"Fire has never caused a building to collapse mimicing a CD."
It only mimics a CD to people who never seen a CD before. Funny how people who never bought down buildings before are all sudden preaching to me about this crap. How come Brent Blanchard, a demo expert, doesn't agree with you? Or CDI?
"As well, the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building suffered far more damage than either WTC1,2 or 7 and it certainly did not collapse until explosive charges were placed in the building to bring it down. "
Pop quiz: Besides the WTC, what other buildings collapsed that day?
"Many buildings have been damaged far worse in war times. None have ever collapsed in a way mimicing a CD."
Wait, so the WTC 1 and 2 now mimic a CD? Before you told me that they didn't and it was a "top down" unorthodox demolition. Why can't you keep a straight story? |
|
"NYPD Officer & 9/11 First Responder Craig Bartmer:"
Unfortunately his testimony doesn't colleberate with the evidence (no one heard explosions) and goes completely against the NYFD. Why did he take so long with this "story"?
"Of course, the NYFD knew because someone from the OEM told them it was going to be brought down."
Another accusation of the NYFD being part of it. I already given you the name of the guy who gave the order: Chief Daniel Nigro.
"No building fell on top of WTC7. The concrete was pulverized in mid-air via explosive charges."
No proof of this and another accusation of the NYFD. No explosions were seen mid-air and there is plenty of photographs of a huge gash in the SW corner of WTC7. You might as say the Earth is flat.
" WTC3,4,5,6 were all closer to the Twin Towers, and smaller. Why didn't any of them collapse in a manner resembling a CD?"
Different materials (concrete vs steel) and they were so badly damaged that they had to be taken down. Have you seen the state of those buildings? Not much to collapse. They were completely destroyed. Strangely enough, they also had pools of molten metal, so I guess they were bought down by bombs.
|
|
"I stated that towers were blown up top down. Someone can easily set off charges in any direction one desires."
I'm hearing this from someone who never dealt with explosives for a living. I'm sure I'll talk your word for it...not
"Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings..."
There were two other people with Barry, so why haven't they come forward? Also, 9/11 Timeline by Paul Thomspon actually debunks this quite well.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=barry_jennings_1
And finally, an interview with Barry
http://is124.ce.psu.edu/Edcomm/WITNweb/2423/script.html
REPORTER:
"Barry Jennings, you were on the 8th floor. You work for the City Housing Department. Explain to me the moment of impact."
BARRY JENNINGS:
"Well, me and Mr. Hess, the corporation counsel were on the 23rd floor. I told him, ‘We gotta get out of here.’ We started walking down the stairs. We made it to the 8th floor. Big explosion. Blew us back into the 8th floor, and I turned to Hess. I said, ‘this is it; we’re dead. We’re not gonna make it out of here.’ I took a fire extinguisher and I bust the window out. That’s when this gentleman here heard my cries for help. This gentleman right here. And he kept saying, ‘Stand by. Somebody’s coming to get you.’ They couldn’t get to us for an hour because they couldn’t find us."
Did you read that? Moment of impact. Barry doesn't even mention anything about bombs, so it's a quote out of context. |
|
"You continue to lie. FEMA which investigated the collapse of WTC7 stated, "the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence." NIST has issued no report regarding WTC7."
NIST deals with the scientific investigation of the collapses. Also low probably quality was mentioned before any evidence was taken into consideration (you do know what a hypothesis means?). Another thing, low probability doesn't translate to "impossible". What about the CD theory? Considering the fact that no physical evidence was found and people down there did not hear any loud bangs, plus it doesn't really look like a controlled demolition, I can safetly say that the controlled demolition theory has no probability of occurrence. You can't even tell me how they planted the building without anyone noticing.
"In their fact sheet NIST makes the same point, they do not analyze the collapse:"
Wow, great strawman batman. We talked about this before, remember? I told you that NIST's job was not to analyze collapse but what started it because it's pointless to study the obvious: Gravity. You replied saying it was done by explosive demolition, I asked for proof, and now where are back here again.
"What experiments? Name one demolition expert that showed that it is possible to demolish a building with fire. Please, point me to this experiment or please stop lying."
Demolition expert when it comes to damage to fires? What about the firefighters? Are you saying that fire is so weak that we don't need to fireproof buildings or have any fire safety codes? Even James Quintiere, who you cited against me, believes fire played a bigger role then what NIST is saying.
|
|
MarkyX writes, "show me another 47 story building that had a 110 story building fall on top of it, destroy the main waterline so no firefighting can be done, and burned for several hours unfought."
No building fell on top of WTC7. The concrete was pulverized in mid-air via explosive charges. WTC3,4,5,6 were all closer to the Twin Towers, and smaller. Why didn't any of them collapse in a manner resembling a CD? WTC5 had much more extensive fires than WTC7. Fires have burned much longer and hotter than in WTC7. Fire has never caused a building to collapse mimicing a CD. Once again, point me to a historical example or experiment that shows it is possible. So far Zippo.
markyX writes, "Lee Hamilton dealt with the intelligence."
No, this was the task of the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry. The goal of the 9/11 Commission was to provide "the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11". In this task, they failed miserably.
As well, the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building suffered far more damage than either WTC1,2 or 7 and it certainly did not collapse until explosive charges were placed in the building to bring it down. The same thing that brought down WTC1,2 7. Many buildings have been damaged far worse in war times. None have ever collapsed in a way mimicing a CD. Once again please provide an example. |
|
MarkyX writes, "They interviewed experts in the industry and the people who were part of the clean up crew and did the scientific experiments."
What experiments? Name one demolition expert that showed that it is possible to demolish a building with fire. Please, point me to this experiment or please stop lying.
MarkyX writes, "There was no such thing as a top-down demo. No demolition expert agrees with you."
You need to learn how to read. I stated that WTC1,2 were not conventional demolitions. I stated that towers were blown up top down. Someone can easily set off charges in any direction one desires. It is not done in conventional demolitions because it would damage adjacent structures. So are you saying that WTC7 was a conventional demolition?
markyX writes, "No seismics, no loud bangs, and the NYFD knew it was going to collapse."
From the AP:
"...Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion.... they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said."
NYPD Officer & 9/11 First Responder Craig Bartmer:
"I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. I didn't see any reason for that building to fall down the way it did..."
Of course, the NYFD knew because someone from the OEM told them it was going to be brought down. |
|
MarkyX writes, "They interviewed experts in the industry and the people who were part of the clean up crew and did the scientific experiments."
What experiments? Name one demolition expert that showed that it is possible to demolish a building with fire. Please, point me to this experiment or please stop lying.
MarkyX writes, "There was no such thing as a top-down demo. No demolition expert agrees with you."
You need to learn how to read. I stated that WTC1,2 were not conventional demolitions. I stated that towers were blown up top down. Someone can easily set off charges in any direction one desires. It is not done in conventional demolitions because it would damage adjacent structures. So are you saying that WTC7 was a conventional demolition?
markyX writes, "No seismics, no loud bangs, and the NYFD knew it was going to collapse."
From the AP:
"...Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion.... they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said."
NYPD Officer & 9/11 First Responder Craig Bartmer:
"I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. I didn't see any reason for that building to fall down the way it did..."
Of course, the NYFD knew because someone from the OEM told them it was going to be brought down. |
|
markyX writes, "By who's standards? Yours? Why should I care about your opinion when professionals who deal with buildings for a living have investigated the collapse?"
You continue to lie. FEMA which investigated the collapse of WTC7 stated, "the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence." NIST has issued no report regarding WTC7.
NIST writes regarding WTC1,2:
"The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although [the investigation] does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached."
In their fact sheet NIST makes the same point, they do not analyze the collapse:
"Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred FROM THE MOMENT THE AIRCRAFT STRUCK THE TOWERS UNTIL THEY BEGAN TO COLLAPSE."
So they got a bunch of people to analyze the impact damage and subsequent fires, but not the collapse. Their goal was to explain the collapse and model it this they haven't done. You know it, but continue to lie. |
|
"Lee Hamilton was the Co-Chair of "The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States." This is the most famous and widely known of all 9/11 reports. This report is part of the official theory."
Lee Hamilton dealt with the intelligence. He did not personally examine the steel or did the scientific experiments. He's used mainly to talk about stuff like what happened with NORAD. Again, you're trying to create a strawman argument as if he some sort of Messiah of the official story, when he only dealt with specific topic. If you want to talk about engineering and a scientific explanation of the collapse, go to the NIST report.
"Yes, I did state in my post regarding his quote that he didn't agree with the truth movement."
Good, so why use him?
