Which 9-11 theory you believe?

[eots]

no, it isnt
it is the PRIMARY reason
thats what you fucking morons dont get, you have to actually understand and comprehend ENGLISH first

N stated 7 would have fallen even with out damage from the towers and the diesel tanks had no role. I quoted the lead investigator several times pointing this out and you ignore it. Now go get your diaper changed you brokedick paparasite.

yes, and "would have" will never mean the same as "DID"

no but it clearly defines the cause

 

[DiveCon]

N stated 7 would have fallen even with out damage from the towers and the diesel tanks had no role. I quoted the lead investigator several times pointing this out and you ignore it. Now go get your diaper changed you brokedick paparasite.

yes, and "would have" will never mean the same as "DID"

no but it clearly defines the cause

the PRIMARY cause, yes
that doesnt say there werent secondary or tertiary causes

 

[Sallow]

I'll go with the Bush/Cheney theory.

 

[JiggsCasey]

another fucking moron chimes in with absurd conclusions. here's a list of stupid fucking assumptions made in just this one post.

I love when you tard up the thread by straw manning every sentence, interspersed with random rage-addled F-bombs of course. I feel bad for your monitor. You probably spit all over it.

Tool.

1. you wrongly assume to know who my heroes are. FAIL!

Yeah, I'll admit this was a satisfying jab. Helps you tilt more. Of course I don't officially know who your literal heroes are. But I have little doubt you have a decent amount of respect for the PNAC signatories, else you wouldn't come running to their aid so consistently and desperately.

2. you assume people should be jailed over the contents of a memo. FAIL!

That's not what I said at all. I know it's difficult for you coincitards, but try being intellectually honest. They should be jailed for the overall case, not just the memo. The memo is only a small part of building that overall case.

3. even if the CIA actually made the ISI it is a huge leap to say the cia knows every move done by the Pakistan's ISI. FAIL!

Hear that wishing sound? It's the sound of the point going right over your (block) head. No one said "the CIA knows every move by the ISI." Clearly, the point is that the man was identified as ISI brass , and never was detained for questioning by any U.S. entity. The 9/11 Commission could present no record of his testimony? That's a thorough investigation to you? FAIL!

4. that the wire transfer in question actually took place, that the cia controlled the ISI to tell Ahmad to tell Sheikh to send the money to Atta. FAIL!

My gawd, are you ever reactionary and dull. ... No one said the CIA told the ISI to tell Ahmad anything. Again, this is about identifying a suspect, and bringing him in for questioning. It was never done. The man was "forced to resign," and conveniently went away into oblivion.

4. you assume that unusual trading activity before 9/11 is because of foreknowledge of 9/11 with no evidence. FAIL!

Yeah, genearally 5 is what comes after 4. Not another 4.

Dude, it's a plain fact that there was unusual trading -- stock bets on the two airlines in question, the insurance companies for those airlines, in addition to US treasuries and a number of other NYSE companies affected that day. This is not in dispute by anyone.

Evidence can be circumstantial, it doesn't always have to be direct. Again, this is about bringing the stock advisor of those trades in front of the 9/11 Commission for basic questioning. It was never done, despite the fact that the companies were identified ("options Hotline" in Calif. being one of them, and the entry for it in the SEC report redacted).

To you, the government investigating itself is all you need to rest easy on the issue. As always, "Good enough for me," is the classic rationalization of the coincitard.

basically, your absurd theory is that the Bush administration was behind the 9/11 attacks because no heads rolled.

What's satisfying is that you're treading water in this exchange so desperately. You're starting to panic a little. Either that, or you're that awful combination of dumb and arrogant. You know, like George Bush. Those are the only two possibilities one can conclude due to the simple fact that, over and over again, you can't present my argument honestly or accurately.

That is not my theory you're presenting. That is a retarded mutation of what you think/want my theory to be. Heads not rolling is just one layer of the overall case of establishing means, motive and oppurtunity. That one aspect is not why the reason Bush League was complicit. 500 other examples just like it, overall, are the reason.

i have an "internet meltdown"?!! HAHAHAHahahahaa!!!1 are you fucking serious?!! you cant buy comedy as good as you twoofers provide.

