PDA

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


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

teedubya
07-30-2011, 11:10 PM
<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HXUGI4aVIAc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Of course, they don't know anything.

9/11 was the opening act to a nefarious drama... it made us collectively hate all Islamic extremists... it got us into 2 wars to vindicate these attacks.

These 2 wars have accounted for over 7 TRILLION in defense spending to govt. contractors and it has almost bankrupted America.

The ones responsible, created a problem... waited for a reaction... offered a solution... and now we are on the verge of our republic's engineered collapse, which would usher in martial law, and military patrolling our once sovereign streets... then most likely, come the FEMA camps.

But, it wasn't an inside job, of course. And these 1500+ architects and structural engineers must be kooks.

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/home.html

LMAO

banyon
07-31-2011, 07:07 AM
I think there's a thread about this somewhere...

Donger
07-31-2011, 08:21 AM
But, it wasn't an inside job, of course. And these 1500+ architects and structural engineers must be kooks.

Yes, that is correct.

Ace Gunner
07-31-2011, 08:23 AM
jesus called. he said don't worry about it and don't argue, because most of his followers can't face the truth.

LOCOChief
07-31-2011, 08:26 AM
They say it because it's the truth.

CoMoChief
07-31-2011, 08:29 AM
Lol at the fools who believe the 911 commission report

Donger
07-31-2011, 08:30 AM
They say it because it's the truth.

No, they say it because they are nuts. One can be an architect or engineer and still be a nut. They don't perform psych tests before being given a degree.

Also, how many of these "engineers" are mechanical/structural engineers? And, how many of these architects are experts at building collapses? Do you fellow kooks even care to know those rather important facts?

Brainiac
07-31-2011, 08:35 AM
Anyone who believes that the government had both the motive AND the ability to successfully pull off such a massive conspiracy is retarded.

LOCOChief
07-31-2011, 08:42 AM
No, they say it because they are nuts. One can be an architect or engineer and still be a nut. They don't perform psych tests before being given a degree.

Also, how many of these "engineers" are mechanical/structural engineers? And, how many of these architects are experts at building collapses? Do you fellow kooks even care to know those rather important facts?

You make a pretty strong case there donger. Yes the scientists and engineers must be kooks.

I know one of these kooks that studies such things. I don't know if I have the links attached correctly but...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkXeNawHFFo&feature=player_detailpage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qamecech9m4&feature=player_detailpage

Donger
07-31-2011, 08:44 AM
You make a pretty strong case there donger. Yes the scientists and engineers must be kooks.

I know one of these kooks that studies such things. I don't know if I have the links attached correctly but...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkXeNawHFFo&feature=player_detailpage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qamecech9m4&feature=player_detailpage

All you really have to do is read the NIST reports. They are engineers, too, BTW.

Donger
07-31-2011, 08:47 AM
I think there's a thread about this somewhere...

Indeed. I guess teedubya just wanted some special attention.

LOCOChief
07-31-2011, 08:47 AM
Anyone who believes that the government had both the motive AND the ability to successfully pull off such a massive conspiracy is retarded.

It wouldn't necessarily be the govt. And you're wrong it can be done and it was.

Before anyone goes off half cocked maybe take a look at the work that was being done at the WTC complex several months prior to 911,

I was where you are on this subject. It's hard to believe and it was very sobering realization for me.

Donger
07-31-2011, 08:48 AM
It wouldn't necessarily be the govt. And you're wrong it can be done and it was.

Before anyone goes off half cocked maybe take a look at the work that was being done at the WTC complex several months prior to 911,

I was where you are on this subject. It's hard to believe and it was very sobering realization for me.

Sigh. What work was that?

Deberg_1990
07-31-2011, 08:49 AM
Anyone who believes that the government had both the motive AND the ability to successfully pull off such a massive conspiracy is retarded.

exactly....people give the Federal Gov't far too much credit sometimes....they are too stupid to pull off such a complex stunt and keep it secret.

LOCOChief
07-31-2011, 08:49 AM
All you really have to do is read the NIST reports. They are engineers, too, BTW.

I have.

Have you?

Donger
07-31-2011, 08:50 AM
I have.

Have you?

Yes, I have.

LOCOChief
07-31-2011, 08:52 AM
Sigh. What work was that?

Sigh. do your own research or don't.

mlyonsd
07-31-2011, 08:53 AM
Good, a fresh, new topic. The debt ceiling debate was getting tedious.

Donger
07-31-2011, 08:53 AM
Sigh. do your own research or don't.

Are you hiding something?

LOCOChief
07-31-2011, 08:54 AM
Yes, I have.

Really? Did you read the report on bldng 7. Have you read any professional analysis of NIST report?

Donger
07-31-2011, 08:56 AM
Really? Did you read the report on bldng 7. Have you read any professional analysis of NIST report?

Yes, I read the report on WTC 7. In fact, I posted the link to it many times in the other, main kook thread.

I'm unaware of any professional analysis of the professional NIST analysis of WTC 7.

LOCOChief
07-31-2011, 08:56 AM
Are you hiding something?

No but you're trying to hide the fact that you really have no knowledge of the subject.

Donger
07-31-2011, 08:57 AM
No but you're trying to hide the fact that you really have no knowledge of the subject.

I'm unaware of this "work" that was being done on WTC prior to 9/11 that you mentioned that changed your mind, yes.

LOCOChief
07-31-2011, 09:00 AM
Yes, I read the report on WTC 7. In fact, I posted the link to it many times in the other, main kook thread.

I'm unaware of any professional analysis of the professional NIST analysis of WTC 7.

Well donger you're just not looking hard enough.

This kooks got better things to do today then this back and forth with you.

Have a good one.

LOCOChief
07-31-2011, 09:01 AM
I'm unaware of this "work" that was being done on WTC prior to 9/11 that you mentioned that changed your mind, yes.

That was not what 'changed my mind" but the info is out there if you look. Just look.

Donger
07-31-2011, 09:08 AM
That was not what 'changed my mind" but the info is out there if you look. Just look.

Huh? You just wrote this:

"Before anyone goes off half cocked maybe take a look at the work that was being done at the WTC complex several months prior to 911,

I was where you are on this subject. It's hard to believe and it was very sobering realization for me."

Donger
07-31-2011, 09:09 AM
Well donger you're just not looking hard enough.

This kooks got better things to do today then this back and forth with you.

Have a good one.

Weird. I would think that if there was a professional analysis refuting NIST's work, it would be all over the place.

Backwards Masking
07-31-2011, 10:23 AM
Anyone who believes that the government had both the motive AND the ability to successfully pull off such a massive conspiracy is retarded.

Anybody not retarded would say the govenment had the movivation of money to want to pull this off and the abillity of money to spend pulling it off.

Anyone invested in Defense or Halliburton made a fortune off this event, and if they kept their investments in these departments for the last ten years they are STILL making a fortune. We spend more money on "defense" than anything else, including paying off the national debt. Makes it hard not to wonder.

Backwards Masking
07-31-2011, 10:30 AM
Look at the way the buildings implode, naysayers. There's no way they fell in themselves like that haphazardly. That was staged Demolition with a capital D. The Pentagon is the most obvious. Anyone who thinks that sucker collapsed in that fashion from an airplane crashing into the lower side of it is in denial.

VAChief
07-31-2011, 10:31 AM
Really? Did you read the report on bldng 7. Have you read any professional analysis of NIST report?

Not everyone reads The Onion regularly.

BucEyedPea
07-31-2011, 11:13 AM
No, they say it because they are nuts. One can be an architect or engineer and still be a nut. They don't perform psych tests before being given a degree.

Also, how many of these "engineers" are mechanical/structural engineers? And, how many of these architects are experts at building collapses? Do you fellow kooks even care to know those rather important facts?

Do you have anything to refute about their case or is the ad hominem insults all you've got?

I don't buy this idea either because my brother is a structural engineer, whose firm also worked on the clean-up here, and does a lot of structural work in NY. I went over this whole issue piece by piece on the engineering. I've also already argued my side before on this. All you have is insanity baiting and the start of your million questions when you can't make your own case against this.

Donger
07-31-2011, 11:19 AM
Look at the way the buildings implode, naysayers. There's no way they fell in themselves like that haphazardly. That was staged Demolition with a capital D. The Pentagon is the most obvious. Anyone who thinks that sucker collapsed in that fashion from an airplane crashing into the lower side of it is in denial.

They didn't implode. And, yes, they did collapse into themselves at the point of aircraft impact. The floors sagged which led the perimeter columns to bow inward. This happened at each tower, precisely where the aircraft hit.

Go figure, eh?

Donger
07-31-2011, 11:21 AM
Do you have anything to refute about their case or is the ad hominem insults all you've got?

I don't buy this idea either because my brother is a structural engineer, whose firm also worked on the clean-up here, and does a lot of structural work in NY. and I went over this whole issue piece by piece on the engineering. I've also already argued my side before on this. All you have is insanity baiting and the start of your million questions when you can't make your own case against this.

Sure. The NIST reports.

So, this brother of yours thinks that 9/11 was an "inside job," or does he think that the planes, the damage they caused including the fires, led to the collpases?

BucEyedPea
07-31-2011, 11:24 AM
Sure. The NIST reports.

So, this brother of yours thinks that 9/11 was an "inside job," or does he think that the planes, the damage they caused including the fires, led to the collpases?

Apparently, you did not read what I posted with comprehension. :harumph: I said I didn't buy this idea ( inside job) and have routinely posted that I didn't.

Now pony up instead of a mere citing or reports.

KILLER_CLOWN
07-31-2011, 11:25 AM
They didn't implode. And, yes, they did collapse into themselves at the point of aircraft impact. The floors sagged which led the perimeter columns to bow inward. This happened at each tower, precisely where the aircraft hit.

Go figure, eh?

Yes the magical non existent airplane that hit building 7 sure did.

Donger
07-31-2011, 11:25 AM
Apparently, you did not read what I posted.:harumph: I said I didn't buy this idea and have routinely posted that I didn't.


Now pony up instead of a mere citing or reports.

No, I did. The NIST report is very clear about what caused the collapses. Using science, engineering, physics and stuff.

BucEyedPea
07-31-2011, 11:26 AM
No, I did. The NIST report is very clear about what caused the collapses. Using science, engineering, physics and stuff.
You still didn't read what I posted WITH COMPREHENSION since you are arguing with the choir about it.

I edited what you quoted to make it clearer.

KILLER_CLOWN
07-31-2011, 11:26 AM
No, I did. The NIST report is very clear about what caused the collapses. Using science, engineering, physics and stuff.

Which NIST report? the 1st, 2nd or 3rd version?

Donger
07-31-2011, 11:28 AM
Yes the magical non existent airplane that hit building 7 sure did.

WTC 7 collapsed because of damage caused by the fires (and the falling debris from WTC 1 and 2). NIST has a report on that, too. Want to review it?

I realize that some people are better with watching videos instead of reading reports, so:

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

BucEyedPea
07-31-2011, 11:29 AM
Have you gone back and re-read what I actually posted donger?

Donger
07-31-2011, 11:29 AM
Apparently, you did not read what I posted with comprehension. :harumph: I said I didn't buy this idea ( inside job) and have routinely posted that I didn't.

Now pony up instead of a mere citing or reports.

Oh, in that case we don't disagree. I don't need to pony up any more evidence than the NIST reports.

Donger
07-31-2011, 11:32 AM
Have you gone back and re-read what I actually posted donger?

Yes. I must have glossed over the part where you wrote that you agree with your brother.

BucEyedPea
07-31-2011, 11:33 AM
Oh, in that case we don't disagree.
Finally.

I don't need to pony up any more evidence than the NIST reports.

