PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues 1500+ Architects, Scientists & Structural Engineers say 9-11 was an Inside Job.


Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

LOCOChief
08-01-2011, 01:22 PM
Even though it’s been proven in documented tests that thermite will not cut steel beams?

Really? Who documented that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySm3Pv0cQt0

This guy has few youtube experiments that prove otherwise.

This was done in this guys back yard.

LOCOChief
08-01-2011, 01:23 PM
They were demolished, but not by explosives. Gravity is a bitch.

Yep I know where you stand on this. Gravity plays a big part in my theory as well. :drool:

Saul Good
08-01-2011, 01:25 PM
A physician? wtf are you talking about?

I'm talking about being able to look past the title that sounds good but doesn't qualify someone as an expert.

Physician is to physics matter as an architect is to evaluating structural integrity. That is to say that someone who is careless might mistakenly see the titles and mistake them for experts on those subjects only to lose credibility.

LOCOChief
08-01-2011, 01:27 PM
Nothing personal, but NYPD doesn't mean college educated, much less any kind of sophisticated understanding of how buildings are built, how they handle loads, what happens if they're hit with a plane, what happens to their structural supports when a plane loaded with jet fuel hits the building, etc. ad nauseum.

First responder or not, 35 years or not, he doesn't know dick about any of that stuff.


I agree with every part of this.

It wasn't him that moved my train of thought to where it is. As I explained I was offended listening to his assertions in the locker room.

I'm not here to piss anyone off or offend anyone. Over time I just started to see this differently.

epitome1170
08-01-2011, 01:29 PM
I'm talking about being able to look past the title that sounds good but doesn't qualify someone as an expert.

Physician is to physics matter as an architect is to evaluating structural integrity. That is to say that someone who is careless might mistakenly see the titles and mistake them for experts on those subjects only to lose credibility.

:thumb:

And a civil engineering student doesnt know shit about structural engineering... and neither does any other engineering discipline (including mining). All the other discipline will be able to tell you is the basic freshman B.S. that is common sense to any decent engineer.

And perhaps you missed it, but you should really take a look at progressive collapse videos and how similar they are to the WTC buildings.

go bowe
08-01-2011, 01:29 PM
i'm sorry, but how does one lose something when one has nothing already???

LOCOChief
08-01-2011, 01:29 PM
I'm talking about being able to look past the title that sounds good but doesn't qualify someone as an expert.

Physician is to physics matter as an architect is to evaluating structural integrity. That is to say that someone who is careless might mistakenly see the titles and mistake them for experts on those subjects only to lose credibility.

:LOL: but you're an expert on NT's.

Just kidding SG I liked and agree with your take on our pick up.

epitome1170
08-01-2011, 01:31 PM
:LOL: but you're an expert on NT's.

Just kidding SG I liked and agree with your take on our pick up.

Then how about me? I am a licensed, professional STRUCTURAL engineer.

go bowe
08-01-2011, 01:32 PM
Then how about me? I am a licensed, professional STRUCTURAL engineer.

pfffffffffffft...

expertise has no place in this thread...

epitome1170
08-01-2011, 01:33 PM
pfffffffffffft...

expertise has no place in this thread...

I know... he keeps ignoring logic.

LOCOChief
08-01-2011, 01:34 PM
Then how about me? I am a licensed, professional STRUCTURAL engineer.

Ok how about you?

Bldng 7?

BucEyedPea
08-01-2011, 01:35 PM
Then how about me? I am a licensed, professional STRUCTURAL engineer.

So is my brother.

LOCOChief
08-01-2011, 01:36 PM
I know... he keeps ignoring logic.

No I'm really not. I'm closed off to nothing, completely open minded.

LOCOChief
08-01-2011, 01:39 PM
So is my brother.

can't be.

There can be only ONE!

go bowe
08-01-2011, 01:39 PM
So is my brother.

no shit? what's he say about building 7?

KILLER_CLOWN
08-01-2011, 01:39 PM
No I'm really not. I'm closed off to nothing, completely open minded.

Magic Bullet Theory forthcoming......

epitome1170
08-01-2011, 01:42 PM
Ok how about you?

Bldng 7?

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=7792858&postcount=216

Without being privy to all of the analysis that I am sure the NIST performed, my thought would be that it is progressive collapse due to a heavily loaded structure along with the degradation of the steel caused by heat. This is not saying that the steel melted because it wouldn't since a fire would not occur to induce the 1370 degrees (+) to melt. However, it does not need to be 1370 degrees C to cause a massive reduction in strength to steel.

That reduction in heat (on any floor) could create the floor to collapse on the floor below which then creates a domino effect all the way to the foundation.

Saul Good
08-01-2011, 01:42 PM
i'm sorry, but how does one lose something when one has nothing already???

I can only assume that you are talking about how Democrats classify tax cuts as "costing" money. That being the case, it's an excellent point, but I think you're posting in the wrong thread.

Donger
08-01-2011, 01:45 PM
I would think that the liberal kooks would much prefer a progressive collapse rather than a regressive collapse.

LOCOChief
08-01-2011, 01:47 PM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=7792858&postcount=216

Without being privy to all of the analysis that I am sure the NIST performed, my thought would be that it is progressive collapse due to a heavily loaded structure along with the degradation of the steel caused by heat. This is not saying that the steel melted because it wouldn't since a fire would not occur to induce the 1370 degrees (+) to melt. However, it does not need to be 1370 degrees C to cause a massive reduction in strength to steel.

That reduction in heat (on any floor) could create the floor to collapse on the floor below which then creates a domino effect all the way to the foundation.

Have you watched the footage of bldng 7 collapse?

KILLER_CLOWN
08-01-2011, 01:47 PM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=7792858&postcount=216

Without being privy to all of the analysis that I am sure the NIST performed, my thought would be that it is progressive collapse due to a heavily loaded structure along with the degradation of the steel caused by heat. This is not saying that the steel melted because it wouldn't since a fire would not occur to induce the 1370 degrees (+) to melt. However, it does not need to be 1370 degrees C to cause a massive reduction in strength to steel.

That reduction in heat (on any floor) could create the floor to collapse on the floor below which then creates a domino effect all the way to the foundation.

Is that a steel structure?

Amnorix
08-01-2011, 01:51 PM
Is that a steel structure?


Doesn't matter right? Concept of progressive collapse applies regardless of the material used in construction. At least as I understand it.

epitome1170
08-01-2011, 01:52 PM
Is that a steel structure?

Yes, I have watched the building collapse.

And that particular building was concrete, but the same concept applies to steel structures. (Which is why the US Corps of Engineers now requires progressive collapse (ATFP) provisions on any buildings that are 3 stories or more in height... no matter what the material is)

BucEyedPea
08-01-2011, 01:56 PM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=7792858&postcount=216

Without being privy to all of the analysis that I am sure the NIST performed, my thought would be that it is progressive collapse due to a heavily loaded structure along with the degradation of the steel caused by heat. This is not saying that the steel melted because it wouldn't since a fire would not occur to induce the 1370 degrees (+) to melt. However, it does not need to be 1370 degrees C to cause a massive reduction in strength to steel.

That reduction in heat (on any floor) could create the floor to collapse on the floor below which then creates a domino effect all the way to the foundation.

Similar to what brother said read about steel's structure having enough heat to weaken it. He gave exact temps but I couldn't remember them.

epitome1170
08-01-2011, 01:57 PM
Similar to what brother said read about steel's structure having enough heat to weaken it. He gave exact temps but I couldn't remember them.

LOCO -

so you have two SE's (presumably) telling you that heat will weaken the steel, but you just don't want to believe it?

BucEyedPea
08-01-2011, 02:00 PM
LOCO -

so you have two SE's (presumably) telling you that heat will weaken the steel, but you just don't want to believe it?

Huh? :huh: Who said I believed it was an inside job?

Amnorix
08-01-2011, 02:01 PM
LOCO -

so you have two SE's (presumably) telling you that heat will weaken the steel, but you just don't want to believe it?

Who needs a structural engineer? Isn't it pretty common to realize that hot (not necessarily molten) steel is more pliable?

Because doesn't just about everybody realize that's how blacksmiths do their thing?

:spock:

BucEyedPea
08-01-2011, 02:01 PM
Oh wait, I didn't get what the "LOCO" was. Thought it was a mispaste. I see what you're saying now.

Donger
08-01-2011, 02:02 PM
Huh? :huh: Who said I believed it was an inside job?

You need to read more carefully. He was responding to LOCO.

Amnorix
08-01-2011, 02:02 PM
Huh? :huh: Who said I believed it was an inside job?


This from the chick who always criticizes the reading skills of other people. :shake:

BucEyedPea
08-01-2011, 02:02 PM
You need to read more carefully. He was responding to LOCO.

You missed a post too. I already re-read without being prompted—unlike you. :harumph:

I see you do read my posts afterall.

BigChiefFan
08-01-2011, 02:03 PM
The problem with the government bootlicker's theory is 90% of the structure was still intact and NOT WEAKENED due to fire, thus, they should have easily held up. They COLLAPSED in less than 15 seconds.

epitome1170
08-01-2011, 02:04 PM
Who needs a structural engineer? Isn't it pretty common to realize that hot (not necessarily molten) steel is more pliable?

Because doesn't just about everybody realize that's how blacksmiths do their thing?

:spock:


Well, yes, it should be common sense, but there is still this debate going on 10 years later.

And sorry buceyed, I didn't write that very clearly did I?

Donger
08-01-2011, 02:04 PM
The problem with the government bootlicker's theory is 90% of the structure was still intact and NOT WEAKENED due to fire, thus, they should have easily held up. They COLLAPSED in less than 15 seconds.

LMAO

Amnorix
08-01-2011, 02:05 PM
The problem with the government bootlicker's theory is 90% of the structure was still intact and NOT WEAKENED due to fire, thus, they should have easily held up. They COLLAPSED in less than 15 seconds.

You seem to have missed this one.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=7793158&postcount=267

epitome1170
08-01-2011, 02:06 PM
The problem with the government bootlicker's theory is 90% of the structure was still intact and NOT WEAKENED due to fire, thus, they should have easily held up. They COLLAPSED in less than 15 seconds.

So if I overload a floor by... say 500%, it should not collapse? And then if it does collapse then the floor below should support it without collapsing?

BucEyedPea
08-01-2011, 02:07 PM
Well, yes, it should be common sense, but there is still this debate going on 10 years later.

And sorry buceyed, I didn't write that very clearly did I?

That's okay. Even if Donger had to be a copycat brat. :p

LOCOChief
08-01-2011, 02:10 PM
Yes, I have watched the building collapse.

And that particular building was concrete, but the same concept applies to steel structures. (Which is why the US Corps of Engineers now requires progressive collapse (ATFP) provisions on any buildings that are 3 stories or more in height... no matter what the material is)

thanks.

The reason that I asked is because what struck me as strange is the "collapse" of 7 looked very symmetrical like the towers. It seems to fall at a high rate of descent also like the others. the difference of course is the building was a different design and materials as you stated but also the fact it wasn't hit by an aircraft.

