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

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRWnax_TmSo&feature=feedf]YouTube - ‪Richard Gage (AE911) Talk @ Cambridge University 18th June 2011 (ALL WELCOME)‬‏[/ame]

 

[SFC Ollie]

Rude ass wasn't he? When asked to get off the wall, get off the fucking wall.

 

[Triton]

Yep, that sure does look like a land based crash. Anyone who proposes that the plane was shot down is a nutjob "truthtard"

 

[SFC Ollie]

Got any witnesses to an explosion in the air?

 

[Rat in the Hat]

YouTube - ‪Richard Gage (AE911) Talk @ Cambridge University 18th June 2011 (ALL WELCOME)‬‏

I was able to locate a short portion of Richard Gage's speech that this man is talking about.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFVoencqfZw]YouTube - ‪AE911TRUTH PLAYSCHOOL WITH RICHARD GAGE.‬‏[/ame]

 

[Triton]

Well Rumsfeld says it was, oh those freudian slips.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX78zSjnY1s]YouTube - ‪Donald Rumsfeld says flight 93 SHOT DOWN in Shanksville on 911‬‏[/ame]



And then this stupid wackjob truthtard says an Air Force officer said his description of the crash is conducive of a shootdown. Just another lunatic Twoofer.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWcdSyyppHI]YouTube - ‪Flight 93 Eyewitness Sees A Second Plane, Says Flight 93 Was Shot Down‬‏[/ame]

 

[SFC Ollie]

1st video poorly edited. try again.

2nd video, yes there was a Falcon 20 if I remember right, it was talking with the Cleveland tower, they reported that they had a visual on flight 93 at one point. Of course I'm sure you will claim it was an A10 or something along those lines, maybe it was an f35 or a F15......

We've heard the tapes.....................

 

[Triton]

Another insane Twoofer video



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAws9odu3-Q&feature=related]YouTube - ‪9/11 FLIGHT 93 SHOT DOWN‬‏[/ame]

 

[Triton]

1st video poorly edited. try again.

2nd video, yes there was a Falcon 20 if I remember right, it was talking with the Cleveland tower, they reported that they had a visual on flight 93 at one point. Of course I'm sure you will claim it was an A10 or something along those lines, maybe it was an f35 or a F15......

We've heard the tapes.....................

So you are saying that Rumsefeld did not say the plane was shot down?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Why would they rebroadcast a story that was wrong when they aired it the first time?

 

[SFC Ollie]

1st video poorly edited. try again.

2nd video, yes there was a Falcon 20 if I remember right, it was talking with the Cleveland tower, they reported that they had a visual on flight 93 at one point. Of course I'm sure you will claim it was an A10 or something along those lines, maybe it was an f35 or a F15......

We've heard the tapes.....................

So you are saying that Rumsefeld did not say the plane was shot down?

He probably said something like that, but without the full context I can't say what he meant. Did Obama mean that he believes that we have 57 states?

 

[Triton]

He didn't probably say it.

He said the plane wwas shot down.




Obama, no teleprompter and hes lost

 

[Triton]

He didn't probably say it.

He said the plane wwas shot down.




Obama, no teleprompter and hes lost

 

[Mr. Jones]

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.

If you want to defy your own common sense logic again, have at it.
The fact is he was quoted as taking into consideration plane crashes, and the article I linked explains that.
Plane crashes almost 100% of the time involve a fiery explosion, that these experts in their field somehow didn't consider that in any type of analysis is insane, but in fact your assumptions are proven wrong as the link below will show that indeed it was part of their analysis . What exactly was done has been debated, and Robertson claims he can't find his work on it, when he was arguing with the port authority several years ago.


He is quoted ( Skilling) as saying their analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fires from the plane.
Article from 1993-
The Seattle Times: Search Results

 

[Mr. Jones]

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

Was he?
That is one of my points. However when a "mistake" comes from a source you all use as an appeal to authority, it is a mistake.
Whereas the same from anyone from the truth movement, and it is labeled a LIE, and they are using those LIES to take over the government!
Fucking ridiculous

 

[SFC Ollie]

Actually I don't use that word liar very often. And I have this tendency to place people that use it against me on ignore.

Anyone can make a mistake. Anyone can be wrong. When it comes to a controlled demolition at the WTC complex on 9-11-01, you are simply wrong. And you will remain wrong unless you come up with some actual physical evidence that proves you otherwise. All the opinion in the world doesn't make the 911CR or the NIST reports wrong. And you have less than 0.01% of opinions on your side.

I guess you need some new evidence......

 

[Mr. Jones]

Actually I don't use that word liar very often. And I have this tendency to place people that use it against me on ignore.

