Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You know this scientifically how exaclty? If you are right it should be fairly simple for you to tell us all why Mr. Sunder of NIST is incorrect in the following . . . If you two are so right and popluar mechanics and the many scientists they interviewed got it so wrong, one would think it should be simple for you to point out the mistakes they made that render them incorrect and easily provided scientific evidence showing is why they are incorrect . . .
popular mechanics pfttt..you prove one word of there crap is true.. it reads like a novel written for school children not a scientific report
Accept for all of the scientists they actually cite of course in the article.
Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics
Pretty lame eots. You really can't do it can you? You really don't have the integrity to man up and admit you have NOTHING to credibly refute this theory, do you.
they give a big long list of people without that supposedly contributed in some way to the article it is completely vague and misleading and among that list are endless PR people or magazine writers..it is a joke..basic physics..the existence of molten metal.. the near free fall collapse and the ensuing cover up of of eyewitnesses refutes this story
You know this scientifically how exaclty? If you are right it should be fairly simple for you to tell us all why Mr. Sunder of NIST is incorrect in the following . . . If you two are so right and popluar mechanics and the many scientists they interviewed got it so wrong, one would think it should be simple for you to point out the mistakes they made that render them incorrect and easily provided scientific evidence showing is why they are incorrect . . .
No sir. The fact that WTC-7 was taken down using Controlled Demolition is very easy to see, but you 'choose' to remain willfully ignorant to 'the' 911Truth. Here is the deal: Bern and the other Loyal Bushie/Obama Official Cover Story DUPES can burn forever and ever in the lake of fire with the 911 Commission Report Cronies 'and' the NIST Cronies 'and' the Popular Mechanics Cronies and 'all liars' . . .
GL,
Terral
What is so simple to see? The way it fell? Get fucking real Terrel . . .
cuckoo . . . not me. My CD case appears in the OP of this thread 'and' you are at liberty to believe in Loyal Bushie/Obama Fairy Tales if that blows air up your skirt . . . 
Accept for all of the scientists they actually cite of course in the article.
Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics
Pretty lame eots. You really can't do it can you? You really don't have the integrity to man up and admit you have NOTHING to credibly refute this theory, do you.
they give a big long list of people without that supposedly contributed in some way to the article it is completely vague and misleading and among that list are endless PR people or magazine writers..it is a joke..basic physics..the existence of molten metal.. the near free fall collapse and the ensuing cover up of of eyewitnesses refutes this story
So you have evidence that their are eyewitnesses somewhere that have been compelled to not talk because what they say they saw would constitute inconvtravertible evdince of a CD?
Are you saying you have evdince that Pop Mechanics didn't really interview these people? They they attribute quotes to these people that they didn't make. If so, hey I want the truth to, so show me some evidence that Pop mechanics goal was to publish some giant sham piece.
This is what I keep harping on eots. The things that would have to be true for any of the things you state, that the article is phoney, that people are being slienced, that there was a CD, have so many REQUIREMENTS that you have ZERO evidence for. We keep begging you to provide so we can indeed get to the truth, but the fact that you obtusely ignore or make refutations that attack sources rather than evdince shows that it is not the truth you are after. You want to show this was a CD perpetrated by the government and you are too fucked up in the head to see the difference.
Hi Bern with Eots mentioned:
What is so simple to see? The way it fell? Get fucking real Terrel . . .
Eots is the guy willing to entertain himself by arguing with "Building Fires Did It" Morons
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2THs3oNooM]Bern Has A LOT Of Air Up His Dress . . .[/ame]
GL,
Terral
they give a big long list of people without that supposedly contributed in some way to the article it is completely vague and misleading and among that list are endless PR people or magazine writers..it is a joke..basic physics..the existence of molten metal.. the near free fall collapse and the ensuing cover up of of eyewitnesses refutes this story
So you have evidence that their are eyewitnesses somewhere that have been compelled to not talk because what they say they saw would constitute inconvtravertible evdince of a CD?
Are you saying you have evdince that Pop Mechanics didn't really interview these people? They they attribute quotes to these people that they didn't make. If so, hey I want the truth to, so show me some evidence that Pop mechanics goal was to publish some giant sham piece.