No, if you're going to engage this pov, which you are trying to do, you need to do so on specifics points of science, physics and engineering ( even if from NIST reports or otherwise) instead of being a arm-chair psychiatrist.

Donger
07-31-2011, 11:33 AM
Nuts, how do you explain this photo?

http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/collapse2.jpg

Donger
07-31-2011, 11:36 AM
No, if you're going to engage this pov, which you are trying to do, you need to do so on specifics points of science, physics and engineering ( even if from NIST reports or otherwise) instead of being a arm-chair psychiatrist.

You can read it the FAQs yourself here:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/faqs12007.cfm

BucEyedPea
07-31-2011, 11:37 AM
If the US govt was involved why would they do it this way anyway? They would be far more clever if they drugged and hypnotized the perpetrators to do it instead. Or use some CIA mind-control techniques. That would be the way to do it and hide their trail.

BucEyedPea
07-31-2011, 11:40 AM
You can read it the FAQs yourself here:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/faqs12007.cfm

Nope been there done that and reviewed each point with my brother so he could explain or refute. Don't think it was NIST, but I wouldn't use a govt source because I don't shill for it the way you do. However, it was some professional engineering report and if I recall correctly it was independent of the govt. I don't recall the name though. It's been a while. I just recall being satsified with the answers. One of them being that these buildings were unique in design with very light weight metal being one unique feature and the heat from the fire was enough to weaken the structures and how this unique design would collapse in the manner it did. I just can't remember it all.

notorious
07-31-2011, 11:44 AM
:facepalm:

Donger
07-31-2011, 11:44 AM
Finally.

Sorry, but I don't really read your posts carefully. Pretty much every fifth word or so.

Donger
07-31-2011, 11:47 AM
Nope been there done that and reviewed each point with my brother so he could explain or refute. Don't think it was NIST, but I wouldn't use a govt source because I don't shill for it the way you do. However, it was some professional engineering report and if I recall correctly it was independent of the govt. I don't recall the name though. It's been a while. I just recall being satsified with the answers. One of them being that these buildings were unique in design with very light weight metal being one unique feature and the heat from the fire was enough to weaken the structures and how this unique design would collapse in the manner it did. I just can't remember it all.

The NIST investigation used about 200 technical experts, and not even half are actually employed by NIST.

BucEyedPea
07-31-2011, 11:47 AM
Sorry, but I don't really read your posts carefully. Pretty much every fifth word or so.
This explains a LOT!


Including your million questions approach which is a way to avoid communicating.

Donger
07-31-2011, 11:48 AM
This explains a LOT!


Including your million questions approach which is a way to avoid communicating.

Meh. That applies pretty much to you exclusively.

BucEyedPea
07-31-2011, 11:48 AM
The NIST investigation used about 200 technical experts, and not even half are actually employed by NIST.

So. The govt is still using who they think is credible as does everyone else. I still prefer something independent.

BucEyedPea
07-31-2011, 11:49 AM
Meh. That applies pretty much to you exclusively.
That's why you ask others a million questions when you don't like what they are saying or agree to?

Donger
07-31-2011, 11:49 AM
That's why you ask others a million questions when you don't like what they are saying or agree to?

Asking questions is a wonderful way of getting answers.

BucEyedPea
07-31-2011, 11:53 AM
It wouldn't necessarily be the govt. And you're wrong it can be done and it was.

Before anyone goes off half cocked maybe take a look at the work that was being done at the WTC complex several months prior to 911,

I was where you are on this subject. It's hard to believe and it was very sobering realization for me.

What work was that? My initial reaction was that if they were doing something to the buildings it would be subject to questioning or suspicion. In other words too obvious and it would have to be sneakier. I'd be interested, though, in hearing more about this work.

I actually did read the inside job stuff as well as a structural engineering report along with seeking out my brother's expertise on the points. Believe me, I am not someone who gives a govt pass easily.

BucEyedPea
07-31-2011, 11:54 AM
Asking questions is a wonderful way of getting answers.

Not the way you do it. Your's are obviously more rhetorical. You're not fooling anyone donger.

orange
07-31-2011, 11:55 AM
jesus called. he said don't worry about it and don't argue, because most of his followers can't face the truth.

You may be on to something:

Richard Gage, a San Francisco Bay area based architect, founded Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth in 2006. Gage, who is a member of the American Institute of Architects, has worked as an architect for twenty years and was involved in the construction of numerous fireproof steel-frame buildings. He became convinced of the need to create an organization that brings together architects and engineers when he listened to an independent radio station interview theologian David Ray Griffin.

Donger
07-31-2011, 11:57 AM
Not the way you do it. Your's are obviously more rhetorical. You're not fooling anyone donger.

Sometimes, sure. If a person won't answer a question directly, I'll try to help them along.

Donger
07-31-2011, 11:57 AM
You may be on to something:

Richard Gage, a San Francisco Bay area based architect, founded Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth in 2006. Gage, who is a member of the American Institute of Architects, has worked as an architect for twenty years and was involved in the construction of numerous fireproof steel-frame buildings. He became convinced of the need to create an organization that brings together architects and engineers when he listened to an independent radio station interview theologian David Ray Griffin.

LMAO

tiptap
07-31-2011, 11:59 AM
BEP's comment about the unique structure construction of the twin towers is what was the discussion when they first went up. Additionally no one is in denial that jets did ram these buildings right? So don't you start with the obvious initial destructive event and see if there are processes that lead to critical failure. I think these two unique facts, the structural nature of the Twin Towers and the fact a loaded jet hit each building are together sufficient to explain the critical failures and the less than critical failure in contrast at the Pentagon with its totally heavy construction method.

FD
07-31-2011, 11:59 AM
The NIST investigation used about 200 technical experts, and not even half are actually employed by NIST.

Its a conspiracy, man!

Donger
07-31-2011, 12:01 PM
BEP's comment about the unique structure construction of the twin towers is what was the discussion when they first went up. Additionally no one is in denial that jets did ram these buildings right? So don't you start with the obvious initial destructive event and see if there are processes that lead to critical failure. I think these two unique facts, the structural nature of the Twin Towers and the fact a loaded jet hit each building are together sufficient to explain the critical failures and the less than critical failure in contrast at the Pentagon with its totally heavy construction method.

Are you new or something?

Backwards Masking
07-31-2011, 12:06 PM
I don't need to pony up any more evidence than the what I'm being told.

FYP

Donger
07-31-2011, 12:10 PM
FYP

Do you want to take a stab at what is happening in the picture I posted in 44?

KILLER_CLOWN
07-31-2011, 12:20 PM
Do you want to take a stab at what is happening in the picture I posted in 44?

PHOTOSHOP FTW! :thumb:

Radar Chief
07-31-2011, 12:26 PM
Nano-thermite? ROFL
Any "expert" using the term "nano-thermite" without first providing conclusive proof that such a compound exits instantly discredits themselves.

Backwards Masking
07-31-2011, 12:30 PM
Do you want to take a stab at what is happening in the picture I posted in 44?

A building is collapsing?

Donger
07-31-2011, 12:33 PM
A building is collapsing?

Yep. Please note that the top part of the building is not parallel with the ground. Do you acknowledge that to be a fact?

If so, why would that be?

teedubya
07-31-2011, 01:44 PM
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911security.html

This isn't relevant either.

Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. The company, Burns noted, was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Burns also served. [Utne]

According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."

The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday [September 11]. Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday [September 6], bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed. [NY Newsday]

But, none of this is relevant.

LMAO

Donger
07-31-2011, 03:07 PM
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911security.html

This isn't relevant either.

Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. The company, Burns noted, was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Burns also served. [Utne]

According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."

The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday [September 11]. Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday [September 6], bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed. [NY Newsday]

But, none of this is relevant.

LMAO

LMAO

Whatreallyhappened.com?

KCWolfman
07-31-2011, 03:09 PM
This government can't even agree on an amount to borrow and someone wants me to believe it contrived a scheme to kill thousands of people that would involve thousands of participants and not a single one has stepped forward?

KILLER_CLOWN
07-31-2011, 03:15 PM
This government can't even agree on an amount to borrow and someone wants me to believe it contrived a scheme to kill thousands of people that would involve thousands of participants and not a single one has stepped forward?

They seem to do a great job destroying the nation, not even sure you could do what they've done unintentionally. Many have stepped forward, check the 9/11 was an inside job thread.

BucEyedPea
07-31-2011, 04:11 PM
BEP's comment about the unique structure construction of the twin towers is what was the discussion when they first went up. Additionally no one is in denial that jets did ram these buildings right? So don't you start with the obvious initial destructive event and see if there are processes that lead to critical failure. I think these two unique facts, the structural nature of the Twin Towers and the fact a loaded jet hit each building are together sufficient to explain the critical failures and the less than critical failure in contrast at the Pentagon with its totally heavy construction method.

This is true. My brother told me that study the World Trade Center buildings is something most, if not all, structural engineers study because it is so unique with it's many structural innovations. It used much less steel when most buildings were concrete reinforced with steel.

KCWolfman
07-31-2011, 05:01 PM
They seem to do a great job destroying the nation, not even sure you could do what they've done unintentionally. Many have stepped forward, check the 9/11 was an inside job thread.

No insider has stepped forward. If someone contrived there would be a paper trail easy to initiate and expose. Surely a Woodward and Bernstein want to break it on ABC or NBC news.

stevieray
07-31-2011, 05:04 PM
No insider has stepped forward. If someone contrived there would be a paper trail easy to initiate and expose. Surely a Woodward and Bernstein want to break it on ABC or NBC news.
..it would take literally hundreds of people with no soul or regard for their fellow man to pull something like that off.

KCWolfman
07-31-2011, 05:09 PM
..it would take literally hundreds of people with no soul or regard for their fellow man to pull something like that off.

Amen, brother Steve. The Tuskegee experiment of injecting blacks with syphilis was exposed by those who felt remorse for their actions. The same with the pox laden blankets given to the Indians. Now multiply those acts by thousands and expect everyone to be quiet.

This act would take the coercion of thousands of people across hundreds of government and private industries and both party lines. It simply could not happen.

And for every extremist link showing supposed proof there are just as many debunking those "Facts". This is just the modern version of the "We didn't land on the moon" conspiracy.

Bump
07-31-2011, 05:17 PM
and oil tycoons (they had full control when Bush was in office) have seen record profits since 9/11!!! But that's obviously just a coincidence too.

Backwards Masking
07-31-2011, 05:21 PM
..it would take literally hundreds of people with no soul or regard for their fellow man to pull something like that off.

Far more grumesome events that've killed far more people have been pulled off throughout history by people with no souls or empathy.

The Dark Ages
The Inquisition
The Crusades
WWI
WWII

Obviously these aren't conspiracies in the traditional sense of the word but lots of the truths behind the forces that set these events in motions went unspoken. No one knows for certain what goes on behind closed doors, except those with the power to see through walls and retrace history i.e. the powers that be themselves.

KCWolfman
07-31-2011, 05:27 PM
and oil tycoons (they had full control when Bush was in office) have seen record profits since 9/11!!! But that's obviously just a coincidence too.

So anyone who has purchased stock in oil over the last 15 years is obviously a collaborator as well?

Buehler445
07-31-2011, 05:31 PM
Anyone who believes that the government had both the motive AND the ability to successfully pull off such a massive conspiracy is retarded.

No shit. Jackasses twittering pictures of their Wang are good enough to execute a massive conspiracy. L-O-motherfucking-L

stevieray
07-31-2011, 05:34 PM
i.e. the powers that be themselves.

and in this country, that is the people and natural law.

...like KCW said, I don't think most could live with the guilt and remorse..

VAChief
07-31-2011, 05:50 PM
and oil tycoons (they had full control when Bush was in office) have seen record profits since 9/11!!! But that's obviously just a coincidence too.