Quite serious. You can pretend it's "humorous" to you all you like, cool guy, but your posting style and passion to return to the topic hour after hour shows you take it quite seriously. It's as if you're desperate to participate. You're here every day, rifling off foul, insecure, personal diatribes. That doesn't sound like a man who finds it all casually amusing. It sounds like a man obsessed.

I can at least admit I'm serious about the topic. Why can't you?

i laugh my ass off every day looking at you dumbfucks explain stupid shit about your absurd theories!!

Uh huh.. Cool story, bro.

((Divecon, your incessant requirement to flood my user profile with neg rep is a real testimony to A) your complete lack of a life, and B) your pre-occupation with our post history, which obviously puts you on full-blown tilt. I wear it as a badge of honor, so please keep them coming. Asshat.))

 

[Gamolon]

fire can not produce a progressive collapse of a steel framed building..\

What evidence and/or information do you have to make this claim?

 

[candycorn]

another fucking moron chimes in with absurd conclusions. here's a list of stupid fucking assumptions made in just this one post.

I love when you tard up the thread by straw manning every sentence, interspersed with random rage-addled F-bombs of course. I feel bad for your monitor. You probably spit all over it.

Tool.

1. you wrongly assume to know who my heroes are. FAIL!

Yeah, I'll admit this was a satisfying jab. Helps you tilt more. Of course I don't officially know who your literal heroes are. But I have little doubt you have a decent amount of respect for the PNAC signatories, else you wouldn't come running to their aid so consistently and desperately.



That's not what I said at all. I know it's difficult for you coincitards, but try being intellectually honest. They should be jailed for the overall case, not just the memo. The memo is only a small part of building that overall case.



Hear that wishing sound? It's the sound of the point going right over your (block) head. No one said "the CIA knows every move by the ISI." Clearly, the point is that the man was identified as ISI brass , and never was detained for questioning by any U.S. entity. The 9/11 Commission could present no record of his testimony? That's a thorough investigation to you? FAIL!



My gawd, are you ever reactionary and dull. ... No one said the CIA told the ISI to tell Ahmad anything. Again, this is about identifying a suspect, and bringing him in for questioning. It was never done. The man was "forced to resign," and conveniently went away into oblivion.



Yeah, genearally 5 is what comes after 4. Not another 4.

Dude, it's a plain fact that there was unusual trading -- stock bets on the two airlines in question, the insurance companies for those airlines, in addition to US treasuries and a number of other NYSE companies affected that day. This is not in dispute by anyone.

Evidence can be circumstantial, it doesn't always have to be direct. Again, this is about bringing the stock advisor of those trades in front of the 9/11 Commission for basic questioning. It was never done, despite the fact that the companies were identified ("options Hotline" in Calif. being one of them, and the entry for it in the SEC report redacted).

To you, the government investigating itself is all you need to rest easy on the issue. As always, "Good enough for me," is the classic rationalization of the coincitard.



What's satisfying is that you're treading water in this exchange so desperately. You're starting to panic a little. Either that, or you're that awful combination of dumb and arrogant. You know, like George Bush. Those are the only two possibilities one can conclude due to the simple fact that, over and over again, you can't present my argument honestly or accurately.

That is not my theory you're presenting. That is a retarded mutation of what you think/want my theory to be. Heads not rolling is just one layer of the overall case of establishing means, motive and oppurtunity. That one aspect is not why the reason Bush League was complicit. 500 other examples just like it, overall, are the reason.

i have an "internet meltdown"?!! HAHAHAHahahahaa!!!1 are you fucking serious?!! you cant buy comedy as good as you twoofers provide.

Quite serious. You can pretend it's "humorous" to you all you like, cool guy, but your posting style and passion to return to the topic hour after hour shows you take it quite seriously. It's as if you're desperate to participate. You're here every day, rifling off foul, insecure, personal diatribes. That doesn't sound like a man who finds it all casually amusing. It sounds like a man obsessed.

I can at least admit I'm serious about the topic. Why can't you?

i laugh my ass off every day looking at you dumbfucks explain stupid shit about your absurd theories!!

Uh huh.. Cool story, bro.

((Divecon, your incessant requirement to flood my user profile with neg rep is a real testimony to A) your complete lack of a life, and B) your pre-occupation with our post history, which obviously puts you on full-blown tilt. I wear it as a badge of honor, so please keep them coming. Asshat.))