This is what I keep harping on eots. The things that would have to be true for any of the things you state, that the article is phoney, that people are being slienced, that there was a CD, have so many REQUIREMENTS that you have ZERO evidence for. We keep begging you to provide so we can indeed get to the truth, but the fact that you obtusely ignore or make refutations that attack sources rather than evdince shows that it is not the truth you are after. You want to show this was a CD perpetrated by the government and you are too fucked up in the head to see the difference.
no that's what you do...if you want evidence it will require some attention span if you are up for it
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFekrWAwSIs]YouTube - Core Of Corruption Part 13 of 15[/ame]
witnesses
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2d9--j9beA&feature=PlayList&p=A9FED25740FF1925&index=13]YouTube - Core Of Corruption Part 14 of 15[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQSY9uEE02I&feature=PlayList&p=A9FED25740FF1925&index=14]YouTube - Core Of Corruption Part 15 of 15[/ame]
CORE OF CORRUPTION FULL DOCUMENTARY 29 videos
YouTube - core of corruption full
So you have evidence that their are eyewitnesses somewhere that have been compelled to not talk because what they say they saw would constitute inconvtravertible evdince of a CD?
Are you saying you have evdince that Pop Mechanics didn't really interview these people? They they attribute quotes to these people that they didn't make. If so, hey I want the truth to, so show me some evidence that Pop mechanics goal was to publish some giant sham piece.
This is what I keep harping on eots. The things that would have to be true for any of the things you state, that the article is phony, that people are being silenced, that there was a CD, have so many REQUIREMENTS that you have ZERO evidence for. We keep begging you to provide so we can indeed get to the truth, but the fact that you obtusely ignore or make refutations that attack sources rather than evdince shows that it is not the truth you are after. You want to show this was a CD perpetrated by the government and you are too fucked up in the head to see the difference.
no that's what you do...if you want evidence it will require some attention span if you are up for it
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFekrWAwSIs]YouTube - Core Of Corruption Part 13 of 15[/ame]
witnesses
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2d9--j9beA&feature=PlayList&p=A9FED25740FF1925&index=13]YouTube - Core Of Corruption Part 14 of 15[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQSY9uEE02I&feature=PlayList&p=A9FED25740FF1925&index=14]YouTube - Core Of Corruption Part 15 of 15[/ame]
CORE OF CORRUPTION FULL DOCUMENTARY 29 videos
YouTube - core of corruption full
When this all started I told you I believe I am more interested in the truth than you are. In holding with that I will meet you part way The Core of Corruption segements are probably the most compelling of the conspiracy theories I have seen to date. Certainly the most plausible relatively speaking. There are still problems with making it a truly viable scenario.
Let's assume The Lone Gunmen episode that is cited is essentially the impetus for why 9/11 happenned and that's essentially how that day went down. The problems I have with that would need to be addressed would be:
.1) First and foremost, and I include you in this group, most everyone who believes in the conspiracy seems to be, to a lesser degree or more, a but bat shit crazy, which poses a credibility problem from the get go
I would say the people featured on this site make that belief unsound
Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
2) It is theorized this was done for the purpose of starting a war against terrorism and for the purpose of selling weapons. Problem is I don't have such a low opinion of people that I believe there was essentially a conversation that went. "What you need to sell some guns? Sure will kill 3000 people for ya as an excuse.
' Further the number of people needed to orchestrate this would need to be huge. And no one has come forward to confess out of sheer crisis of conscience that they were in on it.
not good enough..first it was weapon salse and so much more and criminal mafis dont confess without investigations ..charges..heat and people can always be silenced in a varity of ways
???????3) If that was the goal of 9/11 you have to question some of the military decisions afterward. If the goal was to convince people the terrorists why didn't we keep after teh terrorists instead of going into Iraq. I don't see that would have been much of a tough sell to the American people.
4) I don't buy the theory in the episode that the terrorists will want to take credit for something they didn't do. No one from al quaida has stepped forward to say they we didn't really do it or we were coerced into saying they did it.
bin laden first and only truly verifiable statement indeed said he wanted to insure the world he had nothing to do with it..and I would like to pint out apparently bin laden and his agents kept these secrets and have continued to as well as to the location of bin laden throughout all these years
but that's only because you are a douchebag that can not address the fact of molten metal and deceptions of NIST
Molten metal. You keep saying this yet cannot answer my question. Aluminum or steel? Which was found?