Not a coincidence, but not a factual link to the attack. Are there some greedy, heartless douche bags running some of those companies? Sure. Are there infinitely less complicated ways for them to drive up profits other than killing innocent people? Of course.

VAChief
07-31-2011, 05:55 PM
I would add that a whole pile of money has been made with the whole "9/11 was an inside job" scam as well. Coincidence? :hmmm:

BigMeatballDave
07-31-2011, 06:05 PM
Did they see rings around the towers before they went down?

KCWolfman
07-31-2011, 06:47 PM
Did you see the flag waving on top of the grassy knoll at the top of the World Trade Center? It obviously cannot wave as there is no oxygen that high up. I would also contend it took at least 4 different airplanes instead of just the two that were shown. I believe it to be the Mafia CIA Catholic Republican group MaCCaR. They have had control of the world since the Templars first formed the group in 14 tickety 2. Now the ten of them vote on world events and which way the economy goes.

teedubya
07-31-2011, 07:17 PM
LMAO

Whatreallyhappened.com?

It states the same on his Wikipedia page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_P._Bush

He was in charge of WTC security... the brother of the president, until the buildings collapsed. That's a cool coininky dink.

While his brother stared off into space after finding out about 9-11.

http://whatisthepyramid.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/bush.my.pet.goat-300x168.jpg

go bowe
07-31-2011, 08:58 PM
So anyone who has purchased stock in oil over the last 15 years is obviously a collaborator as well?

well shave their heads and spit on them...

we don't need no damn collaborators around here... :shake: :shake: :shake:

go bowe
07-31-2011, 09:07 PM
<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HXUGI4aVIAc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Of course, they don't know anything.

9/11 was the opening act to a nefarious drama... it made us collectively hate all Islamic extremists... it got us into 2 wars to vindicate these attacks.

These 2 wars have accounted for over 7 TRILLION in defense spending to govt. contractors and it has almost bankrupted America.

The ones responsible, created a problem... waited for a reaction... offered a solution... and now we are on the verge of our republic's engineered collapse, which would usher in martial law, and military patrolling our once sovereign streets... then most likely, come the FEMA camps.

But, it wasn't an inside job, of course. And these 1500+ architects and structural engineers must be kooks.

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/home.html

LMAO
good point, they must be kooks...

out of the millions of architects, scientists and engineers in america, 1500 kooks is not an unreasonable number to expect...

where are the peer reviewed journals and established scientific institutions to support your kookery?

random web sits and a tiny percentage of a, s, and e who are kooks does not a case make...

fanciful theories totally illogical conclusions and basic false "science" championed by conspiracy kooks do not refute the laws of physics and empirical data...

sorry, kookery at its finest is still kookery...

Dave Lane
07-31-2011, 09:07 PM
Sorry, but I don't really read your posts carefully. Pretty much every fifth word or so.

You are a kinder gentler man than I.

go bowe
07-31-2011, 09:10 PM
You are a kinder gentler man than I.

LMAO LMAO LMAO

KCWolfman
07-31-2011, 09:12 PM
well shave their heads and spit on them...

we don't need no damn collaborators around here... :shake: :shake: :shake:
Well, I am half way there. I have purchased stock and my head is shaved. I would rather no one spit on me though.

KCWolfman
07-31-2011, 09:15 PM
good point, they must be kooks...

out of the millions of architects, scientists and engineers in america, 1500 kooks is not an unreasonable number to expect...

where are the peer reviewed journals and established scientific institutions to support your kookery?

random web sits and a tiny percentage of a, s, and e who are kooks does not a case make...

fanciful theories totally illogical conclusions and basic false "science" championed by conspiracy kooks do not refute the laws of physics and empirical data...

sorry, kookery at its finest is still kookery...

Did you know if you spell Lincoln's name backward on a Ouija board while Revolution #9 is being played on a 33/3 vinyl at 78 rpm's that the name of Kennedy's assassin is revealed in macaroni letters that smell like the color blue if your acid intake is high enough before you begin.

JD10367
07-31-2011, 09:22 PM
I know I've led a long life full of disillusion and disappointment, having experienced the general stupidity of humanity on a daily basis. But it's refreshing to know that, sometimes, I can still be suprised by the absolute fucking idiocy that exists.

Yes, it was an inside job. Some genius thought up an elaborate plan to hijack some commercial airliners, fly them into the Twin Towers, and then--amidst all the panic and craziness--manage to "implode" them.

All you tinfoil-hatters out there need to be beaten with a stick full of nails covered in dogshit.

go bowe
07-31-2011, 09:26 PM
Well, I am half way there. I have purchased stock and my head is shaved. I would rather no one spit on me though.

dayum, you made me laugh so hard i think i woke up my granddaughter...

wife is all like wtf is wrong with you? LMAO LMAO LMAO

go bowe
07-31-2011, 09:28 PM
Did you know if you spell Lincoln's name backward on a Ouija board while Revolution #9 is being played on a 33/3 vinyl at 78 rpm's that the name of Kennedy's assassin is revealed in macaroni letters that smell like the color blue if your acid intake is high enough before you begin.

mine were like the color bright pulsating purple, but i probably didn't take enough acid... :huh: :huh: :huh:

Amnorix
07-31-2011, 09:31 PM
So glad we have a new thread on this. Critically important...

go bowe
07-31-2011, 09:54 PM
So glad we have a new thread on this. Critically important...

this...

KILLER_CLOWN
07-31-2011, 10:50 PM
this...

THIS! X LIKE 1 BILLION DUDE!

go bowe
07-31-2011, 11:35 PM
THIS! X LIKE 1 BILLION DUDE!

pfffffffffffft!

i can't count that high...

CoMoChief
08-01-2011, 01:05 AM
Anyone who believes that the government had both the motive AND the ability to successfully pull off such a massive conspiracy is retarded.

They've done it many times before so I doubt this argument holds much ground....if any at all.

durtyrute
08-01-2011, 06:40 AM
http://360digest.com/wp-content/uploads/pennies.jpg

I have officially added my two cents

Donger
08-01-2011, 06:46 AM
It states the same on his Wikipedia page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_P._Bush

He was in charge of WTC security... the brother of the president, until the buildings collapsed. That's a cool coininky dink.

While his brother stared off into space after finding out about 9-11.

http://whatisthepyramid.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/bush.my.pet.goat-300x168.jpg

That isn't what it says. It says "Bush was on the board of directors of Securacom from 1993-2000, which maintained security for the World Trade Center Towers up until September 11, 2001."

You might also note that that claim isn't sourced.

Brainiac
08-01-2011, 07:28 AM
Far more grumesome events that've killed far more people have been pulled off throughout history by people with no souls or empathy.

The Dark Ages
The Inquisition
The Crusades
WWI
WWII

Obviously these aren't conspiracies in the traditional sense of the word but lots of the truths behind the forces that set these events in motions went unspoken. No one knows for certain what goes on behind closed doors, except those with the power to see through walls and retrace history i.e. the powers that be themselves.
Uh, there is one tiny little difference between those things and 9/11. In order for the 9/11 truthers to be correct, the vast government conspiracy would have to be the best kept secret in the history of civilization, with absolutely ZERO insiders coming forward to blow the whistle on the whole thing even after ten years have passed.

All you really have with 9/11 conspiracy theories is a bunch of idiots with too much time on their hands and a bunch of made-up theories. They'll literally spend years arguing about "nano-thermite" and how much heat it takes to melt steel, but they completely ignore human psychology and the impossibility of keeping a secret like this.

The last time I checked, World War I and World War II weren't secrets. Neither were the Dark Ages, the Inquisition, or the Crusades. You don't have a bunch of web sites out there saying "Hey, nobody knows this, but the GERMANS were behind World War I and War II, surprise!".

BucEyedPea
08-01-2011, 07:36 AM
Uh, there is one tiny little difference between those things and 9/11. In order for the 9/11 truthers to be correct, the vast government conspiracy would have to be the best kept secret in the history of civilization, with absolutely ZERO insiders coming forward to blow the whistle on the whole thing even after ten years have passed.

All you really have with 9/11 conspiracy theories is a bunch of idiots with too much time on their hands and a bunch of made-up theories. They'll literally spend years arguing about "nano-thermite" and how much heat it takes to melt steel, but they completely ignore human psychology and the impossibility of keeping a secret like this.

The last time I checked, World War I and World War II weren't secrets. Neither were the Dark Ages, the Inquisition, or the Crusades. You don't have a bunch of web sites out there saying "Hey, nobody knows this, but the GERMANS were behind World War I and War II, surprise!".

All wars have some secrets, and they eventually make it into the history books of those who are not court historians. I just watched a documentary of something not in history books which was a massacre of Jews by Crusading Christians on they way to the Holy Land in Germany. Sad but true.

Where I would disagree with you on this Truther claim is that if it were a conspiracy it would NOT have to be "vast". Govt is a group but conspiracies wouldn't involve everyone. It could be a cabal much like the one that tried to take out General Washington during the Revolution. I just think doing the kind of work needed on those buildings would go beyond the work of a cabal and be too obvious.

Donger
08-01-2011, 07:41 AM
All wars have some secrets, and they eventually make it into the history books of those who are not court historians. I just watched a documentary of something not in history books which was a massacre of Jews by Crusading Christians on they way to the Holy Land in Germany. Sad but true.

Where I would disagree with you on this Truther claim is that if it were a conspiracy it would NOT have to be "vast". Govt is a group but conspiracies wouldn't involve everyone. It could be a cabal much like the one that tried to take out General Washington during the Revolution. I just think doing the kind of work needed on those buildings would go beyond a the work of a cabal and be too obvious.

The buildings didn't need any additional "work" beyond what the aircraft and fires did to them.

Both buildings began to collapse in precisely the area where the planes hit.

cdcox
08-01-2011, 07:44 AM
To put the list in a little perspective:

If you want to know whether the WTC looked better before the attack or after the attack, ask an architect. He or she can tell you that. Architects receive very little training in determining whether a building will stand up or fall down. An artist can paint a beautiful sky, but they probably won't be able to tell you why the sky is blue. For that, you'd ask a physicist. So scratch 95% of the architects off the list.

On the list of engineers, scratch off anyone who isn't professionally licensed. Scratch off all of the engineers except for the materials engineers and civil engineers. Asking an electrical or mechanical engineer why the building fell down is about as relevant as asking an architect. Of the civil engineers only those who are specialists in structural engineering probably have sufficient training in the areas of concern to have a expert level opinion. That leaves maybe half of the licensed civil engineers. Someone who holds a BS degree only has probably had 3 or 4 classes in structural engineering. The list should be limited to those that have an MS or PhD, where they will have 10 or more relevant classes.

So you are down to maybe 100 qualified individuals who by training and experience have qualifications to evaluate the facts. The membership of the American Society of Civil Engineers is around 76,000. This number includes people with only BS degrees, those that practice in areas other than structural engineering, but only captures maybe 30 to 40% of the people practicing civil engineering. But using the ASCE membership to set some bounds on my estimate, I think there are at least 5,000 people in the US that are qualified to comment on the facts (licensed engineers holding an MS degree and practicing in the area of structural engineering or experts in materials/metallurgical engineering) and the fact that only (roughly) 100 of them have come forward to sign this petition shows that these folks are indeed in the kook camp.

Radar Chief
08-01-2011, 07:52 AM
To put the list in a little perspective:

If you want to know whether the WTC looked better before the attack or after the attack, ask an architect. He or she can tell you that. Architects receive very little training in determining whether a building will stand up or fall down. An artist can paint a beautiful sky, but they probably won't be able to tell you why the sky is blue. For that, you'd ask a physicist. So scratch 95% of the architects off the list.