"He stated that the NIST report had not been peer reviewed, so what caused the buildings to be destroyed is still an open question."
Incorrect. He believes that fireproofing had little to do with the collapse and never saw the theory peer reviewed. In other words, he believes the extent of the fire damage was downplayed by NIST and that the theory should be reviewed. How does this help you?
|
|
"The buildings were merely blown up top down. WTC7 was a conventional demolition."
There was no such thing as a top-down demo. No demolition expert agrees with you. And again, as I pointed out, there is no evidence with explosives in WTC7. No seismics, no loud bangs, and the NYFD knew it was going to collapse. Stating such an unsupported accusation would requite all the media folks, NYFD, NYPD, and the citizens of New York to be lying about what happened at that area. Are you going to call Chief Daniel Nigro a liar?
"If you can point to another historical example of a steel-frame highrise being taken down with fire, and its destruction looks like WTC1,2 or 7, then I would like to see it."
Show me a historical example of a large jumbo jet hitting a 110 story building at 500 MPH. While you're at it, show me another 47 story building that had a 110 story building fall on top of it, destroy the main waterline so no firefighting can be done, and burned for several hours unfought.
Oh wait, you can't.
"They do not claim that the fires melted the steel. They have stated that the molten metal is from as yet an unknown source."
Haha, right. They only changed to "molten metal" after debunkers like myself pointed it out. However they keep insisting that it was thermite bombs (a technology that does not exist and not used by controlled demolition firms). What's funny is Steven Jones even recently admitted that controlled demolition "prior to 9/11" did not have any molten metal whatsoever. His source? Brent Blanchard!
So pointing this out actually goes against your theory!
|
|
"The only method known for brining down a steel-frame highrise is through demolition charges."
By who's standards? Yours? Why should I care about your opinion when professionals who deal with buildings for a living have investigated the collapse?
"An actual investigation into 9/11 might answer these questions."
There was an actual investigation. In fact, the closest thing to an "independent" investigation would be Popular Mechanics. They interviewed experts in the industry and the people who were part of the clean up crew and did the scientific experiments. What have you done?
|
|
MarkyX writes, "but you are trying to display them as if they were the "official story".
Lee Hamilton was the Co-Chair of "The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States." This is the most famous and widely known of all 9/11 reports. This report is part of the official theory. If it is garbage and Lee Hamilton is an idiot, then why do magazines like Popular Mechanics use it to try to shoot down arguments made by the 9/11 Truth Movement?
MarkyX writes, "If you actually read his entire statement, he doesn't buy into the controlled demolition theory."
Yes, I did state in my post regarding his quote that he didn't agree with the truth movement. He stated that the NIST report had not been peer reviewed, so what caused the buildings to be destroyed is still an open question. NIST even refers to it as the "probable collapse sequence."
9/11 is still an open investigation whether you like it or not. |
|
MarkyX writes, "Is this your non-answer to arguments I have proposed like the simple fact the WTC 1 and 2 are three times higher then the tallest steel frame building to be bought down by CD?"
The fact that they are higher is not relevant. The only method known for brining down a steel-frame highrise is through demolition charges. An actual investigation into 9/11 might answer these questions. WTC1,2 were not conventional demolitions. The buildings were merely blown up top down. WTC7 was a conventional demolition. If you can point to another historical example of a steel-frame highrise being taken down with fire, and its destruction looks like WTC1,2 or 7, then I would like to see it. As well, please point me to any experiments that could show fire can do what is alleged to have happened to WTC1,2, or 7. So far zippo.
MarkyX writes, "Those "many people" is the movement you are defending. Steven Jones, Alex Jones, Loose Change"
They do not claim that the fires melted the steel. They have stated that the molten metal is from as yet an unknown source. Some of speculated thermite. NIST doesn't deny that there was molten metal, only that it is irrelevant to the investigation,
"The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing."
Besides you said there was molten metal in a previous post, "Plus molten metal was found in other buildings, including WTC 6." |
|
If you actually read his entire statement, he doesn't buy into the controlled demolition theory. He has been used as a source to debunk your movement. He doesn't think 9/11 was an inside job. Why on earth are you using this guy?
And again, as I pointed out, it was mainly the fire proofing that he had a problem with. There is debate whether or not fireproof had a role in the WTC collapses, but nothing on explosive devices. Again, why are quoting people who would probably slap in the face if you suggest the Twin Towers were bought down by magic thermite bombs?
"He was one of the iron workers while the Towers were being contructed. If he is not an expert then why was he on the O'Reilly Factor?"
Hell if I know. O'Reilly isn't exactly know for good journalism. What Fox News should really be bringing in is structural engineers or people involved in the NIST report, not iron workers.
"Nevertheless, the reasons so many people hold these false beliefs is not attributable to the 9/11 truth movement."
As I pointed above, your leaders endorse these theories on a daily basis. These theories, mind you, that was originated by an anti-semite who thinks Jews had some involvement in 9/11. |
|
If you actually read his entire statement, he doesn't buy into the controlled demolition theory. He has been used as a source to debunk your movement. He doesn't think 9/11 was an inside job. Why on earth are you using this guy?
And again, as I pointed out, it was mainly the fire proofing that he had a problem with. There is debate whether or not fireproof had a role in the WTC collapses, but nothing on explosive devices. Again, why are quoting people who would probably slap in the face if you suggest the Twin Towers were bought down by magic thermite bombs?
"He was one of the iron workers while the Towers were being contructed. If he is not an expert then why was he on the O'Reilly Factor?"
Hell if I know. O'Reilly isn't exactly know for good journalism. What Fox News should really be bringing in is structural engineers or people involved in the NIST report, not iron workers.
"Nevertheless, the reasons so many people hold these false beliefs is not attributable to the 9/11 truth movement."
As I pointed above, your leaders endorse these theories on a daily basis. These theories, mind you, that was originated by an anti-semite who thinks Jews had some involvement in 9/11. |
|
"Why did so many people believe Saddam had WMD/Nuclear Program before the invasion? Why did so many people believe that some of the "hijackers" were from Iraq?"
I understand that you are really desperate here and are trying to change topics, but come on...you don't need to lie about what happened on 9/11 to criticize the War on Iraq. That's just sloppy and pathetic line of thinking.
"Whatever the reason people have these beliefs, they are common in a certain segment of the American population that seems immune to all evidence. This is the nature of the Bush Cultist."
Of course. If I point out flaws with your theories like how the J. Hudson building took 7 months to rig and the Twin Towers were 3 times that height, I *must* be a Bush supporter. It's not because I am a critical skeptic or anything, it's because I like the GOP.
"Because I didn't want the post to go to long. He is saying that it has not been peer reviewed. The second part of his sentence doesn't contradict the first. He is saying that he wished someone else would take a look at it. You stated before that it had been peer reviewed, I was merely correcting you. It has not been peer reviewed."
|
|
"MarkyX seems to make the most illogical arguments possible. It is difficult to carry on a discussion because it is difficult to follow complete nonsense."
Is this your non-answer to arguments I have proposed like the simple fact the WTC 1 and 2 are three times higher then the tallest steel frame building to be bought down by CD? You're changing goalposts now.
"I quote someone and for some reason it is a straw man argument. Let's try to keep it simple."
You are quoting people who did not personally investigate the collapses and did not write the NIST report, but you are trying to display them as if they were the "official story". Look up Strawman Argument sometime and see why I have a problem with this.
"Many people still believe the fires melted the steel, what is the reason people continue to hold these false views?"
Those "many people" is the movement you are defending. Steven Jones, Alex Jones, Loose Change, and numerous other figureheads of the movement all believe steel melted. In fact, the only reason why that information came around is because a report by American Free Press (owned by holocaust denier Willis Carto) written by Chris Bollyn (an anti-semite) about "molten steel" in the debris. Chris claimed to speak to the people down there, but it turned out to be false.
|
|
MarkyX seems to make the most illogical arguments possible. It is difficult to carry on a discussion because it is difficult to follow complete nonsense. I quote someone and for some reason it is a straw man argument. Let's try to keep it simple. Many people still believe the fires melted the steel, what is the reason people continue to hold these false views? Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11, why did/do so many people hold this erroneous belief? Why did so many people believe Saddam had WMD/Nuclear Program before the invasion? Why did so many people believe that some of the "hijackers" were from Iraq?
Whatever the reason people have these beliefs, they are common in a certain segment of the American population that seems immune to all evidence. This is the nature of the Bush Cultist.
MarkyX, "Why did you cut the second part?"
