PDA

View Full Version : Danish Prime Minister Knew WTC Would Collapse



-Cp
10-17-2009, 04:56 AM
<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/b09NnCo_KIw&rel=0&border=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/b09NnCo_KIw&rel=0&border=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6vCg8Fp8aw8&rel=0&border=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6vCg8Fp8aw8&rel=0&border=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>

Kathianne
10-17-2009, 10:00 AM
Anyone watching the continuous, raging fires of middle floors that awful day knew those buildings were going to collapse. You didn't need to be mayor of New York, the Danish Prime Minister, or an engineer to know that.

Moving to conspiracies.

Noir
10-17-2009, 10:13 AM
The one that always gets me is WTC7, not only does it drop like a sack of spuds, but you can clearly see a line of explosions that go through every floor just before the building goes done,

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/c611FK37Un8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/c611FK37Un8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Gaffer
10-17-2009, 10:59 AM
It was all a democrat plot to make Bush look bad. yeah, yeah that's it. So where was Howard Dean when all this was going on?

Kathianne
10-17-2009, 11:17 AM
The one that always gets me is WTC7, not only does it drop like a sack of spuds, but you can clearly see a line of explosions that go through every floor just before the building goes done,

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/c611FK37Un8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/c611FK37Un8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

As I've said, I've not Jim's patience on arguing this over and over again, but here's a response to Bldg 7's collapse:

http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:B7efkrNYhE0J:www.debunking911.com/pull.htm+building+7+debunked&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari

and one more:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5#wtc7

Noir
10-17-2009, 11:43 AM
As I've said, I've not Jim's patience on arguing this over and over again, but here's a response to Bldg 7's collapse:

http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:B7efkrNYhE0J:www.debunking911.com/pull.htm+building+7+debunked&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari

and one more:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5#wtc7

While those are interesting, and very detailed arguments, i follow a simple logic in life: believe nothing unless it agrees with your reasoning, and having looked at the videos, it goes against my reasoning to believe that WTC 7 came down completly of its own failings.

Gaffer
10-17-2009, 12:07 PM
While those are interesting, and very detailed arguments, i follow a simple logic in life: believe nothing unless it agrees with your reasoning, and having looked at the videos, it goes against my reasoning to believe that WTC 7 came down completly of its own failings.

It has nothing to do with reasoning. You just want to believe in a conspiracy and your not going to let hard facts get in your way.

crin63
10-17-2009, 12:21 PM
It has nothing to do with reasoning. You just want to believe in a conspiracy and your not going to let hard facts get in your way.

Positive reps coming your way!!! Great response!!!

Noir
10-17-2009, 12:23 PM
It has nothing to do with reasoning. You just want to believe in a conspiracy and your not going to let hard facts get in your way.

Its perfect reasoning IMO.

I look at that building, i see an explosion on ever floor in a straigt vertical line, and then the building falls down perfectly straight.

I mean seriously, watch the video, does that look like a building that is falling over due to fire damage?

I'm sure some will think i'm being closed minded or a hard line conspritor or somthing, but i will not be forced to believe somthing if it goes against my reasoning,

Gaffer
10-17-2009, 12:44 PM
Its perfect reasoning IMO.

I look at that building, i see an explosion on ever floor in a straigt vertical line, and then the building falls down perfectly straight.

I mean seriously, watch the video, does that look like a building that is falling over due to fire damage?

I'm sure some will think i'm being closed minded or a hard line conspritor or somthing, but i will not be forced to believe somthing if it goes against my reasoning,

Let me explain something to you. Those were not explosions. That was the center floors collapsing on one another. You will notice they go down, not up. When bringing something down the first explosions would be at the bottom. If explosives were set they would have been set off electronically, so they would all go off at the same time. Not the movie way. And there would have been no reason to set charges on every floor. There were no explosions at the key points that would bring the building down.

I do have experience blowing things up and there were no explosives in any of those building.

So we have my experience verses your reasoning. Maybe you ought to reapply your reasoning.

Kathianne
10-17-2009, 12:55 PM
Let me explain something to you. Those were not explosions. That was the center floors collapsing on one another. You will notice they go down, not up. When bringing something down the first explosions would be at the bottom. If explosives were set they would have been set off electronically, so they would all go off at the same time. Not the movie way. And there would have been no reason to set charges on every floor. There were no explosions at the key points that would bring the building down.

I do have experience blowing things up and there were no explosives in any of those building.

So we have my experience verses your reasoning. Maybe you ought to reapply your reasoning.

:clap::clap:

Noir
10-17-2009, 01:23 PM
Let me explain something to you. Those were not explosions. That was the center floors collapsing on one another. You will notice they go down, not up. When bringing something down the first explosions would be at the bottom. If explosives were set they would have been set off electronically, so they would all go off at the same time. Not the movie way. And there would have been no reason to set charges on every floor. There were no explosions at the key points that would bring the building down.

I do have experience blowing things up and there were no explosives in any of those building.

So we have my experience verses your reasoning. Maybe you ought to reapply your reasoning.

Say what? Dude the explosions happen BEFORE the building starts to collaspe,
And i'm sure using your experience you know what a building looks like when demolished by bombs, and you must admit that the way it falls, perfectly, looks like a demolition job,

And no, i shall not reapply my reasoning, the logic is simple; believe nothing unless it agrees with your reasoning

Nukeman
10-17-2009, 01:31 PM
To collapse a building using explosives to come straight down take "MONTHS" of preparation and cutting of strategic support beams and placing "TENSION" cables to pull the outside in upon the explosion. These conspiracy nuts that think you just have to place a few bombs or explosives are just WRONG.

The video clearly to me shows a collapsing of the structure. Explosives would have blown out the entire floor stating at the BOTTOM not halfway up the structure.

Do you not think it could just be the foundation was SOO weakened be the collapsing of the two towers that it fell?

When searching for an answer the SIMPLEST is usually the correct one. I mean really our govt can't even keep a secret as to how we are going to do a military operation do you really think they could "employ" the number of people it would take to do this and it wouldn't have been on the news in less than an hour????

Noir
10-17-2009, 01:33 PM
This short video shows clearly just how that building fell, and it just doesn't look right,

Now i have no idea why the goverment would want to get rid of this building, and nor do i think that the goverment planed 9/11 and attacked its own citizens, however i do think it chose to demolish this building.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Zv7BImVvEyk&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Zv7BImVvEyk&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Nukeman
10-17-2009, 01:34 PM
Its perfect reasoning IMO.

I look at that building, i see an explosion on ever floor in a straigt vertical line, and then the building falls down perfectly straight.

I mean seriously, watch the video, does that look like a building that is falling over due to fire damage?

I'm sure some will think i'm being closed minded or a hard line conspritor or somthing, but i will not be forced to believe somthing if it goes against my reasoning,

If you go frame by frame you will note the left side of the building is starting to collapse (this occurs at 2-3 seconds into the collapse) prior to the right side caving in under the strain (this occurs at 4 seconds in). There are NO explosions.....

Nukeman
10-17-2009, 01:38 PM
This short video shows clearly just how that building fell, and it just doesn't look right,

Now i have no idea why the goverment would want to get rid of this building, and nor do i think that the goverment planed 9/11 and attacked its own citizens, however i do think it chose to demolish this building.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Zv7BImVvEyk&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Zv7BImVvEyk&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

What they "forget" to tell you in this video is that the preparation time for those "controled" demolitions was 60-90 days so tell me how did they prepare the building in a couple of hours??????

Noir
10-17-2009, 01:38 PM
To collapse a building using explosives to come straight down take "MONTHS" of preparation and cutting of strategic support beams and placing "TENSION" cables to pull the outside in upon the explosion. These conspiracy nuts that think you just have to place a few bombs or explosives are just WRONG.

The video clearly to me shows a collapsing of the structure. Explosives would have blown out the entire floor stating at the BOTTOM not halfway up the structure.

Do you not think it could just be the foundation was SOO weakened be the collapsing of the two towers that it fell?

When searching for an answer the SIMPLEST is usually the correct one. I mean really our govt can't even keep a secret as to how we are going to do a military operation do you really think they could "employ" the number of people it would take to do this and it wouldn't have been on the news in less than an hour????

Indeed i have little to argue against you with, all i can argue is what i see, and what i see is a building that falls totally vertically to the ground, did every one of the supporting beams fail all at once?
If this were to of been a collapse by fire damage ect would you not expect weaker beams (those more damaged as they were on the side facing the WTCs) to give way first, and then the rest of the building to possibly not be able to take the weight and collapse over on one side?

Noir
10-17-2009, 01:39 PM
What they "forget" to tell you in this video is that the preparation time for those "controled" demolitions was 60-90 days so tell me how did they prepare the building in a couple of hours??????

Like i said i don't know.

But can you honestly say that by looking at that video you think that every one of its supporting beams in this massive building failed within an instant of eachother?

Nukeman
10-17-2009, 01:52 PM
Like i said i don't know.

But can you honestly say that by looking at that video you think that every one of its supporting beams in this massive building failed within an instant of eachother?Keep in mind these structers go a number of stories UNDER GROUND and with that support totaly distroyed by the other towers coming down I can see how it would fall in on its self if for no other reason than the gaping hole in the ground from everything going on that day....

There were people in and out of the building all day there is NO way someone could have planted enough charges to bring that down in a controled way at all in the time frame...