If you're serious, you should be able to explain what you think happened on that day or where the 9/11 Commission Report is wrong.

I'm sure you can do neither.

Check please.

 

[Gamolon]

yes, and "would have" will never mean the same as "DID"

no but it clearly defines the cause

the PRIMARY cause, yes
that doesnt say there werent secondary or tertiary causes

Hey Dive.

I agree with them on this point. There may have been secondary or tertiary causes, but the fact remains that the primary cause of the collapse was fire and NIST doesn't state anything else (unless I am missing something in the report). Fire changed the physical properties of the steel through expansion and contraction which weakened/severed connections to a point that caused the entire structure to collapse.

Again, I understand that NIST uses the word "primary", but they list no other causes that contributed.

That's just my perspective.

Thoughts?

 

[SFC Ollie]

no but it clearly defines the cause

the PRIMARY cause, yes
that doesnt say there werent secondary or tertiary causes

Hey Dive.

I agree with them on this point. There may have been secondary or tertiary causes, but the fact remains that the primary cause of the collapse was fire and NIST doesn't state anything else (unless I am missing something in the report). Fire changed the physical properties of the steel through expansion and contraction which weakened/severed connections to a point that caused the entire structure to collapse.

Again, I understand that NIST uses the word "primary", but they list no other causes that contributed.

That's just my perspective.

Thoughts?

Thoughts? They are trying to base the report being false because of one word. And it's total BS and rather boring.

 

[Gamolon]

the PRIMARY cause, yes
that doesnt say there werent secondary or tertiary causes

Hey Dive.

I agree with them on this point. There may have been secondary or tertiary causes, but the fact remains that the primary cause of the collapse was fire and NIST doesn't state anything else (unless I am missing something in the report). Fire changed the physical properties of the steel through expansion and contraction which weakened/severed connections to a point that caused the entire structure to collapse.

Again, I understand that NIST uses the word "primary", but they list no other causes that contributed.

That's just my perspective.

Thoughts?

Thoughts? They are trying to base the report being false because of one word. And it's total BS and rather boring.

Ok, but that doesn't make their statement any less valid. The NIST report still only says that fire was the primary cause and they list no other secondary or tertiary cause.

Using that as a basis for the report being false is another matter entirely. Why does fire being the primary cause make it false? That's what I'd like to know from them.

 

[CurveLight]

yes, and "would have" will never mean the same as "DID"

no but it clearly defines the cause

the PRIMARY cause, yes
that doesnt say there werent secondary or tertiary causes

N's Report gives only cause. Keep ignoring that.

 

[CurveLight]

no, it isnt
it is the PRIMARY reason
thats what you fucking morons dont get, you have to actually understand and comprehend ENGLISH first

N stated 7 would have fallen even with out damage from the towers and the diesel tanks had no role. I quoted the lead investigator several times pointing this out and you ignore it. Now go get your diaper changed you brokedick paparasite.

yes, and "would have" will never mean the same as "DID"

Holy scotch pudding puffs! That is some reeeeeally laughable dancing.

 

[Gamolon]

no but it clearly defines the cause

the PRIMARY cause, yes
that doesnt say there werent secondary or tertiary causes

N's Report gives only cause. Keep ignoring that.

Ok Curve.

I tried this once before. Let's stop the senseless name calling and verbal darts (I admit that I am guilty of this also) and get down to a real debate. We are never going to get anywhere unless we do this.

Agreed?

If so. The first question I would like to ask you is this. Why is fire being the primary cause for the collapse so hard to believe? If the steel structure was built in such a way that severing or weakening certain members would cause load re-distribution to all other members to a point that they can't handle the load anymore, why is that such an impossible scenario?

If heat from the sun on a hot day can cause this to happen (expansion):

what do you think would happen to steel members and connections made by bolting? Do you think bolts would resist steel expanding or do you think they would shear?

I have personally seen high pressure steam lines that sheared welded T supports from the steel they were welded to because they were placed in the wrong area. Why do you think they make expansion joints such as these to install within pipe lines?

Or why they set rollers beneath pipe lines to allow for expansion/contraction?

It's a simple fact. Expansion/contraction of steel due to heat can be devastating to a structure/ That's why they insulate the steel in the first place.