Amnorix
08-01-2011, 02:10 PM
The problem with the government bootlicker's theory is 90% of the structure was still intact and NOT WEAKENED due to fire, thus, they should have easily held up. They COLLAPSED in less than 15 seconds.


Let me try this a different way.

You're holding a 100 pound weight directly over your head, full extension. You're a strong guy, so you can hold it up for a good while normally.

A mere three seconds after throwing it up there, someone stabs your left elbow with a knife.

90% of your structure is intact. How long before you go down?


;)

KILLER_CLOWN
08-01-2011, 02:14 PM
So if I overload a floor by... say 500%, it should not collapse? And then if it does collapse then the floor below should support it without collapsing?

You're referring to Building 7?

Dayze
08-01-2011, 02:14 PM
Let me try this a different way.

You're holding a 100 pound weight directly over your head, full extension. You're a strong guy, so you can hold it up for a good while normally.

A mere three seconds after throwing it up there, someone stabs your left elbow with a knife.

90% of your structure is intact. How long before you go down?


;)

are you suggesting a knife brought the towers down?




:p

LOCOChief
08-01-2011, 02:14 PM
Let me try this a different way.

You're holding a 100 pound weight directly over your head, full extension. You're a strong guy, so you can hold it up for a good while normally.

A mere three seconds after throwing it up there, someone stabs your left elbow with a knife.

90% of your structure is intact. How long before you go down?


;)

Left arm huh? what way does that 100lbs weight fall?

the symmetrical collapse is what gets me. I can buy this argument on the towers but not bldng 7.

Radar Chief
08-01-2011, 02:15 PM
Well, yes, it should be common sense, but there is still this debate going on 10 years later.

And sorry buceyed, I didn't write that very clearly did I?

Don’t worry about it. I can completely understand why she would respond when someone started their post with LOCO.

Donger
08-01-2011, 02:21 PM
Left arm huh? what way does that 100lbs weight fall?

the symmetrical collapse is what gets me. I can buy this argument on the towers but not bldng 7.

Did you look at this? Particularly 15 seconds in?

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/PK_iBYSqEsc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BucEyedPea
08-01-2011, 02:23 PM
Don’t worry about it. I can completely understand why she would respond when someone started their post with LOCO.

Typical Radar, never makes a contribution and only goes after posters like an 8 year old would.

Radar Chief
08-01-2011, 02:26 PM
Typical Radar, never makes a contribution and only goes after posters like an 8 year old would.

You mean just like you’re responding now?
Typical BuckEyedPsycho, crying about others doing exactly what she does.

Amnorix
08-01-2011, 02:27 PM
Left arm huh? what way does that 100lbs weight fall?

the symmetrical collapse is what gets me. I can buy this argument on the towers but not bldng 7.

My understanding is that fires raged uncontrolled in Building 7 for hours until they weakened some of the steel structural support beams to the point where they were no longer capable of supporting the weight above them. Presumably, in addition to the one or two that failed, others were while not yet at the point of failing, were significantly weakened. As a result, when the critical one or two went, it didn't take much for the others (or enough of the others) to give way once the building started to collapse. Accordingly, you have what appears to be a symmetrical collapse.

I freely admit I'm less versed on the subject of building 7 than the two Towers, but that's my understanding. I'll gladly defer to Donger or Epitome on this however.

What's your theory? That a bunch of people snuck into the building somehow, planted explosives, then hoped that the attack on Towers 1 and 2, which they must have known were coming, would somehow cause fires in 7, which would go unchecked due to hte focus on 1 and 2 and safety issues, which would eventually serve as a cover story when they pulled the switches to collapse 7? Furthermore, that these ne'er-do-wells were in league with Al Quada, able to communicate with them to coordinate these attacks, and furthermore have been able to conceal this brilliant attack from American law enforcement, despite the capture of many documents, etc. from Al Quada operatives in the years since 9/11? Or even better, that the American government is fully capable of mass murder of its own citizens, and able to get thousands of people inside and outside of the government to join in league to hide this hideous crime?

I'm thinking my explanation is a TAD bit more likely.

orange
08-01-2011, 02:27 PM
And then if it does collapse then the floor below should support it without collapsing?

Not only that, but the floor below should also support the ten or more floors above that come down on top of it. Yep.

epitome1170
08-01-2011, 02:27 PM
You're referring to Building 7?

This may be tough for you to grasp, but I am talking about IN THEORY. That means I am not saying that Bldg 7 was 500% overloaded, but that IF it was it would collapse.

BigChiefFan
08-01-2011, 02:28 PM
You seem to have missed this one.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=7793158&postcount=267
No I've heard it ad nauseum. It's virtually impossible for the beams to weaken when they aren't even exposed to the heat. Again, 90% of the structure wasn't even effected.

Fact: the buildings were built to withstand a plane crash impact and fires.

Fact:no buildings have every collapsed on itself, before or after 9-11 due to fire, yet it happened THREE TIMES in one day and one of the buildings wasn't impacted by a plane.

Fact:the buildings went into complete free fall in less than 15 seconds.

Fact:NO ONE, saw the first plane impact.

Fact: The steel was shipped out to China before a full investigation.

Fact: Our government went to war with a country that had ZERO to do with 9/11.

Fact: Patriot Act took place, after this.

Fact: A passport just happens to be perfectly preserved when the buildings couldn't even stand up. Oh, and it just happens to be one of the terrorists'.

Fact: Cheney was in charge of NORAD that day.

Fact: Our military was running the exact same drill, as what was really happening.

That's alot to ask a free thinker to swallow.

epitome1170
08-01-2011, 02:30 PM
Not only that, but the floor below should also support the ten or more floors above that come down on top of it. Yep.

Gotcha... in reality, that can be done, but would an owner ever want to pay for that? Presently, there are provisions that do allow for this to happen in current designed buildings, but with the knowledge that the floors will be so damaged that it will only hold up for people exiting the building. (And not all buildings are designed with this level of safety in mind... few are)

LOCOChief
08-01-2011, 02:30 PM
Did you look at this? Particularly 15 seconds in?

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/PK_iBYSqEsc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I can't at the office but I will this evening.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-01-2011, 02:31 PM
No I've heard it ad nauseum. It's virtually impossible for the beams to weaken when they aren't even exposed to the heat. Again, 90% of the structure wasn't even effected.

Fact: the buildings were built to withstand a plane crash impact and fires.

Fact:no buildings have every collapsed on itself, before or after 9-11 due to fire, yet it happened THREE TIMES in one day and one of the buildings wasn't impacted by fire.

Fact:the buildings went into complete free fall in less than 15 seconds.

Fact:NO ONE, saw the first plane impact.

Fact: The steel was shipped out to China before a full investigation.

Fact: Our government went to war with a country that had ZERO to do with 9/11.

Fact: Patriot Act took place, after this.

Fact: A passport just happens to be perfectly preserved when the buildings couldn't even stand up. Oh, and it just happens to be one of the terrorists'.

Fact: Cheney was in charge of NORAD that day.

Fact: Our military was running the exact same drill, as what was really happening.

That's alot to ask a free thinker to swallow.

Looks like we need a Napolitano reeducation camp. LMAO

epitome1170
08-01-2011, 02:33 PM
Fact: the buildings were built to withstand a plane crash impact and fires.



LMAO

YOUR AND IDIOT!

That is no where near a fact and is absurd to even think about. I don't even know how else to respond except by laughing literally out loud and explaining to my office what you said.

Donger
08-01-2011, 02:34 PM
Fact: the buildings were built to withstand a plane crash impact and fires.

Correct, a "lost" 707 moving near stall speed, not a 767 fully-fueled flying at near its maximum speed.

Fact:no buildings have every collapsed on itself, before or after 9-11 due to fire, yet it happened THREE TIMES in one day and one of the buildings wasn't impacted by fire.

Wrong. WTC 1 & 2 collapsed from the damage caused by the aircraft impacts AND fire. WTC 7 collapsed from fire. Which building wasn't impacted by fire?

Fact:the buildings went into complete free fall in less than 15 seconds.

Wrong. None of the buildings free fell.

Fact:NO ONE, saw the first plane impact.

Wrong. Warning, some NSFW language.

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Ys41jnL2Elk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

LOCOChief
08-01-2011, 02:35 PM
LOCO -

so you have two SE's (presumably) telling you that heat will weaken the steel, but you just don't want to believe it?

Not sure where you got that from, but yes I do believe that heat can weaken steel.

Donger
08-01-2011, 02:36 PM
My understanding is that fires raged uncontrolled in Building 7 for hours until they weakened some of the steel structural support beams to the point where they were no longer capable of supporting the weight above them. Presumably, in addition to the one or two that failed, others were while not yet at the point of failing, were significantly weakened. As a result, when the critical one or two went, it didn't take much for the others (or enough of the others) to give way once the building started to collapse. Accordingly, you have what appears to be a symmetrical collapse.

I freely admit I'm less versed on the subject of building 7 than the two Towers, but that's my understanding. I'll gladly defer to Donger or Epitome on this however.

What's your theory? That a bunch of people snuck into the building somehow, planted explosives, then hoped that the attack on Towers 1 and 2, which they must have known were coming, would somehow cause fires in 7, which would go unchecked due to hte focus on 1 and 2 and safety issues, which would eventually serve as a cover story when they pulled the switches to collapse 7? Furthermore, that these ne'er-do-wells were in league with Al Quada, able to communicate with them to coordinate these attacks, and furthermore have been able to conceal this brilliant attack from American law enforcement, despite the capture of many documents, etc. from Al Quada operatives in the years since 9/11? Or even better, that the American government is fully capable of mass murder of its own citizens, and able to get thousands of people inside and outside of the government to join in league to hide this hideous crime?

I'm thinking my explanation is a TAD bit more likely.

294 explains the progress of the collapse in detail.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-01-2011, 02:36 PM
LMAO

YOUR AND IDIOT!

That is no where near a fact and is absurd to even think about. I don't even know how else to respond except by laughing literally out loud and explaining to my office what you said.

well even the apologists state so....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1340225/Twin-towers-built-to-withstand-plane-crash.html

Donger
08-01-2011, 02:36 PM
LMAO

YOUR AND IDIOT!

That is no where near a fact and is absurd to even think about. I don't even know how else to respond except by laughing literally out loud and explaining to my office what you said.

No, he's actually partially correct. See above.

LOCOChief
08-01-2011, 02:37 PM
LMAO

YOUR AND IDIOT!

That is no where near a fact and is absurd to even think about. I don't even know how else to respond except by laughing literally out loud and explaining to my office what you said.

He got it from the tesimony of the buildings designers who stated as much.

durtyrute
08-01-2011, 02:37 PM
Correct, a "lost" 707 moving near stall speed, not a 767 fully-fueled flying at near its maximum speed.



Wrong. WTC 1 & 2 collapsed from the damage caused by the aircraft impacts AND fire. WTC 7 collapsed from fire. Which building wasn't impacted by fire?



Wrong. None of the buildings free fell.



Wrong. Warning, some NSFW language.