The first step in preparation, which often begins before the blasters have actually surveyed the site, is to clear any debris out of the building. Next, construction crews, or, more accurately, destruction crews, begin taking out non-load-bearing walls within the building. This makes for a cleaner break at each floor: If these walls were left intact, they would stiffen the building, hindering its collapse. Destruction crews may also weaken the supporting columns with sledge hammers or steel-cutters, so that they give way more easily.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion1.htm

Check out the link....There just was not enough time to do what the conspiracy folks want you to believe

Here is a better concise site..

http://www.thestateonline.com/news/pdfs/implosion.pdf

Noir
10-17-2009, 02:01 PM
Keep in mind these structers go a number of stories UNDER GROUND and with that support totaly distroyed by the other towers coming down I can see how it would fall in on its self if for no other reason than the gaping hole in the ground from everything going on that day....

There were people in and out of the building all day there is NO way someone could have planted enough charges to bring that down in a controled way at all in the time frame...



http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion1.htm

Check out the link....There just was not enough time to do what the conspiracy folks want you to believe

Well i know that there are folks that say that bombs could have been built into the building when it was being made ect ect, but as i've said a few times i just dunno how, or why.

What i do know is that WTC7 went down in a pefectly, and the more i look about youtube the clearer it is (some videos which show the whole body of the building going down in slow motion, though i will not post up more videos as i don't wana spam the topic with them) and it falls straighter than nature could ever allow,

As for underground foundations, the problem still stands, ALL of the underground foundations in a massive 40 story building ALL independantly failed within an instant of eachother?

Gaffer
10-17-2009, 02:16 PM
The massive building that was next to this one had just collapsed, causing major structural damage to this and other buildings around it. One portion of the building gave way causing the rest to give way like a domino effect. One of the upper floors collapsed causing each floor below it to collapse as well because of the weight. Without the interior structure the rest of the building fell in on itself.

The building was so damaged it would have had to be brought down anyway. There would be no rush to do it. So what reason would there have been to set off explosives?

Noir
10-17-2009, 02:22 PM
The building was so damaged it would have had to be brought down anyway. There would be no rush to do it. So what reason would there have been to set off explosives?

Good question, one i can not answer as with many,


The massive building that was next to this one had just collapsed, causing major structural damage to this and other buildings around it. One portion of the building gave way causing the rest to give way like a domino effect. One of the upper floors collapsed causing each floor below it to collapse as well because of the weight. Without the interior structure the rest of the building fell in on itself.

True indeedy, infact it is no real surprise to me that the building did collaspe, however i am un-nerved by the manor on which it did.
It when down almost at the speed of free fall, implying very little resistance from an beams inside, and it fell in a perfect vertical line, something which allot of demolitions seem to fail to do,

Like i have said many times i don't know the answer to allot of questions, but when it comes down to pure common sense you can not watch that building fall at free fall, in a perfect line, and think it is natures work. If you or others can then fair enough, but not i.

Kathianne
10-17-2009, 02:32 PM
Well i know that there are folks that say that bombs could have been built into the building when it was being made ect ect, but as i've said a few times i just dunno how, or why.

What i do know is that WTC7 went down in a pefectly, and the more i look about youtube the clearer it is (some videos which show the whole body of the building going down in slow motion, though i will not post up more videos as i don't wana spam the topic with them) and it falls straighter than nature could ever allow,

As for underground foundations, the problem still stands, ALL of the underground foundations in a massive 40 story building ALL independantly failed within an instant of eachother?

Noir, I greatly admire skepticism, but there are times that video just doesn't tell the 'whole story.' In fact, at least according to Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5#wtc7), there are several videos that add credence to disputing the initial reports:


FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom approximately 10 stories about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors along with the building's unusual construction were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

Sometimes you need to listen to engineers.

Noir
10-17-2009, 02:45 PM
The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

I'm sorry but thats simply wrong, you can see for yourself as clear as an unmudded lake in the viedos in this topic that i fell perfectly vertically and the roof of the building remained even, it is in no way diagonal.


a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

Indeed some experts say the fire brought it down, other experts say this would be the first case in history of a fire bringing down a steel framed building, however, i don't really know enough to talk about that, and so i shall let the experts slog it out with eachother while i make up my own mind.

-Cp
10-17-2009, 03:24 PM
Anyone watching the continuous, raging fires of middle floors that awful day knew those buildings were going to collapse. You didn't need to be mayor of New York, the Danish Prime Minister, or an engineer to know that.

Moving to conspiracies.

Really? When was the last time you know of steel melting from fire?

-Cp
10-17-2009, 03:24 PM
Noir, I greatly admire skepticism, but there are times that video just doesn't tell the 'whole story.' In fact, at least according to Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5#wtc7), there are several videos that add credence to disputing the initial reports:



Sometimes you need to listen to engineers.

Why do you trust Popular Mechanics?

Gaffer
10-17-2009, 03:47 PM
Really? When was the last time you know of steel melting from fire?

Steel is made from melting in fire. And it doesn't have to be melted to be weakened. This is the conspiracy crap the dems put out so they could swing voters. How does it feel to be a tool of the dark lord.

Gaffer
10-17-2009, 03:48 PM
Why do you trust Popular Mechanics?

Why do you trust the truthers and the dark lord?

Kathianne
10-17-2009, 04:05 PM
Why do you trust Popular Mechanics?

I tend to trust engineers more than conspiracy groups, but heh, that's just me.

Noir
10-17-2009, 04:18 PM
I tend to trust engineers more than conspiracy groups, but heh, that's just me.

What about the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth?


939 architectural and engineering professionals
and 5201 other supporters including A&E students
have signed the petition demanding of Congress
a truly independent investigation.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Btw i'm not saying i support this group, as i know nothing about them, however a simple serch on google found these guys, and as you trust engineers...

Kathianne
10-17-2009, 04:24 PM
What about the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth?



http://www.ae911truth.org/

Btw i'm not saying i support this group, as i know nothing about them, however a simple serch on google found these guys, and as you trust engineers...

Look around that site, I mean 'dig', you really are throwing in your lot with truthers?

See I'll go with heavy skepticism, but that type of conspiracy stuff is whacked. It's my take and I'm staying with it. The Popular Mechanics folks are looking for truth, not trying to make it up.

Noir
10-17-2009, 04:57 PM
Look around that site, I mean 'dig', you really are throwing in your lot with truthers?

See I'll go with heavy skepticism, but that type of conspiracy stuff is whacked. It's my take and I'm staying with it. The Popular Mechanics folks are looking for truth, not trying to make it up.

I merely posted them as a retort to your line of "I tend to trust engineers"

Fair play, i don't believe most of the truther stuff either, and i'm also sure there's plenty of it i don't know, however, there's just somthing not right about that building going down the way it went down,

Noir
10-17-2009, 05:02 PM
Double post =/

jimnyc
10-17-2009, 05:03 PM
Really? When was the last time you know of steel melting from fire?

I have yet to see any reasonable person ever state that steel melted in any of the buildings, but the fire was MORE than hot enough to weaken the metals and have the structure collapse. Up to 18 floors of the building one one corner, not shown in Noir's video, was completely GONE before the building dropped. Fires were out of control throughout the entire building. Quite a few firefighters reported the creaking noises and the expensive machinery they use to measure stability shows that the building had moved substantially prior to the collapse (all this is in my debate in the debate forum).

Lastly, hundreds of professionals have now poured over the WTC debris as well as WTC 7 for years, and not ONE SINGLE THING has been recovered to make anyone think this building collapsed from anything other than a tragedy.

Noir
10-17-2009, 05:06 PM
I have yet to see any reasonable person ever state that steel melted in any of the buildings, but the fire was MORE than hot enough to weaken the metals and have the structure collapse. Up to 18 floors of the building one one corner, not shown in Noir's video, was completely GONE before the building dropped. Fires were out of control throughout the entire building. Quite a few firefighters reported the creaking noises and the expensive machinery they use to measure stability shows that the building had moved substantially prior to the collapse (all this is in my debate in the debate forum).

Lastly, hundreds of professionals have now poured over the WTC debris as well as WTC 7 for years, and not ONE SINGLE THING has been recovered to make anyone think this building collapsed from anything other than a tragedy.

Indeed, the steel beign weakened, all the more reason for the building to buckle and fall over, not in ontop if its self, unless all of the steel beams all became weak at exactly the same time,

"Lastly, hundreds of professionals have now poured over the WTC debris as well as WTC 7 for years, and not ONE SINGLE THING has been recovered to make anyone think this building collapsed from anything other than a tragedy."

And there have, i memo watching a show and they were talking about a large concentration of metal particals that were found at the site, a metal that is commonly used in some sort of liquid explosive,

Kathianne
10-17-2009, 05:07 PM
I should have posted this hours ago (http://debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=7661), thanks to Chessy. I think from this point on, I'll skip this thread if not dealt with by Jim...

jimnyc
10-17-2009, 05:07 PM
What about the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth?



http://www.ae911truth.org/

Btw i'm not saying i support this group, as i know nothing about them, however a simple serch on google found these guys, and as you trust engineers...

First off, 90% of those signed on there are a bit kooky and have had many of their claims publicly scrutinized, ripped apart and debunked thoroughly.

Anyhoo - they are not claiming this was an "inside job" but would rather see further investigation as they don't believe the final reports. Not a single person in 8 years has brought forth a shred of evidence to show any bombs on the buildings or on any planes.

