that they held up for 2 hrs without collapsing -both towers collapsed in less then 2 hrs. Leslie Robertson did not observe these fire tests-

The NIST report only takes their analysis where the buildings are poised to collapse, and does not explain the actual collapses-
The behavior of the collapse is not addressed in the NIST report

But it is analyzed by Gordon Ross and other seemingly credible engineers, who criticize the NIST version of collapse.

Robertson states that the building collapsed as designed!? WTF??
He says that engineers always have a collapse scenario in mind when constructing such buildings, so as to minimize a collapse, and strengthen any weak points... T
Then he goes on to admit that he has not performed an in depth study of the failure mechanisms of the collapses. See the contradiction in his statements??

So the question still remains, what actually caused the collapse mechanism? The fires were not hot or intense enough to cause collapse initiation.

Astonishingly Robertson says NIST to have continued, and perused to study the actual collapses beyond the point they did, would NOT be beneficial to future engineers!

Other structural engineers have looked at this however, and the fact that NIST doesn't carry the study any further, doesn't mean that we can assume that collapse will be complete after the initiation.

Gordon Ross who has a published paper on this, and others that are qualified to speak on it, say that when you consider conservation of momentum, and energy, that the time required for the collapses is much larger then free fall time, where as they fell in about 10 seconds, according to the 9-11 commission report, you all say is they undisputed truth.
ENERGY MUST ALSO BE CONSERVED, and when you take these into account the collapse will be significantly slowed down-it is basic physics-

Drop a ball and it will fall in free fall time, so obviously when you have 47 core columns and 240 perimeter columns in the way, plus all the concrete, hundreds of thousands tons., that will slow the progress of the fall. So, The only way to achieve the fast times of the collapse is to move the mass out of the way.
Robertson admits he hasn't even studied the question of the time required for the roof to arrive at the plaza level
But he assures us all that once the upper started to fall, there was nothing that could have saved those towers,

But that doesn't explain the fast collapse times, he admitted to not knowing about, He dodged the question!
He even says that they would have collapsed and in his opinion collapsed "symmetrically" or more or less symmetrically, all the way down to the plaza level and partly into the foundation.

Mr. Ken Cutler, a professor in mathematics has studies it though-and he agrees with the mechanical engineer Gordon Ross, that the time to total collapse would be much larger then 10 secs, he gives a time figure estimate of 36 secs.

Anyway Robertson admits to not doing any chemical analysis at the site either, but that there were many engineering firms that ( he admits also acknowledged, that there was red hot METAL seen by these engineers) but that no analysis was done to confirm what the molten metal actually was.
Well, if you're not too interested in it why would you bother to analyze it, again this is another thing left out of the investigation that clearly did not follow the fire analysis guidelines in the NFPA Codes and Standards handbook
NFPA :: Codes & Standards

When Leslie Robertson finally confronts the CD theory Jones lays out, he acts overwhelmed, and then he resorts to the same tired line of using a string of common logical fallacies, like questioning the motive for a CD and how it would be achieved, which is a common dodge to try to deny the actual questions posed to him about the collapse and the science of what actually happened and was witnessed, and measured, that seems to ignore the laws of physics.

He then rambles on about the plane crash into the N tower-and tries to make the listener think of that in an obvious attempt to distract from the main points of the discussion, just like you lying fucks try to do all the time! Now I see where you get it from.

So is he of the opinion that if you can't prove HOW it was done, it somehow makes the OCT correct?
That is that the placing of explosives or whatever into the towers, because in his opinion it would be too big of a feat, it is OK to assume the collapses happened like they did, disregarding the laws of physics and mathematical calculations that other experts have taken into account about this. LOL!!

NIST says that about 15% of the columns were effected or destroyed in the N tower-This is the core AND perimeter columns-
That's 85% still left.- I have to double check on that to be sure, but..

Robertson continues to say that a CD would require a "monumental effort" to rig, insinuating an impossibility, basically saying that the science and calculations of the others are wrong because they can't explain to him how this "monumental task" is achieved!