Because I didn't want the post to go to long. He is saying that it has not been peer reviewed. The second part of his sentence doesn't contradict the first. He is saying that he wished someone else would take a look at it. You stated before that it had been peer reviewed, I was merely correcting you. It has not been peer reviewed.
MarkyX, "this guy is not even an engineer or part of the 9/11 investigations."
He was one of the iron workers while the Towers were being contructed. If he is not an expert then why was he on the O'Reilly Factor? O'Reilly is going to reach millions, the NIST report reached no one. As well, someone like Hamilton is viewed as being an expert on 9/11 by the media. Whether he is one or not is a matter opinion. Nevertheless, the reasons so many people hold these false beliefs is not attributable to the 9/11 truth movement. |
|
"So there have been several theories offered to explain the collapse within the official conspiracy theory, yet none can account for all the visual evidence, except the demolition theory."
There is no evidence of a controlled demolition. Seismic readings don't show it, there is no series of loud flashes and bangs prior to the collapse, and no sign of any devices in the debris itself. Brent Blanchard of Protec, a demolition company, was hired specifically to look for bombs within the debris and guess what? They found nothing!
By the way..
"I wish that there would be a peer review of this."
This is what he said, in full context.
"I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”
Why did you cut the second part? Why do I need trust who must use fraudulent tactics to come up with an argument? |
|
"I did, Lee Hamilton stated the jet fuel melted the steel in an August 2006 interview."
Lee is a vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission,, not NIST. You want to the know difference between the two? Commission report was based on intelligence agencies, while the NIST report was an engineering report. So why are you trying to create a strawman argument by using a quote from someone who didn't investigate the collapses?
"Bo Dietl on the O'Reilly Factor on March 22, 2007 said that steel melted, or it "melted like potato chips."
Doing a quick wikipedia check, this guy is not even an engineer or part of the 9/11 investigations. Much like Lee Hamilton, you are trying to create a strawman argument. Again
"Maybe, but their findings contradict the NIST report. Thomas Eagar wrote in his paper, "As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell.
But NIST has the perimter columns bowing inward. FEMA endorsed the truss failure/pancake theory"
How many times do I need to spell it out for you: Pancake theory was not used to talk about the initiation. Why must you continue to lie about what the "official story" says to even have a decent argument? And while it is interesting that the MIT believes in a slightly different version of what happened, they still don't endorse any of your dumb theories.
|
|
"We know that demolition charges can bring down buildings the way WTC1,2 and 7 were."
Impossible. For one thing, the tallest steel structure building to be taken down by explosives was the J. Hudson building. It took over 7 months to rig that building. WTC 1 and 2 were 3 times the height, while WTC7 is 1.7 times the height.
Are you telling me that you would know how these buildings would look like "bought down" or how long it would take, even though it would be the first time in CD history?
"But there has never been a physical demonstration with fire/impact damage. Former NIST Chief James Quintiere stated"
You're taking a quote out of context.
He is talking about reviewing the NIST investigation, not the WTC collapses. Second, he has stated that he doesn't buy into the CD BS. Just a few moments ago you said you had evidence of controlled demolition, but now you are trying to attack me by using a guy who doesn't buy into your BS? Hell, he was also used by Popular Mechanics to debunk you guys!
His main argument was whether or not sufficient fire-proofing on the load-bearing members. But of course, you would know that if you actually read his statement, right? Please point to me where he calls for an entire new investigation of the 9/11 attacks. |
|
MarkyX, "the structural engineers at MIT did their own research as well and guess what? No explosives."
Maybe, but their findings contradict the NIST report. Thomas Eagar wrote in his paper, "As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell."
But NIST has the perimter columns bowing inward. FEMA endorsed the truss failure/pancake theory. So there have been several theories offered to explain the collapse within the official conspiracy theory, yet none can account for all the visual evidence, except the demolition theory.
MarkyX, "But in the world with peer review and scientific method, they have already proven their theories with evidence."
Actually, they haven't. For their hypothesis to be proven it must be able to be repeated. We know that demolition charges can bring down buildings the way WTC1,2 and 7 were. But there has never been a physical demonstration with fire/impact damage. Former NIST Chief James Quintiere stated,
"I wish that there would be a peer review of this." referring to the NIST investigation.
So a former NIST head of NIST is saying that there has been no peer review. Note, that he doesn't necessarily agree with the truth movement, just stating NIST hypothesis has not been peer reviewed. It is still an open question, and the evidence is running in our favor. |
|
MarkyX, "Why can't you get a quote after 2001?"
I did, Lee Hamilton stated the jet fuel melted the steel in an August 2006 interview.
Bo Dietl on the O'Reilly Factor on March 22, 2007 said that steel melted, or it "melted like potato chips."
The NY Post ran a story on Charlie Sheen, Rosie O'Donnell and the Loose Change Video on May 27, 2007. It reported:
"Loose Change" pushes the widely debunked "controlled demolition" theory, which claims the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center were blown up from within. It alleges the jet-fuel fires inside the towers weren't hot enough to melt the buildings' steel beams.
Those claims were soundly refuted by Popular Mechanics magazine, which meticulously shot down every single one."
So Loose Change alleges the fact that jet-fuel fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel and this has been refuted by Popular Mechanics. Regardless, the idea that jet-fuel fires melted the steel is still a widely held belief among many. No American is going to read the NIST report, but many watch the popular press. So it is still necesary for the 9/11 truth movement to explain to people that the steel did not melt.
|
|
"It is incumbent on NIST to prove their claims. This they haven't done."
If you keep telling yourself that, sure. But in the world with peer review and scientific method, they have already proven their theories with evidence. The only people who think the NIST is completely wrong are "experts" like architects who draw pretty pictures, theologions out to sell books, and a ex-BYU professor who thinks Jesus walked on North America.
"We have invaded two countries that have cost the lives of thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis."
This doesn't magically prove the Pentagon was hit by a missile or thermite magic bombs were planted. Stop using 9/11 as a catapult for your political agenda.
"The 9/11 truth movement is not using its beliefs to kill people. "
They are close to. One fellow of Ed Brown, a big supporter of the 9/11 Denier movement, was recently arrested for having some illegal weapons including pipe bombs. Kevin Barret, a major member of the truth movement, has been threatening scientists, journalists, debunkers, and more recently police officers. Then we have the anarchists kids who populate the movement who often make threats and even try to intimidate the family members.
"Since you are the guys doing the killing, it is necessary for you to prove what happened."
Uh what? You are the ones with the extraordinary claims, so you provide the evidence. The burden of proof is on you. The fact that after six years your movement can't even name one person that they have evidence against and could bring to court should say a lot. |
|
"Eduardo Kausel: Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at MIT."
Not a structural engineer. Ironically enough, the structural engineers at MIT did their own research as well and guess what? No explosives.
Strangely enough, I did some backtracking on those quotes and none of them appear after the investigation was completed! Why can't you get a quote after 2001?
|
|
MarkyX: "You are quoting people who are not structural engineers and don't even know what the NIST report was about."
Eduardo Kausel: Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at MIT.
Hyman Brown: Senior Instructor Construction Engineering and Management. The project engineer for the construction of the Twin Towers.
Chris Wise: Structural engineer.
John Knapton: Professor in Structural Engineering at Newcastle University, UK.
It is incumbent on NIST to prove their claims. This they haven't done. People who believe in the governments conspiracy theory have and are using it to completely change our foreign and domestic policy. We have invaded two countries that have cost the lives of thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis. The 9/11 truth movement is not using its beliefs to kill people. Since you are the guys doing the killing, it is necessary for you to prove what happened. Over six years later, we are still waiting. |
|
Please tell me when you submit your paper to a engineering journal for peer review, since it's quite obvious you know everything. I can't wait until you show your evidence and math.
You are quoting people who are not structural engineers and don't even know what the NIST report was about. You even say that you didn't say "initiation" and yet bring up inward bowing, which was the initiation.
So again, since you have all the facts, I'll wait until you submit your scientific paper to a respectable engineering journal. |
|
NIST's job was to explain the collapse and model it. This they haven't done. It must be modeled to see if it mirrors the observable reality of the actual collapse. It isn't pointless, it is necessary. The NIST report is a fraud and the people that released it should be brought up on criminal charges.
"World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators." New Civil Engineer, October 6, 2005.
By the way, I've already seen that video. Actually, I've seen all his videos, plus totovader's. They are pathetic, just like your website.
ps. Global collapses cannot magically stop midway. Do you know why? Gravity.
Wrong Answer. The correct answer is demolition charges. |
|
MarkyX: "No one but 9/11 deniers like yourself said the steel melted."