This would have taken months, if not years, to fully setup such an operation and would involved hundreds if not thousands to setup. The wiring and explosives would have left trademark evidence - which it did not. Not even a single wire was found to blame any kind of bomb in any of the buildings or any of the planes.

Nothing, nada - zilch. The only "proof" is that a handful don't like the official version. The rest is 100% conspiracy theory without any verifiable proof whatsoever other than opinions.

jimnyc
10-17-2009, 05:11 PM
Indeed, the steel beign weakened, all the more reason for the building to buckle and fall over, not in ontop if its self, unless all of the steel beams all became weak at exactly the same time,

Do you have any idea how much weight comes down when the top of a building starts falling down and what this does to the floors beneath? That's the "explosions" you saw, not bombs, but rather the force of a buildings interior structure falling and all the air being pushed out the windows.

However implausible or strange you might find the fall, you would need more than just an opinion to sway anyone - say a piece of wire, pieces of an explosive, proof in the steel that explosives were placed - ANYTHING - but unfortunately for the truthers - not a SINGLE piece of physical evidence is on their side - which would have been impossible to move/remove after the collapse - unless you would want to infer that the thousands involved in the followup were somehow involved or asked to keep quiet about the results and search.

Noir
10-17-2009, 05:14 PM
First off, 90% of those signed on there are a bit kooky and have had many of their claims publicly scrutinized, ripped apart and debunked thoroughly.

Anyhoo - they are not claiming this was an "inside job" but would rather see further investigation as they don't believe the final reports. Not a single person in 8 years has brought forth a shred of evidence to show any bombs on the buildings or on any planes.

This would have taken months, if not years, to fully setup such an operation and would involved hundreds if not thousands to setup. The wiring and explosives would have left trademark evidence - which it did not. Not even a single wire was found to blame any kind of bomb in any of the buildings or any of the planes.

Nothing, nada - zilch. The only "proof" is that a handful don't like the official version. The rest is 100% conspiracy theory without any verifiable proof whatsoever other than opinions.

It seems that there's a fair amount of evidence for thermite...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UFcklJKZnRM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UFcklJKZnRM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Noir
10-17-2009, 05:20 PM
Do you have any idea how much weight comes down when the top of a building starts falling down and what this does to the floors beneath? That's the "explosions" you saw, not bombs, but rather the force of a buildings interior structure falling and all the air being pushed out the windows.

However implausible or strange you might find the fall, you would need more than just an opinion to sway anyone - say a piece of wire, pieces of an explosive, proof in the steel that explosives were placed - ANYTHING - but unfortunately for the truthers - not a SINGLE piece of physical evidence is on their side - which would have been impossible to move/remove after the collapse - unless you would want to infer that the thousands involved in the followup were somehow involved or asked to keep quiet about the results and search.

Indeed tehre is allot of weight, but if you serch on YouTube for failed building Demos you will see that even in very big buildings if one or two colums don't weaken like they should then the building will fall in a vastly unpredictable way, the idea that everyone one of this buildings colums could go in such a way naturally that the building would fall verticaly at free fall speeds is just plain silly.

And yes as noted in the above video, though you will not of seen it before posting, evidence has been found, for a thermite bomb,

jimnyc
10-17-2009, 05:21 PM
It seems that there's a fair amount of evidence for thermite...

<object height="344" width="425">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UFcklJKZnRM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></object>

Evidence would be "saved" not just made as an opinion. Not a single person out of the thousands that poured over the wreckage or the remains over 8 years has been able to "prove" thermite - which they WOULD be able to prove if it were the case.

Again, I implore you to read the debate I had in the debate forum, and follow the links I provided throughout. The thermite and "molten lava" theories were covered.

The fact that NOTHING has been found over 8 years, for what would be a MAMMOTH undertaking if it were an inside job, tells me all I need to know.

Do you have any clue how many people would need to be involved just to bring down WTC7 alone? Forget all the other buildings and the 3 planes, just this one building alone would have taken an immense amount of manpower and there is really know way of blowing a building without leaving evidence. Out of the millions of pounds of debris that was picked up from all locations, again, not even one strand of wire that can be placed to backup an explosion.

jimnyc
10-17-2009, 05:27 PM
Indeed tehre is allot of weight, but if you serch on YouTube for failed building Demos you will see that even in very big buildings if one or two colums don't weaken like they should then the building will fall in a vastly unpredictable way, the idea that everyone one of this buildings colums could go in such a way naturally that the building would fall verticaly at free fall speeds is just plain silly.

What can you compare this to in order to claim it didn't fall the way it should have? Do you know of any other buildings that have had millions of pounds of debris fall around it and take out 1/5th of the structure, including an entire corner of the building? The steel would eventually buckle, and of course it would do so at it's weakest place - the middle. If an when it gave way, the first to fall through would be the middle of the building, and pull the outside frames with it towards the center.


And yes as noted in the above video, though you will not of seen it before posting, evidence has been found, for a thermite bomb,

Sorry, that's not evidence. Thermite from the pools of "lava" would be evidence. A man stating what he saw burning was thermite IS NOT evidence. I can just as easily state, as did the investigators, that the flames you saw were from jet fuel burning at a few thousand degrees, likely burning everything it touched, including aluminum and anything else within the interior, and weakening the steel structure all along. Proof of the exisitence of thermite would be proof - why couldn't a single investigator back up the claims of PEOPLE WHO WEREN'T EVEN THERE?

Kathianne
10-17-2009, 05:29 PM
Evidence would be "saved" not just made as an opinion. Not a single person out of the thousands that poured over the wreckage or the remains over 8 years has been able to "prove" thermite - which they WOULD be able to prove if it were the case.

Again, I implore you to read the debate I had in the debate forum, and follow the links I provided throughout. The thermite and "molten lava" theories were covered.

The fact that NOTHING has been found over 8 years, for what would be a MAMMOTH undertaking if it were an inside job, tells me all I need to know.

Do you have any clue how many people would need to be involved just to bring down WTC7 alone? Forget all the other buildings and the 3 planes, just this one building alone would have taken an immense amount of manpower and there is really know way of blowing a building without leaving evidence. Out of the millions of pounds of debris that was picked up from all locations, again, not even one strand of wire that can be placed to backup an explosion.

I agree, please read, all of it. Then come back.

jimnyc
10-17-2009, 05:36 PM
I agree, please read, all of it. Then come back.

The problem here is this: The truthers have hand picked quite a bit of information that they can toy with, throw out lame arguments that can't be proven either way, and then proclaim it must be the truth since you can't "disprove it".

Such an undertaking would take MILES of wiring, TONS of explosives (and thermite according to the truthers), likely thousands of people (if not in the many hundreds). People not in the knowledge would have been around and would have had to have been avoided so that they weren't aware of what was going on. Openings would have had to have been made in the steel structures to place explosives.

You think this could be done without a single person speaking out - and not a single iota of evidence being found in 8 years?

jimnyc
10-17-2009, 05:38 PM
Noir and other skeptics:

Please read the following debate:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=7661

If you have questions about what I posted, or disagree, or have questions about something not contained in there - then post it here. Just don't want to rehash the same old arguments 1000 times.

jimnyc
10-17-2009, 10:43 PM
Why do you trust Popular Mechanics?

I'm answering for myself, Not Kath...

I wouldn't have trusted PM if it were just an "article", but their conclusions were from some of the best of the best - AND many that were involved in the analysis and reporting. While some of the "truthers" on the other site also have great credentials, they are offering opinion only on what they saw, not on what they were involved in, as many of the others were. (and lets not forget, the truthers that Noir pointed out just wanted further analysis, they are not saying it was an inside job).

At any rate, here's a list of sources for the now "infamous" Popular Mechanics debunking of the "inside job". I'm listing a few of the top ones and linking to the entire page of sources:

Air Crash Analysis

Bill Crowley special agent, FBI

Ron Dokell president, Demolition Consultants

Michael K. Hynes, Ed.D., ATP, CFI, A&P/IA president, Hynes Aviation Services; expert, aviation crashes

Ed Jacoby Jr. director,
New York State Emergency Management Office (Ret.); chairman, New York State Disaster Preparedness Commission (Ret.)

Air Defense

Lt. Col. Skip Aldous (Ret.) squadron commander,
U.S. Air Force

Todd Curtis, Ph.D. founder, Airsafe.com; president, Airsafe.com Foundation

Maj. Douglas Martin public affairs officer,
North American Aerospace Defense Command

Michael Perini public affairs officer, North American Aerospace Defense Command

Aviation

Fred E.C. Culick, Ph.D., S.B., S.M. professor of aeronautics, California Institute of Technology

Col. Ed Walby (Ret. USAF)
director, business development, HALE Systems Enterprise, Unmanned Systems, Northrop Grumman

Image Analysis

William F. Baker member, FEMA Probe Team; partner, Skidmore, Owings, Merrill

W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. senior vice president, CTL Group; director,
FEMA Probe Team

Steve Douglass image analysis consultant, Aviation Week

Thomas R. Edwards, Ph.D. founder, TREC; video forensics expert.

Structural Engineering / Building Collapse

Farid Alfawakhiri, Ph.D. senior engineer, American Institute of Steel Construction

David Biggs, P.E. structural engineer, Ryan-Biggs Associates; member, ASCE team for FEMA report

Robert Clarke structural engineer, Controlled Demolitions Group Ltd.