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Ys41jnL2Elk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I'm not sure if it was a plane or not, but that video didn't show anything but an explosion.

Donger
08-01-2011, 02:38 PM
well even the apologists state so....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1340225/Twin-towers-built-to-withstand-plane-crash.html

Plane crashes into skyscrapers have not always led to their destruction. In 1945 a B-52 bomber slammed into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building in New York leading to the deaths of 14 people.

A time-traveling B-52? Awesome!

Donger
08-01-2011, 02:39 PM
I'm not sure if it was a plane or not, but that video didn't show anything but an explosion.

Actually, it does show the aircraft hit the building. And, that noise that made everyone look around was the sound of a 767 flying at low level at maximum thrust.

BigChiefFan
08-01-2011, 02:40 PM
LMAO

YOUR AND IDIOT!

That is no where near a fact and is absurd to even think about. I don't even know how else to respond except by laughing literally out loud and explaining to my office what you said.Yep, when you can't dispute it, by all means, ridicule. You certainly showed me, huh? Do some research. Here, read it...

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

epitome1170
08-01-2011, 02:41 PM
No, he's actually partially correct. See above.

Actually he isn't. From your article.

"But this was of course a completely abnormal situation and one which would not have been envisaged by the people who built it. The strength of the towers was enormous but they would not have been designed for aircraft strikes.

"There are buildings which are designed to withstand plane impacts but these are mainly for very sensitive buildings. The main impact on a building would be from the engines because they hold the mass of the plane, but there is also the fuel which would ignite."

He says there are building designed for that, but not these. The only buildings designed for aircraft strikes would be those for extreme national security.

LOCOChief
08-01-2011, 02:42 PM
I freely admit I'm less versed on the subject of building 7 than the two Towers, but that's my understanding. I'll gladly defer to Donger or Epitome on this however.

What's your theory? That a bunch of people snuck into the building somehow, planted explosives, then hoped that the attack on Towers 1 and 2, which they must have known were coming, would somehow cause fires in 7, which would go unchecked due to hte focus on 1 and 2 and safety issues, which would eventually serve as a cover story when they pulled the switches to collapse 7? Furthermore, that these ne'er-do-wells were in league with Al Quada, able to communicate with them to coordinate these attacks, and furthermore have been able to conceal this brilliant attack from American law enforcement, despite the capture of many documents, etc. from Al Quada operatives in the years since 9/11? Or even better, that the American government is fully capable of mass murder of its own citizens, and able to get thousands of people inside and outside of the government to join in league to hide this hideous crime?

I'm thinking my explanation is a TAD bit more likely.

You gave 2 explanations there, I gave none and I don't have one either. I've simply stated that it appeared to me as a staged demolition of building 7.

Radar Chief
08-01-2011, 02:42 PM
I'm not sure if it was a plane or not, but that video didn't show anything but an explosion.

I saw the plane. :shrug:

Amnorix
08-01-2011, 02:42 PM
No I've heard it ad nauseum. It's virtually impossible for the beams to weaken when they aren't even exposed to the heat. Again, 90% of the structure wasn't even effected.

You don't need to damage 90% of any structure to cause critical failures, do you? [/quote]

Fact: the buildings were built to withstand a plane crash impact and fires.

Not 500 mph moving 737s with full loads of jet fuel, they weren't. And the impact didn't even bring the buildings down immediately.

Fact:no buildings have every collapsed on itself, before or after 9-11 due to fire, yet it happened THREE TIMES in one day and one of the buildings wasn't impacted by a plane.[quote]

Fact: no buildings have had 737s with full loads of jet fuel rammed into them before. In the case of building 7, fires raged for hours after the building took collateral damage from 1 and 2. That had never happened before either.

Also this: http://www.debunking911.com/madrid.htm

[quote]Fact:the buildings went into complete free fall in less than 15 seconds.

NOT complete free fall -- see Donger's posts above.

Fact:NO ONE, saw the first plane impact.

Not sure what to get from this? You don't believe a building flew into the first tower? Then what happened? I also thought that news reports were suggesting that was exactly what had happened even before the second plane flew into the second tower, no?

Fact: The steel was shipped out to China before a full investigation.

Cite? Not sure what you're talking about here.

Fact: Our government went to war with a country that had ZERO to do with 9/11.

Fact: Patriot Act took place, after this.

Fact: A passport just happens to be perfectly preserved when the buildings couldn't even stand up. Oh, and it just happens to be one of the terrorists'.

Fact: Cheney was in charge of NORAD that day.

Fact: Our military was running the exact same drill, as what was really happening.

That's alot to ask a free thinker to swallow.


Some links for this please? Well, not the first two, those are obvious. It also doesn't prove any damn conspiracy.

The last three, not sure WTF you're referring to, but glad to take a look.

Oh, and finally...

http://bluntobject.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/not-this-shit-again.jpg?w=300&h=391

durtyrute
08-01-2011, 02:43 PM
Actually, it does show the aircraft hit the building. And, that noise that made everyone look around was the sound of a 767 flying at low level at maximum thrust.


No, it doesn't. It shows Something not a plane, but obivously you can't see what it is because of the speed. Secondly, do you work for some 767 flying at low level at maximum thrust testing plant?

Amnorix
08-01-2011, 02:44 PM
You gave 2 explanations there, I gave none and I don't have one either. I've simply stated that it appeared to me as a staged demolition of building 7.


Well, I gotta say, your story just ain't convincing. I'm surprised that you believe controlled demolition with no explanation for why, when there is an explanation for why it would collapse in a way that APPEARS to be symmetrical (but really isn't, as Donger's post shows (see :15 in etc.)

durtyrute
08-01-2011, 02:45 PM
I saw the plane. :shrug:

Damn rC can i use your eyes on this one. I saw something, kinda sorta, I couldn't tell if it was a plane or what.

Amnorix
08-01-2011, 02:46 PM
LMAO

YOUR AND IDIOT!

That is no where near a fact and is absurd to even think about. I don't even know how else to respond except by laughing literally out loud and explaining to my office what you said.

Well, he's right, actually, but the point is that his flat statement of "designed to take a plane strike" doesn't mention the SIZE of the plane for which it was designed to take the hit from.

It was NOT designed to be struck by a jumbo jet wiht a full load of fuel, which is the ONLY relevant issue here.

Hell, EVERY structure on earth is designed to struck by, say, a paper airplane. But so what? Not relevant to the discussion, is it?

blaise
08-01-2011, 02:47 PM
Amnorix, you're bashing your head against a wall.

Saul Good
08-01-2011, 02:47 PM
well even the apologists state so....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1340225/Twin-towers-built-to-withstand-plane-crash.html

Your article clearly states that these buildings were not designed to withstand airplane strikes.

Donger
08-01-2011, 02:47 PM
No, it doesn't. It shows Something not a plane, but obivously you can't see what it is because of the speed. Secondly, do you work for some 767 flying at low level at maximum thrust testing plant?

It's a logical deduction:

1) We have the radar tracks of AA11 moving at 500+mph. They just happen to end right near WTC at 8:46am on 9/11, coincidentally when this video and audio was taken.

2) Work? No. But, am I familiar with what wide-body aircraft sound like at max thrust? Yes.

Radar Chief
08-01-2011, 02:48 PM
No, it doesn't. It shows Something not a plane, but obivously you can't see what it is because of the speed.

I can very clearly see the plane flying all the way to impact. :shrug:

LOCOChief
08-01-2011, 02:48 PM
"There are buildings which are designed to withstand plane impacts but these are mainly for very sensitive buildings. The main impact on a building would be from the engines because they hold the mass of the plane, but there is also the fuel which would ignite."

He says there are building designed for that, but not these. The only buildings designed for aircraft strikes would be those for extreme national security.

Really :doh!:

BigChiefFan
08-01-2011, 02:48 PM
Well, he's right, actually, but the point is that his flat statement of "designed to take a plane strike" doesn't mention the SIZE of the plane for which it was designed to take the hit from.

It was NOT designed to be struck by a jumbo jet wiht a full load of fuel, which is the ONLY relevant issue here.

Hell, EVERY structure on earth is designed to struck by, say, a paper airplane. But so what? Not relevant to the discussion, is it?Here...

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

KILLER_CLOWN
08-01-2011, 02:48 PM
Amnorix, you're bashing your head against a wall.

Maybe you can teach the proper technique on the subject. ;)

Donger
08-01-2011, 02:49 PM
Actually he isn't. From your article.

"But this was of course a completely abnormal situation and one which would not have been envisaged by the people who built it. The strength of the towers was enormous but they would not have been designed for aircraft strikes.

"There are buildings which are designed to withstand plane impacts but these are mainly for very sensitive buildings. The main impact on a building would be from the engines because they hold the mass of the plane, but there is also the fuel which would ignite."

He says there are building designed for that, but not these. The only buildings designed for aircraft strikes would be those for extreme national security.

Article?

durtyrute
08-01-2011, 02:49 PM
I can very clearly see the plane flying all the way to impact. :shrug:

:thumb:

epitome1170
08-01-2011, 02:50 PM
Really :doh!:

Is there confusion here? I would not classify any of the WTC buildings as a sensitive building and apparently neither did the person providing the quote.

Amnorix
08-01-2011, 02:50 PM
I'm not sure if it was a plane or not, but that video didn't show anything but an explosion.

Yeah, I call bullshit if you can't see SOMETHING moving in front of the building in seconds :20 and :21, right before the explosion.

Oh, and a large, mostly horizontal outline of damage suggestive of, I dunno, perhaps a PLANE, at around the :42 mark.

Donger
08-01-2011, 02:52 PM
Yeah, I call bullshit if you can't see SOMETHING moving in front of the building in seconds :20 and :21, right before the explosion.

Oh, and a large, mostly horizontal outline of damage suggestive of, I dunno, perhaps a PLANE, at around the :42 mark.

LMAO

epitome1170
08-01-2011, 02:52 PM
Article?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1340225/Twin-towers-built-to-withstand-plane-crash.html

The article Killer Clown posted.

orange
08-01-2011, 02:52 PM
Wrong. Warning, some NSFW language.


I never saw that one. Some value has come from this thread after all.

Donger
08-01-2011, 02:53 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1340225/Twin-towers-built-to-withstand-plane-crash.html

The article Killer Clown posted.

Gotcha. I was confused because you said that was from an article I posted.

blaise
08-01-2011, 02:53 PM
Yeah, I call bullshit if you can't see SOMETHING moving in front of the building in seconds :20 and :21, right before the explosion.

Oh, and a large, mostly horizontal outline of damage suggestive of, I dunno, perhaps a PLANE, at around the :42 mark.

That was the shadow of the US fighter jet before it shot its missiles.

epitome1170
08-01-2011, 02:53 PM
Gotcha. I was confused because you said that was from an article I posted.

Sorry I got caught up at work halfway thru my response so I thought it was you.

Amnorix
08-01-2011, 02:54 PM
Amnorix, you're bashing your head against a wall.

I know. It's a mental illness. It's just that the sheer.....idiocy.....is astounding. I'm just flabbergasted. I can never believe that people actually, really and truly BELIEVE this rubbish.

