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

Checkmate!

Amazing that not one person on this board is fascinated about this footage. This isn't conspiracy theorists postulating about what occured. These are actual news reports from 9-11-2001. This is the best evidence short of a smoking gun.

That is interesting. I was going to post earlier but changed my mind. So, do you think 911 was an inside job?

could the secondary explosions be the cars that are in the underground parking?

It sounds like you are postulating about what caused those sounds.

Evidence of what? Loud bangs and explosions coming out of a burning, about to collapse skyscraper? Elevator doors blown open by a hot fire in an enclosed space?

That was hardly news at the time, when no one knew what would happen next. It certainly isn't news now.

btw: is the troofer's truth officially changing? It used to be controlled demolition via floor by floor sequentially coordinated thermite bombs cuttin the main support pillars on each floor. Now it's large planted explosions in the basement or somewhere near the bottom? I can't really tell by that video - seems to be something like that.

Actually, what I found most fascinating about that video is just how annoyed I got hearing an American news reader say "a nother". That phrase just grates on my ear.

But seriously, dude. This one ain't it. Remember that much of the evidence in these arguments is based solely in the words of news readers who have absolutely no idea how to act in those moments. It's actually fascinating to watch the footage of Walter Cronkite discussing how he had to figure out just how to tell the nation that President Kennedy was dead. And I am, as a human being, deeply moved by the radio broadcast of the Hindenburg crash. The modern news media has neither the dignity nor the utter lack of pretense. We all know what it looked like. And of course there are unanswered questions. And yes, some of these conspiracy theories will, in the end, serve some utility in the pursuit of truth. But no silver nail is going to be found on YouTube.

Seriously, maybe one of my British neighbors would be so kind as to speculate: If I had the proof that 9/11 was an inside job, would the tabloids pay me for the story?

Evidence of what? Loud bangs and explosions coming out of a burning, about to collapse skyscraper? Elevator doors blown open by a hot fire in an enclosed space?

That was hardly news at the time, when no one knew what would happen next. It certainly isn't news now.

btw: is the troofer's truth officially changing? It used to be controlled demolition via floor by floor sequentially coordinated thermite bombs cuttin the main support pillars on each floor. Now it's large planted explosions in the basement or somewhere near the bottom? I can't really tell by that video - seems to be something like that.

By this un informed response I assume that you didn't watch the entire video. There's 3 different fire fighters who used the the word "BOMB IN THE BUILDING". But oh no, you want to believe what Dick Cheney is telling you to believe. How do they have more credibility then the first responders?

Count Soduku, you're on Ignore. With the rest of your racist bretheren on this forum. Please refrain from posting in my threads.

Like two airplanes crashing into two NYC skyscrapers isn't enough? Give me a break man.

Actually, what I found most fascinating about that video is just how annoyed I got hearing an American news reader say "a nother". That phrase just grates on my ear.

But seriously, dude. This one ain't it. Remember that much of the evidence in these arguments is based solely in the words of news readers who have absolutely no idea how to act in those moments. It's actually fascinating to watch the footage of Walter Cronkite discussing how he had to figure out just how to tell the nation that President Kennedy was dead. And I am, as a human being, deeply moved by the radio broadcast of the Hindenburg crash. The modern news media has neither the dignity nor the utter lack of pretense. We all know what it looked like. And of course there are unanswered questions. And yes, some of these conspiracy theories will, in the end, serve some utility in the pursuit of truth. But no silver nail is going to be found on YouTube.

Seriously, maybe one of my British neighbors would be so kind as to speculate: If I had the proof that 9/11 was an inside job, would the tabloids pay me for the story?


What part of the video are you referring to. And youtube isn't the silver nail you're referring to. These are ACTUAL NEWS REPORTS. Please stick to the subject matter at hand. And I want you state at what part of the video you're disputing.

Ganymede, never in a million years could there be an inside job that resulted in ove 300 firefighters getting killed. THEY WERE GOING UP, WHILE THE BUILDINGS WERE COMING DOWN. That takes balls and unbelievable courage AND an enormous desire to save lives.

That beins said news reporters are not engineers and many thing could explode, and i dont know because that exploasion in the beginning sounds alot like a sound effect but it does not matter. Your fixation is troubling though.

They are all initial news reports done before any investigation. Come on our government could never keep something like this a secret, and if they could they would be doing alot more stuff to forward theior agendas, Iraq? we would have found a nuke, instead of nothing.

Like two airplanes crashing into two NYC skyscrapers isn't enough? Give me a break man.

Sorry Spider, Aluminum Planes don't qualify as battering rams. Capable of bringing down Steel Skyscrappers that out weight it by atleast a MILLION tons. Try again. You fail at physics.

They are all initial news reports done before any investigation. Come on our government could never keep something like this a secret, and if they could they would be doing alot more stuff to forward theior agendas, Iraq? we would have found a nuke, instead of nothing.

I have 2 questions for you. Because you're basing your opinion on innuendo.

1) How much money was spent on the 911 Investigation.

2) How much money was spent on the Monica Lewinsky Investigation.

could have been truck bombs like the first time it was tried and failed. you should call the FBI abd let them know.

Ganymede, never in a million years could there be an inside job that resulted in ove 300 firefighters getting killed. THEY WERE GOING UP, WHILE THE BUILDINGS WERE COMING DOWN. That takes balls and unbelievable courage AND an enormous desire to save lives.

That beins said news reporters are not engineers and many thing could explode, and i dont know because that exploasion in the beginning sounds alot like a sound effect but it does not matter. Your fixation is troubling though.

WRONG, the Fire fighters said the word "Bombs in the buildings". Try again.

could have been truck bombs like the first time it was tried and failed. you should call the FBI abd let them know.

Maybe you should hunt with Dick Cheney, and hopefully he shoots you in face too.

Ganymede, never in a million years could there be an inside job that resulted in ove 300 firefighters getting killed. .

Oh really, list the names of the Fire Fighters that testified before the 911 commision! You can't that's why your theory fails.

Have you ever seen what a plane is made of ? have you ever been inside the inner workings of a 737? I have adn I know that the max load weight of a 737 (including the plane itself is 171,000 lbs, thats one hell of a battering ram especially traveling at 400mph

WRONG, the Fire fighters said the word "Bombs in the buildings". Try again.

A firefighter can tell the sound of a bomb? At that range, or any range? Give me a break. They fight fires. They're not demolitions experts. For that you'd need a guy from what is commonly termed a bomb squad.

Maybe you should hunt with Dick Cheney, and hopefully he shoots you in face too.

Typical Trooferism.

By this un informed response I assume that you didn't watch the entire video. There's 3 different fire fighters who used the the word "BOMB IN THE BUILDING". But oh no, you want to believe what Dick Cheney is telling you to believe. How do they have more credibility then the first responders?

Because Cheney had something called "information", which was largely collected after the attack during something termed "analysis". You may want to look these things up. Surely you couldn't be so stupid as to actually think Cheney did it all himself?

Debunked.

Oh yeah: a note on perception.

One observer tells us at about 8:12 that the top of the building "the entire top of the building just blew up". Yet, it didn't, as camerawork from a distance shows. That's the value of close personal observation in a disaster.

Done.

Have you ever seen what a plane is made of

Aluminum


have you ever been inside the inner workings of a 737?

That's not relevant.