Glenn Corbett technical editor, Fire Engineering; member, NIST advisory committee

Vincent Dunn deputy fire chief (Ret.), FDNY; author, The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety

John Fisher, Ph.D. professor of civil engineering, Lehigh University; professor emeritus, Center for Advanced Technology; member, FEMA Probe Team

Christoph Hoffmann, Ph.D. professor of computer science, Purdue University; project director, September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations Using LS-Dyna, Purdue University

Allyn E. Kilsheimer, P.E.
CEO, KCE Structural Engineers PC; chief structural engineer, Phoenix project; expert in blast recovery, concrete structures, emergency response

James Quintiere, Ph.D. professor of engineering, University of Maryland member, NIST advisory committee

Mete Sozen, Ph.D., S.E. Kettelhut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering, Purdue University; member, Pentagon Building Performance Report; project conception, September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations Using LS-Dyna, Purdue University

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=9

chesswarsnow
10-17-2009, 11:08 PM
Sorry bout that,



1. The freakin muslims own 911.
2. They conspred to do it, and did it.
3. We must learn something from this.
4. What we learn should be the topic of a debatepolicy thread.
5. I learn real fast, actually I learned even before 911.
6. What did you learn from 911 is the question?
7. I learned that islam will do anything to kill innocent people, for one thing, did anyone else learn that?
8. Oh thats right I'm just being hateful.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

jimnyc
10-18-2009, 01:47 AM
Really? When was the last time you know of steel melting from fire?


Why do you trust Popular Mechanics?

Also wanted to add... I find it odd that you now are posting so many conspiracies related to 9/11, and even asking Kathianne why she trusted Popular Mechanics. When Sertes and I had our debate, here is exactly what you wrote:


First off Sertes is a complete tool if he really believes 9/11 was an inside job. Also - if he believes that, then he's yet another reason for folks to know and understand why it's sad when cousins marry.

Secondly, Jim - all one needs to do is point him to the Popular Mechanics 9/11report which provides unshakable proof that 9/11 was in fact carried out by our enemy:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5

Right there - end of story, no need to drag it out in the other thread...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=7716

So why the change in your outlook? Why the change about PM?

-Cp
10-18-2009, 04:20 AM
Also wanted to add... I find it odd that you now are posting so many conspiracies related to 9/11, and even asking Kathianne why she trusted Popular Mechanics. When Sertes and I had our debate, here is exactly what you wrote:


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=7716

So why the change in your outlook? Why the change about PM?

A whole slew of articles and books debunking PM:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS332US332&ei=oM_aSuLfDYb2sQORnumxCQ&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAoQBSgA&q=the+credibility+of+the+popular+mechanics+9/11+article&spell=1

-Cp
10-18-2009, 04:21 AM
I'm answering for myself, Not Kath...

I wouldn't have trusted PM if it were just an "article", but their conclusions were from some of the best of the best - AND many that were involved in the analysis and reporting. While some of the "truthers" on the other site also have great credentials, they are offering opinion only on what they saw, not on what they were involved in, as many of the others were. (and lets not forget, the truthers that Noir pointed out just wanted further analysis, they are not saying it was an inside job).

At any rate, here's a list of sources for the now "infamous" Popular Mechanics debunking of the "inside job". I'm listing a few of the top ones and linking to the entire page of sources:

Air Crash Analysis

Bill Crowley special agent, FBI

Ron Dokell president, Demolition Consultants

Michael K. Hynes, Ed.D., ATP, CFI, A&P/IA president, Hynes Aviation Services; expert, aviation crashes

Ed Jacoby Jr. director,
New York State Emergency Management Office (Ret.); chairman, New York State Disaster Preparedness Commission (Ret.)

Air Defense

Lt. Col. Skip Aldous (Ret.) squadron commander,
U.S. Air Force

Todd Curtis, Ph.D. founder, Airsafe.com; president, Airsafe.com Foundation

Maj. Douglas Martin public affairs officer,
North American Aerospace Defense Command

Michael Perini public affairs officer, North American Aerospace Defense Command

Aviation

Fred E.C. Culick, Ph.D., S.B., S.M. professor of aeronautics, California Institute of Technology

Col. Ed Walby (Ret. USAF)
director, business development, HALE Systems Enterprise, Unmanned Systems, Northrop Grumman

Image Analysis

William F. Baker member, FEMA Probe Team; partner, Skidmore, Owings, Merrill

W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. senior vice president, CTL Group; director,
FEMA Probe Team

Steve Douglass image analysis consultant, Aviation Week

Thomas R. Edwards, Ph.D. founder, TREC; video forensics expert.

Structural Engineering / Building Collapse

Farid Alfawakhiri, Ph.D. senior engineer, American Institute of Steel Construction

David Biggs, P.E. structural engineer, Ryan-Biggs Associates; member, ASCE team for FEMA report

Robert Clarke structural engineer, Controlled Demolitions Group Ltd.

Glenn Corbett technical editor, Fire Engineering; member, NIST advisory committee

Vincent Dunn deputy fire chief (Ret.), FDNY; author, The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety

John Fisher, Ph.D. professor of civil engineering, Lehigh University; professor emeritus, Center for Advanced Technology; member, FEMA Probe Team

Christoph Hoffmann, Ph.D. professor of computer science, Purdue University; project director, September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations Using LS-Dyna, Purdue University

Allyn E. Kilsheimer, P.E.
CEO, KCE Structural Engineers PC; chief structural engineer, Phoenix project; expert in blast recovery, concrete structures, emergency response

James Quintiere, Ph.D. professor of engineering, University of Maryland member, NIST advisory committee

Mete Sozen, Ph.D., S.E. Kettelhut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering, Purdue University; member, Pentagon Building Performance Report; project conception, September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations Using LS-Dyna, Purdue University

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=9

Yup.. all of them told to lie about it..

jimnyc
10-18-2009, 09:26 AM
A whole slew of articles and books debunking PM:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS332US332&ei=oM_aSuLfDYb2sQORnumxCQ&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAoQBSgA&q=the+credibility+of+the+popular+mechanics+9/11+article&spell=1


Yup.. all of them told to lie about it..

One can't hide from their own words:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=7716

n0spam4me
10-18-2009, 11:43 AM
Ya, right ... given that in order to produce the result as see in the video of the THREE WTC buildings that "collapsed" that day, the building would have to experience THOUSANDS & quite possibly tens of thousands of welds & connections within the building failing right on Q.

Given the speed of "collapse" and the very regular nature of said "collapse"
I can draw no other conclusion and this is VERY MUCH INDEPENDENT from what any "PHD" type on any subject has to say about this.

GET A CLUE PEOPLE!

ARREST the emperor for INDECENT EXPOSURE!

jimnyc
10-18-2009, 12:05 PM
Ya, right ... given that in order to produce the result as see in the video of the THREE WTC buildings that "collapsed" that day, the building would have to experience THOUSANDS & quite possibly tens of thousands of welds & connections within the building failing right on Q.

Now just give me ANY evidence that it was brought down by anything other than from an airplane hitting it and the jet fuel weakening the structures as they burned. Just one bomb or a handful of wiring that they found showing any explosives were planted will be fine. Surely someone could find even a little bit with a million pounds of rubble went through over 8 years.

chesswarsnow
10-18-2009, 12:10 PM
Sorry bout that,




Ya, right ... given that in order to produce the result as see in the video of the THREE WTC buildings that "collapsed" that day, the building would have to experience THOUSANDS & quite possibly tens of thousands of welds & connections within the building failing right on Q.

Given the speed of "collapse" and the very regular nature of said "collapse"
I can draw no other conclusion and this is VERY MUCH INDEPENDENT from what any "PHD" type on any subject has to say about this.

GET A CLUE PEOPLE!

ARREST the emperor for INDECENT EXPOSURE!



1. Sure it looked like it was too perfect when falling.
2. But when heavy things begin to fall, they fall.
3. Not unlike a fat person falling, when they get started, there's no stopping them.
4. Blaming any others than islam is *CRAZY TALK*.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Gaffer
10-18-2009, 12:42 PM
One can't hide from their own words:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=7716

You noticed this swing too. Seems like someone hit him with a stupidity stick.

chesswarsnow
10-18-2009, 12:47 PM
Sorry bout that,




You noticed this swing too. Seems like someone hit him with a stupidity stick.




1. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:laugh2::laugh2::la ugh2:


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

n0spam4me
10-18-2009, 01:33 PM
"4. Blaming any others than islam is *CRAZY TALK*."

R U serious? .... what we have here is the religion of "patriotism"
where the in order to be a true patriot, you have to despise the official demon.
In the cold war it was Russia, now its Islam ... GET A CLUE PEOPLE!

I could sit here all day and write logical arguments as to WHY 9/11 was an inside job, but given the adherence to the "official" fairy tale in total blind faith that the GOVERNMENT would not or could not stage such an event.....

OPEN YOUR EYES
Arrest the emperor for INDECENT EXPOSURE!

-Cp
10-18-2009, 02:22 PM
One can't hide from their own words:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=7716

I'm not hiding at all...

The sad part is, that you guys wont' even look at anything other than what our Government tells you to look at...

-Cp
10-18-2009, 02:23 PM
You noticed this swing too. Seems like someone hit him with a stupidity stick.

WTH dude? I'm stupid because I dare look at any other evidence than what the Government supplies us with?

MtnBiker
10-18-2009, 02:34 PM
I used to go along with the government lie, until physics expert Rosie O'Donnell pointed out that fire cannot melt steel and then that opened up a whole new reality for me.

n0spam4me
10-18-2009, 03:20 PM
I really don't know if this is supposed to be humor
or what ... but the attack of 9//11/2001 is a VERY serious subject.

what we have here is nothing less than a blatant power grab by GREED INC.