 

[CurveLight]

the PRIMARY cause, yes
that doesnt say there werent secondary or tertiary causes

Hey Dive.

I agree with them on this point. There may have been secondary or tertiary causes, but the fact remains that the primary cause of the collapse was fire and NIST doesn't state anything else (unless I am missing something in the report). Fire changed the physical properties of the steel through expansion and contraction which weakened/severed connections to a point that caused the entire structure to collapse.

Again, I understand that NIST uses the word "primary", but they list no other causes that contributed.

That's just my perspective.

Thoughts?

Thoughts? They are trying to base the report being false because of one word. And it's total BS and rather boring.

That's what you call "kicking conspiracy theory butt?" Lol! Being dishonest and whining is the mariage of your brain and a computer.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Hey Dive.

I agree with them on this point. There may have been secondary or tertiary causes, but the fact remains that the primary cause of the collapse was fire and NIST doesn't state anything else (unless I am missing something in the report). Fire changed the physical properties of the steel through expansion and contraction which weakened/severed connections to a point that caused the entire structure to collapse.

Again, I understand that NIST uses the word "primary", but they list no other causes that contributed.

That's just my perspective.

Thoughts?

Thoughts? They are trying to base the report being false because of one word. And it's total BS and rather boring.

That's what you call "kicking conspiracy theory butt?" Lol! Being dishonest and whining is the mariage of your brain and a computer.

What are you talking about? I simply made a true statement. At least I have the courage and convictions to actually take a stand. Have you decided if you're a real truther yet?

 

[CurveLight]

the PRIMARY cause, yes
that doesnt say there werent secondary or tertiary causes

N's Report gives only cause. Keep ignoring that.

Ok Curve.

I tried this once before. Let's stop the senseless name calling and verbal darts (I admit that I am guilty of this also) and get down to a real debate. We are never going to get anywhere unless we do this.

Agreed?

If so. The first question I would like to ask you is this. Why is fire being the primary cause for the collapse so hard to believe? If the steel structure was built in such a way that severing or weakening certain members would cause load re-distribution to all other members to a point that they can't handle the load anymore, why is that such an impossible scenario?

If heat from the sun on a hot day can cause this to happen (expansion):

what do you think would happen to steel members and connections made by bolting? Do you think bolts would resist steel expanding or do you think they would shear?

I have personally seen high pressure steam lines that sheared welded T supports from the steel they were welded to because they were placed in the wrong area. Why do you think they make expansion joints such as these to install within pipe lines?

Or why they set rollers beneath pipe lines to allow for expansion/contraction?

It's a simple fact. Expansion/contraction of steel due to heat can be devastating to a structure/ That's why they insulate the steel in the first place.

The first step is to avoid assuming what my thoughts are regarding 7. Im a self employed in residential construction so im familiar with many basic aspects of building materials. Here are some basic problems I have with 7:

It took seven freaking years to explain the collapse.

Never before or since that day has any skyscraper in the history of the world collapsed straight down from fire.

I don't doubt nor contest steel expansion from the heat of the fires. My beef is the lack of explanation on how 7 collapsed straight down. Surely you agree the fires did not heat all of the steel to the same temps across the entire building on an equitable level. Your train track pic helpz demonstrate how unpredictable steel expansion happens. In that example you have two consistent factors of a straight track and sunlight equally heating the rails yet the steel expanded randomly. As steel expanded due to the fire it would have pulled and twisted in random directions making and straight down collapse impossible. For steel structural failure strictly from fire we would see gravity contests between the heated steel and the unheated steel. This would cause an unpredictable collapse as that contest plays out. However, NIST wants us to believe the fires somehow magically heated all the structural steel on such a level of equality that it allowed for a smooth vertical drop.

Have you ever looked at commercial or residential building fires in the aftermath? What is noticeable? You can see the areas of intense heat from the fires that burned inside while the other areas are somewhat in tact. Have you ever seen a mathematical model showing how the fires in 7 burned for 7 hours demonstrating how much heat and in what areas would be necessary for a vertical collapse?

 

[CurveLight]

Thoughts? They are trying to base the report being false because of one word. And it's total BS and rather boring.