On the list of engineers, scratch off anyone who isn't professionally licensed. Scratch off all of the engineers except for the materials engineers and civil engineers. Asking an electrical or mechanical engineer why the building fell down is about as relevant as asking an architect. Of the civil engineers only those who are specialists in structural engineering probably have sufficient training in the areas of concern to have a expert level opinion. That leaves maybe half of the licensed civil engineers. Someone who holds a BS degree only has probably had 3 or 4 classes in structural engineering. The list should be limited to those that have an MS or PhD, where they will have 10 or more relevant classes.

So you are down to maybe 100 qualified individuals who by training and experience have qualifications to evaluate the facts. The membership of the American Society of Civil Engineers is around 76,000. This number includes people with only BS degrees, those that practice in areas other than structural engineering, but only captures maybe 30 to 40% of the people practicing civil engineering. But using the ASCE membership to set some bounds on my estimate, I think there are at least 5,000 people in the US that are qualified to comment on the facts (licensed engineers holding an MS degree and practicing in the area of structural engineering or experts in materials/metallurgical engineering) and the fact that only (roughly) 100 of them have come forward to sign this petition shows that these folks are indeed in the kook camp.

:thumb: On the original “9/11 was an inside job” topic someone was holding up the opinion of a BSEE as being an expert. I guess having the title Engineer next to your name is good enough when you’re saying what the kooks want to hear.

Donger
08-01-2011, 07:58 AM
I just realized that I mentioned mechanical engineers earlier, not civil engineers. My bad. That's not the first time I've done that.

Mechanical engineers build weapons. Civil engineers build targets.

loochy
08-01-2011, 08:11 AM
:thumb: On the original “9/11 was an inside job” topic someone was holding up the opinion of a BSEE as being an expert. I guess having the title Engineer next to your name is good enough when you’re saying what the kooks want to hear.

In that case...

...as a BSCS and MBA I declare that a computer program/virus has been planted by the NWO to control stock trading on a daily basis. The Reptilian heads send out a telepathic message to the Greys that reside in underground tunnels. The Greys then send electrical impulses through the earth (via their control of HAARP) and the magical program/virus does their bidding.

patteeu
08-01-2011, 08:13 AM
Anybody not retarded would say the govenment had the movivation of money to want to pull this off and the abillity of money to spend pulling it off.

Anyone invested in Defense or Halliburton made a fortune off this event, and if they kept their investments in these departments for the last ten years they are STILL making a fortune. We spend more money on "defense" than anything else, including paying off the national debt. Makes it hard not to wonder.

We spend way more money on non-defense than we do on defense.

durtyrute
08-01-2011, 08:17 AM
Uh, there is one tiny little difference between those things and 9/11. In order for the 9/11 truthers to be correct, the vast government conspiracy would have to be the best kept secret in the history of civilization, with absolutely ZERO insiders coming forward to blow the whistle on the whole thing even after ten years have passed.
All you really have with 9/11 conspiracy theories is a bunch of idiots with too much time on their hands and a bunch of made-up theories. They'll literally spend years arguing about "nano-thermite" and how much heat it takes to melt steel, but they completely ignore human psychology and the impossibility of keeping a secret like this.

The last time I checked, World War I and World War II weren't secrets. Neither were the Dark Ages, the Inquisition, or the Crusades. You don't have a bunch of web sites out there saying "Hey, nobody knows this, but the GERMANS were behind World War I and War II, surprise!".

The only problem with the bolded part is that people are and have been coming forward, it's just not who people want to come forward. It will take GW himself to admit it for people to believe and that will never happen sooooo.......

loochy
08-01-2011, 08:19 AM
The only problem with the bolded part is that people are and have been coming forward, it's just not who people want to come forward. It will take GW himself to admit it for people to believe and that will never happen sooooo.......

sooooo........then why do you persist?

LOCOChief
08-01-2011, 08:27 AM
They didn't implode. And, yes, they did collapse into themselves at the point of aircraft impact. The floors sagged which led the perimeter columns to bow inward. This happened at each tower, precisely where the aircraft hit.

Go figure, eh?

Yeah even bldng 7 collapsed "at the point of impact where the aircraft hit"

or, I mean

Maybe something different happened to bldng 7, but the "collapse appeared to be the same as the towers. Unimpeded???? Yeah right.

Take a step back an look at your reasoning here.

Donger
08-01-2011, 08:30 AM
Yeah even bldng 7 collapsed "at the point of impact where the aircraft hit"

or, I mean

Maybe something different happened to bldng 7, but the "collapse appeared to be the same as the towers. Unimpeded???? Yeah right.

Take a step back an look at your reasoning here.

Yes, something different did happen at WTC 7. It was not struck by an aircraft. It was a severely damaged by falling debris from the 1 and 2 which resulted in a massive fires, which caused the collapse.

Saulbadguy
08-01-2011, 08:34 AM
I'm not sure who I feel more sorry for, the children of 9/11 victims or the children of Truthers.

evenfall
08-01-2011, 08:35 AM
I am reminded of the conspiracy around the watergate break-in which only involved perhaps two dozen people. The cover-up succeeded for only three weeks.

LOCOChief
08-01-2011, 08:38 AM
It didn't have to be by the hand of the govt. There is a private entity that had the kind of capability it would take to pull this off and the motivation as well. The settlement is well documented.

I'm sure that most know that WTC ownership wanted to demolish those buildings several years prior to 911 and was denied by NYC due to the environmental hazards resulting from the asbestus used in the construction of the building.

Amnorix
08-01-2011, 08:42 AM
It didn't have to be by the hand of the govt. There is a private entity that had the kind of capability it would take to pull this off and the motivation as well. The settlement is well documented.

I'm sure that most know that WTC ownership wanted to demolish those buildings several years prior to 911 and was denied by NYC due to the environmental hazards resulting from the asbestus used in the construction of the building.

Seriously? You're arguing that 9/11 happened because the owners wanted to demolish it but weren't allowed to?

Seriously?

Donger
08-01-2011, 08:44 AM
It didn't have to be by the hand of the govt. There is a private entity that had the kind of capability it would take to pull this off and the motivation as well. The settlement is well documented.

I'm sure that most know that WTC ownership wanted to demolish those buildings several years prior to 911 and was denied by NYC due to the environmental hazards resulting from the asbestus used in the construction of the building.

Link to any of that?

And, think about what you are suggesting. These owners called up AQ and asked if they wouldn't mind flying aircraft into their buildings. You really think it is possible?

Graystoke
08-01-2011, 08:44 AM
The Truthers need to beat with a stick...that is all.

durtyrute
08-01-2011, 08:48 AM
sooooo........then why do you persist?

I like to ask questions, why? Because asking questions makes me happy, why? Because being happy is my favorite.

LOCOChief
08-01-2011, 08:51 AM
Yes, something different did happen at WTC 7. It was not struck by an aircraft. It was a severely damaged by falling debris from the 1 and 2 which resulted in a massive fires, which caused the collapse.

Did this falling debris happen to damage just the right part of the structure to cause the building to collapse into its own footprint perfectly?

Massive fires? You'll have to show me on this.

My god, just watch the building "collapse" and tell me that you really believe this. That is crazy.

By the way the "work" on the buildings leading up to 911 was supposedly to the buildings internet infrastructure" and was subbed out to a private unknown contractor. Floor by floor was quarantined off and companies where relocated.

LOCOChief
08-01-2011, 08:52 AM
The buildings didn't need any additional "work" beyond what the aircraft and fires did to them.

Both buildings began to collapse in precisely the area where the planes hit.

Both buildings?

You're stuck, and I understand why. This is a tuffy.

Donger
08-01-2011, 08:53 AM
Did this falling debris happen to damage just the right part of the structure to cause the building to collapse into its own footprint perfectly?

Massive fires? You'll have to show me on this.

My god, just watch the building "collapse" and tell me that you really believe this. That is crazy.

By the way the "work" on the buildings leading up to 911 was supposedly to the buildings internet infrastructure" and was subbed out to a private unknown contractor. Floor by floor was quarantined off and companies where relocated.

You can read all about it here: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/techbeat/tbx2008_1120_wtc7.htm

Donger
08-01-2011, 08:55 AM
Both buildings?

You're stuck, and I understand why. This is a tuffy.

No, I'm not stuck. WTC 1 and 2 experienced aircraft impacts. WTC 7 did not.

You were unaware of those facts?

Brock
08-01-2011, 09:04 AM
I'm sure that most know that WTC ownership wanted to demolish those buildings several years prior to 911 and was denied by NYC due to the environmental hazards resulting from the asbestus used in the construction of the building.

LMAO

BucEyedPea
08-01-2011, 09:04 AM
The buildings didn't need any additional "work" beyond what the aircraft and fires did to them.

Both buildings began to collapse in precisely the area where the planes hit.

Your post to my quote has nothing to do with what I posted here or to what I said earlier. Once again, I said the same thing you are saying here earlier that these were capable of falling the way they did based on the 9/11 incident and the unique characteristics of the WTC building design itself.

So why do you keep addressing me as if I think this was an inside job when I clearly have said otherwise? Or is it you that has a hidden agenda? Don't give me that cop-out that you don't really read my posts after you said we agreed this was not an inside job.

Donger
08-01-2011, 09:08 AM
Your post to my quote has nothing to do with what I posted here or to what I said earlier. Once again, I said the same thing you are saying here earlier that these were capable of falling the way they did based on the 9/11 incident and the unique characteristics of the WTC building design itself.

So why do you keep addressing me as if I think this was an inside job when I clearly have said otherwise? Or is it you that has a hidden agenda? Don't give me that cop-out that you don't really read my posts after you said we agreed this was not an inside job.

Yeah, I didn't read every word you wrote in that one, either.

Fish
08-01-2011, 09:11 AM
Yeah, I didn't read every word you wrote in that one, either.

LMAO

BucEyedPea
08-01-2011, 09:12 AM
Yeah, I didn't read every word you wrote in that one, either.

Plus you seem to have dementia since you forgot what even YOU said, as well as what I said yesterday. Despite, your excuse being a cop-out.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-01-2011, 09:27 AM
The 9/11 Liars need to beat with a stick...that is all.

FYP.

LOCOChief
08-01-2011, 09:34 AM
No, I'm not stuck. WTC 1 and 2 experienced aircraft impacts. WTC 7 did not.

You were unaware of those facts?

Oh I'm very aware, in fact I pointed out the flaw your assetion that the impact of the aircraft that caused the "collapse" to 1 and 2 didn't happen to 7.


Bldng 7 wasn't impacted by an aircraft yet fell at a "free fall rate" with nothing impeding its "collapse"

Try to keep one think in mind especially with bldn7:

For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.

do you really think that this is the first time a plane hit a building? There is plenty of footage of both collapses and demolition. Find one, just one "collapse" that looks similar to the way bldng 7 came down.

You won't find it because shit doesn't work that way.

BucEyedPea
08-01-2011, 09:38 AM
I know I've led a long life full of disillusion and disappointment, having experienced the general stupidity of humanity on a daily basis. But it's refreshing to know that, sometimes, I can still be suprised by the absolute ****ing idiocy that exists.

Yes, it was an inside job. Some genius thought up an elaborate plan to hijack some commercial airliners, fly them into the Twin Towers, and then--amidst all the panic and craziness--manage to "implode" them.

All you tinfoil-hatters out there need to be beaten with a stick full of nails covered in dogshit.

Seriously, the hate and anger over an opinion might just kill you.

LOCOChief
08-01-2011, 09:39 AM
The Open Chemical Physics Journal

ISSN: 1874-4125




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[DOI: 10.2174/1874412500902010007]
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen Pp 7-31

We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

Donger
08-01-2011, 09:42 AM
Oh I'm very aware, in fact I pointed out the flaw your assetion that the impact of the aircraft that caused the "collapse" to 1 and 2 didn't happen to 7.