There is just so much evidence and LOGIC that says that the gubment's story is true it's astonishing that anyone can think that it's something else. The Truther explanations -- beyond the "science" that is disproven by many on the other side -- is so completely nonsensical.

Yeah, I gotta stop wasting my time. Thanks for the reality check.

Donger
08-01-2011, 02:55 PM
Sorry I got caught up at work halfway thru my response so I thought it was you.

Here's NIST's take on it. I didn't know that hadn't been able to verify the 707 impact design consideration. I learned something new today!

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?

As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”

The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.

The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.

BigChiefFan
08-01-2011, 02:55 PM
Is there confusion here? I would not classify any of the WTC buildings as a sensitive building and apparently neither did the person providing the quote.How FOS can you be? I provided you a link and quoted you. READ IT. You may disagree with me, but don't make shit up.

durtyrute
08-01-2011, 02:57 PM
I saw the plane. :shrug:

Okay I did see something you are right, had to look at it on full screen.

Donger
08-01-2011, 02:57 PM
How FOS can you be? I provided you a link and quoted you. READ IT. You may disagree with me, but don't make shit up.

LMAO

You didn't just admonish someone else for doing that, right?

LOCOChief
08-01-2011, 02:57 PM
Well, I gotta say, your story just ain't convincing. I'm surprised that you believe controlled demolition with no explanation for why, when there is an explanation for why it would collapse in a way that APPEARS to be symmetrical (but really isn't, as Donger's post shows (see :15 in etc.)

Did you think that I was trying to convince you or anyone? Hey I've been on the defense here from the very moment I chimed in.

You say it wasn't a symmetrical collapse and I say it appeared to me that it was. Given my observation and the documented damage it was said to have or have not sustained my thinking is that it was a demolition.

BigChiefFan
08-01-2011, 02:57 PM
Here, for the third time...

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

The buildings were BUILT TO WITHSTAND this type of impact.

Donger
08-01-2011, 02:58 PM
Did you think that I was trying to convince you or anyone? Hey I've been on the defense here from the very moment I chimed in.

You say it wasn't a symmetrical collapse and I say it appeared to me that it was. Given my observation and the documented damage it was said to have or have not sustained my thinking is that it was a demolition.

Check out the NIST video when you get away from work.

Radar Chief
08-01-2011, 02:58 PM
Yeah, I call bullshit if you can't see SOMETHING moving in front of the building in seconds :20 and :21, right before the explosion.

Oh, and a large, mostly horizontal outline of damage suggestive of, I dunno, perhaps a PLANE, at around the :42 mark.

Probably helps to know that the plane is tipped left wing down, right wing up, turning slightly towards the camera position.
People tend to see what they’re looking for so if you’re not looking for a plane in the middle of turning you might miss it.

Donger
08-01-2011, 02:59 PM
Here, for the third time...

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

The buildings were BUILT TO WITHSTAND this type of impact.

No, they weren't.

durtyrute
08-01-2011, 03:00 PM
Why are there two different voices on the overlay? One just for the time stamp and one for the rest I guess. How in the hell could you know the exact time when something like that happens especially after the fact?

epitome1170
08-01-2011, 03:01 PM
How FOS can you be? I provided you a link and quoted you. READ IT. You may disagree with me, but don't make shit up.

The quote I had... see post #335.

I didn't read your website you put up because I am sure it is heavily biased (and perhaps taken out of context).

Brock
08-01-2011, 03:02 PM
Here, for the third time...

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

The buildings were BUILT TO WITHSTAND this type of impact.

LMAO They were BUILT TO WITHSTAND the impact of a plane that is designed to fly tens of thousands of feet higher than these buildings stood?

durtyrute
08-01-2011, 03:02 PM
The quote I had... see post #335.

I didn't read your website you put up because I am sure it is heavily biased (and perhaps taken out of context).

Yet another funny piece to all of this. The majority of the research that backs up the official story was paid for or somehow is tied to the people trying to hide it.

BigChiefFan
08-01-2011, 03:03 PM
LMAO

You didn't just admonish someone else for doing that, right?What did I make up? :rolleyes:

Just because I don't buy the official story, doesn't equate to making shit up. Everything I stated is well-documented. That's what is so frustrating is the government bootlicker's refuse to acknowledge anything other than the government's official story. You know, the same people that want to fuck over the tax payers again. The same group that got us into 3 wars. The same group that trampled the constitution. The same group that put us into TRILLIONS of dollars of DEBT. So, you'll excuse me, if I look for a second opinion, when dealing with bullshitting con men.

Amnorix
08-01-2011, 03:05 PM
Did you think that I was trying to convince you or anyone? Hey I've been on the defense here from the very moment I chimed in.

You say it wasn't a symmetrical collapse and I say it appeared to me that it was. Given my observation and the documented damage it was said to have or have not sustained my thinking is that it was a demolition.

Take a look at Donger's video at :15 and on. It clearly shows the middle of the building starting to collapse earlier than the exterior (roof line is sagging down).

As a matter of logic, it would seem to me perfectly sensible that if you take away the critical interior structural support beams, that everything is pretty much going to collapse in on itself. And it will do it at roughly the same time. Donger's video supports that relatively simple concept.

Donger
08-01-2011, 03:06 PM
What did I make up? :rolleyes:

You could always review my responses in 305 to your "facts" to ascertain that.

epitome1170
08-01-2011, 03:08 PM
What did I make up? :rolleyes:

Just because I don't buy the official story, doesn't equate to making shit up. Everything I stated is well-documented. That's what is so frustrating is the government bootlicker's refuse to acknowledge anything other than the government's official story. You know, the same people that want to **** over the tax payers again. The same group that got us into 3 wars. The same group that trampled the constitution. The same group that put us into TRILLIONS of dollars of DEBT. So, you'll excuse me, if I look for a second opinion, when dealing with bullshitting con men.

I just got into your website and I stopped without even scrolling down.

Even if the original design was for a 707 (not saying it was), the 767 is larger by 70,000 pounds. That is not "a little more" than a 707. That is 20% more!!!

I can guarantee one thing... I have NEVER designed a multiple story building to be able to take more than 20% more gravity load than was originally designed.

durtyrute
08-01-2011, 03:08 PM
What did I make up? :rolleyes:

Just because I don't buy the official story, doesn't equate to making shit up. Everything I stated is well-documented. That's what is so frustrating is the government bootlicker's refuse to acknowledge anything other than the government's official story. You know, the same people that want to fuck over the tax payers again. The same group that got us into 3 wars. The same group that trampled the constitution. The same group that put us into TRILLIONS of dollars of DEBT. So, you'll excuse me, if I look for a second opinion, when dealing with bullshitting con men.


HEY NOW DAMMIT, They might fuck us, but they would never fuck us that much. Now excuse me while I pay my income tax, property tax, sales tax, license my car, drive to the store while being filmed at every stop light, tell my kids why we are in so many wars, and figure out why are they taking social security out if I'm not going to get it.

durtyrute
08-01-2011, 03:15 PM
And to the people that say " they would never kill innocent people" Go over to Iraq, Afgan, Libya, Japan, Vietnam, Germany, and all of the other places we "spread democracy" and say that to someone over there. But, hey "it's war right"

epitome1170
08-01-2011, 03:16 PM
"But it wasn’t until the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City—and the more recent 9/11 attacks on—that engineers again took a serious interest in the subject."

http://www.northeastern.edu/voice/faculty/sasani.html

This was well after the 1993 interview with John Skilling. My contention would be that the building was perhaps designed for the 707 at impact, but not necessarily sitting on a floor. Even if that was the case, a 20% increase in load could easily collapse a floor resulting the progressive collapse. This is more feasible if the engineer allowed the beams to become inelastic or fully plastic just to "get people out" as opposed to a serviceability of the building.

Dave Lane
08-01-2011, 03:18 PM
I know. It's a mental illness. It's just that the sheer.....idiocy.....is astounding. I'm just flabbergasted. I can never believe that people actually, really and truly BELIEVE this rubbish.

There is just so much evidence and LOGIC that says that the gubment's story is true it's astonishing that anyone can think that it's something else. The Truther explanations -- beyond the "science" that is disproven by many on the other side -- is so completely nonsensical.

Yeah, I gotta stop wasting my time. Thanks for the reality check.

It's like me with the idiocy that is religion. It's seem so obvious you can't believe anyone could be duped by it. It's like someone telling you Herm Edwards Chiefs were the greatest team in NFL history and being serious. It's mind boggling.

epitome1170
08-01-2011, 03:18 PM
Here, for the third time...

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

The buildings were BUILT TO WITHSTAND this type of impact.

This article is a joke... they are quoting engineers from 1965! Do you have any idea how much has been learned in the last 40+ years in engineering? Look at some of the seismic provisions learned alone in the last 10 years...

Do me a favor and leave engineering to someone in the know and not quoting people from 20+ years ago in your articles.

BucEyedPea
08-01-2011, 03:25 PM
It's like me with the idiocy that is religion. It's seem so obvious you can't believe anyone could be duped by it. It's like someone telling you Herm Edwards Chiefs were the greatest team in NFL history and being serious. It's mind boggling.

What you fail to understand is that religion and those who believe in a religion claim it to be based on faith. So it's demeaning when you say they are duped because you don't believe. Religion isn't even in the same category of thing—logic fail.

durtyrute
08-01-2011, 03:38 PM
It's like me with the idiocy that is religion. It's seem so obvious you can't believe anyone could be duped by it. It's like someone telling you Herm Edwards Chiefs were the greatest team in NFL history and being serious. It's mind boggling.

It might be the other way around (meaning your whole religion take). With most organized religions there is only one way. Don't question a thing, we have all of your answers right here. Sounds kinda like the 9/11 story to me.

tiptap
08-01-2011, 03:46 PM
There are two aspects. One is could the steel support of one or two floors be critically damaged by a jet and the resulting fire. The second question is there enough force to collapse the underlining floors if the initial collapse starts. We know the unique structure of the Twin Towers used internal structure to provide support rather than external structure. And that temperatures and initial force compromised the steel.

Then you have about 20 floors falling 15 feet. What is the force then? It is the mass of all 20 floors times the acceleration over that fifteen feet. Is that force greater than the what can be supported by the next lower floor and that floor alone? If yes then repeat this time with the addition of one more floor and continue to repeat to the ground. All the while air is being pressured downward blowing out windows ahead of collapse.

blaise
08-01-2011, 03:47 PM
It might be the other way around (meaning your whole religion take). With most organized religions there is only one way. Don't question a thing, we have all of your answers right here. Sounds kinda like the 9/11 story to me.

Most religions don't tell you not to question.

vailpass
08-01-2011, 04:49 PM
"Ah, you're crazy."
"Am I? Or am I so sane that you just blew your mind?!"
"It's impossible!"
"Is it? Or is it so possible that your head is spinning like a top?!"
"It can't be."
"Can it? Or is your entire world just crashing down all around you?"
"Alright, that's enough."
"Yaaaaaaahhh!!!"