I have adn I know that the max load weight of a 737 (including the plane itself is 171,000 lbs, thats one hell of a battering ram especially traveling at 400mph

The WTC weighs 1.8 millionlbs. That's not enough force to bring down the towers.

A firefighter can tell the sound of a bomb? At that range, or any range? Give me a break. They fight fires. They're not demolitions experts. For that you'd need a guy from what is commonly termed a bomb squad.

And neither are you. However, I'll take their word over yours any day. They were there. YOU WEREN'T. They're speaking from experience. You're only providing conjecture.

Typical Trooferism.


Typical Slave.

Aluminum

Do you know how much a plane weighs? Or what critical part of the structural support the plane hit? Or what steel does when stripped of its insulation and heated past 500C?

Typical Slave.

Of what, idiot?

Because Cheney had something called "information", which was largely collected after the attack during something termed "analysis". You may want to look these things up. Surely you couldn't be so stupid as to actually think Cheney did it all himself?

Debunked.

Oh, an Independent investigation was done? Please provide the link. I specifically want the investigation done on WTC 7. Provide me that link or STFU.

1) The building STARTED to collapse from the top NOT the bottom.
2) Maybe there were explosions in the bottom. There could be many explains for this.
for example the structure was giving way and things were breaking apart (exploding) at the base that sounded like bombs. I've seen a tow truck cord snap and bang into a car that sounded like a bomb. If it had hit some... shit, it would have cut them in half. Can you imagine what sort of stress was on the base in a tower THAT BIG? This was just a tow-truck. Imagine a HUGE MEGA structure and the stress involved in one that is compromised.

Also, these New Reporters are picked for their ability to parrot information, NOT actually give an educated opinion.

Do you know how much a plane weighs? Or what critical part of the structural support the plane hit? Or what steel does when stripped of its insulation and heated past 500C?

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/MadridFire.jpg
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/China22.jpg

I guess these buildings keep their fire proofing huh?

You fail at science!

Ganymede, never in a million years could there be an inside job that resulted in over 300 firefighters getting killed. THEY WERE GOING UP, WHILE THE BUILDINGS WERE COMING DOWN. That takes balls and unbelievable courage AND an enormous desire to save lives.

I don't get this. Are you saying that it couldn't be an inside job because there were 300 firefighters in the building but if there weren't then no problem?

Oh, can a mod tell me if I am allowed to post in this thread even though go-bot doesn't want me to? What are the forum rules on this?

1) The building STARTED to collapse from the top NOT the bottom.
2) Maybe there were explosions in the bottom. There could be many explains for this.
for example the structure was giving way and things were breaking apart (exploding) at the base that sounded like bombs. I've seen a tow truck cord snap and bang into a car that sounded like a bomb. If it had hit some... shit, it would have cut them in half. Can you imagine what sort fo stress was on the base in a tower THAT BIG? This was just a tow-truck. Imagine a HUGE MEGA structure and the stress involved in one that is compromised.

Also, these New Reporters a picked for their ability to parrot information, NOT actually give an educated opinion.


I got 2 words for you. Building 7. So your extreme stress theory is in sufficient.

Count, go back to burning crosses man. You have the intelligence of a reptile. Stay the fuck out of my threads.

They are all initial news reports done before any investigation. Come on our government could never keep something like this a secret, and if they could they would be doing alot more stuff to forward theior agendas, Iraq? we would have found a nuke, instead of nothing.

Do you believe Kennedy was killed by a lone gunman? How do you explain the FED being a private business that pays no taxes, has never been audited and is owned by foreigners which is explicity against the Constitution?

Count, go back to burning crosses man. You have the intelligence of a reptile. Stay the fuck out of my threads.

Mods!!! Mods!!! he insulted my intelligence! Give him demerit points!

Edit: Why don't you go back to your kiddie cartoons Go bot? And don't go crying to the mods and hide behind their skirts.

This is funny. I'm actually on Go Bot's side for once and he hates it.

I'm on board - inside job. I've had that opinion for a few years now...

Should never have put your country in the hands of frat boys.

Ok. Wait a second. The firefighters in the video actually said they SAW a bomb. They SAW it. They didn't just HEAR an explosion, which could be from an elevator or some gas or something. They SAW a bomb. That's very different. It was at about 4:30 into the video.... :bugeye:

Yes they saw it, or at least "someone" reported it over their channels. Probably couldn't stomach killing too many cops and firemen.

TruthSeeker, do you think that possibly saw a bomb could mean saw an explosion? or do yopu think the fireman "SAW" a bomb and no one else did? Watching some of these conspiracy videos on youtube is embarrasing that people can be so simple.

I try not to get angry on these forums, so i wont say what i really want to say to Ganey(whatever the fuck he calls himself)- but i dont know what i would do if someone said they want to see me shot in the face and they were standing right in front of me. I dont even like to think about it.

TruthSeeker, do you think that possibly saw a bomb could mean saw an explosion? or do yopu think the fireman "SAW" a bomb and no one else did? Watching some of these conspiracy videos on youtube is embarrasing that people can be so simple.

Stop spreading dis-information. Please name the Conspiracy Theorist on the Video link I provided. You can't, so please stick to the facts. This is a montague of clips from CNN, FOX, CBS, ABC, NBC.


I try not to get angry on these forums, so i wont say what i really want to say to Ganey(whatever the fuck he calls himself)- but i dont know what i would do if someone said they want to see me shot in the face and they were standing right in front of me. I dont even like to think about it.

Cry more n00b, it was a joke.

Another good documentary here Ganymede:

http://divxlive.com/video-44-1220755

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/MadridFire.jpg
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/China22.jpg

I guess these buildings keep their fire proofing huh?

You fail at science!


But they weren't impacted with 4 trillion foot pounds of impact of energy, That is the amount of energy from a 767, that weighs 171,000 pounds, delivers at 550 miles per hour. Just a little bit of difference between the incidents you cite and the WTC collapse.

That is the equivalent of 2000lb. of Military grade TNT, those other building had fires, but there was no impact damage, and large sections of the framing structure were not compromised.

Aluminum




That's not relevant.




The WTC weighs 1.8 millionlbs. That's not enough force to bring down the towers.


It is relevant because you think a 767 is apparently a giant coke can with wings...untrue, 171,000 lbs of metal and thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel is enough to bring down a building, get over yourself.

By this un informed response I assume that you didn't watch the entire video. There's 3 different fire fighters who used the the word "BOMB IN THE BUILDING". But oh no, you want to believe what Dick Cheney is telling you to believe. How do they have more credibility then the first responders? I watched the whole thing - damn if I will again, just to verify what I noted first time through, which was that no one in the video actually saw a bomb in the building themselves.

And no bombs went off in the lower floors, as far as we can see in any of the video of the firefighting or the collapse.

And the video was strangely edited - I would be leaning forward, realizing that the next few moments were key, and those few moments would be cut off. By the third or fourth time that happened, I couldn't help but get a bit suspicious of the editing.

One problem with all the bomb stuff is that we saw the building collapse, right on camera, from the top down, starting just above the airplane impact level (jsut where the structure was msot damaged and the fire hottest) without involving anything at all on the lower floors.

Another feature of this overwrought bomb stuff is that it doesn't change the essential story - nothing says AQ was incapable of planting a coordinated street bomb, maybe something designed to trap the firefighters with fires below them - on the assumption that they would be fighting fires above them. That would be recognizable AQ tactics. Even the actual presence of a bomb in one or more of the buildings would not support, in itself, a conclusion of US government instigation of 9/11.