Hyman Brown, "This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it. But steel melts, and 90,850 litres of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."
Chris Wise "The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other."
John Knapton: "The 35 tonnes of aviation fuel will have melted the steel... all that can be done is to place fire resistant material around the steel and delay the collapse by keeping the steel cool for longer."
Eduardo Kausel: "I believe that the intense heat softened or melted the structural elements--floor trusses and columns--so that they became like chewing gum, and that was enough to trigger the collapse."
Lee Hamilton: "What caused the collapse of the buildings, to summarize it, was that the super-heated jet fuel melted the steel super-structure of these buildings and caused their collapse."
Lee Hamilton, Co-Chair of the 9/11 Commission, stated that the steel melted back in August of 2006. So the people that promote the government's conspiracy theory are lying, right, MarkyX?
MarkyX: "Incorrect, they never said the Pancake collapse was the initation."
I didn't say initiation. I said the pancake collapse was the original explanation for the collapse of the building. Their current explanation is the inward bowing of the perimeter columns. Well, at least that is what is suppose to have started the collapsed. Both are not supported by the visual evidence. |
|
"First they said it was a pancake collapse, then they changed their story to the perimeter columns bowing inward and some strange pile driver effect which also has no basis in the visual evidence."
Incorrect, they never said the Pancake collapse was the initation.
"So they do not model the collapse, so their explanation is nothing yet. The same with building 7."
Nice strawman, but NIST's job was to find out what started the collapse and develop methods to prevent such tradegies in future buildings. Do you know why they didn't explain the collapse itself? Because, in scientific sense, it's pointless. How do you stop the weight of 30 floors from going downward? Global collapses cannot magically stop midway. Do you know why? Gravity.
"Yes, indeed. He seems to have agreed with "experts" that convinced him the super-heated jet-fuel melted the steel and the building pancaked."
Another strawman. No one but 9/11 deniers like yourself said the steel melted. How do you expect to be taken seriously when all your arguments are based on logical fallacies and falsehoods?
"Let me see if I can follow his logic. It looks just like demolition charges, but it isn't."
I really suggest you take a quick look at this video before you try anymore of your non-scientific statements.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa-5MBnD2k
Remember you are using the words of someone with no connection to the investigation and later retracted his statement. Not to mention he isn't happy with idiots like you using him!
|
|
|
Logic has precious little to do with any of your comments, you fool. I believe you did see "an elephant," probably a big pink one, which totally sent you over the edge and made you believe we attacked ourselves on 9/11. By the way, you didn't say anything about the most recent copy of the NIST report I posted, you gutless worm. If you ever bothered to read it you'll see that it states quite clearly that the only thing that brought down those buildings were those two planes. No explosives, no "controlled demolitions," only the planes. Deal with it, sleep with it, eat it. You obviously choose misquote people to prove a point and then ignore your own evidence in order to defend that bogus point. You people really are sick. |
|
MarkyX, "Quick test: What did the NIST report say on how the building collapsed?"
First they said it was a pancake collapse, then they changed their story to the perimeter columns bowing inward and some strange pile driver effect which also has no basis in the visual evidence. However, this is what they actually state regarding their analysis:
"does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached."
So they do not model the collapse, so their explanation is nothing yet. The same with building 7.
marxyX writes, "You do know that Van Romero retracted his statement after speaking to demolition experts, right?"
Yes, indeed. He seems to have agreed with "experts" that convinced him the super-heated jet-fuel melted the steel and the building pancaked. Now that NIST no longer supports the pancake collapse does Romero?
He is quoted by PM as stating regarding explosive charges in the building, "I only said that that's what it looked like."
Let me see if I can follow his logic. It looks just like demolition charges, but it isn't. This is like someone saying, "I saw an elephant." Then a week later he states, "I saw a giraffe, but it looked just like an elephant."
This statement is nonsense, in the true meaning of the word nonsense. Nonsense is what government conspiracy theorists such as yourself peddle in. |
|
I almost forget this. He actually quotes Van Romero!
You do know that Van Romero retracted his statement after speaking to demolition experts, right? I can't believe you are actually quoting him.
Tanabear, you must be a joke even by the truth movement if you are using such outdated and debunked statements. Van Romero was mentioned by the Popular Mechanics article and several other newspaper about his statement and is annoyed that idiots like you are using him!
|
|
Wow, quoting people like "Structural Engineer Van Romero", whoever that may be. Please, just because you found one far left loon like Ward Churchill to parrot some "truther" junk, doesn't mean it happened. And, even if he did say it (which I doubt), it's still an opinion, not fact.
Also, if you people are going to keep lying, then at least try to do it right! Listed below is the most recent NIST report:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
If you bothered reading it, nowhere, nowhere in the report does it say that any explosives were used on any, repeat, any buildings. In fact, it even went out of its way to say that there was no proof at all that World Trade Center 7 was brought down by explosives. And, to placate you nuts, it even said that they were still looking into the matter of explosives, but that they found no evidence that any controlled demolition took place. There is nothing in this report to support any of your crackpot "theories" at all. If any of you out there don't believe me, just read it.
So why don't you stop lying to people. Why don't you stop taking partial quotes from people and presenting them as absolute facts. You people are really disgusting and should be handed over to your good friends, al Qaeda. I'd gladly trade all of you people for one, just one, of their innocent victims, like Nick Berg or Daniel Pearl. You people are the real trash of the Internet.
|
|
"f it was obvious then why hasn't NIST explained how WTC1 and 2 were destroyed"
Quick test: What did the NIST report say on how the building collapsed?
"UBL originally denied carrying out the attacks. He stated shortly after the attacks:"
You do know that was a letter sent to Al-Jazeera, right? Strange how you would rather use an anonymous letter over a video tape starring the man himself |
|
Libertyship46: "Maybe, just maybe, the NIST made those statements shortly after the collapse of the buildings because it was so incredibly clear what brought them down?"
This was not the opinion of all individuals.
"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse"
Structural Engineer Van Romero
"It appeared to me that charges had been placed in the building," Ronald Hamburger, chief structural engineer for ABS Consulting, NIST advisor.
These were the opinions of others right after the attacks.
If it was obvious then why hasn't NIST explained how WTC1 and 2 were destroyed, and why haven't they even released their report in regards to WTC7.
"We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors.… But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7." Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, head of the NIST investigation.
UBL originally denied carrying out the attacks. He stated shortly after the attacks:
"I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself;"
Indeed. We currently have war criminals in charge of our country. It's time for justice. |
|
Maybe, just maybe, the NIST made those statements shortly after the collapse of the buildings because it was so incredibly clear what brought them down? After all, the whole world watched those planes slamming into the buildings on live TV and the people who survived in the area ALL SAW THE SAME THING! It was pretty obvious to the whole world (except you people) as to what brought those buildings down. Planes flew into buildings, the planes exploded after hitting buildings, then the buildings collapsed. What part of that don't you get? I know you people are really paranoid, demented, and thick, but that sounds pretty simple to most people. Even Osama bin Laden, your friend, says that's the way it happened. Or is bin Laden lying? Is he telling the truth to the "truthers?" Because, if you're right (which you obviously are not), then bin Laden had nothing to do with the attack (even though he openly admits it).
You people really are deranged idiots. |
|
"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns
had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column
specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their
temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined
that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above
600 ºC."
|
|
Bellerophon writes, "So yes, you are using quotes that are outdated."
What makes the quotes outdated? When FDR gave his "a day that will live in infamy speech", that was a the day after Pearl Harbor, but we can't use it because it is an old quote. Please, tell how much time needs to pass before we can no longer cite evidence. A statement is backed up by evidence or it isn't, when it was made is not relevant.
As well, just a few days after the attacks, NIST scientists already stated that they knew why the buildings collapsed.
"Already, there is near consensus as to the sequence of events that led to the collapse of the World Trade Center." NIST investigator Shankar Nair
"I knew once the jets hit the building that the WTC would collapse as it did, I just didn’t know when it was going to happen." NIST investigator Gene Corely
Both of these statements were made within a week of the attacks(ie "old quotes") before any of the physical evidence had been examined, but I bet you would still use them because they support the governments conspiracy theory. Yet, they are backed up by no evidence, and today this day the government cannot explain the destruction of either WTC1,2 or 7.
Bellerophon writes, '"NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC tower."
Yes, you are confusing, as many do, the temperatures of the fire, to that of the steel. The air temperatures might be hotter, but it takes awhile, depending on various factors, to heat the steel up to the temperature of the fire. It is the temperatures of the steel that matters. |
|
who left the gate open at the loony bin!