Robertson agrees that perhaps tons of explosives or incendiaries may not be needed-

But cmon now, honestly anything can be accomplished if you have unlimited resources, and have complete control of the target. Something that, as we look into this further, seems to almost eliminate Al Qaeda from doing this "monumental task" as Robertson claims.
Perhaps Al Qaeda was used for certain parts of the program, like being the patsy's to take the blame, and recruit the hijackers to throw suspicion away from the real masterminds behind such a huge project.

And he goes on to mention this would have to get by security police etc..Again this is something beyond the debating scientists realm, or responsibility, they aren't FBI or detectives. He STILL is trying to distract and sidetrack from the SCIENTIFIC FACTS that the building came down TOO FAST according to credible experts he can not answer, by turning the debate into a "too big to be plausible" scenario-
If it's too much of a monumental task for anyone in the US government to achieve, how the fuck is Al Qaeda supposed to have done what they are claimed to have done--all by themselves?? But you idiots refuse to even think about things like this, or you probably do but you aren't here to think, only to discredit with BS at all costs.

If this man admits to not even studying the collapse scenario,
What the fuck is he doing even debating someone who has?
Plus he seemingly hasn't put any thought into anything else about 9-11.
The strategics, and highly first time in the history of the fucking planet, improbable bat shit insane pure lies, NIST and the government want us to believe?

Like about CD devices, how they could have been planted past security, or even knows who actually was IN CHARGE OF THE SECURITY THAT MIGHT HAVE TURNED THE OTHER WAY, IF THE SECURITY EVEN KNEW ANYTHING AT ALL!!
But, OK, that is not his or the scientists job to figure out, SO HE SHOULD STICK TO THE SCIENCE OF THE DEBATE-
they are supposed to be discussing.

Robertson feels that continuing to talk about 9-11 is hurting the families, but he does not speak for all of them, especially the ones that this thread is referring to who support the WTC 7 awareness campaign.
He wants to put this whole thing away and move on, just sort of forget all the BS that does not explain 9-11 accurately, a so what attitude, lets just forget about it?
Fuck you!

Jones on the other hand likes to stick with the science for answers and not whether the job of planting explosives would be feasible, in other words Robertson, despite having "expert" credentials in constructing buildings and touted as though that is enough, by Parrot, admits he has NOT STUDIED THINGS AS THOROUGHLY AS JONES AND HIS EXPERTS HAVE, Robertson is satisfied with leaving the questions on the table and using the excuse, that a CD scenario would be " too large and complicated to do" and does not explain the collapse mechanisms like Jones and co. at least TRY to do!

And Jones understands that 9-11 victims families are still indeed seeking closure, but should have a FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THE EVENTS THAT KILLED THEIR RELATIVES, and not be left with unanswered questions and doubts,
like the TILMAN FAMILY WAS.

Many families like the ones that support awareness about building 7 feel that 9-11 may not only have been caused by Muslim hijackers, but that there were others involved too, because of the
"Monumental effort" Robertson admits was needed on 9-11
and they are hopeful, that the science, particularly the speed of collapse, and the molten metal, along with other facts, like the highly improbable NIST BS about building 7, will clear it all up.

All of the data collected by the independent people who want to get to the truth, point to the need for further analysis and a new independent investigation, free of political bias.
Many good credible and honest people, from all walks of life, know that what they have presented is enough to show that NIST and the government are wrong, ( or are lying)
the circumstantial evidence alone is staggering, but it will never be proven without one,
But then again that is precisely why you people fight so hard against one, and against your own Cognitive dissonance
The FEAR that something other then what you were told will come to light, and what the repercussions to the nation will be.

It's so unbelievably irresponsible, and dangerous to ignore and dismiss what these credible people have shown us, but to also ignore the past atrocities done to us and to others for decades by criminals that lied to us, FROM OUR OWN GOVERNMENT to acquire the power to this and many other atrocities.
And the only thing you people can do is to call them "liars" and "truthtards" as a way to hide from your insecurities, and from the truth is pathetic.