And so forth.

One of the reasons we haven't been able to get a decent investigation of the US government's relationship to 9/11 is that any such inquiry gets sidetracked into this gaseous swamp of rumors and nonsense - most of it on video, where the contradictions and improbabilites can be slid past reason a bit more easily.

The most likely conspiracy for which that video is evidence is that this distraction is deliberate - that there's some kind of dirty tricks department run out of the Whie House that arranges for this noise every time people settle down and start asking real questions.

Cry more n00b, it was a joke.

oh, it was a joke??? sociopaths have a sense of humor too.

Stop spreading dis-information. Please name the Conspiracy Theorist on the Video link I provided. You can't, so please stick to the facts. This is a montague of clips from CNN, FOX, CBS, ABC, NBC.


I said 'some of those youtube videos', that is part of your problem. Pay attention.

What type of power source did the towers use?

Gas
Oil

Do electrical supplies cause explosions?:scratchin:

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

Checkmate!
Wow. That video took me right back to that day. But it doesn't prove there was a conspiracy. It simply brings back the massive confusion and shock of that day. No one knew what the fuck was happening.

Oh, an Independent investigation was done? Please provide the link. I specifically want the investigation done on WTC 7. Provide me that link or STFU.

Bitch, have you not heard of the damn 9/11 Commission? Give your head a shake, it's stuck.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/MadridFire.jpg
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/China22.jpg

I guess these buildings keep their fire proofing huh?

You fail at science!

They weren't hit by 200 tons of airplane and gas. I feel dumber just by talking to you.

I got 2 words for you. Building 7. So your extreme stress theory is in sufficient.

I got five words for you: fire and massive gas reserves. Shut it, and go away.

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

Checkmate!

Initial reportings of big news events almost always contain many errors and misinformation....so its DEBUNKED

Checkmate!

Checkmate!

LOL.

One thing I've never heard any of the 9/11 conspiracy theories explain is "why"? What purpose would be served by the government blowing up the WTC?

One thing I've never heard any of the 9/11 conspiracy theories explain is "why"? What purpose would be served by the government blowing up the WTC?
That's easy. They say it was to justify the evil neocon's plan to take over the world via war in the middle east. Kind of a burning of the Reichstag redux.

One thing I've never heard any of the 9/11 conspiracy theories explain is "why"? What purpose would be served by the government blowing up the WTC?

If it was to take away some basic freedoms in the U.S, it was an outstanding success.

I am with Ganymede on this. I saw the events in New York that day from the corner of Church and Duane Street and I trust what my ears and eyes witnessed. It was obvious that there were LARGE explosions going off in the lower areas of the towers. Not just cars exploding... but MUCH larger explosions. I've spent one year in Iraq serving my country, and I know the difference between a high powered explosive and a car exploding. And when cars DO explode, the shockwave is not nearly enough to knock a person on thier feet unless they are literally standing on or less than a foot away from the car. Furthermore, after witnessing the impact of the planes into the towers, there were several small explosions as well as many LARGE ones, large explosions that were powerful enough to throw people across the street at the base of the towers. Sorry bud, but no car exlposion is ever that powerful.

Also, take a look at steel buildings that were TOTALLY engulfed in flames and had burned for WEEKS and did not collapse. Yet some how its feasable that the WTC towers collapse only within minutes of the impact??? Please...

Now, Im no expert but I do have the advantage of being able of having first-hand knowledge of both the tragic events of 9/11 as well as experience with explosive devices due to my military career.

Furthermore, if, infact, the explosions were caused by devices planted before hand, it would be impossible to know if it was placed by us or a terrorist organization, as I am sure that either one of them would have "covered thier tracks".

Many of the secondary small explosions were due to interstage water tanks exploding (in tall buildings you need to stage the acsent of water to the top), and even emergency lighting batteries. Much larger explosions could easily be due to pockets of pressurized gas being driven by the impact to many different levels within cavities in the building such as elevator shafts, and either causing simple pressure explosions, or igniting when the fuel-air mixture was critical.

And as we all have such extensive experience with high-energy, fuel-laden projectiles impacting structures, it must be obvious what all of the effects might be. Right? Idiots.

Ganymede, you're an aggressive, ignorant asshat. And you FAIL at science. Ha!

Yet some how its feasable that the WTC towers collapse only within minutes of the impact???
Actually it was more like an hour.

The WTC buildings had a central core of huge steel beams that could not simply desintegrate in less than fifteen seconds. Remember that the top floors descended in 'free fall' time

There had to be planted internal explosions involved.

Again, this documentary is the most exhaustive explanation of the engineering problems involved you'll ever find on the net:

http://divxlive.com/video-44-1220755

The WTC buildings had a central core of huge steel beams that could not simply desintegrate in less than fifteen seconds. Remember that the top floors descended in 'free fall' time

No, they didn't. It's been measured to be significantly less.

There had to be planted internal explosions involved.
Umm... no.

Nevertheless... that is an insanely short period of time.

Nevertheless... that is an insanely short period of time.
Not unless you have even a mild sense of the temperatures and forces involved in such an impact. It's way beyond what most people are used to thinking in terms of.

Nevertheless... that is an insanely short period of time.
Far less than any pancake theory could possibly explain.

Even if such possibilities existed...which they dont.

That's easy. They say it was to justify the evil neocon's plan to take over the world via war in the middle east. Kind of a burning of the Reichstag redux.

Of course, this theory still doesn't explain why they'd plant bombs in the buildings. The suicide hijackings were provocative enough, whether or not the buildings collapsed, so there's no need to undertake the essentially impossible task of secretly wiring the towers for demolition.

Now, Im no expert ...

Then don't present your intuitions as if they represent reliable guides to the physics of skyscraper calamities. Unless you've got a PhD in structural engineering and at least a decade of experience in design/construction/demolition of skyscrapers, your expectations about what should and should not occur in a situation such as 9/11 are worth exactly dick.

This gets to the root of the problem with the "Truth" movement (and the Loose Change video in particular): they use a crude form of populist rhetoric to subvert people's natural (and justified) faith in scientific and technical authorities. They'd have you believe that all it takes to understand the physics of an unprecedented structural catastrophe is a little common sense, a few minutes of selective video footage, and a handful of general facts about materials and physics. This, of course, is ridiculous. If there's ever been a issue that required more in the way of expertise to penetrate, I can't think of it. However, nobody likes to be told "you're not educated enough to figure this out on your own, just trust us," and so the "Truth" movement continues to appeal to a certain segment of the population that possesses both an unhealthy distrust of authority and an overdeveloped estimate of their own judgement.

Then don't present your intuitions as if they represent reliable guides to the physics of skyscraper calamities. Unless you've got a PhD in structural engineering and at least a decade of experience in design/construction/demolition of skyscrapers, your expectations about what should and should not occur in a situation such as 9/11 are worth exactly dick.

This gets to the root of the problem with the "Truth" movement (and the Loose Change video in particular): they use a crude form of populist rhetoric to subvert people's natural (and justified) faith in scientific and technical authorities. They'd have you believe that all it takes to understand the physics of an unprecedented structural catastrophe is a little common sense, a few minutes of selective video footage, and a handful of general facts about materials and physics. This, of course, is ridiculous. If there's ever been a issue that required more in the way of expertise to penetrate, I can't think of it. However, nobody likes to be told "you're not educated enough to figure this out on your own, just trust us," and so the "Truth" movement continues to appeal to a certain segment of the population that possesses both an unhealthy distrust of authority and an overdeveloped estimate of their own judgement.