WAR is big business, and manufacturing an excuse to make war is just one of the motivations for the attack of 9/11/2001.

The system is VERY sick right now, we do NOT have a "PRESIDENT"
we have an actor who puts on a show for the American public so that the people who are really making things happen can do their work behind the curtain and not be observed by a public that would surely be out in force with torches & pitchforks if they knew what was really going on.

jimnyc
10-18-2009, 03:22 PM
I'm not hiding at all...

The sad part is, that you guys wont' even look at anything other than what our Government tells you to look at...

I'm not sure what your agenda is, or if you truly changed your mind since your prior posts, but your claims are outright false and laughable. We've debated every scenario possible tons of times. We have looked at all the retarded scenarios that the truthers can come up with and everything fails miserably.

And the majority of information that DOESN'T fail and is credible and backed with facts comes from more than just our government.


WTH dude? I'm stupid because I dare look at any other evidence than what the Government supplies us with?

I would say "stupid" only because you proclaim the "debate" over because of the PM debunking site, then turn around and question it now. You ridiculed those who came up with the conspiracies and are now acting as if those same conspiracies are believable.

jimnyc
10-18-2009, 03:23 PM
I really don't know if this is supposed to be humor
or what ... but the attack of 9//11/2001 is a VERY serious subject.

what we have here is nothing less than a blatant power grab by GREED INC.

WAR is big business, and manufacturing an excuse to make war is just one of the motivations for the attack of 9/11/2001.

The system is VERY sick right now, we do NOT have a "PRESIDENT"
we have an actor who puts on a show for the American public so that the people who are really making things happen can do their work behind the curtain and not be observed by a public that would surely be out in force with torches & pitchforks if they knew what was really going on.

Less crap and more evidence would be nice. What direct evidence do you have to show that 9/11 was anything other than what the reports show? Not conspiracies, op ed pieces or opinions - direct evidence. Then we can talk.

Gaffer
10-18-2009, 03:24 PM
WTH dude? I'm stupid because I dare look at any other evidence than what the Government supplies us with?

Well, let's see. It was all started by Bush haters. The "where was Chaney" crowd. All sorts of folks were screaming about, many are presently in power now in washington. It was the great government conspiracy centered around Bush. So where are all those folks now? Why isn't there a big national investigation going on? Why isn't it all front page news with all sorts of people coming forth to tell their part of the great conspiracy? Because it was all made up, sponsored and paid for by the dnc.

Look at the evidence, but look at who is presenting it and who they are affiliated with. Google the people and groups they mention in articles and see how many lead back to ACORN, or apollo, or other communist and dnc supported groups. Experts with an agenda are what your reading.

n0spam4me
10-18-2009, 06:43 PM
Do you really and truly believe that the THREE steel framed buildings that "collapsed" on 9/11/2001 where the result of fires and chaotic structural damage?

TENS OF THOUSANDS of welds and connections inside the buildings would have to fail right on Q to make it happen as was documented on live TV.

People quibble about the "free fall speed" remark and insist that the towers fell a few seconds slower than free fall speed. OK, even giving it a half second per floor, that is incredibly fast for a gravity induced structural failure.

This is NOT rocket science! over 70% of the WTC tower was intact COLD STEEL and the top part of the building was supposed to have crashed down on it with enough force to COMPLETELY DESTROY the whole thing ... Give me a break!

Now at this point, people usually bring up questions about how long it would take to rig the building for controlled demolition and how many people would have to be involved ... etc ... ok, I don't know, the reality is that it would probably take a team of maybe 50 people a month to do the job, that said, they may work on it a few days and then give it a rest for weeks and go back and do more ... however, that said, you can NOT dismiss the obvious Controlled Demolition by demanding to know how many people where involved ... I can't tell you HOW it was done, but the obvious evidence right in front of the entire world is that these buildings where destroyed by CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

anyhow - no matter how much evidence I bring up,
this is about like trying to explain to a little kid that there is No Santa Clause.

You gotta get away from your emotional attachment to what you believe and look at the evidence.

A! Arrest the emperor for INDECENT EXPOSURE!

Noir
10-18-2009, 06:55 PM
Well, let's see. It was all started by Bush haters. The "where was Chaney" crowd. All sorts of folks were screaming about, many are presently in power now in washington. It was the great government conspiracy centered around Bush. So where are all those folks now? Why isn't there a big national investigation going on? Why isn't it all front page news with all sorts of people coming forth to tell their part of the great conspiracy? Because it was all made up, sponsored and paid for by the dnc.

Look at the evidence, but look at who is presenting it and who they are affiliated with. Google the people and groups they mention in articles and see how many lead back to ACORN, or apollo, or other communist and dnc supported groups. Experts with an agenda are what your reading.

As apose to goverment agencies, who could have no agenda at all :poke:

I'm sure some are in it for purly political goals, but i am certainly not, and it is pretty weak to try and discredit any who speak out against this purly by party politics.

chesswarsnow
10-18-2009, 07:59 PM
Sorry bout that,





I used to go along with the government lie, until physics expert Rosie O'Donnell pointed out that fire cannot melt steel and then that opened up a whole new reality for me.



1. More *CRAZY TALK*.
2. They make steel products by melting it, they use fire to melt steel.
3. Some one needs to learn how metals made!:laugh2:

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

chesswarsnow
10-18-2009, 08:11 PM
Sorry bout that,





"4. Blaming any others than islam is *CRAZY TALK*."

R U serious? .... what we have here is the religion of "patriotism"
where the in order to be a true patriot, you have to despise the official demon.
In the cold war it was Russia, now its Islam ... GET A CLUE PEOPLE!

I could sit here all day and write logical arguments as to WHY 9/11 was an inside job, but given the adherence to the "official" fairy tale in total blind faith that the GOVERNMENT would not or could not stage such an event.....

OPEN YOUR EYES
Arrest the emperor for INDECENT EXPOSURE!




1. Very serious, are you crazy?
2. Look you want to put this on Americans, thats *CRAZY TALK*.
3. You people who think we could do this to ourselves, it plays into the hands of islam, they are the ones who started this, you keep it alive.
4. Its amazing just how easy it was for islam to dupe so many green horns.:laugh2:


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

chesswarsnow
10-18-2009, 08:21 PM
Sorry bout that,





Do you really and truly believe that the THREE steel framed buildings that "collapsed" on 9/11/2001 where the result of fires and chaotic structural damage?




1. Yup, fire metls steel everytime, I used to work at a steel mill, making patterns for molds, that we made engine parts from steel, yup, we used fire to melt steel.

TENS OF THOUSANDS of welds and connections inside the buildings would have to fail right on Q to make it happen as was documented on live TV.

People quibble about the "free fall speed" remark and insist that the towers fell a few seconds slower than free fall speed. OK, even giving it a half second per floor, that is incredibly fast for a gravity induced structural failure.

This is NOT rocket science! over 70% of the WTC tower was intact COLD STEEL and the top part of the building was supposed to have crashed down on it with enough force to COMPLETELY DESTROY the whole thing ... Give me a break!

2. *We will give you a break, when you bring us some real evidence.*



3. Also we will alert the media if you can.:laugh2:

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

chesswarsnow
10-18-2009, 08:32 PM
Sorry bout that,





As apose to goverment agencies, who could have no agenda at all :poke:

I'm sure some are in it for purly political goals, but i am certainly not, and it is pretty weak to try and discredit any who speak out against this purly by party politics.




1. This isn't political, its hatred, hatred coming from islam towards America, and any country that isn't islamic.
2. You need a lesson on reality.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Noir
10-18-2009, 08:36 PM
Sorry bout that,

1. This isn't political, its hatred, hatred coming from islam towards America, and any country that isn't islamic.
2. You need a lesson on reality.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Gaffers post, which i was replying to, said it was political.
I was saying that its not.
Ergo you are agreeing with me...though i don't think you understood that when you posted,
I suggest you direct your "This isn't political" posts to Gaffer.

n0spam4me
10-18-2009, 09:21 PM
Ya, you will be so kind as to give me a break when I provide some REAL evidence and of course U are the ultimate judge of what constitutes REAL evidence.

Like I said - There is NO Santa Clause!


Arrest the emperor for INDECENT EXPOSURE!

theHawk
10-19-2009, 01:45 AM
This short video shows clearly just how that building fell, and it just doesn't look right,

Now i have no idea why the goverment would want to get rid of this building, and nor do i think that the goverment planed 9/11 and attacked its own citizens, however i do think it chose to demolish this building.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Zv7BImVvEyk&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Zv7BImVvEyk&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

After watching the videos its quite clear the callapse isn't the same as the controlled ones. You don't see explosions on any of the floors, there aren't separate sections falling at slightly different times.

Furthermore, considering this building was on fire for the whole day after the attacks in the morning, what would be the point of someone intentionally bringing this building down? Did the supposed conspirators not get the job done with the two towers? After America saw the two towers, and the Pentagon hit in the same day, a much smaller evacuated building going down really wouldn't accomplish much of anything I'd think.

But the conspiracy nuts don't want to talk about that. Nor do they want to talk about the Islamic terrorists that highjacked the four jetliners, and all those people onboard that are...what...missing? Were all their phone calls to their families faked too? Maybe they were "in on it" too.
:lame2:

theHawk
10-19-2009, 02:02 AM
Do you really and truly believe that the THREE steel framed buildings that "collapsed" on 9/11/2001 where the result of fires and chaotic structural damage?

