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

[eots]

You have yet to clarify what constitutes evidence in our mind

Physical evidence: Example, if you believe bombs or thermite where in the buildings. Evidence would be a piece that is indisputably part of a bomb or the rigging for a thermite charge. Not claims that there is something in the dust that "can only be explained by thermite use". Why? Because that is in dispute. It is not accepted across the board, that the dust contains thermite. There are so-called experts on both sides of that one.
There is "evidence" of planes hitting the buildings. There is video of it and airplane parts in the rubble.............that equals evidence.

that is evidence planes hit buildings and nothing more and No plane hit wtc 7 your claims termite charges would be found is not accurate

Example,
if you believe that the Bush administration orchestrated the events of that day. Evidence would be recorded conversations or official memos dated before Sept. 11, 2001 that make reference to the attacks. Not claims that because he said he saw the first plane hit the towers on TV that day, he is lying about what he knows.

I BELIEVE SAYING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ORCHESTRATED HE ATTACKS AS FAR TOO SIMPLISTIC..HOWEVER WE HAVE BUSH SAYING HE WITNESSED THE FIRST PLANE HIT THE TOWERS AND MULTIPLE REPORTS OF EXPLOSIONS IN THE BUILDING ABSOLUTELY DENIED BY NIST

Evidence is something that we can universally agree points to the same conclusion.

THAT IS NOT THE DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE

 

[eots]

i may get serious when you learn to understand english. But you have your head so screwed up you can't see fact from fiction. Once again. Nist said that the first pieces of the towers hit the ground in 9 and 11 seconds. The buildings were still collapsing when that happened....
A 3rd grader could understand this. Real shame that you can't.

ok then please tell us how many secs is it

now eots, you know that i am not an engineer. And you also know that the nist did not give a time for the total collapse of either tower.

from video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of wtc 1 and 40 stories of wtc 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

but it was obviously longer than 9 and 11 seconds.......

so if we throw you a sec or two..do you think it some how explains the complete collapse of a 110 story building in secs ?

 

[eots]

you have yet to clarify what constitutes evidence in our mind

already did. So far you've ignored it like you do everything you don't like and can't address.

this debwunker is almost as pathetic as that dwivecon clot
anytime he wants to avoid answering a question he makes the false claim.... he already has

 

[Trojan]

That is a good question. Because, apparently, there is a "vast power that the government has over the researchers who have contrary theories"(quote from Mr. Jones). So, using that premise, who could possibly do this investigation? If a committee WAS established, that had no government ties, & where all independent researchers, scientists, & engineers, would that be good enough? I don't believe it would. As soon as the committee submitted a report that didn't align with their claims, all we would hear is "the government (or some element of) derailed the investigation!!" You can't keep moving the goal post back when you don't like the answer.
I have already had this conversation with Mr. Jones. Although, I don't think he ever addressed this question.

Exactly, the members would have to have no ties to government, no ties to govenment funding, so eliminate virually the entire academic community, good lord, they best not work for a company that does or ever did government work, imagine if they worked for a company that once had ties to Marvin Bush? wow, and they would have to be individuals that had no ties to friendly governments

perhaps there are some Iranian and North Korean engineers and architects with experience in nanothermite? they would also have to be forensic investigators --- but wait, what if the CIA had infiltrated their agency

Ok, I give up

who should do the investigation -- and mind you, they should be independent of the truthers themselves

c'mon, help me out

who gets the contract for the next investigation?

I would love to see Deets and DR Quintero involved and the family steering committee

who are Deets and Dr Quintero == how are two people going to do this? if they are truthers who make money from their theories, they cannot touch the investigation

and the family steering committe would clearly have a conflict of interest, and I seriously doubt any have the required experience

 

[eots]

Exactly, the members would have to have no ties to government, no ties to govenment funding, so eliminate virually the entire academic community, good lord, they best not work for a company that does or ever did government work, imagine if they worked for a company that once had ties to Marvin Bush? wow, and they would have to be individuals that had no ties to friendly governments

perhaps there are some Iranian and North Korean engineers and architects with experience in nanothermite? they would also have to be forensic investigators --- but wait, what if the CIA had infiltrated their agency

Ok, I give up

who should do the investigation -- and mind you, they should be independent of the truthers themselves

c'mon, help me out

who gets the contract for the next investigation?