And I'm sick and tired of people like you for mistating the facts. Here's the list of Scientists and retired Military personal who conclude that this was an inside job.

Michael M. Andregg
St. Paul, MN, USA
PhD U California Davis
Intelligence Affairs

David Heller
Berkeley, CA, USA
BS: Physics Bard College
MA: S. F. Inst. Archit
Architect and Builder

Steven E. Jones
Provo, Utah, USA
Retired BY Physics Professor

George F. Nelson
Huntsville, AL, USA

FAA A&P Licence
US Airforce Colonel (ret

http://physics911.ca/members/

No it's people like you. Who only use conjecture to back up your points. You never use evidence to back up any of your statements. Your arugment is rooted in Emotion not logic.

Then don't present your intuitions as if they represent reliable guides to the physics of skyscraper calamities. Unless you've got a PhD in structural engineering and at least a decade of experience in design/construction/demolition of skyscrapers, your expectations about what should and should not occur in a situation such as 9/11 are worth exactly dick.


Intuitions????

For one, I am a Civil Engineer, soon recieving my Master's at SLU. Secondly, I know EXACTLY how the WTC was constructed down to the last truss. I've done my research.

And last but not least, thank you for making a complete fool of yourself.

It is relevant because you think a 767 is apparently a giant coke can with wings...untrue, 171,000 lbs of metal and thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel is enough to bring down a building, get over yourself.

What about building 7? There goes your argument. Game over, TRY AGAIN!

Here's the list of Scientists and retired Military personal who conclude that this was an inside job.

None of those people are experienced, respected experts in the field of skyscraper design, construction or demolition. Unless you get paid actual money to engineer actual skyscrapers, your intuitions aren't worth squat.

By the way, architects don't count. They decide what buildings look like, not how they stand. Structural engineers do that. I have a friend currently attending the same architecture school as David Heller lists, and he can't even do basic freshman calculus, let alone structural engineering. And they won't be teaching him any of that stuff before he graduates.

None of those people are experienced, respected experts in the field of skyscraper design, construction or demolition. Unless you get paid actual money to engineer actual skyscrapers, your intuitions aren't worth squat.

By the way, architects don't count. They decide what buildings look like, not how they stand. Structural engineers do that. I have a friend currently attending the same architecture school as David Heller lists, and he can't even do basic freshman calculus, let alone structural engineering. And they won't be teaching him any of that stuff before he graduates.

Please... show me YOUR PhD in structural engineering. None??? Then I believe you should follow your own advice and keep quiet instead of telling everyone else to.

What about building 7? There goes your argument. Game over, TRY AGAIN!

I second that. :)

Intuitions????

For one, I am a Civil Engineer, soon recieving my Master's at SLU. Secondly, I know EXACTLY how the WTC was constructed down to the last truss. I've done my research.

And last but not least, thank you for making a complete fool of yourself.

So now you claim that you ARE an expert. Having an advanced degree in engineering myself (and from a much better school than SLU) I happen to know exactly how little a master's graduate is capable of knowing about any particular subject. Again, unless you actually get paid to work on the structural design of actual high-rises and skyscrapers, I'm not impressed.

Of course, this theory still doesn't explain why they'd plant bombs in the buildings. The suicide hijackings were provocative enough, whether or not the buildings collapsed, so there's no need to undertake the essentially impossible task of secretly wiring the towers for demolition.
Oh, I agree. I was just giving the answer I've heard among conspiracy theorists (such as SAM).

To me, the most obvious reason this could not be an "inside job" is that the Bush administration could not possibly keep that kind of conspiracy a secret. They can't even keep our wiretapping of terror suspects secret!

In fact, show me ANY degree of yours in any related field of work. If you wanna pull the Degree card, Im more than willing to play along.

Please... show me YOUR PhD in structural engineering. None??? Then I believe you should follow your own advice and keep quiet instead of telling everyone else to.

I'm not the one passing off my impressions of video clips as science, or challenging the opinions of a vast array of respected experts. It doesn't take a PhD in structural engineering to see that you guys aren't qualified to speak as experts on this stuff. This is something that CAN be easily determined by anyone with a little common sense.

So now you claim that you ARE an expert. Having an advanced degree in engineering myself (and from a much better school than SLU) I happen to know exactly how little a master's graduate is capable of knowing about any particular subject. Again, unless you actually get paid to work on the structural design of actual high-rises and skyscrapers, I'm not impressed.

Now, im not gonna sit here and play "who has the bigger dick". Just scan your degree and post it. Its that simple. I'll scan mine, no prob. Until then.. Your input on this conversation = 0.

To me, the most obvious reason this could not be an "inside job" is that the Bush administration could not possibly keep that kind of conspiracy a secret. They can't even keep our wiretapping of terror suspects secret!

Indeed. Where it really falls apart is when they start to suggest that the entire NIST report is part of the conspiracy.

I'm not the one passing off my impressions of video clips as science, or challenging the opinions of a vast array of respected experts. It doesn't take a PhD in structural engineering to see that you guys aren't qualified to speak as experts on this stuff. This is something that CAN be easily determined by anyone with a little common sense.

And please, tell me what makes YOU qualified.

I'm not the one passing off my impressions of video clips as science, or challenging the opinions of a vast array of respected experts. It doesn't take a PhD in structural engineering to see that you guys aren't qualified to speak as experts on this stuff. This is something that CAN be easily determined by anyone with a little common sense.

Furthermore, I am not "passing off my impressions of video clips as science". I was there that day on vacation before I had to go back to school the next week.

Now, im not gonna sit here and play "who has the bigger dick". Just scan your degree and post it. Its that simple. I'll scan mine, no prob. Until then.. Your input on this conversation = 0.

Yeah, whatever. My degree isn't relevant to the conversation, as I've never claimed to know more structural engineering than you. Rather, my point is that you know less structural engineering than the people who did the NIST report. It doesn't take a degree to see this.

As far as trying to declare my input void, that's a pretty funny tactic. Do you really think that people who read this thread are going to discount my statements just because you've lost your cool?

Intuitions????

For one, I am a Civil Engineer, soon recieving my Master's at SLU. Secondly, I know EXACTLY how the WTC was constructed down to the last truss. I've done my research.

And last but not least, thank you for making a complete fool of yourself.

You claim to be a student?:bravo:

An i am a brain surgeon, i know everything about the human brain...and i am a movie star too.

What about building 7? There goes your argument. Game over, TRY AGAIN!
The lower 10 stories of the south face of the building were destroyed to a depth of about 25%. There was also a continuous fire burning (fed by stored diesel fuel) for hours. This combination was enough to ultimately drop the building.

As far as trying to declare my input void, that's a pretty funny tactic. Do you really think that people who read this thread are going to discount my statements just because you've lost your cool?

Just got tired of you saying it so I thought I would say it back. See just how FUNNY that is? :bravo:

As far as the report, I don't believe it was a THOROUGH report. Too many holes.

You claim to be a student?:bravo:

An i am a brain surgeon, i know everything about the human brain...and i am a movie star too.

I am a student and a professional. I work for the IL Department of Transportation as a Planning and Project Manager for highway constuction. Started just about a year ago.