BigChiefFan
08-01-2011, 04:56 PM
Yep, believe everything the government tells you, they would never lie.

durtyrute
08-01-2011, 07:27 PM
"Ah, you're crazy."
"Am I? Or am I so sane that you just blew your mind?!"
"It's impossible!"
"Is it? Or is it so possible that your head is spinning like a top?!"
"It can't be."
"Can it? Or is your entire world just crashing down all around you?"
"Alright, that's enough."
"Yaaaaaaahhh!!!"

Well I guess you can't be all that bad if you're a Seinfeld nut like I. How do you feel about that, you're a nut just like me. HAHahah.

rrl308
08-01-2011, 07:32 PM
Check out the NIST video when you get away from work.

I wonder who provides the funding for NIST? :hmmm:

durtyrute
08-01-2011, 07:35 PM
I wonder who provides the funding for NIST? :hmmm:

Hey Dammit, that doesn't matter. What the NIST provides are facts. Gov funded FACTS!!!!!

ClevelandBronco
08-01-2011, 07:37 PM
And to the people that say " they would never kill innocent people" Go over to Iraq, Afgan, Libya, Japan, Vietnam, Germany, and all of the other places we "spread democracy" and say that to someone over there. But, hey "it's war right"

No need to go that far. Go to Kent State and Jackson State.

Of course, the government didn't fly a fully loaded jet airliner into those kids, but I feel ya.

Ace Gunner
08-01-2011, 07:54 PM
Yep, believe everything the government tells you, they would never lie.

Thomas Jefferson was paranoid - america was a farce dreamed up by a dangerous gun toting kook.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-01-2011, 08:07 PM
Thomas Jefferson was paranoid - america was a farce dreamed up by a dangerous gun toting kook.

Well actually FEMA does teach the founding fathers were terrorists..

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6oP1Ke70Mi8?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6oP1Ke70Mi8?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

Donger
08-01-2011, 08:33 PM
I wonder who provides the funding for NIST? :hmmm:

The Commerce Department does. Care to challenge their analysis?

BigChiefFan
08-01-2011, 09:12 PM
The Commerce Department does. Care to challenge their analysis?


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Commerce+Department



This commerce department? The one that is an extention of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH. :rolleyes:

Saul Good
08-01-2011, 09:17 PM
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Commerce+Department



This commerce department? The one that is an extention of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH. :rolleyes:

What disinterested third party do you think is going to spend tens of millions of dollars investigating what happened? Nobody without a vested interest in the situation is going to fund a proper investigation.

BigChiefFan
08-01-2011, 09:23 PM
What disinterested third party do you think is going to spend tens of millions of dollars investigating what happened? Nobody without a vested interest in the situation is going to fund a proper investigation.Including our government. Their investigation isn't what I would call "proper" or thorough.

BucEyedPea
08-01-2011, 09:54 PM
The Commerce Department does. Care to challenge their analysis?

O.M.G. You're going to use THAT? You ARE a GOVT boy!

rrl308
08-01-2011, 10:13 PM
The Commerce Department does.

Exactly.

BigChiefFan
08-01-2011, 10:20 PM
Seriously this was planned, think of what the kids are saying in the lesson. There are no coincedences. This is eerie...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6NTyEA8c58

WTF???

rrl308
08-01-2011, 10:20 PM
Hey I got a great idea. Let's make Henry Kissenger the Chairman of the 9/11 Commission. Because we all know he would do his "best" to lead a thorough investigation.

VAChief
08-02-2011, 05:44 AM
Seriously this was planned, think of what the kids are saying in the lesson. There are no coincedences. This is eerie...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6NTyEA8c58

WTF???

No, this is idiotic...those making the argument not to "believe" the grownups throw things like this out as some kind of smoking gun proof. This would be a great late night skit. Pure irony.

VAChief
08-02-2011, 05:49 AM
Both presidents had 7 letters in their last name.
Both were over 6' feet tall.
Both men studied law.
Both seemed to have lazy eye muscles, which would sometimes cause one to deviate.
Both suffered from genetic diseases. It is suspected that Lincoln had Marfan's disease, and Kennedy suffered from Addison's disease.
Both served in the military. Lincoln was a scout captain in the Black Hawk War, and Kennedy served as a navy lieutenant in World War II.
Both were boat captains. Lincoln was a skipper for the Talisman, a Mississippi River boat, and Kennedy was skipper of the PT 109.
Both had no fear of their mortality and disdained bodyguards.
Both often stated how easy it would be to shoot the president. Lincoln supposedly said, "If somebody wants to take my life, there is nothing I can do to prevent it." Kennedy supposedly said "If somebody wants to shoot me from a window with a rifle, nobody can stop it." Note that both these quotes are each 16 words long!!!!

Proof positive that John Wilkes Booth really escaped and after living in seclusion for 100 years (aided by the miraculous superior medical care of the shadow Confederate Gov't) was the mysterious gunmen on the grassy knoll. COINCIDENCE? I think NOT!!!

Amnorix
08-02-2011, 06:23 AM
Hey Dammit, that doesn't matter. What the NIST provides are facts. Gov funded FACTS!!!!!

So the NIST participated in a mass-murder cover up. Including all the scientists and engineers who worked on that study.

And the hundreds (or thousands) of them have stayed silent about that cover up for a decade now.


When does your plane bring you back from Fantasy Island?

http://www.shallownation.com/images/ricardo_montalban_1947_fantasy_island.jpg

LOCOChief
08-02-2011, 06:43 AM
It's like me with the idiocy that is religion. It's seem so obvious you can't believe anyone could be duped by it. .

I met a psychologist with the American Cancer society and Hospice who has witnessed 1,000+ deaths or “transitions” for clinical purposes. According to her the final days and hours of the transition for people whom think as you do are the most “terrifying events she has ever witnessed” and went on to say where there was once doubt it exists no longer. . Just telling you what the lady said.

durtyrute
08-02-2011, 06:49 AM
So the NIST participated in a mass-murder cover up. Including all the scientists and engineers who worked on that study.

And the hundreds (or thousands) of them have stayed silent about that cover up for a decade now.


When does your plane bring you back from Fantasy Island?

http://www.shallownation.com/images/ricardo_montalban_1947_fantasy_island.jpg

What hundreds of thousands?

mlyonsd
08-02-2011, 06:55 AM
What hundreds of thousands?:doh!:

durtyrute
08-02-2011, 06:55 AM
:doh!:

You saw them too?

mlyonsd
08-02-2011, 07:04 AM
You saw them too?You need to re-read what Amno wrote.

durtyrute
08-02-2011, 07:24 AM
You need to re-read what Amno wrote.


Ahh..oops

tiptap
08-02-2011, 10:13 AM
I met a psychologist with the American Cancer society and Hospice who has witnessed 1,000+ deaths or “transitions” for clinical purposes. According to her the final days and hours of the transition for people whom think as you do are the most “terrifying events she has ever witnessed” and went on to say where there was once doubt it exists no longer. . Just telling you what the lady said.

And it had nothing to do with the pain and anguish of dying and not holding in the finality of the event for the person. Hell I don't intend to go gentle into that sweet night. I will probably have to be careful how I do those final moments not to instigate any suspicions of my spouse's or kids part in taking my life. It isn't the dying that is telling for a liberal, it is the living. Now we know you think we are all Narcissists but really we are just independent in a society highly aligned with religion.

vailpass
08-02-2011, 11:18 AM
Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.

Radar Chief
08-02-2011, 11:41 AM
Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.

Paranoia is a disease unto itself, and may I add, the person standing
next to you, may not be who they appear to be, so take precaution. /Sathington Willoughby

BucEyedPea
08-02-2011, 12:22 PM
Paranoia is a disease unto itself, and may I add, the person standing
next to you, may not be who they appear to be, so take precaution. /Sathington Willoughby

Paranoia on the part of those for invading Iraq and now Iran. I'd have to agree. Hysteria and paranoia is the fallout of 9/11.

VAChief
08-02-2011, 12:57 PM
Paranoia on the part of those for invading Iraq and now Iran. I'd have to agree. Hysteria and paranoia is the fallout of 9/11.

Critically thought out skepticism is certainly not unhealthy while based in reality...once the line is crossed into unfounded assumptions (or just a refusal to admit it is even an assumption) you begin to lose credibility...the farther you take it the more you lose.

Radar Chief
08-02-2011, 12:59 PM
Paranoia on the part of those for invading Iraq and now Iran. I'd have to agree. Hysteria and paranoia is the fallout of 9/11.

Not a Primus fan, I take it?

BigChiefFan
08-02-2011, 02:34 PM
No, this is idiotic...those making the argument not to "believe" the grownups throw things like this out as some kind of smoking gun proof. This would be a great late night skit. Pure irony.

I wouldn't say it's idiotic. I'd say it's bizarre. I'm sorry, that you feel the need to call other names, when you disagree. Who's the grownup, again?

vailpass
08-02-2011, 03:35 PM
Not a Primus fan, I take it?

Primus sucks!

Radar Chief
08-02-2011, 03:45 PM
Primus sucks!

Blasphemer!
Less Claypool OWNS the bass! Upright or electric, doesn't mater.

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/SZDdrUi1HzI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Stewie
08-02-2011, 03:48 PM
I work with a vendor that has 10,000 architects and engineers. I guarantee 20% of them are stupid.

Brainiac
08-02-2011, 03:54 PM
Both presidents had 7 letters in their last name.
Both were over 6' feet tall.
Both men studied law.
Both seemed to have lazy eye muscles, which would sometimes cause one to deviate.
Both suffered from genetic diseases. It is suspected that Lincoln had Marfan's disease, and Kennedy suffered from Addison's disease.
Both served in the military. Lincoln was a scout captain in the Black Hawk War, and Kennedy served as a navy lieutenant in World War II.
Both were boat captains. Lincoln was a skipper for the Talisman, a Mississippi River boat, and Kennedy was skipper of the PT 109.
Both had no fear of their mortality and disdained bodyguards.
Both often stated how easy it would be to shoot the president. Lincoln supposedly said, "If somebody wants to take my life, there is nothing I can do to prevent it." Kennedy supposedly said "If somebody wants to shoot me from a window with a rifle, nobody can stop it." Note that both these quotes are each 16 words long!!!!

Proof positive that John Wilkes Booth really escaped and after living in seclusion for 100 years (aided by the miraculous superior medical care of the shadow Confederate Gov't) was the mysterious gunmen on the grassy knoll. COINCIDENCE? I think NOT!!!

This actually makes a lot more sense than the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

vailpass
08-02-2011, 04:13 PM
Blasphemer!
Less Claypool OWNS the bass! Upright or electric, doesn't mater.



Google "primus sucks".

Backwards Masking
08-02-2011, 04:34 PM
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200901/r328706_1478304.jpg

These guys work for the American peple first. They only think about the Fed, the UN and China until after making sure we're taken care of.

Jerm
08-02-2011, 04:48 PM
What about the Madrid skyscraper fire of 2005 in which the building burned at temperatures just as high as the two towers for OVER 24 hours and didn't collapse.