That complete debate is in this video/audio-

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAdcNEa6PTQ]YouTube - ‪LESLIE ROBERTSON AND STEVEN JONES DEBATE PT1‬‏[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=053IpeEBji0&NR=1]YouTube - ‪LESLIE ROBERTSON AND STEVEN JONES DEBATE PT2‬‏[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMZ38mY31cM&NR=1]YouTube - ‪LESLIE ROBERTSON AND STEVEN JONES DEBATE PT3.‬‏[/ame]

 

[Mr. Jones]

Actually, if this were true, there would already be real investigations going on and the American people, even people from all over the world would be screaming for justice and truth. Fact is sadly that there is not any truly credible material to disprove the main points of the official investigations and reports.

Get over it.

The problem is that the side that subscribes to the OCT does not want to debate the issues between them, and you people are idiots for saying they are "liars" simply because you don't agree with them, that is asinine.
What's even more stupid of you is to deny that there isn't anything that refutes the OCT, it seems you have not even seriously looked into what they have calculated or are saying, just like in another thread you try to insist that cell phones worked on the flights of 9-11 even though the FBI changed its tune about them in a trial regarding 9-11.
You people don't bother to read or look into anything that counters your beliefs, you insist on trying to avoid the obvious credible counter points and arguments by totally dismissing their claims, or by
having to look up BS like your buddy Parrot about Jones and cold fusion.
I 'll give you another example..I have tried to have rational discussions about the mechanics of the WTC towers, and what do you think Parrot does?
He posts some bogus calculations to use as an example to bolster his claims. He does not bother to think that the facts are that NIST doesn't come close to explaining the collapse, it only goes as far as the theory on the initiation of collapse.
You people don't try to reason things out, like considering many people think that a gravity collapse does indeed have tremendous kinetic energy, and that perhaps all the CD that was needed was to kick start a gravity collapse.
It is a fact that many things have not been explained, not even by the very agency that was paid, and supposed to be counted on to do the explaining.
They admit to free fall in WTC 7, but don't explain anything about it.
If that kind of explanation is good enough for you, that's fine, but it may not be for others.
The main problem from what I can tell, is that too many people are just stuck in believing what they do, and are not flexible enough to consider other things, when so much has been put forth and evolved in 10 years.
You also don't seem to understand or want to, that the very same PTB are the ones that control what is and what is not deemed worthy of credible rebuttal or evidence.
We at least try to respect what the OCT put out, and try to respond to it, we don't go around like ignorant children calling everyone a "coincitard" or a "liar" just because we don't like or believe what they say.
Many of you have turned this place into nothing more then a launching pad for personal release of frustrations and other mental or social shortcomings you people may have.
Try reading some of the hilarious and stupid posts your fellow OCT rely with, and we try to defend ourselves from, lately?
You should at least try to rebuttal with some kind of coherent and adult behavior and responses that resembles some form of human intelligence.

More bullshit lies and ad hominem from the king of the fucktards. You "respect" what the OCT put out? You're SUCH a fucking liar!

You're a fucking loser. I bet you always have been. I know you always will be. There is no redemption for someone as lowlife as you.

More of the same shit from the king of disinformation and fallacy arguments. That can't rebuttal ANYTHING like an adult with any intelligence.
But yes I normally respect people, even if it is someone that espouses a theory I don't like or subscribe to, that is how most normal people I know are raised,.. that is, until they disrespect me, then the gloves come off you whinny little bitch.
You're a pathetic loser, we can tell this by your actions on this forum, and reading about the psychology of internet trolls and blowhard wannabees like you that have to hide behind the safety of an internet connection and get their courage from a computer keyboard.
http://anti-troll.org/

So tell Parrotshit911... when is the truth movement going to take over the country with all their "lies" and install their "truthtard" president, that you just know you'll be kissing ass too?