Someone should remind these treasonists that they are free to live in another country! |
|
|
Yes, you are no better than that piece of filth Adam Gadan who works as the propoganda minister for Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda. Every day you keep this up you are doing bin Laden's bidding, you play into his hands and you are certainly no better than anyone else you would find on something like Al Jazeera continuously trashing this country. You and your ilk make me sick. And I know where you'll find all of your "9/11 Truth" videos. You'll find them on most of the radical Muslim jihadist web sites. You give them free propaganda that's used throughout the Muslim world, which, in turn, is used to recruit new members for al Qaeda. If that isn't treason I don't know what is. If you hate this country so much, then leave, and stop harming this country with your disgusting bile. But, I did make a mistake. You and your kind shouldn't be hanged. No, that's too dignified and end for people like you. You should be handed over to the tender mercies of al Qaeda. I'm sure you'll get a swell reception there, you sick fool. |
|
"I am glad these guys aren't my neighbors though, I am sure I'd be turned in as an enemy of the state, what with my long hair and FREE THINKING."
You call yourself free thinking, when you simply use keywords and theories by holocaust deniers, a fat man in texas, a theology professor, an ex-professor of BYU, and a wannabe film director.
Let me guess, you think Prison Planet is a legitmate news and saying "Cluckity Cluck" with your mouth is science?
|
|
Uh, yes we are talking about quotes. This is what you wrote:
"There was a story in the NY Times regarding Building 7, 'Engineers are Baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated.'"
To which MarkyX responded:
"Again, you're taking an old quote. They've investigated much since then."
So yes, you are using quotes that are outdated.
Perhaps you can cite (for once) where you got that NIST reported that only 2% of the steel got up to 482F? I can find no mention of that in NIST's report. This was in there however,
"NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC tower."
"Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers."
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm |
|
Bellerophon writes, "the timing of a quote is extremely important. Just look at the Duke Lacrosse rape case."
I'm not talking about "quotes", I'm talking about physical evidence. Are you denying that the government destroyed and recycled much of the steel?
Bellerophon writes, "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction... Better?"
Nope, they reported that there was no evidence of the steel getting that hot. NIST found that only 2% of the steel tested on the perimeter columns got over 250C(482F) and none of the core columns. There was some 90,000 tons of steel in each tower. What percentage had to heat up to 600C before the whole tower would explode top down? The Towers were quite robust many calculations were made during the design stage. According to engineers desinging the towers:
“all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind....Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.”
Even if the fires were much hotter and burned much longer, the towers would have easily remained standing. However, they could not survive the massive explosive charges that destroyed them. |
|
cya Scorpiototally.
ps: You might want to get a new keyboard. I think your caps lock malfunctions. |
|
I encourage you to stop wasting your time with these guys, they have obviously taken the stance that they will believe whatever Fox News (the word news typed with a chuckle) wants them to believe...
I am glad these guys aren't my neighbors though, I am sure I'd be turned in as an enemy of the state, what with my long hair and FREE THINKING.
Let them go about their business admiring the Emporer's New Clothes, while we do our best to EXPOSE the myth's (like a 757 hit the Pentagon)and win back our country!
These guys are lost, and they don't want to be saved, they like being told when and what to do. They were born however far too late, they would have fit better in the 30's inside Germany.
I like the way you think...Keep up the good fight!
Expect Change!
JeffreyDavidSinclair |
|
|
|
tanabear, the timing of a quote is extremely important. Just look at the Duke Lacrosse rape case. DA Nifong said he was, "confident that a rape occurred." He called the players, "a bunch of hooligans."
Of course, now that all the facts have emerged, his statements and his prosecution are now irrelevant. So to quote someone midway through an investigation and then continue to use his quote despite that fact that the evidence has not overturned his statement is irresponsible and misleading. |
|
Bellerophon writes, "Well unfortunately for him, steel needs only be heated to 1500° to make it loose 50% of of its strength. That means the steel can only hold up have the building at that temp, thus the collapse. His credibility is shot."
Really! So what does NIST say about the temperature of the steel:
"....NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples reached temperatures above 600C."(1112F)
So what it your point? Besides, are you saying that if only 1sq/ft of steel heated up to 1500F that the holding building would explode like it did in under 15 seconds. The plane hit WTC1 around the 93 floor. Are you saying that all the steel beneath this point heated up to 1500F? Whatever it is that you are trying to say, it certainly doesn't make any sense. |
|
The simple fact is that not one of your experts has presented his finding to a respected journal for peer review and had them published.
Not One.
So you and whine, complain, cuss, call people names, and cite movies based on comic books all you want. But your *opinions* have no scientific basis whatsoever.
Indeed, I find it disturbing that you would jump to such a dangerous conclusion with out solid proof. Its a good thing that our justice system does not work this way. There would be alot of innocent people jailed because they took the word of a handful of untrustworthy people over a few hundred thousand eye witnesses. |
|
markyX writes, "You're using a quote from a 2002 article where the NIST investigation wasn't even completed. A truther being dishonest? Oh noes!"
Why does it matter when the quote occurred? This was when the evidence was being destroyed. If NIST started their investigation after this, then their investigation began after almost all the evidence was destroyed. So you support destroying evidence in a crime that killed almost 3,000 people. It nice to know that the government propagandists have no moral credility whatsoever. NIST has not completed their investigation into any of the building collapses. They do not model or examine the collapse of WTC1 or 2. They still haven't released their report on WTC7.
MarkyX writes, "Again, you're taking an old quote. They've investigated much since then."
It is not an old quote, it is in regards to evidence that was discovered. This is like saying OJ's blood was found on Nicole and Ron Goldman, but it is from an "old quote" so the evidence is irrelevant. Logic and government propaganda don't mix well I guess.
Actually FEMA recommended that this be looked at, but NIST never did. So they haven't investigated much since then.
Markyx writes, "told him that molten metal was never present in any controlled demolition. Plus molten metal was found in other buildings, including WTC 6. I guess WTC6 was bought down by bombs."
That is not relevant. WTC1 and 2 were not conventional demolitions. If the evidence is there, one must take it into consideration, not ignore it. So you are admitting that molten metal was found. Good. Why did NIST consider it irrelevant to their investigation?
Bellerophon, "Stop pulling quotes out of context tanabear."
I'm not. Danny Jowenko said WTC7 was a controlled demolition. Out government continues to deny this obvious fact. |
|
Lets take a look at the members panel of physics911.
Derrick Grimmer PhD Washington University: judging by his research papers his field was Solar Panels. I say was because he does not appear to have published anything since the 1980s.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-basic_connect?qsearch=Grimmer%2C+D&version=1
David Heller is listed has having a BS: Physics from Bard College. That makes him one masters and one PhD short of anything approaching an expert in physics. He is quoted as saying, "The official story maintains that fires weakened the buildings. Jet fuel supposedly burned so hot it began to melt the steel columns supporting the towers. But steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire, since they’re built from steel that doesn’t melt below 2750° Fahrenheit. No fuel, not even jet fuel, which is really just refined kerosene, will burn hotter than 1500° Fahrenheit." Well unfortunately for him, steel needs only be heated to 1500° to make it loose 50% of of its strength. That means the steel can only hold up have the building at that temp, thus the collapse. His credibility is shot.
Jerry Longspaugh is listed as an Aerospace Engineer. That at least sound promising. Unfortunately, we aren't trying to fly the WTC.
Other than Dr Steven E. Jones, that covers all the member of the physics911 members panel. The rest are statisticians, religion studies, and web designers. So I'll amend my previous statement.
--Scorpiototally, you can tout four psuedo-physicist all you want, but that is all you have. The other thousands of professors and engineers all disagree with them. If all it takes is one guy to convince you of something then why don't you believe the Earth is flat, after all there is a whole society out there that still believes the Earth is flat.--
|
|
LibShip46,
I was wondering how long it would be for one of you neo-con right wing extremist would call me a terrorist...A play taken right out of the Nazi playbook! Question the government? How unpatriotic! You should be hanged!
Hey a good movie for you to rent (assuming you can get that little mind open) is "V for Vendetta" it kind of paints the picture of where America is TODAY. Controlled by Fascist who suckle at the Corporate power tit.
You probably are one of those W-2 Corporate drones yourself, not having the imagination or the abilty to self-employ. Selling your life to the Corporate machine, you are EXACTLY the kind of persone they want supporting them. You follow orders, and stay in line, and keep your mouth shut, never questioning authority.
Exactly OPPOSITE of the founding fathers of this country. YOU are what is wrong with America, I am sadened that there are millions like you who just reply YES SIR to whatever is asked of you.