What flaw? Aircraft impacts, with the resulting damage to the structures and fires brought down WTC 1 & 2. Debris impact from WTC 1 resulted in structure damage and massive fires which led to the collapse of WTC 7.


Bldng 7 wasn't impacted by an aircraft yet fell at a "free fall rate" with nothing impeding its "collapse"

Try to keep one think in mind especially with bldn7:

For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.

do you really think that this is the first time a plane hit a building? There is plenty of footage of both collapses and demolition. Find one, just one "collapse" that looks similar to the way bldng 7 came down.

You won't find it because shit doesn't work that way.

All the buildings that collapsed that day experienced structural damage (WTC 1 & 2 directly from the aircraft and WTC 7 from debris from WTC 1 collapsing) and each suffered massive fires. All collapsed in a very similar fashion.

LOCOChief
08-01-2011, 09:44 AM
What flaw? Aircraft impacts, with the resulting damage to the structures and fires brought down WTC 1 & 2. Debris impact from WTC 1 resulted in structure damage and massive fires which led to the collapse of WTC 7.




All the buildings that collapsed that day experienced structural damage (WTC 1 & 2 directly from the aircraft and WTC 7 from debris from WTC 1 collapsing) and each suffered massive fires. All collapsed in a very similar fashion.

Molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed [from WTCs 1 & 2]," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon. [American Free Press]
Molten steel is a by-product of a thermite reaction.

A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said. [New York Times]

Burning diesel can't produce enough heat to melt steel, so it certainly can't evaporate it, but thermite can.

LOCOChief
08-01-2011, 09:47 AM
What flaw? Aircraft impacts, with the resulting damage to the structures and fires brought down WTC 1 & 2. Debris impact from WTC 1 resulted in structure damage and massive fires which led to the collapse of WTC 7.




All the buildings that collapsed that day experienced structural damage (WTC 1 & 2 directly from the aircraft and WTC 7 from debris from WTC 1 collapsing) and each suffered massive fires. All collapsed in a very similar fashion.

Yeah they came down perfectly in their own footprint unimepded by the undamaged structure beneath, even bldn 7?

You really have wached the bldng 7 "collapse" correct?

Lzen
08-01-2011, 09:48 AM
Seriously? You're arguing that 9/11 happened because the owners wanted to demolish it but weren't allowed to?

Seriously?

ROFL

I think his handle fits very well. LOCO!!

Donger
08-01-2011, 09:48 AM
Molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed [from WTCs 1 & 2]," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon. [American Free Press]
Molten steel is a by-product of a thermite reaction.

A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said. [New York Times]

Burning diesel can't produce enough heat to melt steel, so it certainly can't evaporate it, but thermite can.

Well-covered in the main kook thread.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-01-2011, 09:49 AM
What flaw? Aircraft impacts, with the resulting damage to the structures and fires brought down WTC 1 & 2. Debris impact from WTC 1 resulted in structure damage and massive fires which led to the collapse of WTC 7.




All the buildings that collapsed that day experienced structural damage (WTC 1 & 2 directly from the aircraft and WTC 7 from debris from WTC 1 collapsing) and each suffered massive fires. All collapsed in a very similar fashion.

Debris can cause buildings to collapse at free fall speed, eh?

Yes all collapsed at free fall speed, which points to Bombs being planted in the buildings.

We know that no fire in history has ever caused a steel building to globally collapse.

Being that WTC Towers were both each struck by a commercial airliner we cannot simply say it was fire that destroyed the buildings. However being that no fire has ever destroyed a steel building we need to look at an example where the fire was extremely intense. The reason we have to do this is we have to have a situation where the steel is heated to a temperature that is at the maximum possible temperature an office fire can reach. We will be doing this by comparing the fire in Windsor Building, Madrid Spain to the WTC Towers. Although no aircraft struck the Windsor building what we do know is that all of it's structural members were heated to the maximum possible temperature an office fire can reach.

Below are some pictures showing the Windsor Building while it was burning.


http://911physics.atspace.com/IMG/windsor10.jpeg

http://911physics.atspace.com/IMG/windsor4.jpeg

http://911physics.atspace.com/IMG/02.jpg

We now look at the aftermath of the fire:

http://911physics.atspace.com/IMG/310954.jpg

http://911physics.atspace.com/Pages/Probability_Of_Collapse.htm

Donger
08-01-2011, 09:51 AM
Yeah they came down perfectly in their own footprint unimepded by the undamaged structure beneath, even bldn 7?

You really have wached the bldng 7 "collapse" correct?

Un-impeded? Magic pixies removed all the floors or something?

Donger
08-01-2011, 09:53 AM
Debris can cause buildings to collapse at free fall speed, eh?

Yes all collapsed at free fall speed, which points to Bombs being planted in the buildings.

We know that no fire in history has ever caused a steel building to globally collapse.

Being that WTC Towers were both each struck by a commercial airliner we cannot simply say it was fire that destroyed the buildings. However being that no fire has ever destroyed a steel building we need to look at an example where the fire was extremely intense. The reason we have to do this is we have to have a situation where the steel is heated to a temperature that is at the maximum possible temperature an office fire can reach. We will be doing this by comparing the fire in Windsor Building, Madrid Spain to the WTC Towers. Although no aircraft struck the Windsor building what we do know is that all of it's structural members were heated to the maximum possible temperature an office fire can reach.

Below are some pictures showing the Windsor Building while it was burning.


http://911physics.atspace.com/IMG/windsor10.jpeg

http://911physics.atspace.com/IMG/windsor4.jpeg

http://911physics.atspace.com/IMG/02.jpg

We now look at the aftermath of the fire:

http://911physics.atspace.com/IMG/310954.jpg

http://911physics.atspace.com/Pages/Probability_Of_Collapse.htm

All covered in the main kook thread.

LOCOChief
08-01-2011, 09:53 AM
Seriously? You're arguing that 9/11 happened because the owners wanted to demolish it but weren't allowed to?

Seriously?

No that's not what I'm arguing.

I have no idea of who did it or their motivations.

I just think that those buildings didn't come down as a result of being hit by aircraft or damaged by fire. IAgain I have no idea why or who.

I was pointing out that the govt. would have to be the only suspect.

Lzen
08-01-2011, 09:54 AM
http://www.debunking911.com/pulledin.jpghttp://www.debunking911.com/vpyc1j.jpg In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.
Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.
Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice, the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high.

cdcox
08-01-2011, 09:55 AM
The Open Chemical Physics Journal

ISSN: 1874-4125




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[DOI: 10.2174/1874412500902010007]
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen Pp 7-31


That article was published in 2009. The Open Chemical Physics Journal published zero papers in 2010. Zero. It has published four papers in 2011. If it published 10 times as many papers as it currently does, it still wouldn't qualify as being in the backwaters of scientific publishing. No one would publish their work there if they were able to get it published in a more reputable and high visibility journal. This doesn't help the case of the Truthers at all.

petegz28
08-01-2011, 09:55 AM
Un-impeded? Magic pixies removed all the floors or something?

The way they collapsed it does give the appearence that there was little impeding the floors collapsing. Especially for them to go so far without running into eventual resistance.

Donger
08-01-2011, 09:57 AM
No that's not what I'm arguing.

I have no idea of who did it or their motivations.

I just think that those buildings didn't come down as a result of being hit by aircraft or damaged by fire. IAgain I have no idea why or who.

I was pointing out that the govt. would have to be the only suspect.

Do you acknowledge that WTC 1 & 2 collapses began where the aircraft struck each building?

Donger
08-01-2011, 09:57 AM
The way they collapsed it does give the appearence that there was little impeding the floors collapsing. Especially for them to go so far without running into eventual resistance.

No, they really didn't.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-01-2011, 09:58 AM
No, they really didn't.

In your opinion, of course.

LOCOChief
08-01-2011, 09:59 AM
All covered in the main kook thread.

covered?

Hey if my opinions are found as offensive, I understand, I don't give a shit, but I understand.

I've seen your arguments in this and the other kook thread and unlike other thread topics you weak on this.

All you have to do is look, but your eyes and mind are closed.

Lzen
08-01-2011, 10:01 AM
Debris can cause buildings to collapse at free fall speed, eh?

Yes all collapsed at free fall speed, which points to Bombs being planted in the buildings.

We know that no fire in history has ever caused a steel building to globally collapse.

Being that WTC Towers were both each struck by a commercial airliner we cannot simply say it was fire that destroyed the buildings. However being that no fire has ever destroyed a steel building we need to look at an example where the fire was extremely intense. The reason we have to do this is we have to have a situation where the steel is heated to a temperature that is at the maximum possible temperature an office fire can reach. We will be doing this by comparing the fire in Windsor Building, Madrid Spain to the WTC Towers. Although no aircraft struck the Windsor building what we do know is that all of it's structural members were heated to the maximum possible temperature an office fire can reach.

Below are some pictures showing the Windsor Building while it was burning.


http://911physics.atspace.com/IMG/windsor10.jpeg

http://911physics.atspace.com/IMG/windsor4.jpeg

http://911physics.atspace.com/IMG/02.jpg

We now look at the aftermath of the fire:

http://911physics.atspace.com/IMG/310954.jpg

http://911physics.atspace.com/Pages/Probability_Of_Collapse.htm

There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses (http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf). In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. Not the Madrid/Windsor tower (http://www.debunking911.com/madrid.htm) did not have almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash (http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm). The Madrid tower lost portions of its steel frame from the fire. Windsor's central core was steel reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires.
I could go on with the "Firsts" but you get the drift. The statement that the WTC buildings were the first high-rise buildings to collapse from fire is deceptive because it purposely doesn't take those factors into account.


.....

A challenge to conspiracy theorists:
1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high
2) Which takes up a whole city block
3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design
4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)
5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result.
6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours
7) And had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts.
And which, after all seven tests are met, the building does not fall down. Anyone dissecting this into 7 separate events is lying to you.
Anything less than meeting these seven tests is dishonest because it's not comparing apples with apples. Showing a much lighter 4, 5 or even 15 story building which doesn't even take up a city block, and has an old style steel web design leaves out the massive weight the 47 story WTC 7 had bearing down on its south face columns. Yes, this is "moving the bar", back to where it should have started.


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

BucEyedPea
08-01-2011, 10:02 AM
Hi rises that are built of steel and concrete that is. Things change with a lightweight design.

LOCOChief
08-01-2011, 10:04 AM
No, they really didn't.

Ahh yes they did. There has been frame by frame analysis on this. Very rudimentary stuff here. The rate of fall escalates "unimpeded" by the undamaged structure beneath.


Bldng 7 wasn't impacted by an aircraft yet fell at a "free fall rate" with nothing impeding its "collapse"

KILLER_CLOWN
08-01-2011, 10:05 AM
There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses (http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf). In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. Not the Madrid/Windsor tower (http://www.debunking911.com/madrid.htm) did not have almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash (http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm). The Madrid tower lost portions of its steel frame from the fire. Windsor's central core was steel reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires.
I could go on with the "Firsts" but you get the drift. The statement that the WTC buildings were the first high-rise buildings to collapse from fire is deceptive because it purposely doesn't take those factors into account.


.....

A challenge to conspiracy theorists:
1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high
2) Which takes up a whole city block
3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design
4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)
5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result.
6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours
7) And had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts.
And which, after all seven tests are met, the building does not fall down. Anyone dissecting this into 7 separate events is lying to you.
Anything less than meeting these seven tests is dishonest because it's not comparing apples with apples. Showing a much lighter 4, 5 or even 15 story building which doesn't even take up a city block, and has an old style steel web design leaves out the massive weight the 47 story WTC 7 had bearing down on its south face columns. Yes, this is "moving the bar", back to where it should have started.