TENS OF THOUSANDS of welds and connections inside the buildings would have to fail right on Q to make it happen as was documented on live TV.

People quibble about the "free fall speed" remark and insist that the towers fell a few seconds slower than free fall speed. OK, even giving it a half second per floor, that is incredibly fast for a gravity induced structural failure.

This is NOT rocket science! over 70% of the WTC tower was intact COLD STEEL and the top part of the building was supposed to have crashed down on it with enough force to COMPLETELY DESTROY the whole thing ... Give me a break!

Now at this point, people usually bring up questions about how long it would take to rig the building for controlled demolition and how many people would have to be involved ... etc ... ok, I don't know, the reality is that it would probably take a team of maybe 50 people a month to do the job, that said, they may work on it a few days and then give it a rest for weeks and go back and do more ... however, that said, you can NOT dismiss the obvious Controlled Demolition by demanding to know how many people where involved ... I can't tell you HOW it was done, but the obvious evidence right in front of the entire world is that these buildings where destroyed by CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

anyhow - no matter how much evidence I bring up,
this is about like trying to explain to a little kid that there is No Santa Clause.

You gotta get away from your emotional attachment to what you believe and look at the evidence.

A! Arrest the emperor for INDECENT EXPOSURE!

What really amazes me about kooks like you that claim a steel framed building can't fail by fire alone, seem to gloss over a fully fueled Boeing 767 slamming into the building at 500 mph and exploding 10,000 gallons of jetfuel.

So, you're absolutely right, it was a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. Ten Thousand gallons of jetfuel for each building. :poke:

-Cp
10-19-2009, 02:38 AM
What really amazes me about kooks like you that claim a steel framed building can't fail by fire alone, seem to gloss over a fully fueled Boeing 767 slamming into the building at 500 mph and exploding 10,000 gallons of jetfuel.

So, you're absolutely right, it was a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. Ten Thousand gallons of jetfuel for each building. :poke:

What's even more amazing is that you think Jet Fuel burns hot enough to melt steel:

Jet fuel burns at 800 to 1500F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750F).

-Cp
10-19-2009, 02:51 AM
In fact, if you wanna get OWNED - read this...

Can't get a deeper explaination of this fire topic..

http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/how-hot.htm

-Cp
10-19-2009, 02:54 AM
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Dx6fBlV9o-Y&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Dx6fBlV9o-Y&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

jimnyc
10-19-2009, 08:31 AM
In fact, if you wanna get OWNED - read this...

Can't get a deeper explaination of this fire topic..

http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/how-hot.htm

The only one "owned" is you for believing that others are saying "melted steel" brought any of the buildings down. If you took the time to actually READ the reports, you would know that they claim that the steel beams and supports were weakened, allowing for the collapses.

*If anyone believes 9/11 was an inside job, then there's another reason for folks to know and understand why it's sad when cousins marry.

n0spam4me
10-19-2009, 09:32 AM
OK, what would YOU call it when agents of the Bush administration are very busy hiding evidence, covering up, and invoking secrecy to prevent people from seeing the FACTS.

The sort of LAME "science" that has come from hit pieces like the Popular Mechanics and Nat Geo (& possibly others...)

There is a HUGE emotional component to the arguments, and I understand that, what I would really like to do is separate the emotional component from the argument and concentrate on the science.

The idea that a building with 70% of the structure being undamaged cold steel and somehow the upper 30% of said structure can "collapse" down onto the lower undamaged part and cause the total destruction of the whole building.
what? .... and in a very regular and orderly manner!

Planet Earth ... we have a problem here!

jimnyc
10-19-2009, 10:01 AM
OK, what would YOU call it when agents of the Bush administration are very busy hiding evidence, covering up, and invoking secrecy to prevent people from seeing the FACTS.

Proof of the hiding and covering up?


The sort of LAME "science" that has come from hit pieces like the Popular Mechanics and Nat Geo (& possibly others...)


I go by the "lame science" of the professionals from FEMA, NIST and others who have worked on this for the past 8 years.


There is a HUGE emotional component to the arguments, and I understand that, what I would really like to do is separate the emotional component from the argument and concentrate on the science.

I have no emotional attachment, I simply look at the FACTS and avoid conspiracies and opinions without merit.


The idea that a building with 70% of the structure being undamaged cold steel and somehow the upper 30% of said structure can "collapse" down onto the lower undamaged part and cause the total destruction of the whole building.
what? .... and in a very regular and orderly manner!

Planet Earth ... we have a problem here!

How about giving is irrefutable facts, which I have already asked of you several times? How do you think the buildings fell? What proof do you have to counter the "official" version? Don't post gay videos, op ed pieces and other crap - just give me the proof to compare to what I already know and we can go forward from there.

theHawk
10-19-2009, 10:48 AM
What's even more amazing is that you think Jet Fuel burns hot enough to melt steel:

Jet fuel burns at 800 to 1500F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750F).

Apparently you failed to understand what I HIGHLIGHTED for you guys.


EXPLOSION

What's even more amazing is that you don't think 10,000 gallons of Jet Fuel exploding isn't enough to damage steel.

theHawk
10-19-2009, 10:56 AM
"Melted" Steel
Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800 to 1500F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800 it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4

jimnyc
10-19-2009, 11:02 AM
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4

*all one needs to do is point him to the Popular Mechanics 9/11report which provides unshakable proof that 9/11 was in fact carried out by our enemy:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5

Sitarro
10-19-2009, 11:21 AM
It seems that there's a fair amount of evidence for thermite...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UFcklJKZnRM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UFcklJKZnRM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Gee, what great proof. That melting metal couldn't be the aluminum skin of the 767 fuselage, could it?

n0spam4me
10-19-2009, 11:22 AM
Given that whatever happened, if it was a jet fuel explosion, or whatever.
The fact remains that the lower 70% of the structure was still standing in the way that it was designed, it was NOT heated up by the fires because all of the steel was connected together in the structure and so would function as a huge heat-sink therefore we have 70% of the building as yet undamaged cold steel, and the top 30% crashes down on it causing the TOTAL DESTRUCTION of the whole building... and it happened twice!
Is this one for RIPLEY or what?

Witnesses at the scene reported hearing explosions!

Also on the subject of the WTC7 "hushaboom"
There had been HOURS for slow incendiary cutting charges to do their work without causing a lot of noise. This operation took a lot of planning & time to implement, but what other explanation for the events do we have?

Truly the emperor is NAKED!

jimnyc
10-19-2009, 11:33 AM
Given that whatever happened, if it was a jet fuel explosion, or whatever.
The fact remains that the lower 70% of the structure was still standing in the way that it was designed, it was NOT heated up by the fires because all of the steel was connected together in the structure and so would function as a huge heat-sink therefore we have 70% of the building as yet undamaged cold steel, and the top 30% crashes down on it causing the TOTAL DESTRUCTION of the whole building... and it happened twice!
Is this one for RIPLEY or what?

Witnesses at the scene reported hearing explosions!

Also on the subject of the WTC7 "hushaboom"
There had been HOURS for slow incendiary cutting charges to do their work without causing a lot of noise. This operation took a lot of planning & time to implement, but what other explanation for the events do we have?

Truly the emperor is NAKED!

Is this your roundabout way of telling me you cannot offer any solid proof at all for your theories? What was found by the thousands of searchers and investigators to make you believe the building was brought down in the way you infer?

jimnyc
10-19-2009, 11:35 AM
Gee, what great proof. That melting metal couldn't be the aluminum skin of the 767 fuselage, could it?

That's why they like THEORIES, because then the wackjobs can come up with any scenario and claim it's "possible". They ignore TONS of physical evidence and claim we're wrong but then expect us to believe their retarded theories with ZERO proof.

n0spam4me
10-19-2009, 12:30 PM
Cognitive Dissonance!

The emperor is NAKED!

Get a clue people!

I have watched the Nat.Geo special, I have read the Popular Mechanics story,
but have YOU seen "BLUEPRINT FOR TRUTH"?

what?

Try to keep an open mind.

Gaffer
10-19-2009, 12:37 PM
Do you really and truly believe that the THREE steel framed buildings that "collapsed" on 9/11/2001 where the result of fires and chaotic structural damage?

TENS OF THOUSANDS of welds and connections inside the buildings would have to fail right on Q to make it happen as was documented on live TV.

People quibble about the "free fall speed" remark and insist that the towers fell a few seconds slower than free fall speed. OK, even giving it a half second per floor, that is incredibly fast for a gravity induced structural failure.

This is NOT rocket science! over 70% of the WTC tower was intact COLD STEEL and the top part of the building was supposed to have crashed down on it with enough force to COMPLETELY DESTROY the whole thing ... Give me a break!

Now at this point, people usually bring up questions about how long it would take to rig the building for controlled demolition and how many people would have to be involved ... etc ... ok, I don't know, the reality is that it would probably take a team of maybe 50 people a month to do the job, that said, they may work on it a few days and then give it a rest for weeks and go back and do more ... however, that said, you can NOT dismiss the obvious Controlled Demolition by demanding to know how many people where involved ... I can't tell you HOW it was done, but the obvious evidence right in front of the entire world is that these buildings where destroyed by CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

anyhow - no matter how much evidence I bring up,
this is about like trying to explain to a little kid that there is No Santa Clause.