Edit:
I would like to see the forensic evidence you have in your possession that proves molten steel was found which leads you to believe thermite was used in a controlled demolition. Otherwise, you need to question your theory like you do the official story.
man I have posted everytime and everytime you say the same shit...it was STEEL and just and there are multiple official witnesses
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Eyes Wide Shut: Gross Negligence with NIST Denial of Molten Metal on 9/11[/ame]
Hi Gam:
No way. You are telling me that by YOUR visual analysis, you see a difference between the "slag" or "thermate froth"?! You're full of crap. There's no way the "slag" or "froth" look any different from this picture.
Yes. There is a difference between thermate froth and torch slag 'and' yes Gam is full of crap for even trying to push this "cutting torch did it" thesis
Bullshit. You look at the two pictures. The one I posted and the one you posted and tell me the differences. There are none.
The 800 pound gorilla in the room is your empty hypothesis on how an overbuilt 47-story skyscraper collapsed into its own footprint in 6.6 seconds IN THE FIRST PLACE.
CD Collapse, OR Collapse From Fire???
That's a bogus video because you cut out the collapse of the mechanical penthouse into the building itself. Why are you ignoring this? Because it fits your views better? 6.6 seconds is bullshit. It was LONGER than that because the collapse STARTED with the collapse of the penthouse. How sad you are trying to mislead people.
Let's examine the evidence again in this picture:
Look at the 'Severed Column End' segments that are scattered throughout the debris pile. These column sections were obviously 'cut' BEFORE they fell to become part of the debris pile having NOTHING to do with any demo workers. These columns were CUT during the Controlled Demolition Process to THEN have debris fall on top of them during the collapse. I KNOW FOR A FACT that WTC-7 was taken down using Controlled Demolition by all of these Controlled Demolition Signatures, but you have no explanation for HOW all of these massive steel connections were 'cut' before the skyscraper collapsed in the first place. The idea that thousands of these cuts were made by demo workers 'after' the collapse IS STUPID beyond our collective abilities to fathom. Your silly notion is that a Demo Supervisor ordered his men to climb a ladder and make 45-degree angle cuts . . .
. . . FOR WHAT REASON????? No sir. That massive box columns was 'cut' using a thermate shape charge 'during the CD process' and AFTER the column line above was deliberately compromised. The massive columns above this one were also 'cut' at 45-degree angles in opposite directions, so that this column sliding off the lower pedestal broke the back of the entire 47-story column line. The inner columns are taken out first to allow the center of the skyscraper to collapse first. Then the outer columns are 'cut' to allow all outer walls to collapse in this 'Controlled Demolition.'
Here is how STUPID you look for even offering up a this 'cutting torch made these 45-degree cuts' NONSENSE. (Click on the picture) Follow the massive column down and you will find a base plate that includes bolts and nuts on top of a concrete pad (another pic). You are making an argument for wasting a huge amount of cutting torch fuel and valuable demo worker time to make a fancy 45-degree angle cut on a box column with 4-inch sold steel sides, when the column pad bolts only needed to be loosened to hoist the entire column from this location.
Look at the pictures again and tell me where the 47 concrete slabs went???? :0)
The very first thing you need to do is come up with an explanation for what 'cut' thousands of WTC-7 structural steel connections AT THE SAME TIME to allow a CD-like Collapse. THEN start barking about demo workers cutting the collapsed steel members. Otherwise, your entire argument is from a guy that is definitely full of crap
GL,
Terral
Here's why you're wrong. Again. Look at this photo I marked up.
As the text in the picture asks, how in the hell did a shape charge, placed parallel to the face of the plate make 45 degree angle jagged cuts (shown with the red lines on the photo) THROUGH the plate?
YOU'RE FULL OF CRAP!
Another problem with the Official Fire Cover Story is these 45-degree angle shaped-charge cuts appear everywhere . . .
This picture and above caption just make me laugh. Terral make the "45-degree angle shaped-charge cuts everywhere" comment followed by a photo that shows 90 degree breaks and the columns. Not only that, but the ONLY 45 degree cut pointed out by Terral in that photo, was later pointed out as a MISTAKE that Terral admitted to.
Also note that Terral points out in the photo above that there is "no melting" nor is there "burn marks". I also see no "thermite froth".
Terral, you have effectively shown with your own picture that no thermite was used. How funny.