Pay higher gas prices? Send my children into a trumped up war? Allow you to tap my phone calls? Read my emails? Send jobs overseas? Torture? Create fear? YES SIR!
You are pathetic, and as previously stated, boring, I am finished with you. Now run along and do some tricks for your Master King George.
Expect Freedom!
JDS |
|
Hey Scorpio, "Expect Awakenings?" Uh, what did you have in mind? These are the same types of fanatics the remind me way, way, too much of Timothy McVeigh, of Oklahoma City bombing fame. I wonder how long it will be before one of these nuts, or even this one for that matter, decides he's had enough and decides to kill someone in order to prove his warped "point?"
As I said in the past, these people hate this country and our government so much that the only difference between them and Al Qaeda is that the people from Al Qaeda dress better. Remember, for every day they keep saying that our own government killed 3,000 of its own people they give the Muslim fanatics, the people who really did commit the crimes, a free pass. In short, they're defending the Al Qaeda killers by saying they never comitted the crimes but that our own government did.
So what do you call someone who aids our enemies during wartime? I think they're traitors and they certainly were not tolerated during World War II. Remember, William Joyce, the man who was known as the famous "Lord Haw-Haw," the guy who made Nazi propaganda radio broadcasts for the Germans during World War II, was hanged by the British for treason after the war.
|
|
|
Misguided member of the right HERD...My bad! |
|
|
|
Danny Jowenko -- "If [the WTC collapse] had been done with explosives, it would have collapsed from below. You'd place the explosives below of course. It collapsed at the exact location where the plane hit and heated it." It can't ahve been explosives, as there was a huge fire. If there had been explosives, they would already have been burned." "But don't tell me they put explosives on all 100 floors. That's not possible. It would take a year [to do that]."
-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI
When talking about the WTC 7, his first thought is, "This is a controlled demollition." However, when pressed for the details of how this might be accomplised he says, "You need experienced people. But if you had thirty or forty men... Two with a cutting torch others clearing the walls.... Other hooking up the det cord and boosters. All that has to be coordinated. And another hooks up the electronic systems, and thats it." At which point his is told that the building was on fire at the time and the crew would have had to work in the fire. Jowenko responds, "They didn't extinguish it? Yes, thats odd. I agree. I can't explain it."
-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc
Stop pulling quotes out of context tanabear. |
|
I mentioned Dr. Jones as just one of HUNDREDS my misguided member of the right HEARD, you can, if REALITY doesn't frighten you, check out physics911.net for many many more...
Oh, and in my previous comments, I forgot to have you look up the BILDERBERG GROUP. Look into that and tell me these guys are not attempting to create a one world government, with you as their slave.
I am bored with this now, I have warned you, it's up to you to learn and protect your own behind...
Expect Calamity!
JDS |
|
I mentioned Dr. Jones as just one of HUNDREDS my misguided member of the right HEARD, you can, if REALITY doesn't frighten you, check out physics911.net for many many more...
Oh, and in my previous comments, I forgot to have you look up the BILDERBERG GROUP. Look into that and tell me these guys are not attempting to create a one world government, with you as their slave.
I am bored with this now, I have warned you, it's up to you to learn and protect your own butt...
Expect Calamity!
JDS |
|
I mentioned Dr. Jones as just one of HUNDREDS my misguided member of the right HEARD, you can, if REALITY doesn't frighten you, check out physics911.net for many many more...
Oh, and in my previous comments, I forgot to have you look up the BILDERBERG GROUP. Look into that and tell me these guys are not attempting to create a one world government, with you as their slave.
I am bored with this now, I have warned you, it's up to you to learn and protect your own a*s...
Expect Calamity!
JDS |
|
-- Dr. Steven E. Jones --
Thomas W. Eagar a materials engineer at Massachusetts Institute of Technology said that the hot yellow cascade held by Jones as evidence of thermite "could be any number of things: a butane can igniting, sparks from an electrical arc, molten aluminum and water forming a hydrogen reaction — or, perhaps most likely, a spontaneous, completely accidental thermite reaction." --The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2006-06-23, p. A.10.
D. Allan Firmage, a Civil Engineer at BYU, said, "I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable." --Letter to the editor on netxnews.net
A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering-- "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims"
Scorpiototally, you can tout one physicist all you want, but that is all you have. The other thousands of professors and engineers all disagree with him. If all it takes is one guy to convince you of something then why don't you believe the Earth is flat, after all there is a whole society out there that still believes the Earth is flat. |
|
Just for fun you guys, and MKH if you are so inclined. Go to You Tube and search for keywords like "Illuminati" or "Bohemian Club" or "Trilateral Commission" or "Handbook for the new Paradigm".
Or check out Infowars.com or Prisonplanet.com
There are so many places where you can get REAL information about what is taking place right in front of your Deer in the Headlight eyes!
Wake up people, these elitist consider you like cattle that they own, and they are all in bed together!
Does Malech Baal mean anything to any of you? Idol worshipping? That's what YOUR leadership does!
Enough of my time has been spent here, I am just casting Pearls before Swine...
Expect Awakenings!
JDS
|
|
"That is because most of the evidence was destroyed. As Bill Manning of Fire Engineering wrote:"
You're using a quote from a 2002 article where the NIST investigation wasn't even completed. A truther being dishonest? Oh noes!
"There was a story in the NY Times regarding Building 7, "Engineers are Baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated."
Again, you're taking an old quote. They've investigated much since then.
"Evaporating steel members would require temperatures much higher than melting steel. To date there is no explanantion within the official conspiracy for this phenomena. Yet it is prima facie evidence of high temperature explosives."
There is no such thing as high temperature explosives...in fact, Steven Jones admitted that Brent Blanchard ( a demo expert and employee of Protec) told him that molten metal was never present in any controlled demolition. Plus molten metal was found in other buildings, including WTC 6. I guess WTC6 was bought down by bombs.
|
|
There was a story in the NY Times regarding Building 7, "Engineers are Baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated."
Evaporating steel members would require temperatures much higher than melting steel. To date there is no explanantion within the official conspiracy for this phenomena. Yet it is prima facie evidence of high temperature explosives. Like I said the debate is over, an investigation needs to begin. |
|
That is because most of the evidence was destroyed. As Bill Manning of Fire Engineering wrote:
"For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car...
...Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure."
So one reason why they might not have found much evidence is because it was almost all destroyed. Destroying evidence in a crime that killed almost 3,000 people is outrageous. Anybody who defends such actions is morally contemptible. |
|
"Intellectually, the debate is over, 911 was an inside job. When is the investigation going to begin?"
All you did was quote people who didn't even examine the physical evidence, looked at a few videos, and never submitted any report to a scientific journal. Strangely enough, some of your experts have stated that the Twin Towers were not explosives. Why did you forget to mention this?
However, on my end, I have experts who were at Ground Zero who looked at the physical evidence, taken thousands of photographs, and even LOOKED for explosive devices but found absolutely nothing. |
|
|
I have to say things twice to you so that maybe something will sink in! |
|
Who knows who these "experts" of yours are? They could be from anywhere saying just about anything, so why should anyone believe any of it? In fact I have an expert, a lady named Ida Moskowitz from France who is an expert in structural engineering and she said, "Scorpiototally is full of garbage and the twin towers fell because two jetliners loaded with fuel crashed into them and blew up."
Now do you believe me and my expert, moron? Why would you ever question a source like that!
And, by the way, if you want to read a book why don't you crack open a book called "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts," which is put out by the editors of Popular Mechanics. I doubt you would actually read it because you might learn something, jerk.
The only thing that really worries me is that people like you are allowed to vote, buy guns, and have kids. God help us all.
|
|
They don't have to come from the United States, you idiot, but I could quote anyone anywhere in the world and cite them as "experts" even if nobody ever heard of them. You must have invented Kool Aid if you think anyone would believe your "sources." In fact, I'm now going to now quote the noted scientist on structural engineering, Ida Moskowitz from France, and she stated specifically that, "Scorpiototally is full of garbage and the buildings fell because two jetliners loaded with fuel hit them."
Now do you believe me, moron?
And, by the way, if you really want to read a book about 9/11, read the one put out by Popular Mechanics, "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts." I doubt that you would read it because you may actually learn something, jerk. |
|
|
..."enlightened," I have begun to reconsider my stance on eugenics... |
|
Libertyship46, yeah, I guess the only "experts" that know anything about anything MUST come from the US.
Once again, I ask you to look for yourself, stop drinking the kool-aid man!