 

[Gamolon]

First of all, Mr. Robertson was NOT the chief engineer as you stated in a prior post of yours, that would be John Skilling, but they both have been quoted as saying the towers were built with consideration of the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of the fires.

That's a lie.

You show me a quote from either John Skilling or Leslie Robertson that says they performed calculations and studies that show how the structure would react to a fire caused by a jet. Further, here is a quote from Robertson stating exactly the opposite of that which you claim above.

To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.

If you would be kind enough to link these "quotes" you claim exist from Skilling and/or Robertson about design considerations for fires resulting from a jet impact, it would be appreciated. I bet you can't find them.

 

[Mr. Jones]

First of all, Mr. Robertson was NOT the chief engineer as you stated in a prior post of yours, that would be John Skilling, but they both have been quoted as saying the towers were built with consideration of the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of the fires.

That's a lie.

You show me a quote from either John Skilling or Leslie Robertson that says they performed calculations and studies that show how the structure would react to a fire caused by a jet. Further, here is a quote from Robertson stating exactly the opposite of that which you claim above.

To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.

If you would be kind enough to link these "quotes" you claim exist from Skilling and/or Robertson about design considerations for fires resulting from a jet impact, it would be appreciated. I bet you can't find them.

If you listen to the video, Mr. Robertson does mention this. Play the video and listen to it.
Furthermore, I was able to find these links in a quick google search.

Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires..

In this article are the links-
9-11 Research: Towers' Design Parameters


MedServ Medical News - Towers collapse shocks engineers

The Seattle Times: Search Results

Perhaps you could link the quote you pasted from Robertson, as we have no idea when he said that. Thanks.

 

[Gamolon]

First of all, Mr. Robertson was NOT the chief engineer as you stated in a prior post of yours, that would be John Skilling, but they both have been quoted as saying the towers were built with consideration of the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of the fires.

That's a lie.

You show me a quote from either John Skilling or Leslie Robertson that says they performed calculations and studies that show how the structure would react to a fire caused by a jet. Further, here is a quote from Robertson stating exactly the opposite of that which you claim above.

To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.

If you would be kind enough to link these "quotes" you claim exist from Skilling and/or Robertson about design considerations for fires resulting from a jet impact, it would be appreciated. I bet you can't find them.

If you listen to the video, Mr. Robertson does mention this. Play the video and listen to it.
Furthermore, I was able to find these links in a quick google search.

Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires..

In this article are the links-
9-11 Research: Towers' Design Parameters


MedServ Medical News - Towers collapse shocks engineers

The Seattle Times: Search Results

Perhaps you could link the quote you pasted from Robertson, as we have no idea when he said that. Thanks.

My bad. I forgot the link.
NAE Website - Reflections on the World Trade Center

Furthermore, they said they designed the buildings for the IMPACT of the jets. That means they designed the towers to withstand the impact force against the towers and for them to resist said force, which they did.

There were no studies anywhere that shows they did calculations and research as far as how the structures would react to fires as a result of said impacts. Robertson even says that in the quote above.

I'll listen to the videos and see if I can find that quote about studies they did concerning the affects of fire on the steel as a result of the impacts.

 

[Gamolon]

Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires..

Just to be clear. Both bolded parts above speak of IMPACTS, not resultant fires. You are trying to lump them together. This is further backed up with the quote from Robertson that they did no such studies or calculations for fires as a result of the impacts.

 

[Gamolon]

I've listened to the first two videos and have not heard anyone mention that there were calculations or studies done about the affects of fire on the structure as a result of fires from the jet impacts.

So please explain or show where you are getting that they are quoted as saying that the towers were designed to withstand the fires in addition to the impact force of a jet.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires..

Just to be clear. Both bolded parts above speak of IMPACTS, not resultant fires. You are trying to lump them together. This is further backed up with the quote from Robertson that they did no such studies or calculations for fires as a result of the impacts.