World Trade Centre 5, September 11th 2001 [Burned For Hours]

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

World Trade Centre 5 did not collapse, despite the fact it was also severely damaged from the collapse of the WTC Towers (at least that's the official explanation for the damage.)


http://911physics.atspace.com/IMG/0662.jpg

Donger
08-01-2011, 10:06 AM
covered?

Hey if my opinions are found as offensive, I understand, I don't give a shit, but I understand.

I've seen your arguments in this and the other kook thread and unlike other thread topics you weak on this.

All you have to do is look, but your eyes and mind are closed.

Alrighty then.

vailpass
08-01-2011, 10:07 AM
It is frightening that some of you are free to wander around unfettered. Or are you?

KILLER_CLOWN
08-01-2011, 10:08 AM
It is frightening that some of you are free to wander around unfettered. Or are you?

Yes some of "us" may be your neighbors, we may have you surrounded.
:LOL:

Donger
08-01-2011, 10:08 AM
Ahh yes they did. There has been frame by frame analysis on this. Very rudimentary stuff here. The rate of fall escalates "unimpeded" by the undamaged structure beneath.


Bldng 7 wasn't impacted by an aircraft yet fell at a "free fall rate" with nothing impeding its "collapse"

Since there were a lot of stories beneath where the buildings began to collapse (you agree with that, right?), the buildings clearly couldn't "free-fall" at all.

vailpass
08-01-2011, 10:13 AM
Yes some of "us" may be your neighbors, we may have you surrounded.
:LOL:

I gaurantee "you" aren't anywhere near being my neighbor.

petegz28
08-01-2011, 10:14 AM
No, they really didn't.

Yeah, they really did. The fact that there was no toppling is what makes it look a little suspect.

Donger
08-01-2011, 10:16 AM
Yeah, they really did. The fact that there was no toppling is what makes it look a little suspect.

No toppling, eh?

http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/collapse2.jpg

I haven't missed the fact that the kooks haven't tried to explain the above yet.

Donger
08-01-2011, 10:16 AM
I gaurantee "you" aren't anywhere near being my neighbor.

LMAO

KILLER_CLOWN
08-01-2011, 10:19 AM
I gaurantee "you" aren't anywhere near being my neighbor.

What would you do if your kid(s) grew up to be truthers? shoot them? move halfway around the world from them?

Brock
08-01-2011, 10:20 AM
What would you do if your kid(s) grew up to be truthers? shoot them? move halfway around the world from them?

I doubt he has lead-based paint in his home.

vailpass
08-01-2011, 10:21 AM
What would you do if your kid(s) grew up to be truthers? shoot them? move halfway around the world from them?

I would advocate psychiatric care for anyone exhibiting signs of mental illness.

vailpass
08-01-2011, 10:21 AM
I doubt he has lead-based paint in his home.

LMAO

Amnorix
08-01-2011, 10:22 AM
What would you do if your kid(s) grew up to be truthers? shoot them? move halfway around the world from them?

Wonder how my kids became whack jobs...

BucEyedPea
08-01-2011, 10:23 AM
I would advocate psychiatric care for anyone exhibiting signs of mental illness.

That's what they did to people in the Soviet Union for those who dissented from govt sanctioned opinions. Called them mentally ill, shipped them to Siberia and elsewhere for psychiatric treatment.

Really, some of the emotional outburst in this thread are supposed to be saner than another opinion they find out of line—NOT ! lolz!

Donger
08-01-2011, 10:25 AM
Wonder how my kids became whack jobs...

Blame your wife. That's what I do whenever my kids get a little weird.

Lzen
08-01-2011, 10:25 AM
World Trade Centre 5 did not collapse, despite the fact it was also severely damaged from the collapse of the WTC Towers (at least that's the official explanation for the damage.)


http://911physics.atspace.com/IMG/0662.jpg

Was it as severely damaged as WTC 7? Was there a lot of fires like WTC 7?

I challenge any conspiracy theorists that use WTC 7 as their main argument to read this page.

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

Radar Chief
08-01-2011, 10:26 AM
No toppling, eh?

http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/collapse2.jpg


Yea, I know. LZen also posted pictures of the debris falling faster than the rest of the building.

Lzen
08-01-2011, 10:27 AM
That's what they did to people in the Soviet Union for those who dissented from govt sanctioned opinions. Called them mentally ill, shipped them to Siberia and elsewhere for psychiatric treatment.

Really, some of the emotional outburst in this thread are supposed to be saner than another opinion they find out of line—NOT ! lolz!

Advocate does not = force.

BucEyedPea
08-01-2011, 10:27 AM
Blame your wife. That's what I do whenever my kids get a little weird.

I heard it was usually the man's fault. :harumph:

mlyonsd
08-01-2011, 10:28 AM
There was a NOVA or Frontline episode on PBS years ago that explained in great detail how the buildings fell. (1 and 2 at least)

The actual architects that built them explained it.

Now if the conspiracy was so huge to involve the architects, sweet jesus they might not be telling us the truth about global warming too.

Lzen
08-01-2011, 10:28 AM
Yea, I know. LZen also posted pictures of the debris falling faster than the rest of the building.

The problem here is that they don't want the facts. They want to believe the conspiracies and ignore the facts that refute those conspiracy.

BucEyedPea
08-01-2011, 10:29 AM
Advocate does not = force.

Yeah, but it can lead to that if his kids wouldn't toe the line of authority especially if under age 18. Still valid especially when someone has to use mental health for an argument instead the facts of an issue. The better argument will shine through.

BucEyedPea
08-01-2011, 10:30 AM
There was a NOVA or Frontline episode on PBS years ago that explained in great detail how the buildings fell. (1 and 2 at least)

The actualy architects that built them explained it.

Now if the conspiracy was so huge to involve the architects, sweet jesus they might not be telling us the truth about global warming too.

If there were a conspiracy, I doubt it would be vast on this. I mean it would be harder to protect the secret.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-01-2011, 10:31 AM
I would advocate psychiatric care for anyone exhibiting signs of mental illness.

You could give them "The Talk" but at what age?

Donger
08-01-2011, 10:33 AM
The problem here is that they don't want the facts. They want to believe the conspiracies and ignore the facts that refute those conspiracy.

Precisely. It's like teedubya and the radar rings, Japan falling into the ocean, New Madrid earthquakes and every other kook idea he supports. He actually wants them to happen.

It's actually quite fascinating in a disturbing way.

Radar Chief
08-01-2011, 10:34 AM
The problem here is that they don't want the facts. They want to believe the conspiracies and ignore the facts that refute those conspiracy.

Right, it’s become a belief system kind of like a religion.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-01-2011, 10:34 AM
The problem here is that they don't want the facts. They want to believe the conspiracies and ignore the facts that refute those conspiracy.

Yes I like facts, the fairytale version I received lacked these.

Donger
08-01-2011, 10:41 AM
Yes I like facts, the fairytale version I received lacked these.

Fairytale? Please tell me how exactly the people "inside" coordinated the attack with AQ. You acknowledge that this would have had to have happened in order for an "inside job" to have taken place, right?

I eagerly await your non-fairytale facts regarding this rather critical event.

BucEyedPea
08-01-2011, 10:41 AM
Right, it’s become a belief system kind of like a religion.

Kinda like Iraq still having had WMD etc. LMAO Govt never lies and is always honest and here to help especially when it comes to defense. Gulf of Tonkins and all.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-01-2011, 10:47 AM
Kinda like Iraq still having had WMD etc. LMAO Govt never lies and is always honest and here to help especially when it comes to defense. Gulf of Tonkins and all.

well ya but they would never lie about 9/11, i mean George Bush and Dick Cheney would never lie because you know i voted for them and i think they are Christians ya know.

loochy
08-01-2011, 10:53 AM
well ya but they would never lie about 9/11, i mean George Bush and Dick Cheney would never lie because you know i voted for them and i think they are Christians ya know.

Of course they lie. They all lie. I don't think anyone questions that.

They just aren't skilled enough at hiding their lies to completely cover up something like this.

BucEyedPea
08-01-2011, 10:56 AM
Of course they lie. They all lie. I don't think anyone questions that.

They just aren't skilled enough at hiding their lies to completely cover up something like this.

I would say that about Iraq but there are still die hard believers on that....at least one is this thread making fun of other believers of other topics he doesn't believe.

Ace Gunner
08-01-2011, 10:57 AM
Kinda like Iraq still having had WMD etc. LMAO Govt never lies and is always honest and here to help especially when it comes to defense. Gulf of Tonkins and all.

ya. except;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh163n1lJ4M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdffy8gl7rw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bktd_Pi4YJw

and a modern classic;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MW44jsYi0g

VAChief
08-01-2011, 11:00 AM
Fairytale? Please tell me how exactly the people "inside" coordinated the attack with AQ. You acknowledge that this would have had to have happened in order for an "inside job" to have taken place, right?

I eagerly await your non-fairytale facts regarding this rather critical event.

Why wouldn't AQ leap at the chance to disclose that bombshell too? Can you imagine if not only they take responsibility for the attacks but in cahoots with the government? Does anyone really they they would stay silent knowing that telling the whole world what happened would actually help their cause? It would effectively neuter any future diplomacy efforts by the US in support of Israel.

It is just asinine logic to think any of this crap has legs when you examine what would have to happen for it to be true.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-01-2011, 11:02 AM
Why wouldn't AQ leap at the chance to disclose that bombshell too? Can you imagine if not only they take responsibility for the attacks but in cahoots with the government? Does anyone really they they would stay silent knowing that telling the whole world what happened would actually help their cause? It would effectively neuter any future diplomacy efforts by the US in support of Israel.

It is just asinine logic to think any of this crap has legs when you examine what would have to happen for it to be true.

I checked AQ tv but they didn't say anything about it, oh wait the only ones to deliver messages from AQ are insiders.

VAChief
08-01-2011, 11:04 AM
well ya but they would never lie about 9/11, i mean George Bush and Dick Cheney would never lie because you know i voted for them and i think they are Christians ya know.

That could all be true, but George and Dick could not pull this off alone. It would take thousands of like douche bags to cover something like this up. Could they have known attacks were imminent and chose to ignore them? That would be more believable, but despite my disdain for their policies, I choose to withhold judgment of such a heinous accusation until I see some viable proof that confirms.

Donger
08-01-2011, 11:06 AM
I checked AQ tv but they didn't say anything about it, oh wait the only ones to deliver messages from AQ are insiders.

Not going to present your non-fairytale facts, eh?

Backwards Masking
08-01-2011, 11:07 AM
According to the what "actually happened" 17 people pulled this off after forming plans in caves halfway across the world.

Yet, this would be a massive conspiracy involving 1000's of government workers if WE had been the ones to do it. The fact is it could have been executed by far LESS than 17people with everyone under them "doing their jobs" and "following orders". It wouldn't require an oath of silence by hundreds, let alone thousands.

BucEyedPea
08-01-2011, 11:09 AM
That could all be true, but George and Dick could not pull this off alone. It would take thousands of like douche bags to cover something like this up. Could they have known attacks were imminent and chose to ignore them? That would be more believable, but despite my disdain for their policies, I choose to withhold judgment of such a heinous accusation until I see some viable proof that confirms.

Well, I have posted before, and will post it again I think it is very likely they knew these attacks were coming. Well, ever since I saw an article saying G. Bush was being briefed about an airliner attack coming from AQ in August of 2011. There is some evidence although circumstantial. I definitely think it was exploited though.

VAChief
08-01-2011, 11:09 AM
I checked AQ tv but they didn't say anything about it, oh wait the only ones to deliver messages from AQ are insiders.