It always fascinates me that Neanderthal thinkers like yourself ALWAYS resort to name calling! I know you are but what am I? My God man, READ A BOOK!
Expect Enlightenment!
JDS |
|
Hey, JDS (Scorpiototally), when are you coming back down to the planet earth? Hanging out up there in the atmosphere must really do things to your mind and your posts really prove that you need to come down for a nice long rest.
Idiots like you and Tanabear are fond of quoting really obscure people who nobody ever heard of (and two out of the three aren't even from the United States, so who can even confirm who these "experts" of yours are). I'll give you something really easy to do. Just take all of your "expert proof" and go to the New York Times or the Washington Post. If they really believe any of it (and they won't), let alone print any of it, then the world will believe you. But when jerks like you can't even convince liberal rags like the New York Times or the Washington Post, you're really in trouble! Nobody believes any of your junk, except for other nuts like yourself. In short, you find comfort with other insane people. Deal with it, fool. |
|
Tanabear...Kudos!
Expect Intellect!
JDS |
|
MarxyX writes, "Steven Jones is a mormon professor with no connection to the controlled demolition industry and has no scientific background concerning building collapses or explosive devices."
Controlled demolition expert Danny Jowenko stated in regards to WTC7:
"...it starts from below... They have simply blown away columns...This is controlled demolition...A team of experts did this...
...This is professional work, without any doubt."
Hugo Bachmann, Swiss professor emeritus for structural design and construction:
"In my opinion WTC 7 was with great probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts".
Jörg Schneider, also Swiss professor emeritus for structural design and construction:
"WTC 7 was with great probability brought down by explosives".
Intellectually, the debate is over, 911 was an inside job. When is the investigation going to begin? |
|
How MANY lies must be spewed by this murdering outlaw administration before you FOLLOWERS will wake up to reality? How much MORE of our precious soldier's blood must be spilled, or TREASURE depleated?
Follow the MONEY TRAIL it always leads to the criminals...Do some homework, rent the documentary "RUSH TO WAR" stop just being pathetic YES MEN!
If not, then I suggest you enlist YOUR son's and daughter's to do the KING'S bidding and become cannon fodder for these weak impotent NON-SERVING Neocon's you sheep so willingly follow and believe!
Expect Patriotism!
JDS |
|
Unfortunately, recent polls show that millions of decent, well-meaning Americans believe these "Truthers."
Why?
Historically, paranoia flourishes when citizens stop trusting their Government and start thinking of it as conspiratorial and evil.
And that's not a mass delusion--it can be triggered by real events that they then misinterpret.
The flying saucer/"UFO coverup" scare was triggered by the Governments' evasiveness about the top secret program in New Mexico to monitor Soviet nuclear tests. (It wasn't flying saucers but overflights of the USSR that the Government was covering up)
And the Truthers are flourishing as the credibility of the Bush Administration has collapsed. Bush has been proven wrong on so many things, from Saddam's "greatest arsenal of WMD ever devised" to the idea that the Iraqi people were ready to start building a peaceful democracy in 2003, that when he blames al-Qaeda for 9-11, many folks aren't going to believe him either.
You can only be wrong a limited number of times before folks stop believing everything you say and start looking elsewhere for answers.
The Truthers will fade away, I'm sure, once we have a new President who is at least perceived as more credible. If Giuliani or Hillary or Obama continues to blame al-Qaeda for 9-11 and maintains there was no Government conspiracy, Americans will more likely believe them.
They won't believe Bush anymore. About anything.
|
|
Scorpiototally, stop sullying the great name of Jeffrey David Sinclair. He might just be a fictional character, but he's more real than the hobgoblins of your mind. If you want a heroic Babylon 5 character to espouse conspiracy theories, it should be John J. Sheridan, because he says in the show that he is interested in conspiracy theories. But Sheridan got to experience the vilification of his character and the "impeachment" that you want for the current administration. Go back and re-watch "Intersections in Real Time" and "The Deconstruction of Falling Stars".
I think you should start signing your posts with "Mr. Morden" instead. |
|
Please be careful with the information you are posting! The truth has dangerous, lethal consequences.
For example: "Google BYU professor 911 and you'll see Dr. Steven E. Jones (professor of physics) who wrote a paper claiming that those buildings were brought down by, um, yeah, I see, demolitions..."
Don't you see that the only way the government's conspiracy and their destruction of the Towers can work is if NO ONE KNOWS ABOUT IT? Black helicopters are outside my window right now because I read your posts and now know the truth! Black-booted Stormtroopers are kicking my door in... Run... run... run...!Oh my God, imprisonmed in a secret government-sponsored gulag! Torture! Baloney sandwiches for lunch! Game over! Game over!
In case all the nut bags are wondering, I'm being sarcastic because "research" and "facts" are wasted on you. Wasn't 364+ posts on TH on 9-11 enough? STFU!
|
|
Logic, and your eyes and sense, would say that it's not a conspiracy, if only people would listen.
The sheer number of people who would have to be involved in a conspiracy of this nature precludes it from being such. Only an absolute blithering anti-American dolt would think otherwise. The logistics required to bring down two 110-story buildings is immense; there is no way 9/11 was a government conspiracy.
Kids these days need a bit more introduction to critical thinking and particularly Occam's razor; bin Laden published anti-American declarations, encouraging us to become a nation governed by sharia law, and he admitted to the 9/11 attacks, and has been responsible for other attacks on American interests. How is it that he suddenly became invalidated as a culprit?
|
|
"Google BYU professor 911 and you'll see Dr. Steven E. Jones (professor of physics) who wrote a paper claiming that those buildings were brought down by, um, yeah, I see, demolitions..."
Steven Jones is a mormon professor with no connection to the controlled demolition industry and has no scientific background concerning building collapses or explosive devices. He also said that Jesus walked on North America and wrote a paper on it.
Steven Jones couldn't get his work peer reviewed because it was so pathetic, so he had to create his own "Scientific journal" where he was in charge and would kick anyone who would disagree with him. Not only this, but his "proof" of thermite is Sulfur. Sulfur also happens to be the material used for Drywall.
|
|
is the birthday
of rosie
under scorpio?
it seems like
the amazing
sock puppetry
of truthiness
i googled it
|
|
As explained by PBS, the buildings fell because of their modern and unique design. The exterior of the building was attached to the central core by the floor trusses. the integrity of the structure relied on all three of these support systems reamining attached. What people with ameteur eyes see as an explosion at the beginning of the collapse is actually the first floor truss popping the bolt heads off that attach the core to the exoskeleton. As the intense heat caused it to sag further and further the 5/8" bolt heads holding the floor in place snapped, rendering all of the structure below it useless. The top off the building then plowed down through defunct structure like a potato masher through boiled potatos. This could not happen in most skyscrapers, so the targets were very well chosen. That's the official summary PBS gives. I believe PBS. Nice job MKH, your image is improving and you almost look professional. I don't know if you'll ever have the knack to be mainstream but it appears you are learning.
You turn your head too much when on real TV. Shift your eyes deliberately, the camera does not care if you are attempting to engage the person next to you and get that stupid smirk off your face, it's really hard to take you seriously. It's not like William F. Buckley's smirk, it's too nervous too be cocky. Anyways, it was funny to see you before Countdown with Keith Olberman on a real network.
Noambot #5 |
|
JeffreyDavidSinclair, whoever you are, people like you should crawl back under the rock from which you came. You are the true bottom feeders of the Internet and you don't have a shred of evidence to prove anything. If you did, why isn't it plastered all over the news and in every left-wing newspaper on the planet (and there are quite a few of them out there, bud). They would love nothing better than to crucify the President if you had any real evidence, but you don't. And you never will.
What is so very hard to understand? Two large jetliners piloted by Muslim religious fanatics slammed into two buildings, blew up, started massive fires within those buildings, and this caused enormous structural damage which eventually made those buildings fall down. Sounds pretty straightforward to me. And, what makes it even more special is that we all saw it happening before our eyes live on TV. You people are buried so deep in your paranoid hole that you can't even see something as simple as that. I'd pity you like I'd pity the village idiot.
But what I find really funny is when you talk about "professors" supporting your deranged views. Please remember that Ward Churchill also was a professor and he's as sick and as warped as you are. Being in academia doesn't necessarily make you an authority. So do us all a favor and get some rest in a nice padded cell somewhere. You'll feel much better if you do.
|
|
|
|
Didn't your mom tell you it's time for your bath?
idiot. |
|
|
for making this, MK. These 'troofers' are a black spot on America's soul, and to do what they were doing, where they were doing it, and when.... It makes me angry as he double hockey sticks, I can't even imagine how it made the people of New York who lost friends and loved ones who had to see these 'people' spewing their hatred. You, Michelle, and so many others are doing the work that the MSM should be doing, and are a large part of the reason they are fading fast. Thanks again. |
|
|
|
Why is it those of you with your belief's, who do zero research on the subject matter, resort to insulting?