Furthermore, I am not "passing off my impressions of video clips as science". I was there that day on vacation before I had to go back to school the next week.

Okay, have it your way:

I'm not the one passing off my recollection of events I observed from half a mile away 6 years in the past as science.

None of those people are experienced, respected experts in the field of skyscraper design, construction or demolition. Unless you get paid actual money to engineer actual skyscrapers, your intuitions aren't worth squat.

So why are you still talking?

By the way, architects don't count.

But your opinion does?

They decide what buildings look like, not how they stand.

That's like saying a Dentist can't diagnose a mediacl ailment that don't pertain to teeth. Structural Engineers take alot of the same college courses that ordinary physicists do.

I am a student and a professional. I work for the IL Department of Transportation as a Planning and Project Manager for highway constuction. Started just about a year ago.

So, for the record, you've never held a job involving skyscrapers?

I am a student and a professional. I work for the IL Department of Transportation as a Planning and Project Manager for highway constuction. Started just about a year ago.

aaaahhh, a road builder. That is nice. This would make me more qualified than you though.:p

Sigh... maybe you don't get it. What independent research have you done on the WTC? Do you have any clue many beams, girders, or collumns the two towers contained? Do you know the how deep the footings were submerged? Do you have the blueprints of the towers? Do you know how much estimated weight the towers held at full occupancy? Do you even know the full occupancy of the towers??? Do you have any idea how much weigh can be directly supported on each truss?

So, for the record, you've never held a job involving skyscrapers?

For the record, no I have never had a job involving skyscrapers. Have you?

So why are you still talking?

Because it doesn't require a strong background in skyscraper design to see that you guys aren't nearly as qualified as the actual authorities who did the actual investigation.


But your opinion does?


I've never offered my opinion about the mechanism of collapse. I've offered my opinion on how little authority you possess on this subject. These are two different issue, and the fact that you and MZ3Boy84 seem to have so much trouble comprehending this simple point is not helping your case.


That's like saying a Dentist can't diagnose a mediacl ailment that don't pertain to teeth.

Yes, exactly. Dentists don't attend medical school and are not licensed to practice medicine. If you break a leg or come down with pneumonia, do you go to a dentist?


Structural Engineers take alot of the same college courses that ordinary physicists do.

Yes, but architects don't take any of those classes. Moreover, physicists don't take the relevant classes, which cover the design of steel buildings.

Sigh... maybe you don't get it. What independent research have you done on the WTC? Do you have any clue many beams, girders, or collumns the two towers contained? Do you know the how deep the footings were submerged? Do you have the blueprints of the towers? Do you know how much estimated weight the towers held at full occupancy? Do you even know the full occupancy of the towers??? Do you have any idea how much weigh can be directly supported on each truss?

Sorry, I am not here to educate the random student who lacks the abilty to reason.

Quad: I still don't see how this makes YOU more qualified to speak on the subject. You've not given one specific piece of technical data relating to the WTC.

Edit: Point in case, stop accusing others of not having the qualifications to speak on the subject matter, when you yourself do not have the qualifications.

For the record, no I have never had a job involving skyscrapers. Have you?

No, of course not. But I'm not the one pretending to know more than the team of respected experts who undertook the NIST investigation. All I've done is point out that you're much less qualified than said experts. It does not require a PhD to see this. All it requires is the knowledge that they have been paid to work on actual skyscrapers and you have not.

Quad: I still don't see how this makes YOU more qualified to speak on the subject. You've not given one specific piece of technical data relating to the WTC.

Neither have you.

Did anyone notice the full sized jet liners crashing into these structures at 400 to 500mph?

Did anyone notice the full sized jet liners crashing into these structures at 400 to 500mph?

Airliners have crashed in to large buildings before and the buildings did not collapse.

http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm

You forget that the WTC was SPECIFICALLY designed to handle MULTIPLE impacts from airliners.

Airliners have crashed in to large buildings before and the buildings did not collapse.

http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm

You forget that the WTC was SPECIFICALLY designed to handle MULTIPLE impacts from airliners.

Very good.:)

Quad: I still don't see how this makes YOU more qualified to speak on the subject.

I never claimed to be. My whole point is that only respected experts have sufficient authority that anyone should listen to their opinions on this matter.


You've not given one specific piece of technical data relating to the WTC.

Exactly. My opinion of the technical issues relating to it is not valuable, and I recognize this. I'm trying to get you to realize how worthless your impressions are.


Edit: Point in case, stop accusing others of not having the qualifications to speak on the subject matter, when you yourself do not have the qualifications.

One does not have to be an expert to see that you are not an expert. There is no equivalence between my rejection of your opinions and your rejection of the experts' opinions. You're simply being argumentative (and slow-witted), which further erodes your credibillity. By all means, though, keep at it.

I never claimed to be. My whole point is that only respected experts have sufficient authority that anyone should listen to their opinions on this matter.



Exactly. My opinion of the technical issues relating to it is not valuable, and I recognize this. I'm trying to get you to realize how worthless your impressions are.



One does not have to be an expert to see that you are not an expert. There is no equivalence between my rejection of your opinions and your rejection of the experts' opinions. You're simply being argumentative (and slow-witted), which further erodes your credibillity. By all means, though, keep at it.

Your talking about the experts HIRED by the President? Of course Im going to second guess them. Just as we SHOULD HAVE second guessed about the WMD's in Iraq.

Until you can provide me firm evidence why the towers collapsed, my views stand as is.

You can read all the reports you want, but until you FULLY understand everything that they are talking about, you won't understand that that there are major missing pieces in the report.

As far as my "credibility", I am not running for president. This is a internet forum in case you haven't forgotten. I'm not here to impress or win any hearts. Im here to discuss issues and topics, not to worry about what some total stranger thinks of me. "Oh my god, i hope they like me" :crazy:

Did anyone notice the full sized jet liners crashing into these structures at 400 to 500mph?
Oh, yeah....
http://www.revisionism.nl/Sept11/20010911NY456.jpg

Fake Voices

Fake Voices

huh???

huh???

I am talking about youtube links

What about building 7? There goes your argument. Game over, TRY AGAIN!

How is this even an argument what about the fires that caused catastrophic damage to the buildings structure. How come every time someone makes a good point about why your theory is jsut stoned conspirist bullshit you just pull out the old "what about building 7"? card oh my god what about building fucking 7?

I am with Ganymede on this. I saw the events in New York that day from the corner of Church and Duane Street and I trust what my ears and eyes witnessed. It was obvious that there were LARGE explosions going off in the lower areas of the towers.

Which could as easily have been transformers in the building. See the documentary "Screw Loose Change".

Also, take a look at steel buildings that were TOTALLY engulfed in flames and had burned for WEEKS and did not collapse. Yet some how its feasable that the WTC towers collapse only within minutes of the impact??? Please...

Because those buildings hadn't been hit by planes.

Far less than any pancake theory could possibly explain.

A cursory examination of the tower collapse will reveal that there was no "pancaking"; i.e. no pause.


Steven E. Jones
Provo, Utah, USA
Retired BY Physics Professor

He isn't "retired". He was dismissed. Fired. Pitched.

Intuitions????

For one, I am a Civil Engineer, soon recieving my Master's at SLU. Secondly, I know EXACTLY how the WTC was constructed down to the last truss. I've done my research.

Riiiight. Which we have no proof of whatsoever.