But it's ALLLLLLL just a coincidence...first time ever a steel structure collapsed from fires....first time ever they supposedly didn't the black boxes in the flights...first time ever the Air Force was defeated and did not or could not intercept flights.....it's beyond laughable.

We can debate the towers either way, people are going to believe what they want to...what about Building 7? I DARE someone to try and justify that bullshit.

How about Norman Mineta's testimony basically stating Cheney ordered a standown? Oh another COINCIDENCE I bet.

How about the fact that at least SEVEN of the hijackers were found to be alive and had nothing to do with the plot after 9/11 occurred? COINCIDENCE.

How about the fact that Flight 93 was the only flight to "fight back" thus giving us this ray of hope on a day of despair...we get "Let's Roll", a heroic story about how the passengers brought the flight down, a Hollywood movie. Why didn't any of the other three flights fight back, esp. Flight 77 and 175 that crashed AFTER 11 had already been flown into the North Tower? You don't think that they wouldn't have called home, got the news, and decided to do something ala what we saw supposedly with Flight 93? Ok. COINCIDENCE.

How about the fact that NORAD and the USAF were running full simulation training ops that day dealing with whadda ya know...hijacked flights being flown into buildings? What easier way to confuse those at NEAD, NORAD, and all the flight controllers at the various airports who didn't know whether they were real hijackings or part of the training op? Can you say fog of war? COINCIDENCE.

How about the fact that option contracts on United Airlines stock skyrocketed right before the attacks and a shitload of insider trading went on? Or how about the fact that on the morning of 9/11 San Francisco mayor Willie Brown received a phone call stating that he nor any other Americans should fly that day? COINCIDENCE.

How about the fact that once the attacks commenced, the Secret Service simply notified Bush of something and proceeds to sit and read the book The Pet Goat for a further seven minutes until taking any sort of action? America is under attack...war is commencing, why didn't the SS jerk him out of there the second Flight 11 hit the North Tower? COINCIDENCE.

"Hi mom...this is Mark Bingham." That's all I need to say on that. COINCIDENCE.

How about the fact that the BBC reported Building 7 had collapsed 20 minutes BEFORE it did? Ha. COINCIDENCE.

How about the fact that while all ground to air civilian traffic was grounded on 9/11 one flight made it out of the country from Florida...who was on the flight? Osama bin Laden's family. COINCIDENCE.

How about the fact that three months before 9/11 the protocol for shooting down a hijacked aircraft was changed, giving the final authority to the a higher figure like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, etc. and then after 9/11 it was changed back to the original order? COINCIDENCE.

I could go on and on and on and on....there's hundreds if not thousands of hilarious coincidences that took on 9/11.

orange
08-02-2011, 04:49 PM
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200901/r328706_1478304.jpg

George H.W. Bush - "Stand where?"

Jerm
08-02-2011, 04:56 PM
Just for the record...I DO believe 3 planes crashed into all three structures but you'll never convince me they were piloted by who we were told flew them.

And while most believe 9/11 was a pretext to get into Afghanistan and Iraq (I do think that was a big part of it) I think the main goal was to usher in the Patriot Act (also funny how that was right on board ready to go after 9/11) and the Homeland Security era which has basically stripped away a large chunk of the Bill of Rights.

vailpass
08-02-2011, 05:26 PM
Just for the record...I DO believe 3 planes crashed into all three structures but you'll never convince me they were piloted by who we were told flew them.

And while most believe 9/11 was a pretext to get into Afghanistan and Iraq (I do think that was a big part of it) I think the main goal was to usher in the Patriot Act (also funny how that was right on board ready to go after 9/11) and the Homeland Security era which has basically stripped away a large chunk of the Bill of Rights.

Pray tell, who was piloting the planes that struck the towers?

KC native
08-02-2011, 05:38 PM
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH

Radar Chief
08-02-2011, 05:39 PM
Google "primus sucks".

Ah, got'cha. My bad.
So you actually do like Wynona's big brown beaver.

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aYDfwUJzYQg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

vailpass
08-02-2011, 05:40 PM
Ah, got'cha. My bad.
So you actually do like Wynona's big brown beaver.



Hell yeah. My name is mud.

BucEyedPea
08-02-2011, 05:52 PM
What about the Madrid skyscraper fire of 2005 in which the building burned at temperatures just as high as the two towers for OVER 24 hours and didn't collapse.

That's because that building was not constructed like the WTC building. The core used reinforced concrete and under the 17th floor. Madrid had steel around the core that was not covered in concrete on the upper floors which did weaken and collapse in that fire. It also was not a tube design and any concrete used in WTC was lighter. WTC is a very lightweight design.

Also:

• The building had a concrete central core with two rows of reinforced concrete columns in the north-south direction

• An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor.

• The central concrete core appeared to perform well in the fire and on initial observations seems to have played a major role in ensuring the stability of the building throughout the incident.

http://www.debunking911.com/madrid.htm

VAChief
08-02-2011, 08:13 PM
I wouldn't say it's idiotic. I'd say it's bizarre. I'm sorry, that you feel the need to call other names, when you disagree. Who's the grownup, again?

Of course you wouldn't...you posted it... you can do something idiotic without being a total idiot. I'm sorry it is idiotic to post something like this and then complain that others are being duped by peer reviewed professionals.

Jerm
08-02-2011, 08:13 PM
Pray tell, who was piloting the planes that struck the towers?

Remote piloted....huge drones basically.

Couldnt take a chance on human pilots...esp. shitty ones like the hijackers.

Donger
08-02-2011, 08:24 PM
Remote piloted....huge drones basically.

Couldnt take a chance on human pilots...esp. shitty ones like the hijackers.

LMAO

BigChiefFan
08-02-2011, 08:27 PM
Of course you wouldn't...you posted it... you can do something idiotic without being a total idiot. I'm sorry it is idiotic to post something like this and then complain that others are being duped by peer reviewed professionals.I just found it interesting. If you disagree, fine. I could give two shits if you want to continue to bury your head in the sand and take what the government says as the gospel, by all means. Open wide.

Jerm
08-02-2011, 08:28 PM
LMAO

It's about as laughable as 3 Muslims who were all terrible pilots taking commercial airliners they had never flown before and hitting 75% of their targets.

I can't believe some of you actually think Hanjour could pull off what he did.

Donger
08-02-2011, 08:35 PM
It's about as laughable as 3 Muslims who were all terrible pilots taking commercial airliners they had never flown before and hitting 75% of their targets.

I can't believe some of you actually think Hanjour could pull off what he did.

Yes, crashing a plane is horribly difficult.

Jerm
08-02-2011, 08:41 PM
Yes, crashing a plane is horribly difficult.

LOL if you think all Hani Hanjour did was "crash a plane" than you're terribly misinformed...sadly the majority of people out there probably share that same simpleton view.

Also jumping behind the controls of a 757 and flying one on the fly let alone navigating in one and flying it into something at the speeds touted isn't exactly easy ya know...I'm sure most of you think it is but you're sorely mistaken.

Donger
08-02-2011, 09:04 PM
LOL if you think all Hani Hanjour did was "crash a plane" than you're terribly misinformed...sadly the majority of people out there probably share that same simpleton view.

Also jumping behind the controls of a 757 and flying one on the fly let alone navigating in one and flying it into something at the speeds touted isn't exactly easy ya know...I'm sure most of you think it is but you're sorely mistaken.

Meh, that's been covered in the main kook thread.

petegz28
08-02-2011, 09:08 PM
I think there is more to the story than what the Fed Gov tells us. That's always been the case. That will always be the case. I mean come the fuck on, this is a government that still swears Area 51 doesn't exist.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-02-2011, 11:40 PM
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SH6nSc4phTY/Tjdq6_wINsI/AAAAAAAAAxw/2Zr13zZSKJs/s320/MaimstreaMediaFreda.jpg

patteeu
08-02-2011, 11:58 PM
We need a kookiness rating system on this website. Each kook should be rated on a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is total non-kookiness and 10 is Durtyrute.

orange
08-03-2011, 12:00 AM
We need a kookiness rating system on this website. Each kook should be rated on a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is total non-kookiness and 10 is Durtyrute.

I have a landmark post coming up... maybe I'll do a poll. :hmmm:

KILLER_CLOWN
08-03-2011, 12:00 AM
We need a kookiness rating system on this website. Each kook should be rated on a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is total non-kookiness and 10 is Durtyrute.

Pie Charts work better, right?

patteeu
08-03-2011, 12:08 AM
Pie Charts work better, right?

You'd better pick up your game, KC. You're not achieving nearly the kookiness that some of these up-and-comers like Durtyrute, Jerm, and teedubya are showing.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-03-2011, 12:10 AM
You'd better pick up your game, KC. You're not achieving nearly the kookiness that some of these up-and-comers like Durtyrute, Jerm, and teedubya are showing.

What happens to the country I love isn't a game, although I would guess to some it is. Who is Jerm?

BigChiefFan
08-03-2011, 12:13 AM
Pie Charts work better, right?ROFL...That was awesome timing, man. Good stuff!

Jerm
08-03-2011, 12:31 AM
You'd better pick up your game, KC. You're not achieving nearly the kookiness that some of these up-and-comers like Durtyrute, Jerm, and teedubya are showing.

Hmmm so I'm a "kook" because I ask legit questions, do my own research, and come to my own conclusions instead of just believing what I'm told? LOL right on....I can bear that cross.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-03-2011, 12:38 AM
Hmmm so I'm a "kook" because I ask legit questions, do my own research, and come to my own conclusions instead of just believing what I'm told? LOL right on....I can bear that cross.

Nice to meet you, i have to admit i hadn't seen any of your posts especially not any kooky ones. Wear the badge of True American with honor and enjoy the baseless attacks.

patteeu
08-03-2011, 12:40 AM
Hmmm so I'm a "kook" because I ask legit questions, do my own research, and come to my own conclusions instead of just believing what I'm told? LOL right on....I can bear that cross.

No, you're a kook because of the conclusions you end up drawing after asking those questions and doing your own research.

Jerm
08-03-2011, 12:44 AM
No, you're a kook because of the conclusions you end up drawing after asking those questions and doing your own research.

Well that's your opinion and like I said, I just brush it off...doesnt mean shit to me. I'm used to people like you slandering and dismissing people like myself instead of talking about the subject and facts.

I get that not everyone has the guts to stand on their own and formulate opinions for themselves...it's much easier just to be another sheep in the herd going along with the status quo.

If you ever wanna actually discuss the topic at hand, I'm game...if not, oh well.

Jerm
08-03-2011, 12:46 AM
Nice to meet you, i have to admit i hadn't seen any of your posts especially not any kooky ones. Wear the badge of True American with honor and enjoy the baseless attacks.

It's all good...they don't bother me.

This is how it always goes, instead of debating the facts it turns into personal attacks and name calling.

I'm more than comfortable with my views and defending them.

Amnorix
08-03-2011, 05:49 AM
That's because that building was not constructed like the WTC building. The core used reinforced concrete and under the 17th floor. Madrid had steel around the core that was not covered in concrete on the upper floors which did weaken and collapse in that fire. It also was not a tube design and any concrete used in WTC was lighter. WTC is a very lightweight design.