Are you now suggesting that part of the plan was to produce fake messages from AQ? If so, why wouldn't the real terrorists respond that this is fake? What is apparent is that no reasonable discussion can be held when there is always an UNFOUNDED conspiracy theory that is conjured up to explain away what cannot be challenged logically. Once you start believing a lie, it gets even more difficult the deeper you get into it to explain it without digging yourself deeper.

Iowanian
08-01-2011, 11:10 AM
I doubt he USED lead-based paint AS COITUS LUBRICANT in his home.

fyp

KILLER_CLOWN
08-01-2011, 11:10 AM
Not going to present your non-fairytale facts, eh?

Most of it has been covered, it's not like you're really interested anyways.

BucEyedPea
08-01-2011, 11:11 AM
According to the what "actually happened" 17 people pulled this off after forming plans in caves halfway across the world.

Yet, this would be a massive conspiracy involving 1000's of government workers if WE had been the ones to do it. The fact is it could have been executed by far LESS than 17people with everyone under them "doing their jobs" and "following orders". It wouldn't require an oath of silence by hundreds, let alone thousands.

Exactly, is what I think if true. It need not be vast at all. The planning of this act was a conspiracy by AQ though. So it's still a conspiracy.

BucEyedPea
08-01-2011, 11:12 AM
Most of it has been covered, it's not like you're really interested anyways.

Funny how those who think not worth entertaining entertain it. :hmmm:

Donger
08-01-2011, 11:18 AM
Most of it has been covered, it's not like you're really interested anyways.

I've never seen anything on how the coordination happened, let alone how contact was established.

I'm very interested in learning the details of how "they" contacted AQ and coordinated the date and time of the attacks.

Please relate the facts.

VAChief
08-01-2011, 11:19 AM
Well, I have posted before, and will post it again I think it is very likely they knew these attacks were coming. Well, ever since I saw an article saying G. Bush was being briefed about an airliner attack coming from AQ in August of 2011. There is some evidence although circumstantial. I definitely think it was exploited though.

That has some support that I as well would not be surprised. I personally believe it was most likely a combination of incompetence and ego rather than a deliberate thought out process of "oooh we have a real opportunity here." They were going to go into Iraq regardless through the WMD process. Richard Clarke has made that assertion several times. He is also who you probably heard made the claim that Bush had been warned several times about an impending attack. He is quite disdainful in his appraisal of the lack of attention these warnings were given. I don't think he has ever suggested however that it was in his opinion something that was thought out to just let happen. More like they knew best.

loochy
08-01-2011, 11:28 AM
According to the what "actually happened" 17 people pulled this off after forming plans in caves halfway across the world.

Yet, this would be a massive conspiracy involving 1000's of government workers if WE had been the ones to do it. The fact is it could have been executed by far LESS than 17people with everyone under them "doing their jobs" and "following orders". It wouldn't require an oath of silence by hundreds, let alone thousands.

It's not really all that complicated. Find some pilots, hijack some planes, and crash them. It's not a marvel of organization or anything...geez.

Saul Good
08-01-2011, 11:29 AM
The building 7 argument cracks me up. If this were really a conspiracy, don't you think someone would have made an effort to cover their tracks?

Conspirator 1: We have put explosives into buildings 1, 2, and 7.

Conspirator 2: People are going to notice that 3 buildings just collapsed in broad daylight.

1: Not to worry. I have arranged for a jetliner to crash into building 1and another to crash into building 2 shortly thereafter.

2: What about building 7?

1: We're just going to blow that one up. Nobody will ever notice a 47 story building in NYC collapsing in broad daylight on every television station in the world. I could have arranged for a cover story, but I didn't want this thing to become a huge hassle.

2: Brilliant!

loochy
08-01-2011, 11:29 AM
I personally believe it was most likely a combination of incompetence and ego rather than a deliberate thought out process of "oooh we have a real opportunity here." They were going to go into Iraq regardless through the WMD process. Richard Clarke has made that assertion several times. He is also who you probably heard made the claim that Bush had been warned several times about an impending attack. He is quite disdainful in his appraisal of the lack of attention these warnings were given. I don't think he has ever suggested however that it was in his opinion something that was thought out to just let happen. More like they knew best.

Ding ding ding we have a winner. Congrats on being a sensible non-nutjob.

epitome1170
08-01-2011, 11:32 AM
There was a NOVA or Frontline episode on PBS years ago that explained in great detail how the buildings fell. (1 and 2 at least)

The actual architects that built them explained it.

Now if the conspiracy was so huge to involve the architects, sweet jesus they might not be telling us the truth about global warming too.

LMAO

Architects have no real knowledge of how building structures work or are designed. If you want real insight, talk to the structural engineers... they are the ones that actually make the buildings stand.

LOCOChief
08-01-2011, 11:36 AM
Since there were a lot of stories beneath where the buildings began to collapse (you agree with that, right?), the buildings clearly couldn't "free-fall" at all.

Yes the were stories beneath.

Do we agree that the buildings came down at a "free fall rate" never appearing to be impeded by the structure below?

Donger
08-01-2011, 11:37 AM
Yes the were stories beneath.

Do we agree that the buildings came down at a "free fall rate" never appearing to be impeded by the structure below?

No, we do not and you can't either, unless you completely ignore those stories. Free fall means that nothing but air and the ground.

Next?

VAChief
08-01-2011, 11:40 AM
According to the what "actually happened" 17 people pulled this off after forming plans in caves halfway across the world.

Yet, this would be a massive conspiracy involving 1000's of government workers if WE had been the ones to do it. The fact is it could have been executed by far LESS than 17people with everyone under them "doing their jobs" and "following orders". It wouldn't require an oath of silence by hundreds, let alone thousands.

Can you give us the Cliff Notes summary or version of how this easily could have been controlled by just a handful of people?

Saul Good
08-01-2011, 11:44 AM
Ahh yes they did. There has been frame by frame analysis on this. Very rudimentary stuff here. The rate of fall escalates "unimpeded" by the undamaged structure beneath.


Bldng 7 wasn't impacted by an aircraft yet fell at a "free fall rate" with nothing impeding its "collapse"

You seem to be conflating "accelerating" with being unimpeded. These things are not the same, nor are the acts of accelerating and being impeded mutually exclusive.

I can accelerate in my car with the emergency brake engaged. I simply would be accelerating at a lesser rate than I would otherwise be able to were it not for the impediment.

ROYC75
08-01-2011, 11:46 AM
Some of you people are totally insane, seriously.

Inside my ***!

Bombs ?

It takes time for the weight of the debris to take out a floor, but it does and will. The loose debris falling is being pushed out to the side of the building that is collapsing and the weight of it falls faster than the floor.

:shake:

VAChief
08-01-2011, 11:51 AM
Yes the were stories beneath.

Do we agree that the buildings came down at a "free fall rate" never appearing to be impeded by the structure below?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvUoz4OE-zQ&NR=1

LOCOChief
08-01-2011, 11:51 AM
No, we do not and you can't either, unless you completely ignore those stories. Free fall means that nothing but air and the ground.

Next?


I like you did see them come down at a free fall rate, I just interpreted it correctly and you didn't.

The supporting structure was taken out from the bottom up that's why I and others consider it to have been a demolition.
.

There are explicit studies that show the rate of fall, frame by frame, floor by floor.

Easy to see, hard to comprehend, tough to stomach.

epitome1170
08-01-2011, 11:54 AM
Some of you people are totally insane, seriously.

Inside my ***!

Bombs ?

It takes time for the weight of the debris to take out a floor, but it does and will. The loose debris falling is being pushed out to the side of the building that is collapsing and the weight of it falls faster than the floor.

:shake:

Not that I believe in the conspiracy as I have no side here, but even if you denotated bombs at the base of the building the look would be the same. It does not just collapse "un-impeded".

My personal thought (as a structural engineer) is there is no way you can tell by looking at a video. All of the smoke and debris is clouding any view of the floors as they are failing. Oh... and stop caring about what architects say unless it is how the building looks.

Donger
08-01-2011, 11:56 AM
I like you did see them come down at a free fall rate, I just interpreted it correctly and you didn't.

The supporting structure was taken out from the bottom up that's why I and others consider it to have been a demolition.
.

There are explicit studies that show the rate of fall, frame by frame, floor by floor.

Easy to see, hard to comprehend, tough to stomach.

Do you know what the free-fall velocity is? Or, to be more precise, what the acceleration rate due to gravity is?

Donger
08-01-2011, 11:57 AM
Here is NIST's report on the "free-fall" of WTC 7 for the kooks to read and ignore:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity


This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

epitome1170
08-01-2011, 11:57 AM
I like you did see them come down at a free fall rate, I just interpreted it correctly and you didn't.

The supporting structure was taken out from the bottom up that's why I and others consider it to have been a demolition.
.

There are explicit studies that show the rate of fall, frame by frame, floor by floor.

Easy to see, hard to comprehend, tough to stomach.

And what happens when a floor is overloaded? Significantly overloaded?

There is a reason there are progressive collapses in codes and standards.

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/tIsE8CkZI6U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

If I did that right, that is an example of progressive collapse. (pretty damn similar at the beginning). It would be almost identical if the failure started at the middle of a building (say because a big ass plane was there).

go bowe
08-01-2011, 12:00 PM
Do you know what the free-fall velocity is? Or, to be more precise, what the acceleration rate due to gravity is?

pfffft...

everybody knows that the laws of physics have no place in this discussion...

besides, they were bought and paid for by the government so they aren't believable...

LOCOChief
08-01-2011, 12:10 PM
We can both do this. Figures lie and liars figure. By the way making assumptions about people or calling people names because because they have differing opinions than you isn't wise. For instance I could make plenty of assumptions about someone that posted over 57,000 times here in the last 8 years. Some might even think that's weird.

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

Rate of Building 7's Fall
WTC 7's Facade Plunged at a Nearly Free-Fall Rate
One of several features of the total collapse of WTC Building 7 that is common in controlled demolitions is the rapid descent of the building. Several videos captured the descent of WTC 7's facade from the north. A video taken from West Street about 1000 feet from the building shows the north facade in considerable detail as it descends. The following montage was created using frames from that video separated by one-half second intervals.

facade movement free-fall
frame seconds displacement, floors displacement, feet seconds displacement, feet difference, feet
0 0.0 0 0.0 -0.65 0.0 0.0
1 0.5 0 0.0 -0.15 0.0 0.0
2 1.0 0.2 6.0 0.35 2.0 -4.0
3 1.5 1.0 12.0 0.85 11.6 -0.4
4 2.0 2.4 28.8 1.35 29.2 -0.4
5 2.5 4.5 54.0 1.85 54.8 +0.8
6 3.0 7.3 87.6 2.35 88.4 +0.8
7 3.5 10.7 128.4 2.85 130.0 +1.6
8 4.0 14.2 170.4 3.35 179.6 +9.2

The table above contains data on the downward displacement of the northwestern corner of WTC 7 over the period of four seconds shown in the image slices comprising the montage. The red rulers superimposed on the image slices demarcate floors. Displacements were measured by comparing the rulers to the roof of the white building in the foreground. The displacements in feet were computed from the displacements in floors using the estimated floor spacing of 12 feet. The error margin in placing and reading the rulers is about 3 feet.

The displacement of an obect in free-fall is shown in columns to the right of those showing the facade movement. The free-fall distances at the half-second intervals are based on the object being released 0.15 seconds after the time coordinate of the second image slice.

The rightmost column gives the free-fall distances minus the facade displacements. The differences are within the estimated margin of error for the facade displacement measurements for all but the first and final frames. This shows that the facade of WTC 7 accelerated downward at very close to the rate of free-fall in at least its first three seconds of descent,

Donger
08-01-2011, 12:17 PM
We can both do this. Figures lie and liars figure. By the way making assumptions about people or calling people names because because they have differing opinions than you isn't wise. For instance I could make plenty of assumptions about someone that posted over 57,000 times here in the last 8 years. Some might even think that's weird.