Do you happen to have any GOOD, CLOSE photos of columns in from WTC7 that show the "thermite froth" on there ends? Or do you use hard to see pictures for a reason?
So you're 'scientific' position is that Sunder is a moron because he believes fires played a role?
Again you'll have to forgive me if the objective people of the world to found that to be compelling rebutal.
cuckoo believes this NONSENSE.
My CD case appears in the OP of this thread and I see 'no' Building Fires Did It Explanation from you or anybody. Period. Hydrocarbon fires simply do NOT even begin to burn hot enough to compromise one pound of 2800-degree red-iron structural steel! Bern has no explanation for what 'cut' thousands of massive red-iron structural steel girders, columns, beams and bar-joists to cause a CD-like collapse. Right? That is the reason that you are hunting around for a silly 'rebuttal' to justify your willingness to become a Loyal Bushie/Obama DUPE.
Again, simply because I don't believe what you believe does not mean I believe what I do because someone told me to.
This is again revealing of the lack of objectivity of the truthers that you have to resort to such ridiculous tactics to make your argument.
I have posted three times now the explanation provided by Dr. Sunder of NIST and you have dismissed it without presenting a single piece of credible evidence as to why it should be dismissed.
I'll help you out some even.
cuckoo. You are the Loyal Bushie/Obama DUPE. Not me . . . Here's why you're wrong. Again. Look at this photo I marked up.
As the text in the picture asks, how in the hell did a shape charge, placed parallel to the face of the plate make 45 degree angle jagged cuts (shown with the red lines on the photo) THROUGH the plate?
YOU'RE FULL OF CRAP!
Terral, you must have missed this post also...
Another problem with the Official Fire Cover Story is these 45-degree angle shaped-charge cuts appear everywhere . . .
This picture and above caption just make me laugh. Terral make the "45-degree angle shaped-charge cuts everywhere" comment followed by a photo that shows 90 degree breaks and the columns. Not only that, but the ONLY 45 degree cut pointed out by Terral in that photo, was later pointed out as a MISTAKE that Terral admitted to.
Also note that Terral points out in the photo above that there is "no melting" nor is there "burn marks". I also see no "thermite froth".
Terral, you have effectively shown with your own picture that no thermite was used. How funny.
Do you happen to have any GOOD, CLOSE photos of columns in from WTC7 that show the "thermite froth" on there ends? Or do you use hard to see pictures for a reason?
Where is all the "thermite froth" signatures on those columns in the photo above? Care to point them out? Do you have any closeups of the WTC7 debris before cleanup started that shows the tremendous amount of "thermite froth" on the ends of the columns? All I see is you using distant photos that you can easily lead someone to believe whatever you want them to believe.
Sounds like Christophera really. All these photos are interpreted by you with no supporting evidence for what you say exists in each photo. You rely on your claim to be a "Demolitions Supervisor" to help lend credence to your views. EXACTLY like Christophera's core theory and the fact that he claims to be a construction worker AND welder and then goes on to TRY and make intelligent observations of the photos.
Any closeup photos I have looked up of the WTC7 columns show no froth anywhere? yet you claim it is everywhere. Where are those photos you have showing this?
but that's only because you are a douchebag that can not address the fact of molten metal and deceptions of NIST
Molten metal. You keep saying this yet cannot answer my question. Aluminum or steel? Which was found?
Edit:
I would like to see the forensic evidence you have in your possession that proves molten steel was found which leads you to believe thermite was used in a controlled demolition. Otherwise, you need to question your theory like you do the official story.
man I have posted everytime and everytime you say the same shit...it was STEEL and just and there are multiple official witnesses
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Eyes Wide Shut: Gross Negligence with NIST Denial of Molten Metal on 9/11[/ame]
Still waiting for all your pictures of all the column and beam ends of WTC7 that are covered in thermite froth?
cuckoo is that these 45-degree angle cuts were made by demolition workers 'after' the collapse by fire, so go right ahead and start explaining how that happened.confused have no "Building Fires Did It" Case.
Here's why you're wrong. Again. Look at this photo I marked up.
As the text in the picture asks, how in the hell did a shape charge, placed parallel to the face of the plate make 45 degree angle jagged cuts (shown with the red lines on the photo) THROUGH the plate?
YOU'RE FULL OF CRAP!
Hey Terral. No explanation for this eh?