Have you bothered to read the links in the article that that statement appears in? I actually posted them to make it easier for you to find.

 

[Gamolon]

Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires..

Just to be clear. Both bolded parts above speak of IMPACTS, not resultant fires. You are trying to lump them together. This is further backed up with the quote from Robertson that they did no such studies or calculations for fires as a result of the impacts.

Have you bothered to read the links in the article that that statement appears in? I actually posted them to make it easier for you to find.

I'm sorry, but I don;t see anything about them doing a study of the resultant fires from a jet crash. I see quotes about designing for impacts, but not resultant fires.

Can you post the quote here and link what article it's from? I don't see it.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Starting at 3:10-
He starts off saying that there was indeed strengthening of some of the towers as required by the individual need of the tenants..followed by how they were designed with considerations of a jet impact, similar to the Empire State building crash-low impact..
( that crash was followed by a fire)

At around 5:05-
the collapse mechanism of the trade center happened as "was anticipated it would be when we first designed it"--so they anticipated a possible future intentional collapse...? Apparently not but at-

around 5:10- he says,
"any prudent engineer looking to the future, has to think about what are the mechanisms that cause collapse, and how to go about strengthening the building so as to minimize that circumstance..
so sure we spent time at looking at that kind of event..

At around 8:20 or so is when Jones gets his turn and talks about the UL tests and how the specimens tested survived....

Anyway, are you of the opinion that after Robertson says the above statements and references the 1945 crash at the ESB, that somehow the fuel that propels the plane/707 jet was NOT part of the
"prudent engineer looking into the future" thinking about the "mechanisms of collapse"?
I hope not..That would be demeaning their intelligence don't you think?

I think I have answered what you are questioning, and linked to where I got my information from. As far as papers and studies with calculations we can actually see, no one as far as I know has ever posted this kind of detailed information, we only have what is said in interviews, and can rightly assume, that all consideration of a plane/jet, impacting the towers, that everyone knows is propelled by flammable fuel, included the 100% possibility of resulting fires.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Just to be clear. Both bolded parts above speak of IMPACTS, not resultant fires. You are trying to lump them together. This is further backed up with the quote from Robertson that they did no such studies or calculations for fires as a result of the impacts.

Have you bothered to read the links in the article that that statement appears in? I actually posted them to make it easier for you to find.

I'm sorry, but I don;t see anything about them doing a study of the resultant fires from a jet crash. I see quotes about designing for impacts, but not resultant fires.

Can you post the quote here and link what article it's from? I don't see it.

There are copy rights, so I only provided the links to the articles, that are within the first one I posted a link to.

 

[Mr. Jones]

February 27, 1993: WTC Engineer Says Building Would Survive Jumbo Jet Hitting It

In the wake of the WTC bombing, the Seattle Times interviews John Skilling who was one of the two structural engineers responsible for designing the Trade Center. Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. He says, “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.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.” The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.” However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made. The other structural engineer who designed the towers, Leslie Robertson, carried out a second study later in 1964, of how the towers would handle the impact of a 707 (see Between September 3, 2001 and September 7, 2001). However, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), following its three-year investigation into the WTC collapses, will in 2005 state that it has been “unable to locate any evidence to indicate consideration of the extent of impact-induced structural damage or the size of a fire that could be created by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.”

Entity Tags: John Skilling, World Trade Center

The World Trade Center Twin Towers Were Designed For Jet Impacts - WTC Thermal Information

The argument that the towers were designed with consideration of jet plane impacts but not the resulting fires is almost like saying a person will survive a bullet wound with no consideration taken for the heavy blood loss that will surely follow..

 

[SFC Ollie]

I guess he was wrong.... it happens to the best of us.

 

[Gamolon]

Not once, in any of your quotes or linked articles was there any indication the the towers were designed to withstand fires as a result of jet impacts.

The only thing they design for was the actual impact force.

Period.

I have repeatedly asked you to quote where they said they designed for fires and you haven't even come close.