That's what you call "kicking conspiracy theory butt?" Lol! Being dishonest and whining is the mariage of your brain and a computer.

What are you talking about? I simply made a true statement. At least I have the courage and convictions to actually take a stand. Have you decided if you're a real truther yet?

Keep telling yourself that. My position is what it has always been and if you can't figure that out by now then...........

 

[Gamolon]

N's Report gives only cause. Keep ignoring that.

Ok Curve.

I tried this once before. Let's stop the senseless name calling and verbal darts (I admit that I am guilty of this also) and get down to a real debate. We are never going to get anywhere unless we do this.

Agreed?

If so. The first question I would like to ask you is this. Why is fire being the primary cause for the collapse so hard to believe? If the steel structure was built in such a way that severing or weakening certain members would cause load re-distribution to all other members to a point that they can't handle the load anymore, why is that such an impossible scenario?

If heat from the sun on a hot day can cause this to happen (expansion):

what do you think would happen to steel members and connections made by bolting? Do you think bolts would resist steel expanding or do you think they would shear?

I have personally seen high pressure steam lines that sheared welded T supports from the steel they were welded to because they were placed in the wrong area. Why do you think they make expansion joints such as these to install within pipe lines?

Or why they set rollers beneath pipe lines to allow for expansion/contraction?

It's a simple fact. Expansion/contraction of steel due to heat can be devastating to a structure/ That's why they insulate the steel in the first place.

The first step is to avoid assuming what my thoughts are regarding 7. Im a self employed in residential construction so im familiar with many basic aspects of building materials. Here are some basic problems I have with 7:

Ok, A little about my construction/design background.

I worked for a couple of engineering firms. One was MK Ferguson way back when. When I worked for them, I worked on projects for clients such as Anheuser Busch and Kodak where I designed piping for both. I was onsite for both the Shell Oil chemical explosion in Belpre, OH and the IMC/Angus explosion in Sterlington, LA to do damage assessment. I also worked on numerous projects for steel mill blast furnaces, rolling mills, slab mills, etc. I worked for the Army Corp of Engineers in Tooele, Utah on the nerve gas destruction facility. I designed an oxygen pipe run for the River Rouge steel plant in Michigan. I was also the onsite construction supervisor for it. These are just a few of the jobs/projects I did.

It took seven freaking years to explain the collapse.

What does this have to do with the fact that we are debating whether WTC7 came down because of fire?

Never before or since that day has any skyscraper in the history of the world collapsed straight down from fire.

Ok. Show me one of those skyscrapers that was constructed similarly to WTC7 that stood after a fire like that and we'll talk.

I don't doubt nor contest steel expansion from the heat of the fires. My beef is the lack of explanation on how 7 collapsed straight down. Surely you agree the fires did not heat all of the steel to the same temps across the entire building on an equitable level. Your train track pic helpz demonstrate how unpredictable steel expansion happens. In that example you have two consistent factors of a straight track and sunlight equally heating the rails yet the steel expanded randomly. As steel expanded due to the fire it would have pulled and twisted in random directions making and straight down collapse impossible. For steel structural failure strictly from fire we would see gravity contests between the heated steel and the unheated steel. This would cause an unpredictable collapse as that contest plays out. However, NIST wants us to believe the fires somehow magically heated all the structural steel on such a level of equality that it allowed for a smooth vertical drop.

Is that why the penthouse collapsed into the building itself FIRST? What kind of damage was done to the infrastructure when that happened? Do you understand loads on a steel structure? When you remove critical components from a steel structure, the other components have to pick up the slack. If you exceed the load capacity of the reaming components, they fail.

Have you ever looked at commercial or residential building fires in the aftermath? What is noticeable? You can see the areas of intense heat from the fires that burned inside while the other areas are somewhat in tact. Have you ever seen a mathematical model showing how the fires in 7 burned for 7 hours demonstrating how much heat and in what areas would be necessary for a vertical collapse?

I thought they showed a model of the collapse?

 

[Gamolon]

The first step is to avoid assuming what my thoughts are regarding 7.

Point taken.

If you don't think fire induced the collapse of WTC7, then what do you think did cause the collapse?

 

[Jeremy]

Good read...

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7

 

[froggy]

That George Bush, Dick Channey, and their old buddy Bin Laden were involved.