Your words lay bare your acuity sir...
Expect Revelation!
JDS
|
|
|
...I'm certainly glad I was born, and raised, in America, unlike some of this crew we have here today. Their birth certificates might say they were born here, but, it appears, they were conceived on the "Dark Side of the Moon". I think this might be an example concerning the after effects of acid. |
|
...loonies like these guys. When I was a kid, it was the grassy knoll. It's been 44 years now, and people still believe there was a conspiracy in Dallas and multiple shooters. If you watch the Stone movie, pretty much EVERYBODY did it!
Then there were the moonwalk people. The whole moon landing was supposedly faked. People still believe that.
A few years back, some wacko convinced a bunch of people that there was a space ship on the back side of a comet (which is about 8 inches in diameter) that had come to take them all to a new planet. All they had to do was kill themselves....which they did. Naturally....
People can be made to believe anything, but rational people don't go looking for the boogeyman behind every tree.
For every argument these kooks produce, there are 20 to counter it which they never mention.
This last guy starts out drooling all over MK (hey, she's nice looking, but not THAT nice looking), and winds up spewing the same crap as that truther on the other post.
If I have learned one thing since posting here, it's that there are a lot of wackos in this country, and don't put anything past anyone.
Sadder, but wiser..... |
|
America the beautiful?
JeffreyDavidSinclair
I want to scream at the purple mountains,
set aflame the amber waves of grain,
raze to the ground the fruited plane
I am numbed by incredulity, anguished by premature concession,
as if in a nightmare of darkness and desolation
Where are the truly righteous, where is the acumen?
What of the patriots, what of justice, what of suitability?
Like 54 million children cast off in an alley dumpster,
we are left to weep
A nation stolen by circuit board boxes, repression of the color filled ballot,
computations falling far short of truth
Entranced by media fat with ratings and terrified of repercussion
A populace frozen by images of collapsing towers, fear the possessor of their hearts
The godless using God as their amulet,
praising Him while inciting Armageddon
Launching missiles shredding the flesh from humans,
bastardizing a Constitution, eradicating civil rights,
incarcerating victims void of rights 6 years now and counting
While greed masquerades as a battle with terror
America once beautiful becomes America ashamed,
while millions in her bosom and globally,
cope with enragement matched only by despair |
|
Google BYU professor 911 and you'll see Dr. Steven E. Jones (professor of physics) who wrote a paper claiming that those buildings were brought down by, um, yeah, I see, demolitions...
I really wish that you conservatives would actually "look things up" before making mindless comments! And PAHLEASE...Stop watching FOX!
JDS |
|
MKH,
I just saw you on Hardball, and I was taken by how beautiful you are, so I took a look at your work. I was appalled at how shamefully one sided your You Tube was...You consider yourself some sort of journalist?
I have personally investigated the theories clouding 9/11 and have discovered (as many other enlightened people not blinded by party) that this government did in fact lie about a multitude of things regarding this tragedy.
I know, you'll cast me aside as some whacky "truther" but if you have a journalistic bone in your body (albeit a hot body) you would do some research and discover that this murderous, corrupt, administration has been duping you and the rest of the sheeple who back them...
One of these days you will feel amazingly foolish at your stance, sooner I hope than later.
Expect Honesty!
JeffreyDavidSinclair
|
|
|
Couldn't have said it better myself... |
|
Especially when they post about how "." Yeah, I seen it fall EXACTLY the way a building falls during a controlled demolition." Like they understand physics and are experts in demolition. I "seen" the easter bunny and santa claus at the mall as I a kid quite a few times and even as an adult. So no matter what because I seen what I seen it's got to be real.
What a moron.... |
|
|
... to quench the fire and brimstone they constantly stoke. These so called truthers are of the lie they choose to follow. Self passion, and the enjoyments of self-love. They will take all they can from society to secure their prosperity, despite the truth before their eyes. |
|
People are always looking for something new because their lives are so empty, but as Solomon found out, it's all a "chasing the wind."
Simpler is better. My prescription for a satisfying life is still the same: a Bible, a pickup, a cold one, a good dog and some George Strait. Significant other is optional.
....and maybe some deodorant! |
|
Thank you so much for making that short video. We should all take a minute to remember the people who perished on 9/11 and I hope we also take a minute to remember the people who committed the crime, radical Muslim terrorists.
For all of those insane people who believe that our own government, our own government, killed 3,000 American people on 9/11, all I can say is that you are liars, paranoid lunatics, and, in a certain sense, traitors to this country. Why traitors? Because whether they like it or not, we are involved in a deadly war against Islamic jihadists and it is, quite literally, a fight to the death. For all of those imbeciles who buy into these wild conspiracy “theories,” none of which have a shred of evidence supporting any of them, you are taking the focus away from the people who really committed those horrible acts on 9/11, which are the radical Muslim terrorists. That’s right, radical Muslim terrorists committed these crimes and not our own government. By continuing this stupid argument that we attacked ourselves on 9/11, all of you are giving a pass to the people who actually committed the crime, which were the Muslim terrorists. And that, to me, is aiding and abetting the enemy, which makes all of you traitors to this country.
Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, once said that “If you repeat a lie long enough people will begin to believe it.” The lunatics who believe these outrageous 9/11 “theories” think that if they just keep repeating this lie long enough Americans will believe it. Well, it’s up to each and every one of us out there to say “No!” We need to shout out that we reject this nonsense and that we will continue to put the blame on the people who actually committed this horrible crime, the radical Muslim terrorists. That’s the best way to remember those who died on 9/11.
|
|
The parents of those Dirtbag Hippies Truther's have to be very proud!
Funny that the less Mary Katherine and the camera paid attention to them the louder they became. Just like your average child!
Thank you Mary Katherine, your video shows exactly what is wrong with America. We still let INSANE people walk the streets.
But most of all Thank You for focusing on the only truly important story at Ground Zero, The Victims. |
|
I'm honored to help out a bunch of WWII vets from Connecticut for the Honor Flight tomorrow with Univ of Hartford alumni. They're visiting the WWII Memorial. Unfortunately the loonies will be out in full force. I certainly hope it doesn't ruin the heroes trip.
If anyone is in the area around noon, come by and thank a Vet. It should be a good time. We'll also have Connecicut LT Gov Fedele with us. It should be a great time.
http://www.honorflight.org/
WWII vets from Utah and Tennessee will also be there.
|
|
|
Fighting them over here... so she doesn't have to go fight over there! |
|
|
Thank you Mary Katharine, you are the greatest! Btw, do they really smell that bad? There was enough referencing to it that it must be true. |
|
|
Thanks for exposing these people for who they are. Please take a look at my Townhall blog. I think there is a similar thing happening at Townhall.com with left wing shills, who are trying to disrupt the dialog here. |
|
Yes, Keith. My Dad and Mom know him better. They all grew up together in Freeport. After 9/11, my Dad worked to become a volunteer firefighter for Freeport Fire Department. And he has been one for about five years now.
Also, a friend from college lost her brother-in-law, who worked for Cantor-Fitzgerald, on 9/11. |
|
I have a friend that worked at one of the hotels. She lost friends both from the hotel and fire fighters. She was a cuple of years getting over the loss, and sometimes is still overwhelmed by it.
Mike, I'm guessing you know Joe Falco very well. He is one of many unsung heros of that day. |
|
|
The NY/NJ Irishmen and Italians I used to know would have handled this with baseball bats. Sometimes civilization isn't all its cracked up to be. |
|
|
A classic line. Ding, ding, ding, indeed. |
|
|
|
|
I did a documentary on Joe Falco for my college senior project. If any of you would like me to send a copy, let me know. My e-mail address is on my website's homepage. |
|
Excellent Hamnation, MK. Thank you for debunking the truthers and speaking to those you spoke to.
A family friend, Joe Falco, survived the first collapse on 9/11. He was with FDNY Engine 1 Ladder 24 in Midtown. He lost so many of his fellow firefighters that morning, including Richard Muldowney from Ladder 7. They were (in Joe's case, are) both from Freeport (on Long Island) and were friends since they were kids. Before they both worked in FDNY, they were firefighters for the Freeport Fire Department.
I felt I should share that information with you all.
--Mike Chimeri
http://www.mikechimeri.com |
|
|
|
|
|