I would love to see Deets and DR Quintero involved and the family steering committee

who are Deets and Dr Quintero == how are two people going to do this? if they are truthers who make money from their theories, they cannot touch the investigation

and the family steering committe would clearly have a conflict of interest, and I seriously doubt any have the required experience

I see no conflict of interest with family steering committee having some input and over sight there are some very intelligent informed and capable family members that do not required specialized training to call bullshit when they see it and I never said two people would do it I said I would like to see Deets and DR Q involved



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcxjJDlbnC4]YouTube - ‪Kissinger Vs. the 9/11 Families‬‏[/ame]

James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division,
OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

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


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

 

[Rationalist1016]

THAT IS NOT THE DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE

You didn't ask for the textbook definition................you asked what I meant by evidence.

Also, why would there not be evidence of a thermite charge if one were used?

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5IgqJXyLbg]YouTube - ‪Tom Sullivan - Explosives Technician -- Loader‬‏[/ame]

 

[Patriot911]

you have yet to clarify what constitutes evidence in our mind

already did. So far you've ignored it like you do everything you don't like and can't address.

this debwunker is almost as pathetic as that dwivecon clot
anytime he wants to avoid answering a question he makes the false claim.... he already has

As usual, it is SOOOOOO easy to prove you're nothing but a pathetic two-bit loser of a liar.

Me providing definition of evidence to eots earlier. So.... are you going to man up and admit you were lying your ass off or are you going to run away and hide like usual?

 

[Patriot911]

You didn't ask for the textbook definition................you asked what I meant by evidence.

Also, why would there not be evidence of a thermite charge if one were used?

There would be. There would be molten iron (not steel) from the reaction all over the steel. Numerous forensic experts examined the steel before it was destroyed, yet not one instance of someone finding melted steel beams with iron all around it.

Unless, of course, eots has evidence of a new form of thermite that leaves no evidence and leaves the steel looking like it was damaged in the collapse.....

 

[Patriot911]

YouTube - ‪Tom Sullivan - Explosives Technician -- Loader‬‏

I see your "explosives loader", and submit a true expert's viewpoints and evidence it was not a controlled demolition.

 

[SFC Ollie]

ok then please tell us how many secs is it

now eots, you know that i am not an engineer. And you also know that the nist did not give a time for the total collapse of either tower.

from video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of wtc 1 and 40 stories of wtc 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

but it was obviously longer than 9 and 11 seconds.......

so if we throw you a sec or two..do you think it some how explains the complete collapse of a 110 story building in secs ?

Indisputable evidence that you're stupid....... Thank you.

 

[SFC Ollie]

YouTube - ‪Tom Sullivan - Explosives Technician -- Loader‬‏

I see your "explosives loader", and submit a true expert's viewpoints and evidence it was not a controlled demolition.

Truth is that Eots keeps showing us how wrong he can be. His explosives loader tells us all the steps to weaken a steel framed building that could not have been accomplished in the WTC complex...

How many stairwells were weakened?
How many elevators were removed?
How many support beams were cut?

Zero
Zero
and Zero....

 

[Rationalist1016]

YouTube - ‪Tom Sullivan - Explosives Technician -- Loader‬‏

I have to admit, this guy SOUNDS good in the interview. There seems to be some dispute whether he actually worked for CDI. From what I have found on the subject, he did work for them for a short time...............as a photographer and assistant. Which tells me that he is obviously familiar with demolitions. He knows the terminology, he has witnessed multiple demolitions. Even seems to know the process that they go through in setting up a demolition. So, essentially he knows what they look like and sound like. Unfortunately, this doesn't qualify him as an EXPERT in the field.
He does address what you and I were talking about...........that is evidence of an explosive in the debris pile. But he is referring to a thermite shaped charge. A term that only seems to exist on conspiracy sites. You can google shaped charge and get a definition. You can google thermite and get a definition. A thermite shaped charge doesn't seem to have a definition. If you can point me to it, I would be glad to read it.
Also, this brings up a bit of a contradiction. The claim is that there is evidence of thermite in the dust. Fine. But then the witnesses that said they heard explosions are considered more proof. The problem is, explosives wouldn't leave elements in the dust, they break the steel. Thermite doesn't go BOOM. It is a chemical reaction that cuts the steel.
So.............it was either thermite, which is quiet and the witnesses are hearing things. Or, if you go with the witnesses, it was explosives, which doesn't work with your dust problem.