Airliners have crashed in to large buildings before and the buildings did not collapse.

Thankyou for revealing information about a completely different building, built over 50 years prior; in other words, a completely unrelated scenario. The depth of informativeness in this comment is massively underwhelming.

You forget that the WTC was SPECIFICALLY designed to handle MULTIPLE impacts from airliners.

i) prove "multiple"
ii) prove that their specs also meant they could deal with fire, and that they would stay up indefinitely
iii) prove the builders weren't just wrong. It's happened before.

How is this even an argument what about the fires that caused catastrophic damage to the buildings structure. How come every time someone makes a good point about why your theory is jsut stoned conspirist bullshit you just pull out the old "what about building 7"? card oh my god what about building fucking 7?

Because it's the conspiracy theorist's version of, "Won't someone please think of the children!"

Originally Posted by MZ3Boy84
Airliners have crashed in to large buildings before and the buildings did not collapse.

The major difference between the Empire State Building crash is that a B-25 weighs in at 33, 000 lb. fully loaded, which that B-25 wasn't, and its cruse is 230 mph, which it wasn't done at the time as it was in the process of trying to land, a Boeing 767 weighs in at 171,000 lb, and it was at it maximum speed 560+ mph, for a major difference in impact energy, the B-25 that hit the Empire State building didn't penetrate the building, and basically only damaged one wall, and penetrated only about half way into the ESB, the 767's made complete penetrations of the WTC towers, cutting major portions of the core support structure, and blowing fire insulation from the steel it was suppose to protect, really no comparison can be made between the two crashes, different airplane, different construction methods.

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

Checkmate!

Oh! Another 9/11 conspiracy video? And this time its on YouTube? How original!

The major difference between the Empire State Building crash is that a B-25 weighs in at 33, 000 lb. fully loaded, which that B-25 wasn't, and its cruse is 230 mph, which it wasn't done at the time as it was in the process of trying to land,

Also, that B-25 had dumped most of its fuel, as it was in the process of trying an emergency landing in fog in a city.

really no comparison can be made between the two crashes, different airplane, different construction methods.

The construction methods are particularly important. High-rise buildings from the 1930's era (and in particular the Empire State Building) were massively overbuilt. The Empire State Building is essentially a giant slab of steel-reinforced granite and limestone.

Oh! Another 9/11 conspiracy video? And this time its on YouTube? How original!

Nope, it's just a collection of actual news coverage from 9-11. You know the coverage that they're reluctant to ever replay. Because all of their onsite reports contradict the official story. Think, before you foolishly assume and react to something that isn't.

Which could as easily have been transformers in the building. See the documentary "Screw Loose Change".



Because those buildings hadn't been hit by planes.



A cursory examination of the tower collapse will reveal that there was no "pancaking"; i.e. no pause.



He isn't "retired". He was dismissed. Fired. Pitched.



Riiiight. Which we have no proof of whatsoever.



Thankyou for revealing information about a completely different building, built over 50 years prior; in other words, a completely unrelated scenario. The depth of informativeness in this comment is massively underwhelming.



i) prove "multiple"
ii) prove that their specs also meant they could deal with fire, and that they would stay up indefinitely
iii) prove the builders weren't just wrong. It's happened before.


If you don't believe the vast amount of evidence that's already been presented. Then you'll never be convinced. No matter what's in front of your face.

The lower 10 stories of the south face of the building were destroyed to a depth of about 25%. There was also a continuous fire burning (fed by stored diesel fuel) for hours. This combination was enough to ultimately drop the building.

And what are you basing this assumption on? Since it's never f*cking happend before?

hahah 911 posts for you!!! omg the government must be mocking you!

Dont worry he'll be back down to 900 when this thread is cesspooled.

hahah 911 posts for you!!! omg the government must be mocking you!

oh man, that must be GOD smiting him:D.

Nope, it's just a collection of actual news coverage from 9-11. You know the coverage that they're reluctant to ever replay. Because all of their onsite reports contradict the official story. Think, before you foolishly assume and react to something that isn't.

All of which are explained by ignorance and poor information.

That explains something else on this forum too. I "Gany" put me finga on it, tha.

If you don't believe the vast amount of evidence that's already been presented. Then you'll never be convinced. No matter what's in front of your face.

What's in front of my face is my nose and my field of vision. The former allows me to detect the subtle scent of bullshit; the latter, to identify idiocy at a distance.

And what are you basing this assumption on? Since it's never f*cking happend before?

Oh? But here I thought lots of planes had crashed into lots of things. :) But now they didn't. :( Which is it, then? Are we back to this being a singular case again?

what you're calling "checkmate" is in fact speculation in the midst of huge panic and uncertainty

Checkmate!

Checkmate!


According to the new New York Times/CBS News poll, only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks:

Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying

Telling the truth 16%

Hiding something 53%

Mostly lying 28%

Not sure 3%"


:roflmao:

You lose


http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/13469

ohh yes because we all know that polls are soo accurate...:D You fail at being even a semi believable nut job.

ohh yes because we all know that polls are soo accurate...:D You fail at being even a semi believable nut job.

Here's the point neo-fascist. I have evidence to back up my claims. You have nothing but your un informed opinions. Since you failed to debunk the poll with anything factual other then your blustering rubish, you'll continue to lose the debate.

:blbl:

Here's the point neo-fascist. I have evidence to back up my claims. You have nothing but your un informed opinions. Since you failed to debunk the poll with anything factual other then your blustering rubish, you'll continue to lose the debate.

:blbl:


Your evidence is all hearsay, Just becuase someone says something into a camera doesnt make it true. I bet you dont believe there was ever a moon landing either.

The government might be hiding something about what they knew about 9/11 but they certainly didnt do it themselves.


http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

I bet you dont believe there was ever a moon landing either.


http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/
Funnily enough

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=60912

Funnily enough

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=60912

OMFG your kidding me right?!!?! Man thats lame

The government might be hiding something about what they knew about 9/11 but they certainly didnt do it themselves.

Oh they're not hiding something? Ok, can you tell me on what page of the 911 commision report that covers the WTC7? Thank you in advance. :deal:

OMFG your kidding me right?!!?! Man thats lame

And I think he/she denounced AIDS as well...

Oh they're not hiding something? Ok, can you tell me on what page of the 911 commision report that covers the WTC7? Thank you in advance. :deal:

Please explain to me in detail your problem with wt7 then I can address the argument fully, if you just keep rambling on saying WT7 I cant argue properly.
I know it will be hard to form a thoguht or argument that doesnt have something about the initial reporting in it but you can do it, I believe in you.


I bet youve seen aliens too!

Please explain to me in detail your problem with wt7 then I can address the argument fully, if you just keep rambling on saying WT7 I cant argue properly.
I know it will be hard to form a thoguht or argument that doesnt have something about the initial reporting in it but you can do it, I believe in you.


I bet youve seen aliens too!

Ok, since your post failed to link the WTC7 Investigation. It's safe to assume that they're hiding something. Unless you have proof otherwise? This is why you're losing the debate. You failed to prove your claim. That the Government isn't hiding anything. And the lack of an official investigation on WTC7 proves that they're.

You lose, AGAIN

:roflmao:

What part of the video are you referring to. And youtube isn't the silver nail you're referring to. These are ACTUAL NEWS REPORTS. Please stick to the subject matter at hand. And I want you state at what part of the video you're disputing.