You gotta get away from your emotional attachment to what you believe and look at the evidence.

A! Arrest the emperor for INDECENT EXPOSURE!

I bet you watched all the Mission Impossible movies repeatedly.

jimnyc
10-19-2009, 12:37 PM
Cognitive Dissonance!

The emperor is NAKED!

Get a clue people!

I have watched the Nat.Geo special, I have read the Popular Mechanics story,
but have YOU seen "BLUEPRINT FOR TRUTH"?

what?

Try to keep an open mind.

Is this your roundabout way of telling me you cannot offer any solid proof at all for your theories? What was found by the thousands of searchers and investigators to make you believe the building was brought down in the way you infer?

Gaffer
10-19-2009, 12:47 PM
As apose to goverment agencies, who could have no agenda at all :poke:

I'm sure some are in it for purly political goals, but i am certainly not, and it is pretty weak to try and discredit any who speak out against this purly by party politics.

Experts with an agenda supporting certain government agencies.

How much are you hearing now about government conspiracies? How much is the present gov looking into the past events? Why isn't evidence being presented on national news about how it was all a plot? Why aren't hearings being held and people being accused or charged? Because it was all dnc orchestrated bullshit.

And now the only ones left believing it are the tv and movie fed sci fi mystery lovers.

n0spam4me
10-19-2009, 12:58 PM
We have a bit of a problem here, there are a lot of people who seem to accept the word of the OFFICIAL explanation of what happened,
with terms like "total collapse was inevitable" (etc...)

When absent the propaganda machine & the shock & awe show,
it would be considered VERY strange that steel framed buildings would behave as observed that day.

The impasse here boils down to an argument where one side states facts and the "loyal opposition" sez it could not possibly be true,
and ---- Iz so, Iz NOT Iz SO, Iz Not, ad nausum!

There is NO Santa Clause!

Gaffer
10-19-2009, 02:17 PM
We have a bit of a problem here, there are a lot of people who seem to accept the word of the OFFICIAL explanation of what happened,
with terms like "total collapse was inevitable" (etc...)

When absent the propaganda machine & the shock & awe show,
it would be considered VERY strange that steel framed buildings would behave as observed that day.

The impasse here boils down to an argument where one side states facts and the "loyal opposition" sez it could not possibly be true,
and ---- Iz so, Iz NOT Iz SO, Iz Not, ad nausum!

There is NO Santa Clause!

Apparently in your world there is a Santa Claus. And an easter bunnie. All that's needed is a couple of "scientist" with credentials to say it's so. And there are pictures and stories to back it up.

There's an election year coming up. Hmmm maybe its time to rehash old theories, maybe swing a few votes among the not so bright. A Bush, republican, conservative plot. Yeah a few will buy into it and vote for the commie... I mean democrat party. Yeah that will work.

-Cp
10-19-2009, 02:23 PM
Apparently in your world there is a Santa Claus. And an easter bunnie. All that's needed is a couple of "scientist" with credentials to say it's so. And there are pictures and stories to back it up.

There's an election year coming up. Hmmm maybe its time to rehash old theories, maybe swing a few votes among the not so bright. A Bush, republican, conservative plot. Yeah a few will buy into it and vote for the commie... I mean democrat party. Yeah that will work.

Apparently, in your world, you believe everything the Government and its cronies, tell you....(sigh)...

n0spam4me
10-19-2009, 02:53 PM
On the subject of there being an election coming up,
My position on this subject is that WE THE PEOPLE need to abandon the Donkey and Elephant and do something different.
WE THE PEOPLE have been using either Democrats or Republicans to fill offices for more than the past century and look what it has achieved!?!?!?!

WE NEED REAL CHANGE!

A! keep your coins, I WANT CHANGE!

anyhow, the whole economy is a pyramid SCAM ... and it WILL crash & burn at some point, so .... eat, drink & be merry for tomorrow the stock market crashes.
or?

whatever .....

Gaffer
10-19-2009, 03:12 PM
Apparently, in your world, you believe everything the Government and its cronies, tell you....(sigh)...

No I don't. I use reason and logic, and I always ask "WHY".

The 9/11 conspiracy shit is purely politically motivated. It has nothing to do with uncovering truths. If anything it's misdirection. Look at this over here, while I make that disappear.

If there were a real conspiracy why isn't the present administration going after the perpetrators. After all they blame the last administration for everything. No prosecutors, no congressional investigations, no public denouncements. Nothing.

Maybe Bush had no clue about it. Maybe it was all planned and implemented by the clinton administration. Ever go down that road?

Like I said before. Look into these guys and who finances them. Who are they affiliated with. What is their background? Any of them affiliated with current administration czars?

I realize you don't have the resources to dig deeply into these peoples backgrounds but I'm sure someone has. And I'm sure if you find anything, even if it goes against what you think, you will post it here, unlike the partisan bots that post here so much.

-Cp
10-19-2009, 03:18 PM
No I don't. I use reason and logic, and I always ask "WHY".

The 9/11 conspiracy shit is purely politically motivated. It has nothing to do with uncovering truths. If anything it's misdirection. Look at this over here, while I make that disappear.

If there were a real conspiracy why isn't the present administration going after the perpetrators. After all they blame the last administration for everything. No prosecutors, no congressional investigations, no public denouncements. Nothing.

Maybe Bush had no clue about it. Maybe it was all planned and implemented by the clinton administration. Ever go down that road?

Like I said before. Look into these guys and who finances them. Who are they affiliated with. What is their background? Any of them affiliated with current administration czars?

I realize you don't have the resources to dig deeply into these peoples backgrounds but I'm sure someone has. And I'm sure if you find anything, even if it goes against what you think, you will post it here, unlike the partisan bots that post here so much.

Actually, most of the folks seeking the truth of 9/11 have nothing to do w/ any particular political party...

The current administration won't go after them, because - like Bush and those before home -they're beholden to a greater authority... they're simply pawns...

n0spam4me
10-19-2009, 03:56 PM
A! Please see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MRykTpw1RQ


its about WHY Obama doesn't demand prosecution of Bush & Cheney.

Enjoy.

jimnyc
10-19-2009, 07:31 PM
Apparently, in your world, you believe everything the Government and its cronies, tell you....(sigh)...

And in your world you can make fun of something one day and embrace it the next...(sad)...


Actually, most of the folks seeking the truth of 9/11 have nothing to do w/ any particular political party...

The current administration won't go after them, because - like Bush and those before home -they're beholden to a greater authority... they're simply pawns...

Those seeking the truth found it a long time ago. Others have nothing better to do than latch onto idiotic conspiracy theories. Someone once said that these types of views you hold are a result of marrying within the family. You didn't in the past few years, did y.... nevermind.


A! Please see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MRykTpw1RQ


its about WHY Obama doesn't demand prosecution of Bush & Cheney.

Enjoy.

Funny, didn't hear Obama's name in there at all, nor Bush and Cheney. Just some dipshit talking like his tinfoil baseball cap is too tight, probably speaking to a group of "truther" dolts.

n0spam4me
10-19-2009, 08:04 PM
People complain about the "Conspiracy nut cases"
but really now, please do think about this, the con-job has been very intense and its a lot like the imaginary tailor in the story about the Emperor's new clothes, WE HAVE BEEN LIED TO! The whole "OFFICIAL" 9/11/2001 story is all smoke & mirrors!

The evidence is right in front of you, yet large numbers of people still stand there babbling on about how fine the emperor's new robes are, when in fact the emperor should be busted for indecent exposure!

Kathianne
10-19-2009, 08:36 PM
People complain about the "Conspiracy nut cases"
but really now, please do think about this, the con-job has been very intense and its a lot like the imaginary tailor in the story about the Emperor's new clothes, WE HAVE BEEN LIED TO! The whole "OFFICIAL" 9/11/2001 story is all smoke & mirrors!

The evidence is right in front of you, yet large numbers of people still stand there babbling on about how fine the emperor's new robes are, when in fact the emperor should be busted for indecent exposure!

I'm the queen of cryptic. You give me more than a run the money. You are incoherent.

n0spam4me
10-20-2009, 09:10 AM
Have you ever read "the emperors new clothes"?

In the story, people where expected to view a completely naked emperor and praise a non-existent tailor for creating the emperors fabulous new clothes.

In the present, people are shown pictures of obvious controlled demolition and told that the buildings "collapsed" due to an attack by radical Arabs.

Can U say FALSE FLAG OPERATION?

Anyhow, I know that a lot of people are still blinded by the propaganda,
so what can one geek do? ... I try ... but WE THE PEOPLE in the U.S.A.
need to get active! Its not enough to know the truth, spread the word!

jimnyc
10-20-2009, 10:11 AM
Have you ever read "the emperors new clothes"?

In the story, people where expected to view a completely naked emperor and praise a non-existent tailor for creating the emperors fabulous new clothes.

In the present, people are shown pictures of obvious controlled demolition and told that the buildings "collapsed" due to an attack by radical Arabs.

Can U say FALSE FLAG OPERATION?

Anyhow, I know that a lot of people are still blinded by the propaganda,
so what can one geek do? ... I try ... but WE THE PEOPLE in the U.S.A.
need to get active! Its not enough to know the truth, spread the word!

Now things are becoming a little clearer. This is NOT a book you are reading, nor is it fantasy. In the real world, most people with at least 1/4 of a working brain, would want some sort of evidence, ANYTHING resembling physical evidence, before tossing out their views and looking like a retard.