Anyone can make a mistake. Anyone can be wrong. When it comes to a controlled demolition at the WTC complex on 9-11-01, you are simply wrong. And you will remain wrong unless you come up with some actual physical evidence that proves you otherwise. All the opinion in the world doesn't make the 911CR or the NIST reports wrong. And you have less than 0.01% of opinions on your side.

I guess you need some new evidence......

Hogwash, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence, and physical evidence that is just being ignored, as though it doesn't exist.
You are wrong about having only 0.01% against the OCT too.
There's more than enough evidence to create reasonable doubt that the official story is not consistent with the evidence presented.
Evidence is information presented in testimony or in documents that is used to persuade the fact finder (judge or jury) to decide the case for one side or the other.

 

[candycorn]

Actually I don't use that word liar very often. And I have this tendency to place people that use it against me on ignore.

Anyone can make a mistake. Anyone can be wrong. When it comes to a controlled demolition at the WTC complex on 9-11-01, you are simply wrong. And you will remain wrong unless you come up with some actual physical evidence that proves you otherwise. All the opinion in the world doesn't make the 911CR or the NIST reports wrong. And you have less than 0.01% of opinions on your side.

I guess you need some new evidence......

Hogwash, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence, and physical evidence that is just being ignored, as though it doesn't exist.
You are wrong about having only 0.01% against the OCT too.
There's more than enough evidence to create reasonable doubt that the official story is not consistent with the evidence presented.
Evidence is information presented in testimony or in documents that is used to persuade the fact finder (judge or jury) to decide the case for one side or the other.

But none of it matters;

Here are the main points of the 9/11 Commission Report:

19 men from the Middle East hijacked
4 planes and crashed them into
3 buildings and
1 field in Pennsylvania.

Do you have any evidence that none of that happened? If so produce it. You can't and you won't. The rest is a bunch of distinctions that will never make a difference.

Unless you can refute those main points, you ain't got shit bitch. Go have another sausage kolache and let nature take it's course.

 

[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.

If you want to defy your own common sense logic again, have at it.
The fact is he was quoted as taking into consideration plane crashes, and the article I linked explains that.
Plane crashes almost 100% of the time involve a fiery explosion, that these experts in their field somehow didn't consider that in any type of analysis is insane, but in fact your assumptions are proven wrong as the link below will show that indeed it was part of their analysis . What exactly was done has been debated, and Robertson claims he can't find his work on it, when he was arguing with the port authority several years ago.


He is quoted ( Skilling) as saying their analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fires from the plane.
Article from 1993-
The Seattle Times: Search Results

Mr. Jones. Let me ask you a question since you seem to think you know more about structural engineering than I do.

Go anywhere you like. Books, internet, wherever. Please provide me a link or any information that shows how, between 1962 and 1968, any structural engineering firm designed into a building or structure the ability to withstand the affects fire has on steel to prevent the weakening of steel components or the structure itself. What devices, mechanisms, or design criteria can you provide anyone here on how they did that. What about currently?

You obviously don't have an inkling about structural design. I'll tell you why. Back in those days, the only way buildings were able to handle fire was to fire proof them. The fire proofing used would protect the steel for the amount of time it was rated so that people could get out and the fire department would get there in time to put the fire out BEFORE the rated time.

You seem to think that there are standards for designing into a structural steel building ways to resist weakening/collapse due to fire. Other than fireproofing, which is not used to PREVENT weakening of steel, but to try and maintain the component's structural integrity as long as possible, please show us other ways this can be down.

I am all ears now.

I can't stress this enough and I'll say it again. You seem to think that they DESIGNED some mechanism, standard, physical structural component to deal with the weakening of said components due to fire and prevent collapse based on their analysis.

Other than fire proofing, WHAT MECHANISM is that? Let's get this hammered out because you are completely and utterly misguided about this aspect of structural design and I'm going to prove it to you. This goes beyond logic thinking now as you are basing your logic on some incorrect assumptions.

 

[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.

If you want to defy your own common sense logic again, have at it.
The fact is he was quoted as taking into consideration plane crashes, and the article I linked explains that.
Plane crashes almost 100% of the time involve a fiery explosion, that these experts in their field somehow didn't consider that in any type of analysis is insane, but in fact your assumptions are proven wrong as the link below will show that indeed it was part of their analysis . What exactly was done has been debated, and Robertson claims he can't find his work on it, when he was arguing with the port authority several years ago.


He is quoted ( Skilling) as saying their analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fires from the plane.
Article from 1993-
The Seattle Times: Search Results

Here's the exact quote from the article.

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

Do you see that bolded part of the quote? The analysis was of the impact, not the ensuing fires. I guess you left that part out for a reason? One can only guess. Furthermore, Robertsson states that they did no such study about the fire's affect on the steel.

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.