Okay, look, it's the whole thing. People have already made the point about the information exchange under such duress. To look at it in terms of my prior answer:

• We all know what it looked like. And of course there are unanswered questions. And yes, some of these conspiracy theories will, in the end, serve some utility in the pursuit of truth.

By the way, "a nother" is at 3:15.

In the first place: We all know what it looked like. Okay? Number two: Yes, there are unanswered questions about exactly what happened. And yes, these conspiracy theories might well be looking at some symptom or evidence of a "real" truth. But no, these YouTube documentaries aren't it. Your title, for instance: "You can't debunk this". And that whole checkmate business. It characterizes everything that's wrong about the "9/11 Truth" movement.

The penultimate segment, the bit from CNBC about a demolition: that's one of their studio presenters, right? Yeah, we know what it looked like. But the words of a CNBC presenter have better dramatic significance than anything else, except that the nature of this particular alleged documentary is such that it demands a different context, and that actually weakens the argument. The documentary you can't debunk: just think about what that asserts.

Let's imagine that someday the Truth theorists are validated inasmuch as someone from the government finally spills a plausible tale of how the U.S. managed to pull it off, or look the other way, or whatever our government's necessary sin was. I promise you: that explanation will debunk this and any other conspiracy-theory film about 9/11.

Take, for instance, Loose Change. I hadn't gotten around to it. And then I was going through some video files on another computer and ended up watching a BBC show called ... I think, Conspiracy Files. It was typical hyperdramatic pabulum, but the one thing I got from the episode was that Dylan Avery was such a prig I actually wanted to see his film.

So much of the conspiracy discussion is set with a contemptuous tone that speaks poorly of its ambition. Loose Change isn't about 9/11. It's about Dylan Avery. This "Ultimate Con" is about Lucus. In their own right, they do important work, but the point isn't about debunking. The truth of the matter will do the debunking. This level of criticism almost precludes itself entirely from actually being right by nature of its outlook. Truth is stranger than fiction. There's a reason for this. It's because fiction is obliged, at some point, to start making sense.

And that's how I know they're wrong.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4c/Abcnews-wtc7damage.jpg


I would say wt7 suffered some pretty severe damage from the tower collapse.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4c/Abcnews-wtc7damage.jpg


I would say wt7 suffered some pretty severe damage from the tower collapse.

Obviously your definition of severe is different then mine

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/MadridFire.jpg
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/China22.jpg

And no these buildings didn't fall

The only building to fall to a fire. Happend on 9-11-2001!

Inside Job

You are dense. But somehow tollerable.

Dense indeed, there is no point in arguing with you. Maybe one day you will be proven right but i highly doubt it

....and maybe one day they will let him out of his rubber room, and let him take off his "huggy jacket". :)

http://www.sciforums.com/avatars/avatar16158_1.gif

Last Activity: Today 06:09 PM
Replying to Thread News clips from 9-11-2001 **You can't debunk this** @ 06:09 PM

:sleep:

Dense indeed, there is no point in arguing with you. Maybe one day you will be proven right but i highly doubt it

Present facts, not your subjective opinions. That's the problem with you Government apologists. I'm not inclined to agree with you based on what you *feel* or *think*. I'm just debating the facts, something you lack.

....and maybe one day they will let him out of his rubber room, and let him take off his "huggy jacket". :)


I broke the rubber, busted a nut up in your mother!

Now tell me, how does it feel to have another little brother?

:roflmao:

Present facts, not your subjective opinions. That's the problem with you Government apologists. I'm not inclined to agree with you based on what you *feel* or *think*. I'm just debating the facts, something you lack.

what facts? besides omg no other building has ever collapsed from fire, just because something has never happened before doesnt mean it never will happen. So far you have pointed to a bunch of youtube videos and the fact that something never had a full investigation done, Fema did invesigate it and said that it seemed unlikely that the building should collapse in this way but all current evidence shows thta it did. You dont have evidence just a belief in some bullshit that someone posts on you tube. way to be

And what are you basing this assumption on? Since it's never f*cking happend before?

First, read and understand this:
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

Now, does anyone remember a building in Oklahoma City? A federal building? Remember? And do you remember what a little fertilizer parked across the street did? Took down the entire face of the building?

Now here we have WTC7 with documented major damage to the south-facing base 10 or so stories and documented fires burning for hours.

So, to what kind of moron is it incredibly, blatantly obvious that it MUST have been controlled demolition? Only the same kind of moron that becomes so fanatically religiously invested in the idea, that no amount of evidence or reason can ever sway them.

Sound familiar, dipshit?

According to the new New York Times/CBS News poll, only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks:

Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying

Telling the truth 16%

Hiding something 53%

Mostly lying 28%

Not sure 3%"

Argumentum ad populum. You lose. :D

Also the "hiding something" makes no specification whatsoever as to what the US is "hiding". It certainly doesn't go as far as "False Flag Operation".

Obviously your definition of severe is different then mine

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/MadridFire.jpg
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/China22.jpg

And no these buildings didn't fall

Uh, bright boy, you notice the massive supports on the corners of the building that didn't fall in? Or that it wasn't a million frigging stories tall? Or that, I don't know, a fucking plane didn't hit it?

:rolleyes: Fuck. I hope you're not your mother's only kid. Cause she needs some good news, man.

:rolleyes: Fuck. I hope you're not your mother's only kid. Cause she needs some good news, man.
HAhahaha! Fucking hilarious!

Uh, bright boy, you notice the massive supports on the corners of the building that didn't fall in? Or that it wasn't a million frigging stories tall? Or that, I don't know, a fucking plane didn't hit it?

:rolleyes: Fuck. I hope you're not your mother's only kid. Cause she needs some good news, man.


Get your story straight man. You're chaning it every other post. You said the fires brought down the buildings. Now you're saying the Aluminum plane did? You fail at physics!:geek:

Get your story straight man. You're chaning it every other post. You said the fires brought down the buildings. Now you're saying the Aluminum plane did? You fail at physics!:geek:

inertia anyone?

I mean...according to you...gush its just aluminum...well let me shoot you in a head with aluminum bullet...see how far it goes. :cool: And just for the fun of it I will heat it up with explosive device inside...just like the plane did.

.

Sound familiar, dipshit?

Nope, you're asking me to respond to punditry. Not a scientific conclusion.

I love the way he keeps saying stuff like "You fail at physics!!!". Ha! What a clown.

Nope, you're asking me to respond to punditry. Not a scientific conclusion.
Punditry? And you can't see the damage to this building yourself?

Moron, it was the combination of them. The impact weakened the structure and cleared out a lot of the fire insulation. The fire weakened the steel, and the building fell down. The liquor weakened your mother's knees, and she let the bad man stick the thing in her special place.

You fail at: reading, comprehension, engineering, math and not picking your ear with sharp things.

Checkmate!

Booya!

Superluminal, Geoffp, and Ganymede... I kindly ask you to limit yourself to non cursing ways of interacting with your fellow members.

Yours truly,

draqon

I love the way he keeps saying stuff like "You fail at physics!!!". Ha! What a clown.

You fail at life. You recycled colostomy bag.

Moron, it was the combination of them. The impact weakened the structure and cleared out a lot of the fire insulation. The fire weakened the steel, and the building fell down. The liquor weakened your mother's knees, and she let the bad man stick the thing in her special place.

You fail at: reading, comprehension, engineering, math and not picking your ear with sharp things.