So I'll ask you one last time - what physical evidence do you have to convince us that these buildings were brought down in any other manner than what the official reports state? Thousands of investigators, millions of pounds of rubble, 4 destroyed aircrafts... enough evidence to fill Yankee Stadium. Surely you can give me hard evidence, enough to fill a paper cup. Just one or 2 pieces of real and physical evidence. Until you yo-yo's can answer this question, you are doing nothing more than making asses out of yourselves.

n0spam4me
10-20-2009, 11:10 AM
The evidence is the video record of the "collapse" of three steel framed buildings, note the very regular nature of the "collapse". Note the fact that all three buildings fall FAST, "free-fall speed", maybe, we really don't need to have that debate, because they fell fast enough to make it obvious that these buildings had help ( and at this point it could be explosives or black magic ...)
my point here is that the many tons of undamaged cold steel in the at minimum lower 2/3 of each tower was designed to resist storms and even aircraft crashes and to then say that "TOTAL STRUCTURAL FAILURE WAS INEVITABLE" is just way out-of-line!

This is NOT rocket science, you don't need to be an ENGINEER to get this!

The story "The emperors new clothes" is an illustration of mind games that can and are being played every day by our so-called leaders.

Wake Up AMERICA .... smell the burnt Reichstag!

jimnyc
10-20-2009, 11:13 AM
The evidence is the video record of the "collapse" of three steel framed buildings, note the very regular nature of the "collapse". Note the fact that all three buildings fall FAST, "free-fall speed", maybe, we really don't need to have that debate, because they fell fast enough to make it obvious that these buildings had help ( and at this point it could be explosives or black magic ...)
my point here is that the many tons of undamaged cold steel in the at minimum lower 2/3 of each tower was designed to resist storms and even aircraft crashes and to then say that "TOTAL STRUCTURAL FAILURE WAS INEVITABLE" is just way out-of-line!

This is NOT rocket science, you don't need to be an ENGINEER to get this!

The story "The emperors new clothes" is an illustration of mind games that can and are being played every day by our so-called leaders.

Wake Up AMERICA .... smell the burnt Reichstag!

Still no evidence other than your warped opinion? Not ONE piece of physical evidence? You want to promote a conspiracy but have NOTHING? That's odd. Sucks to be you! :laugh2:

n0spam4me
10-20-2009, 08:10 PM
You fail to recognize EVIDENCE when you see it.

Sorry about that.

Just continue to praise the emperor's tailor and don't worry about a thing.....










whatever .......

Kathianne
10-20-2009, 08:41 PM
There is a reason for the 'conspiracy' forum. Stuff with no rational back-up. Lots of sites that form a circle jerk.

jimnyc
10-20-2009, 08:55 PM
You fail to recognize EVIDENCE when you see it.

Apparently you don't even know what evidence is! You're speaking of a major conspiracy, and thoughts, opinions, op eds & disagreeing with investigators IS NOT evidence.

Evidence would be PROOF of thermite, wiring, explosives... You cannot simply say "the buildings fell like a controlled demolition" and proclaim that to be your evidence. Investigators poured over the EVIDENCE of the rubble for years now and the experts actually involved (not truthers) tell us the buildings did not fall from explosives.

Not a single wire or proof of an explosion was found. But rather than look at that, you turn into an IDIOT and proclaim that the WTC sites were somehow cordoned off to only those involved in your conspiracy. Funny how I know several people that turned up there in the first few days to assist with recovery efforts. Are you implying that they are involved in this conspiracy too?

You have nothing. But I knew that years ago and I knew that from your very first post. I just get too much enjoyment out of asking you dolts questions and watching the "amazing" answers I get in return!

n0spam4me
10-25-2009, 01:36 PM
What do you call a peer reviewed paper on NANO-THERMITE?
what about the very regular nature of the "collapse" of the twin towers?
and the speed of "collapse".

Note: to address the bit about large number of people to pull off such an operation - ever hear of the MANHATTAN PROJECT? D DAY?
or any number of operations that had been secret for as long as it took to accomplish the ends that the planners wanted. Not to mention the fact that there are corporations that have their roots back as far as the dawn of the industrial revolution and the modern incarnation of said corporations are NOT aligned with ANY nation or state, but are international, transnational, or whatever the proper term is, but they have NO allegiance to any nation at all, they are focused on their profit and their power.

Who said " I care not who makes a nations laws ... give me control of the money ..."

Has AMERICA been sold out?

Dare you to open your eyes and look upon a naked emperor and praise a non-existent tailor!

WHAT?

its a sick sad world!

jimnyc
10-25-2009, 02:06 PM
What do you call a peer reviewed paper on NANO-THERMITE?

Depends, show me the paper. Was it done on PHYSICAL evidence from the actual investigation?

n0spam4me
10-25-2009, 02:37 PM
The full report can be downloaded from:

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Fair use quote:

The authors also obtained and examined
additional samples of WTC dust which had been collected
by independent observers on, or very soon after, 9/11.
All of the samples examined contained these very small,
peculiar red/gray chips. Previous studies discussing observations
of the WTC dust include reports by the RJ Lee Company
[14], the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) [15], McGee
et al. [13] and Lioy et al. [16] Some of these studies confirmed
the finding of iron-rich microspheres, which are also
peculiar [5, 8, 11, 13-15] but the red/gray chips analyzed in
this study have apparently not been discussed in previously
published reports. It is worth emphasizing that one sample
was collected about ten minutes after the collapse of the second
Tower, so it cannot possibly have been contaminated by
clean-up operations [17].
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just my bit to add on here, the clean up operation used cutting torches and could NOT possibly have manufactured nano-thermite in the process of the clean up job.
...................
Given that NIST did NOT look for evidence of energetic materials on the steel recovered from ground zero, may I suggest that NIST should be busted for dereliction of duty?

Note that also mentioned in the scientific report are the features of the "collapse" in that it was quite regular and symmetrical and surprisingly fast.

jimnyc
10-25-2009, 03:04 PM
The full report can be downloaded from:

This lame "review" has been discussed and debunked for quite some time now. If it were for real it would have been published in appropriate volumes, but it wasn't. Read this thread for tons of info and links, I have no desire to waste more than a few seconds on you.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139293

n0spam4me
10-25-2009, 03:22 PM
"What evidence? Some rust and aluminum? OH MY GOD!!!!! RUST AND ALUMINUM WAS FOUND AT THE SITE THEREFORE THERMITE DESTROYED THE WORLD TRADE CENTER OMG!!1111!!!111ELEVENTY11111!!111!1!!!"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Right, and this is somekinda enlightened discourse?

Give me a break! Bottom line here is that there is EVIDENCE

and there are also a LOT of people praising a non-existent tailor!

Its a sick sad world!

jimnyc
10-25-2009, 08:29 PM
Give me a break! Bottom line here is that there is EVIDENCE

Dude, you're in denial. First off, it's evidence of jack shit. Secondly, samples just happened to be taken by some "bystanders" that day? LOL

Many of the members over at Rand are seasoned professionals and they picked this apart to the bone. I suggest you read the entire thread, and follow the links for REAL evidence.

And lastly, if it were in a sample that a stranger just happened to pick up that day, it would have been all over in the dust particles. Now you're going to invent a whole new conspiracy as to why those involved in the ACTUAL investigation do not come to the same conclusions as the nutbags.

Winfried Sobottka
10-26-2009, 10:01 AM
As I've said, I've not Jim's patience on arguing this over and over again, but here's a response to Bldg 7's collapse:


It looks like the intended detonations of skyscrapers that are to break for giving free ground for new buildings. But what does that prove without considerating the effects of the special architecture and rules of physics that supposely nobody here knows really well ( I dont either)?

Regarding the consequences of 9/11 (starting a war Bush and Skull & Bones liked to start, beginning a new area of reducing civil rights and of developing police- and security-forces, big profits for special kinds of industry) You may say: "Those who are sending young US-boys to their death in Vietnam, Iraque and Afghanistan have no scruples to blow away a few thousands of civilists for getting those consequences, too!"

But: To know the latter should be enough - and I think that should be clear.

With kindest regards

Your sincer

Winfried Sobottka, United Anarchists

jimnyc
10-26-2009, 10:55 AM
It looks like the intended detonations of skyscrapers that are to break for giving free ground for new buildings. But what does that prove without considerating the effects of the special architecture and rules of physics that supposely nobody here knows really well ( I dont either)?

But the experts that were actually involved with the engineering and subsequent investigation do know, and explained it in detail in a multitude of reports. I've read likely all of them and it makes perfect sense to me. Of course there are parts that I don't understand, but all the experts outside a handful of nutters came to the same conclusions. And yes, I say handful, as a hundred or 2 so called "engineers" disagreeing with the official report, that weren't involved in the investigation, doesn't do much to sway me.


Regarding the consequences of 9/11 (starting a war Bush and Skull & Bones liked to start, beginning a new area of reducing civil rights and of developing police- and security-forces, big profits for special kinds of industry) You may say: "Those who are sending young US-boys to their death in Vietnam, Iraque and Afghanistan have no scruples to blow away a few thousands of civilists for getting those consequences, too!"

So Kerry was involved in this too? LOL

Please re-read what you just wrote and tell me you can say that without giggling like I just did! You tell another member here that they offered no proof in their reply, but you can post this fantasy with nothing to back it up?

BTW - welcome to the board. Where ya from?