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

Rate of Building 7's Fall
WTC 7's Facade Plunged at a Nearly Free-Fall Rate
One of several features of the total collapse of WTC Building 7 that is common in controlled demolitions is the rapid descent of the building. Several videos captured the descent of WTC 7's facade from the north. A video taken from West Street about 1000 feet from the building shows the north facade in considerable detail as it descends. The following montage was created using frames from that video separated by one-half second intervals.

facade movement free-fall
frame seconds displacement, floors displacement, feet seconds displacement, feet difference, feet
0 0.0 0 0.0 -0.65 0.0 0.0
1 0.5 0 0.0 -0.15 0.0 0.0
2 1.0 0.2 6.0 0.35 2.0 -4.0
3 1.5 1.0 12.0 0.85 11.6 -0.4
4 2.0 2.4 28.8 1.35 29.2 -0.4
5 2.5 4.5 54.0 1.85 54.8 +0.8
6 3.0 7.3 87.6 2.35 88.4 +0.8
7 3.5 10.7 128.4 2.85 130.0 +1.6
8 4.0 14.2 170.4 3.35 179.6 +9.2

The table above contains data on the downward displacement of the northwestern corner of WTC 7 over the period of four seconds shown in the image slices comprising the montage. The red rulers superimposed on the image slices demarcate floors. Displacements were measured by comparing the rulers to the roof of the white building in the foreground. The displacements in feet were computed from the displacements in floors using the estimated floor spacing of 12 feet. The error margin in placing and reading the rulers is about 3 feet.

The displacement of an obect in free-fall is shown in columns to the right of those showing the facade movement. The free-fall distances at the half-second intervals are based on the object being released 0.15 seconds after the time coordinate of the second image slice.

The rightmost column gives the free-fall distances minus the facade displacements. The differences are within the estimated margin of error for the facade displacement measurements for all but the first and final frames. This shows that the facade of WTC 7 accelerated downward at very close to the rate of free-fall in at least its first three seconds of descent,

Not at all. That jives pretty well with NIST's analysis. Please note what I bolded. Your own presented evidence contradicts a free fall. As NIST noted, it actually took 40% longer to collapse compared to an actual free fall.

Next?

vailpass
08-01-2011, 12:28 PM
LMAO Donger cracking whip

LOCOChief
08-01-2011, 12:42 PM
Not at all. That jives pretty well with NIST's analysis. Please note what I bolded. Your own presented evidence contradicts a free fall. As NIST noted, it actually took 40% longer to collapse compared to an actual free fall.

Next?

Ok I see what your saying.

I misspoke, Virtually or just shy of a free fall rate, better?

How bout this?

bldng 7 came down just shy of a free fall rate, in it's own footprint, after not being hit by a aircraft.

Donger
08-01-2011, 12:44 PM
Ok I see what your saying.

I misspoke, Virtually or just shy of a free fall rate, better?

How bout this?

bldng 7 came down just shy of a free fall rate, in it's own footprint, after not being hit by a aircraft.

No, free fall velocity + 40%, as per NIST's analysis. If you want to call that "very close to" or "just shy of" free fall, go right ahead.

And, no, it wasn't hit by aircraft (again).

LOCOChief
08-01-2011, 12:45 PM
Your own presented evidence contradicts a free fall. Next?


condradicts? not hardly. "very close to the rate of a free fall" Oh yeah that really condradicts my assetion that it fell at a free fall rate.

You're splitting hairs now.

Saul Good
08-01-2011, 12:49 PM
No, free fall velocity + 40%, as per NIST's analysis. If you want to call that "very close to" or "just shy of" free fall, go right ahead.

And, no, it wasn't hit by aircraft (again).

A BMW only costs about 40% more than a Honda. Therefor, they are virtually identical in price.

Donger
08-01-2011, 12:49 PM
condradicts? not hardly. "very close to the rate of a free fall" Oh yeah that really condradicts my assetion that it fell at a free fall rate.

You're splitting hairs now.

Free fall is 32 feet/second/second. That didn't happen. Therefore, free fall didn't happen. Therefore, stating that a free fall happened at WTC 7 is incorrect, which your own evidence (which you posted in order to prove free fall) correctly states.

Pretty basic stuff, really.

VAChief
08-01-2011, 12:49 PM
Ok I see what your saying.

I misspoke, Virtually or just shy of a free fall rate, better?

How bout this?

bldng 7 came down just shy of a free fall rate, in it's own footprint, after not being hit by a aircraft.

What would be the logic hitting two with an aircraft not a third? If you were trying to mislead, why would you not come up with a distraction for the third building?

go bowe
08-01-2011, 12:50 PM
some hairs need to be split...

for your theory to work even a little bit, the top of the building had to freefall all the way down...

not just for a few seconds at the very beginning of the fall, which is what the nist report documented, but all the way down since the building was brought down from the bottom up as you say...

LOCOChief
08-01-2011, 12:51 PM
No, free fall velocity + 40%, as per NIST's analysis. If you want to call that "very close to" or "just shy of" free fall, go right ahead.

And, no, it wasn't hit by aircraft (again).

Right, bldng 7 wasn't hit by an aircraft yet...

go bowe
08-01-2011, 12:52 PM
What would be the logic hitting two with an aircraft not a third? If you were trying to mislead, why would you not come up with a distraction for the third building?

logic?

THERE'S NO PLACE FOR LOGIC IN THIS DISCUSSION...

Donger
08-01-2011, 12:52 PM
Right, bldng 7 wasn't hit by an aircraft yet...

:spock:

It didn't need to be hit by an aircraft in order to collapse.

LOCOChief
08-01-2011, 12:54 PM
some hairs need to be split...

for your theory to work even a little bit, the top of the building had to freefall all the way down...

not just for a few seconds at the very beginning of the fall, which is what the nist report documented, but all the way down since the building was brought down from the bottom up as you say...



Would you cut a tree down from the top?

go bowe
08-01-2011, 12:54 PM
Right, bldng 7 wasn't hit by an aircraft yet...

sure, 7 wasn't hit by an aircraft, it was demolished using a death star ray gun fired by jewish radicals who really run the u.s. government in their underwear...

go bowe
08-01-2011, 12:56 PM
Would you cut a tree down from the top?

sure, someone cut down the towers like a tree...

after all, trees are made of concrete and steel...

and somebody cut them down...

mlyonsd
08-01-2011, 12:56 PM
sure, 7 wasn't hit by an aircraft, it was demolished using a death star ray gun fired by jewish radicals who really run the u.s. government in their underwear...Now we're getting somewhere.

Saul Good
08-01-2011, 12:56 PM
Would you cut a tree down from the top?

If the tree were surrounded by things that you didn't want to damage, yes. That is exactly how you cut down a tree.

go bowe
08-01-2011, 12:58 PM
If the tree were surrounded by things that you didn't want to damage, yes. That is exactly how you cut down a tree.

shhhhhhhhhh...

facts have no place in this discussion...

LOCOChief
08-01-2011, 12:59 PM
:spock:

It didn't need to be hit by an aircraft in order to collapse.

I didn't huh?

Apparently there are engineers and scientist that dissagree with you. I do as well but don't get bent out of shape about it. This is really the only place that I would discuss my opinion on the subject.

I was offended the first time I had heard the same assertions that I'm making. Those were made by a first responder, 35 years with NYPD.

Donger
08-01-2011, 01:03 PM
I didn't huh?

Apparently there are engineers and scientist that dissagree with you. I do as well but don't get bent out of shape about it. This is really the only place that I would discuss my opinion on the subject.

I was offended the first time I had heard the same assertions that I'm making. Those were made by a first responder, 35 years with NYPD.

The NIST report describes in detail how WTC 7 collapsed without an aircraft impact. If you don't want to believe them, that's fine. Since there isn't any evidence of something else contributing to the collapse, yeah, I'm just fine in believing their analysis.

LOCOChief
08-01-2011, 01:04 PM
If the tree were surrounded by things that you didn't want to damage, yes. That is exactly how you cut down a tree.

In that sense a tree is a bad analogy. If you want to take down, pull or demolish a building without colateral damage you go to work on the foundation..

Saul Good
08-01-2011, 01:07 PM
I didn't huh?

Apparently there are engineers and scientist that dissagree with you. I do as well but don't get bent out of shape about it. This is really the only place that I would discuss my opinion on the subject.

I was offended the first time I had heard the same assertions that I'm making. Those were made by a first responder, 35 years with NYPD.

You truthers don't seem to understand who the experts are, and you end up getting duped by someone with a title that sounds good.

If a truther needs to respond to an argument involving physics, he finds a physician who shares his POV and ctes the physician as a physics expert.

LOCOChief
08-01-2011, 01:07 PM
The NIST report describes in detail how WTC 7 collapsed without an aircraft impact. If you don't want to believe them, that's fine. Since there isn't any evidence of something else contributing to the collapse, yeah, I'm just fine in believing their analysis.

I feel that there is evidence of other or outside contributing factors such as the presence of thermite but I'm fine with leaving our individual beliefs where they are. It's not like we're going to change each others opinions, and I respect yours as much as my own.

durtyrute
08-01-2011, 01:09 PM
This thread is really picking up steam.

"Why do people who don't believe the official story ask so many damn questions?"

Why do you care?

Saul Good
08-01-2011, 01:11 PM
In that sense a tree is a bad analogy. If you want to take down, pull or demolish a building without colateral damage you go to work on the foundation..

Actually, it's a pretty good analogy. The terrorists wanted collateral damage. They flew the plane into the middle of the building, and it brought down a smaller building nearby. This is not unlike what might happen if you cut a large tree down in the forest without sectioning it from the top.

go bowe
08-01-2011, 01:14 PM
sectioning?

aha!!

it was a conspiracy!!!

Saul Good
08-01-2011, 01:15 PM
This thread is really picking up steam.

"Why do people who don't believe the official story ask so many damn questions?"

Why do you care?

Nobody asked that. People are wondering why you are asking so many questions that have been answered in exhaustive detail time and time again for a decade.

Radar Chief
08-01-2011, 01:16 PM
I feel that there is evidence of other or outside contributing factors such as the presence of thermite but I'm fine with leaving our individual beliefs where they are. It's not like we're going to change each others opinions, and I respect yours as much as my own.

Even though it’s been proven in documented tests that thermite will not cut steel beams?

LOCOChief
08-01-2011, 01:16 PM
You truthers don't seem to understand who the experts are, and you end up getting duped by someone with a title that sounds good.

If a truther needs to respond to an argument involving physics, he finds a physician who shares his POV and ctes the physician as a physics expert.

I'm not a truther. I'm one man with myy own opinion.

A physician? wtf are you talking about? I do have a good friend that owns a large engineering firm with a dozen or so P/E's under his employment. My son is an Civil Engineering student in his senior year, my father in law is a structural engineer. I spent a good part of my life in mining engineering and working with exposives.

what I've seen makes me think that the building were demolished.

Amnorix
08-01-2011, 01:17 PM
I was offended the first time I had heard the same assertions that I'm making. Those were made by a first responder, 35 years with NYPD.


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.

vailpass
08-01-2011, 01:18 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.

That's exactly what they want you to believe man.

Donger
08-01-2011, 01:20 PM
I'm not a truther. I'm one man with myy own opinion.

A physician? wtf are you talking about? I do have a good friend that owns a large engineering firm with a dozen or so P/E's under his employment. My son is an Civil Engineering student in his senior year, my father in law is a structural engineer. I spent a good part of my life in mining engineering and working with exposives.

what I've seen makes me think that the building were demolished.

They were demolished, but not by explosives. Gravity is a bitch.