Also:

• The building had a concrete central core with two rows of reinforced concrete columns in the north-south direction

• An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor.

• The central concrete core appeared to perform well in the fire and on initial observations seems to have played a major role in ensuring the stability of the building throughout the incident.

http://www.debunking911.com/madrid.htm


This might be the first time I was ever ready to make a post of some sort and stopped because "BEP covered it".

Yeah, gotta be a first...

durtyrute
08-03-2011, 06:49 AM
It's all good...they don't bother me.

This is how it always goes, instead of debating the facts it turns into personal attacks and name calling.

I'm more than comfortable with my views and defending them.

That's all they can do. Any "Facts" they come up with have been paid for by the gov, so there really isn't to much they can say, and everyone that sticks to the offcial story has insider info or was at the Pentagon and in New York at the same time so they know the absolute, 100%, no way it could be different, truth. You might not have noticed, but once one starts in with the name calling all of the others like to jackoff to it and then they jump in too. I have ask this question over and over, but no one can give a real answer.

"My opinion is different than yours that is true, but WHY DO YOU CARE?"

Let the insults continue. (Watch how many childish remarks follow this post)

LOCOChief
08-03-2011, 07:13 AM
I get that not everyone has the guts to stand on their own and formulate opinions for themselves...it's much easier just to be another sheep in the herd going along with the status quo.



Well said.

Donger
08-03-2011, 07:23 AM
Ah, how cute. A mutual kook stroking party.

LMAO

durtyrute
08-03-2011, 07:29 AM
Exhibit A

Donger
08-03-2011, 07:42 AM
Exhibit A

Well, you've got to admit that it really is kooky.

You people look at the events and come up with all this stuff, as if that is more likely to be true than simply a known terrorist organization executing a pretty straightforward attack plan.

For whatever reason, you just can't accept that these pricks boarded the planes that morning, hijacked them and fly them into stuff. You need more.

BigChiefFan
08-03-2011, 07:47 AM
Hmmm so I'm a "kook" because I ask legit questions, do my own research, and come to my own conclusions instead of just believing what I'm told? LOL right on....I can bear that cross.

When they start ridiculing, that usually means they don't have a counter to the argument, so they pull the childish card of name-calling. Keep standing up. You've made some good posts and points. Stand strong, bro.

Ace Gunner
08-03-2011, 07:47 AM
Well, you've got to admit that it really is kooky.

You people look at the events and come up with all this stuff, as if that is more likely to be true than simply a known terrorist organization executing a pretty straightforward attack plan.

For whatever reason, you just can't accept that these pricks boarded the planes that morning, hijacked them and fly them into stuff. You need more.


Normalcy bias

durtyrute
08-03-2011, 08:11 AM
Well, you've got to admit that it really is kooky.

You people look at the events and come up with all this stuff, as if that is more likely to be true than simply a known terrorist organization executing a pretty straightforward attack plan.

For whatever reason, you just can't accept that these pricks boarded the planes that morning, hijacked them and fly them into stuff. You need more.

No, I think it's kooky to take what the news and the gov tell you as gospel. I think it's kooky that an I.D of one of the "terrorists" was found in the rumble of the twin towers. I think it's kooky that Korans or however you spell it were "coincedentally found in and around the airports. I think it's kooky that the cameras just happen to catch the "terrorists" as if they were posing for a picture. I think it's kooky to believe that OBL pulled this off even though he was and has never been charged with it by the FBI. I think it's kooky that the video from around the pentagon was picked up almost immediately but the news showed the twin towers for almost a damn year. Then they say "we had to confiscate the video because it was evidence" but the other 1 million from the T.T's wasn't evidence? Then they release the video almost 5 years later and it magically didn't show shit. Why hold it for 5 years if it didn't show anything? I think it's kooky that we immediately went to war and are STILL there. I think it's kooky that when told of the news GW just sat there like a damn idiot with this blank look on his face. Is that what you did when you were told?

There are too many questions to just accept what has been told to us. I don't claim to know all the answers and for that reason I will never stop asking questions.

Donger
08-03-2011, 08:15 AM
I think it's kooky that the video from around the pentagon was picked up almost immediately but the news showed the twin towers for almost a damn year.

Didn't you and I go over this one already? IIRC, you even gave me thanks for clearing up your questions regarding this particular issue.

If that is correct, why do you now bring it up again?

durtyrute
08-03-2011, 08:36 AM
Didn't you and I go over this one already? IIRC, you even gave me thanks for clearing up your questions regarding this particular issue.

If that is correct, why do you now bring it up again?

I do remember talking with you about it, yes, but I don't remember it being cleared up. Either you or someone else said "I don't know ask the FBI" or something to that affect. I think you told me that the tapes had been released but other than that I'm not sure what you're talking about.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-03-2011, 08:39 AM
You people look at the events and come up with all this stuff, as if that is more likely to be true than simply a known terrorist organization executing a pretty straightforward attack plan.

For whatever reason, you just can't accept that these pricks boarded the planes that morning, hijacked them and fly them into stuff. You need more.

Generally when a group is trying to garner worldwide support for their cause they don't blindly attack the largest military force in the world with 19 cavemen so dedicated to their religion that they hang out in Strip bars drinking Alcohol.

Donger
08-03-2011, 08:42 AM
I do remember talking with you about it, yes, but I don't remember it being cleared up. Either you or someone else said "I don't know ask the FBI" or something to that affect. I think you told me that the tapes had been released but other than that I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Yeah, that's it. You were freaking out on why the tapes hadn't been released. I explained that they had been released and you then reviewed them. You then said something like, "They don't show shit!"

Donger
08-03-2011, 08:43 AM
Generally when a group is trying to garner worldwide support for their cause they don't blindly attack the largest military force in the world with 19 cavemen so dedicated to their religion that they hang out in Strip bars drinking Alcohol.

Why are you calling them cavemen?

Anyway, do you really think that logic was/is a principal concern of AQ?

durtyrute
08-03-2011, 08:49 AM
Yeah, that's it. You were freaking out on why the tapes hadn't been released. I explained that they had been released and you then reviewed them. You then said something like, "They don't show shit!"

Exactly, so why hold them for five years? Why rush in and get them in the first place? Why the secrecy? So, you believe that the tapes that were released, that didn't show anything, were the same tapes that they took five years earlier?

Oh yea I thanked you for the adult conversation. It's kinda rare around these parts.

patteeu
08-03-2011, 08:51 AM
Ah, how cute. A mutual kook stroking party.

LMAO

I'm entertained by their false sense of superiority.

Donger
08-03-2011, 08:52 AM
Exactly, so why hold them for five years? Why rush in and get them in the first place? Why the secrecy? So, you believe that the tapes that were released, that didn't show anything, were the same tapes that they took five years earlier?

Oh yea I thanked you for the adult conversation. It's kinda rare around these parts.

I would presume that the FBI treated them as evidence. They are kind of funny about stuff like that.

durtyrute
08-03-2011, 09:00 AM
I would presume that the FBI treated them as evidence. They are kind of funny about stuff like that.

That's what I been saying, if why were those tapes evidence and not the one million other brodcast on TV. If it was so hush hush they should have forbid any live clips to be shown, but they didn't. And yes they can do that.

Donger
08-03-2011, 09:01 AM
That's what I been saying, if why were those tapes evidence and not the one million other brodcast on TV. If it was so hush hush they should have forbid any live clips to be shown, but they didn't. And yes they can do that.

Errrr, because it was broadcast live, as you state. What do you want them to do? Turn back time?

durtyrute
08-03-2011, 09:05 AM
Errrr, because it was broadcast live, as you state. What do you want them to do? Turn back time?

Damn you're quick dong. They could have shut it off. What is so hard about that? They didn't think, "hey these newsbroadcast might be evidence". They didn't want people to see the video clip from the pentagon for whatever reason but the news was free to show the people everything they could. I didn't know the news had more power than the FBI

Iowanian
08-03-2011, 09:06 AM
Kook Research=reading blogs and watching youtube videos created by kookier kooks.

Donger
08-03-2011, 09:08 AM
Damn you're quick dong. They could have shut it off. What is so hard about that? They didn't think, "hey these newsbroadcast might be evidence". They didn't want people to see the video clip from the pentagon for whatever reason but the news was free to show the people everything they could. I didn't know the news had more power than the FBI

They could have shut it off? All those reporters taking live video on the ground? All the cameras transmitting the scenes from helicopters? Those?

BucEyedPea
08-03-2011, 09:13 AM
They could have shut it off? All those reporters taking live video on the ground? All the cameras transmitting the scenes from helicopters? Those?

Those aren't real questions are they? ;)

durtyrute
08-03-2011, 09:14 AM
Those aren't real questions are they? ;)


They can't be

Donger
08-03-2011, 09:15 AM
They can't be

Please explain how you expected the FBI to have "shut those down."

KILLER_CLOWN
08-03-2011, 09:18 AM
Why are you calling them cavemen?

Anyway, do you really think that logic was/is a principal concern of AQ?

Considering they were/are controlled by those who needed a false flag and the state our country is in because of it no. 19 cavemen have defeated the United States, we're broke and they won. I guess they are the official scapegoat for everything that has happened to this Once Great Nation.

BucEyedPea
08-03-2011, 09:19 AM
Why are you calling them cavemen?

Uh, because the msm said they operated in caves? :doh!:

durtyrute
08-03-2011, 09:22 AM
Please explain how you expected the FBI to have "shut those down."

The government can do whatever the hell it wants to dong, where have you been? If it is so important to keep the video from the pentagon why was it okay to let everyone watch the rest? All it would take is one call "hey shut it off, this is a federal investigation" I'm not saying they should have done that but you're saying that they rushed in and immediately snatch the Pentagon video because it was evidence and no one could see it before they did but at the same time saying that they rest of the tapes aren't evidence as well.

Donger
08-03-2011, 09:22 AM
Considering they were/are controlled by those who needed a false flag and the state our country is in because of it no. 19 cavemen have defeated the United States, we're broke and they won. I guess they are the official scapegoat for everything that has happened to this Once Great Nation.

I'm not sure what the first sentence means, but no, they haven't defeated us. They killed 3,000 of our countrymen on 9/11 and we have responded.

We're still here.

loochy
08-03-2011, 09:23 AM
Kook Research=reading blogs and watching youtube videos created by kookier kooks.

See, that's what gets me about all of their "research." It's never credible fact based material from peer reviewed sources...it's always from some blog or youtube video. They then criticize US for watching the news. :doh!:

Donger
08-03-2011, 09:24 AM
The government can do whatever the hell it wants to dong, where have you been? If it is so important to keep the video from the pentagon why was it okay to let everyone watch the rest? All it would take is one call "hey shut it off, this is a federal investigation" I'm not saying they should have done that but you're saying that they rushed in and immediately snatch the Pentagon video because it was evidence and no one could see it before they did but at the same time saying that they rest of the tapes aren't evidence as well.