 

[eots]

YouTube - ‪Tom Sullivan - Explosives Technician -- Loader‬‏

I see your "explosives loader", and submit a true expert's viewpoints and evidence it was not a controlled demolition.

Truth is that Eots keeps showing us how wrong he can be. His explosives loader tells us all the steps to weaken a steel framed building that could not have been accomplished in the WTC complex...

How many stairwells were weakened?
How many elevators were removed?
How many support beams were cut?

Zero
Zero
and Zero....

no one said elevators removed...dont lie to sound more rational Ollie and almost no evidence was kept from wtc 7 almost all of was destroyed

 

[eots]

YouTube - ‪Tom Sullivan - Explosives Technician -- Loader‬‏

I see your "explosives loader", and submit a true expert's viewpoints and evidence it was not a controlled demolition.

implosion world and controlled demolition inc front company .. responsible for the removal and destruction of evidence

 

[Rationalist1016]

I see your "explosives loader", and submit a true expert's viewpoints and evidence it was not a controlled demolition.

Truth is that Eots keeps showing us how wrong he can be. His explosives loader tells us all the steps to weaken a steel framed building that could not have been accomplished in the WTC complex...

How many stairwells were weakened?
How many elevators were removed?
How many support beams were cut?

Zero
Zero
and Zero....

no one said elevators removed...dont lie to sound more rational Ollie and almost no evidence was kept from wtc 7 almost all of was destroyed

Are you saying that in the Tom Sullivan interview...........he doesn't say the elevator cars are removed?..........when prepping a building for demolition.
I think you may need to watch that again.

 

[eots]

The explosive nature of nanothermite
Posted on June 19, 2011 by ultruth
In the last few years, a series of peer-reviewed scientific articles has been published that establish the presence of thermitic materials at the World Trade Center (WTC). [A-D]

Although we know that nanothermite has been found in the WTC dust, we do not know what purpose it served in the deceptive demolition of the WTC buildings. It could be that the nanothermite was used simply to drive fires in the impact zones and elevator areas – fires which would otherwise have gone out too early or not been present at all – and thereby create the deception that jet fuel-induced fires could wreak the havoc seen. Nanothermite might also have been used to produce the explosions necessary to destroy the structural integrity of the buildings

The explosive nature of nanothermite | Dig Within

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6D4dla17aA]YouTube - ‪Dutch Controlled Demolition expert 9/11‬‏[/ame]

 

[eots]

Truth is that Eots keeps showing us how wrong he can be. His explosives loader tells us all the steps to weaken a steel framed building that could not have been accomplished in the WTC complex...

How many stairwells were weakened?
How many elevators were removed?
How many support beams were cut?

Zero
Zero
and Zero....

no one said elevators removed...dont lie to sound more rational Ollie and almost no evidence was kept from wtc 7 almost all of was destroyed

Are you saying that in the Tom Sullivan interview...........he doesn't say the elevator cars are removed?..........when prepping a building for demolition.
I think you may need to watch that again.

yes elevator..cars removed...not elevators removed

 

[Rationalist1016]

no one said elevators removed...dont lie to sound more rational Ollie and almost no evidence was kept from wtc 7 almost all of was destroyed

Are you saying that in the Tom Sullivan interview...........he doesn't say the elevator cars are removed?..........when prepping a building for demolition.
I think you may need to watch that again.

yes elevator..cars removed...not elevators removed

I'm not sure what you are claiming is the difference!?
The definition of elevator is "A platform or an enclosure raised and lowered in a vertical shaft to transport people or freight."
If one says they are removing the elevator................they are talking about the "car".

I hate to debt such an useless point. But you did call someone out as a liar, when in fact, he did not!