Again, because the images were broadcast LIVE in NYC. They weren't security cameras. So, no, unless the government can turn back time, they couldn't and didn't "shut them down."

Do you really not understand the difference between a security camera RECORDING video and a live TV broadcast?

durtyrute
08-03-2011, 09:32 AM
Again, because the images were broadcast LIVE in NYC. They weren't security cameras. So, no, unless the government can turn back time, they couldn't and didn't "shut them down."

Do you really not understand the difference between a security camera RECORDING video and a live TV broadcast?

This debate is going on for too long. If they wanted to they could shut off every station there is at the drop of a dime. You can't really explain this one Dong, there is no NIST report to explain why the video wasn't released for 5 years or why that one was more important than the first attacks even though it didn't show a thing, or how an i.d. could withstand the raging fires they made a building imploded on itself, or how there were Korans scattered around the airports, or why people reported hearing bombs in the lobby of one of the towers.

Too many questions to just take what they say at face value.

Donger
08-03-2011, 09:35 AM
If they wanted to they could shut off every station there is at the drop of a dime.

How?

durtyrute
08-03-2011, 09:41 AM
Goodness dong, a simple phone call would do. They would still have the shit recorded but it wouldn't broadcast on the tv. A football game is live too but if there is some kind of glitch then it might not show. Again, the only reason I'm saying that is because you said they grabbed the pentagon tapes, and wouldn't let anyone see them for five years because they were evidence and I'm saying, it's all evidence.

loochy
08-03-2011, 09:42 AM
How?

Magic alien technology.

Donger
08-03-2011, 09:44 AM
Goodness dong, a simple phone call would do. They would still have the shit recorded but it wouldn't broadcast on the tv. A football game is live too but if there is some kind of glitch then it might not show. Again, the only reason I'm saying that is because you said they grabbed the pentagon tapes, and wouldn't let anyone see them for five years because they were evidence and I'm saying, it's all evidence.

Well, perhaps the FBI had better things to do that morning?

durtyrute
08-03-2011, 09:46 AM
Well, perhaps the FBI had better things to do that morning?

Man you're quick, your replies come at lightning speed...ROFL

Let's just move on from this one Dong. Your answers aren't really making any sense to me and mine aren't making any sense to you so let's just drop it...............for now. :evil:

LOCOChief
08-03-2011, 10:18 AM
I'm entertained by their false sense of superiority.



Our false sense of superiority? What a joke. I‘m pretty sure that comment is born from your own insecurities.
Who have been called kooks or nuts over and over again?

Several here have expressed their opinion on what might have taken place that day and have been attacked for it. It's not a problem for me or the others that are taking this position from what I can tell but to say we have a "false sense of superiority is arrogant in itself.
And I'm pretty sure you don't have a legitimate reason to be arrogant.

LOCOChief
08-03-2011, 10:23 AM
Ah, how cute. A mutual kook stroking party.

LMAO

I'd say a prime candidate for a circle jerk is one who starts a post with "sigh"

Can you get any more ghey than that? Answer- no.

patteeu
08-03-2011, 10:24 AM
Our false sense of superiority? What a joke. I‘m pretty sure that comment is born from your own insecurities.
Who have been called kooks or nuts over and over again?

Several here have expressed their opinion on what might have taken place that day and have been attacked for it. It's not a problem for me or the others that are taking this position from what I can tell but to say we have a "false sense of superiority is arrogant in itself.
And I'm pretty sure you don't have a legitimate reason to be arrogant.

You're the one that surprises me the most LOCO. I thought you were more level headed than this.

Donger
08-03-2011, 10:28 AM
I'd say a prime candidate for a circle jerk is one who starts a post with "sigh"

Can you get any more ghey than that? Answer- no.

Did you manage to watch the NIST report on WTC 7 yet?

LOCOChief
08-03-2011, 10:31 AM
You're the one that surprises me the most LOCO. I thought you were more level headed than this.

Yeah but I'm one of them and it doesn't come from a feeling of superiority.

Personally I don't like talking about what I think happended that day.

The few times I expressed this opinion to close family members I took alot of heat for it, and I'm sure the other kooks do as well.

I certainly don't have aproblem with people that don't see this like me but to say that anyone coming out and giving their opinion about such a tragic event isn't feeling too superior imo.

BucEyedPea
08-03-2011, 10:32 AM
Originally Posted by Donger View Post
Ah, how cute. A mutual kook stroking party.
LMAO

Be careful people say you can be judged by your associations and you have an attraction for these kinds of threads and posters yourself. You know what they say? You become what you resist.

LOCOChief
08-03-2011, 10:35 AM
Did you manage to watch the NIST report on WTC 7 yet?

No I didn't last night but will this evening. I'm pretty sure that I've seen it but will look again. I imagine you posted it in regards to my observation of the symmetry of the collapse of bldg 7?

patteeu
08-03-2011, 10:36 AM
Yeah but I'm one of them and it doesn't come from a feeling of superiority.

Personally I don't like talking about what I think happended that day.

The few times I expressed this opinion to close family members I took alot of heat for it, and I'm sure the other kooks do as well.

I certainly don't have aproblem with people that don't see this like me but to say that anyone coming out and giving their opinion about such a tragic event isn't feeling too superior imo.

Perhaps you weren't one of the main people I had in mind when I spoke of a false sense of superiority. Read a few of Jerm's posts and you might laugh your ass off about his intellectual bravado too.

Donger
08-03-2011, 10:36 AM
Be careful people say you can be judged by your associations and you have an attraction for these kinds of threads and posters yourself. You know what they say? You become what you resist.

I don't know who says that other than you, but I wouldn't hold your breath about that happening.

Donger
08-03-2011, 10:37 AM
No I didn't last night but will this evening. I'm pretty sure that I've seen it but will look again. I imagine you posted it in regards to my observation of the symmetry of the collapse of bldg 7?

Or lack thereof, yes. Keep an eye on the small structure (probably HVAC) on the roof that disappears first.

Ebolapox
08-03-2011, 10:37 AM
SAME FUCKING ONEBRAIN ASSHOLES WHO WON'T LISTEN TO THE TRUTH THAT WAS UTTERED IN THIS THREAD! YUO'RE THREATENED BY THE TROOTH, IT WILL SET YUO FREE! ONEBRAIN MORANS!

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=7553452#post7553452

Radar Chief
08-03-2011, 10:41 AM
Here’s the problem. If you kooks were as critical of the people feeding you these conspiracy theories as you are the government we more than likely wouldn’t be having this discussion.

durtyrute
08-03-2011, 10:42 AM
Here’s the problem. If you kooks were as critical of the people feeding you these conspiracy theories as you are the government we more than likely wouldn’t be having this discussion.

I knew you'd show up sometime RC. The real problem is you guys don't like it when people think differently than you do. It's as simple as that.

mlyonsd
08-03-2011, 10:47 AM
For me, something this big, it would be impossible for a conspiracy to not be exposed by now.

LOCOChief
08-03-2011, 10:47 AM
Here’s the problem. If you kooks were as critical of the people feeding you these conspiracy theories as you are the government we more than likely wouldn’t be having this discussion.

GOT PROBLEM FIGERED OUT :drool:

Radar Chief
08-03-2011, 10:48 AM
I knew you'd show up sometime RC. The real problem is you guys don't like it when people think differently than you do. It's as simple as that.

I wouldn’t call what you’re doing “thinking”, which is exactly my point. You’re only being critical of the information coming from the government. You, in particular, have shown no desire at all to be as critical of the information you're accepting. You often don’t even know why you’re being critical of the governments information other than it came from the government.

Radar Chief
08-03-2011, 10:49 AM
Crap, he's right.

:shrug:

LOCOChief
08-03-2011, 10:50 AM
For me, something this big, it would be impossible for a conspiracy to not be exposed by now.

My god, just look what happens to a couple of posters on a football message board for making such outlandish claims.

LOCOChief
08-03-2011, 10:52 AM
:shrug:

Yeah you're right. end thread.


Time to go fellow kooks.

Radar Chief
08-03-2011, 11:08 AM
Yeah you're right. end thread.


Time to go fellow kooks.

I've actually grown to appreciate you kooks. Without you guys asking questions I wouldn't have learned nearly as much as I have about this entire event.
So sit back and crack a cold one, kook. Just don't let the tinfoil hat fall of just in case, you know, you're not wrong. ;)

durtyrute
08-03-2011, 11:08 AM
For me, something this big, it would be impossible for a conspiracy to not be exposed by now.

People have been trying to expose this from day on but no one believes them.

Donger
08-03-2011, 11:10 AM
People have been trying to expose this from day on but no one believes them.

That's because the kooks haven't actually presented any convincing evidence.

BucEyedPea
08-03-2011, 11:12 AM
That's because the kooks haven't actually presented any convincing evidence.

And you LOVE those who you call "kooks!" You LOVE them more than any other posters.

BucEyedPea
08-03-2011, 11:13 AM
I don't know who says that other than you, but I wouldn't hold your breath about that happening.

It's happening before my very eyes. You LOVE "kooks"! They hold you hostage. Stockholm Syndrome.

Donger
08-03-2011, 11:14 AM
Can someone stop BEP from humping my leg? Please?

durtyrute
08-03-2011, 11:14 AM
I wouldn’t call what you’re doing “thinking”, which is exactly my point. You’re only being critical of the information coming from the government. You, in particular, have shown no desire at all to be as critical of the information you're accepting. You often don’t even know why you’re being critical of the governments information other than it came from the government.

I'm one of the only people on here that said it's possible that I may be wrong and the story could have went differently than I thought. I can say that because I wasn't there. You and the samebrain jackoff gang refuse to do that because you all had front row, back stage, vip access to the entire event.

So again, you can't question facts/truth, but this has so many unanswered questions that there has to be more to the story.

BucEyedPea
08-03-2011, 11:16 AM
Can someone stop BEP from humping my leg? Please?

I think those you call "kooks" should be asking you to stop humping theirs. :LOL:

durtyrute
08-03-2011, 11:18 AM
That's because the kooks haven't actually presented any convincing evidence.

You've seen videos of people saying they heard explosions in the towers, you don't believe them. You've seen articles where ex government officials say it was set up, you don't believe them.
Hell OBL was never even charged by the FBI yet you believe that he had something to do with it.

There is evidence you just refuse to see it.

Donger
08-03-2011, 11:19 AM
I'm one of the only people on here that said it's possible that I may be wrong and the story could have went differently than I thought. I can say that because I wasn't there. You and the samebrain jackoff gang refuse to do that because you all had front row, back stage, vip access to the entire event.

So again, you can't question facts/truth, but this has so many unanswered questions that there has to be more to the story.

The truth is out there.

LMAO

Donger
08-03-2011, 11:20 AM
You've seen videos of people saying they heard explosions in the towers, you don't believe them. You've seen articles where ex government officials say it was set up, you don't believe them.
Hell OBL was never even charged by the FBI yet you believe that he had something to do with it.

There is evidence you just refuse to see it.

Yes, thanks for the demonstration of the "convincing" part.