Where's your proof. What are you basing your theorys on? Your mouth doesn't suffice. Sorry man.

You fail at life. You recycled colostomy bag.
Ha! :D At least I have a purpose, you inert lump of dolomite.

...right...like they all would listen to me...

...right...like they all would listen to me...
But this is hilarious! It's almost too much fun!

Wow, they must really want to get rid of me. After being verbally assualted for 2 straight days, the moment I respond I get an infraction. A list of the insults in this thread. According to this list. GeoffP should be fucking banned.

Geoff Posted:10-09-07, 07:29 PM #27

Of what, idiot?


Geoff Posted: Yesterday, 02:06 PM #50

Bitch, have you not heard of the damn 9/11 Commission? Give your head a shake, it's stuck.


Superluminal Posted: Yesterday, 06:13 PM #57

Ganymede, you're an aggressive, ignorant asshat. And you FAIL at science. Ha!

shichimenshyo posted Today, 04:10 PM #120

You fail at being even a semi believable nut job

Mac Gyver1968 psted Today, 05:17 PM #134

....and maybe one day they will let him out of his rubber room, and let him take off his "huggy jacket

Geoff posted Today, 07:03 PM #141

Fuck. I hope you're not your mother's only kid Cause she needs some good news, man

Geoff P posted Today, 07:25 PM #148

The liquor weakened your mother's knees, and she let the bad man stick the thing in her special place.

You fail at: reading, comprehension, engineering, math and not picking your ear with sharp things.



The double standard is astounding

Wow, they must really want to get rid of me. After being verbally assualted for 2 straight days, the moment I respond I get an infraction.
You got infracted? Hmmm...

You got infracted? Hmmm...

10-11-07 You have received an infraction at SciForums.com
07:26 PM James R

:wtf:

I'd imagine a few of us would get infractions after that demonstration we put on.

Can everyone please listen to this call with an open mind. Don't your let personal hate for me clould your judgement.

Does this sound like mass anarchy on the plane? This does not fit with the official story.

http://www.mishalov.com/911_ong.mp3

Flight 11 attendent Betty Ong

Hey ganymede, sorry about the "dipshit" comment. It was out of line.

Balogny
What's "balogny" ?

Oops. I forgot about the "asshat" one. Apologies.

Moderator note: Several infractions have been handed out following Ganymede's complaints (see above).

Please try to conduct the discussion in a civilised manner.

Thankyou.

:D

O very well. Gany's sensitive (*"Checkmate!"*) feelings have been hurt (*"You failed emergent calculus!"*. I had no idea of the brevity of his feelings.

Where's your proof. What are you basing your theorys on? Your mouth doesn't suffice. Sorry man.

Where's your proof? (Or is that "Troof"? Hm.) You want me to buy this story, so prove your statements. Let's see some numbers. Let's have a big helping of "Troof".

Wow, they must really want to get rid of me. After being verbally assualted for 2 straight days, the moment I respond I get an infraction. A list of the insults in this thread. According to this list. GeoffP should be fucking banned.

Ah ah, now. Calls for banning are grounds for banning. Let's be fair. BTW: aren't you the one that claimed to have inseminated someone's mother and told others to "STFU"? And the "failed" comments?

I call him a nut job, he calls me a facist.....which is more hurtful apparently nut job because i am infracted..ohh well

I call him a nut job, he calls me a facist.....which is more hurtful apparently nut job because i am infracted..ohh well

both is evil.

well now my feelings are hurt im going to cry to mommy

well now my feelings are hurt im going to cry to mommy

sure...morality issues come at older age...;)...but for now rejoice/make fun

I commend you Ganeymede, attempting to awaken those who do not want to be awakened is a thankless job:)
However your not alone...obviously you know that.
There are Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials, Engineers and Architects, Pilots and Aviation Professionals, Professors, Survivors and Family Members, and even Entertainment and Media Professionals, all who want an independent investigation into the events of 9/11.

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

This is not going to go away.

It's already gone. It's absurdities have buried it.

It's already gone. It's absurdities have buried it.

Haha, right on Geoff...love ya man.
You remind me of this clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm1u6qZyQ4w

Anyways...keep fighting the good fight.

There are Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials, Engineers and Architects, Pilots and Aviation Professionals, Professors, Survivors and Family Members, and even Entertainment and Media Professionals, all who want an independent investigation into the events of 9/11. I want one, too. There's a lot about the whole scene that bears closer scrutiny than it got.

And I'm convinced one of the most important factors keeping me and those who feel as I do from getting our inquiry, is the image that BS like this has hung on anyone who wants one.

People who can't make up their minds whether the government set off bombs in the basements of all three buildings or rigged incredibly rugged and well-coordinated millesecond-timed demolition charges on forty floors of both towers and building 7 prior to crashing jumbo jets into them for some reason,


people who think the US government set up an operation that makes Mission Impossible stunts look like high school football plays, ran it flawlessly in split second timing without rehearsal or trial, and kept several hundred people whose friends had been killed from talking about it afterwards, in full view of dozens of TV cameras and thousands of witnesses

people who are willing to accept two or three mutually exclusive explanations for various aspects of one incident

have torpedoed any possibility of a genuine inquiry into, say, the obvious and disturbing Saudi connections between the US government and the financiers of 9/11, the failure to uncover the US support team for the hijackers, the flying skills and false identities involved, the ineffectual response to what could very well have been a far more serious enemy attack (the Russians sounded a bit wistful in their commentary, according to observers), and so forth.

Haha, right on Geoff...love ya man.
You remind me of this clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm1u6qZyQ4w

Anyways...keep fighting the good fight.

LOL - WTC7 WTC7! Hehe.

I'd be more concerned about the "controlled demolition" comparison if the other buildings had come down from the bottom, instead of cracking at the aircraft impact point. Did the evil Lizardoids plant bombs there. Can you perhaps give any reason for why WTC7 would have been blown? Why were there no explosions at the base?

Let's also investigate wiki:

"In May 2002, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued a report on the collapse based on a preliminary investigation conducted jointly with the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers under leadership of Dr. W. Gene Corley, P.E. FEMA made preliminary findings that the collapse was not primarily caused by actual impact damage from the collapse of 1 WTC and 2 WTC but by fires on multiple stories ignited by debris from the other two towers that continued unabated due to lack of water for sprinklers or manual firefighting. Structural elements were exposed to high temperatures for a sufficient period of time to reduce their strength to the point of collapse.[6]"

Gilsanz, Ramon, Edward M. DePaola, Christopher Marrion, and Harold "Bud" Nelson (May 2002). "WTC7 (Chapter 5), pdf", World Trade Center Building Performance Study. FEMA.

It's collapse time? 5:20 PM, after burning all bloody day, its fireproofing being good for 3 hours maximum. I don't know if, on examining the multitude of tapes of WTC7, you struck on the gigantic column of smoke coming out of the building. Generally where there's smoke, there's fire. Maybe the 24,000 gallons of diesel for the generators had something to do with it, or the 12 transformers on the fifth floor, which is where the collapse apparently was, had something to do with the fire and the bang. I'm given to understand that transformers make quite a bang when they go up.

To use your colleague's vocabulary:

Checkmate!

LOL - WTC7 WTC7! Hehe.

I'd be more concerned about the "controlled demolition" comparison if the other buildings had come down from the bottom, instead of cracking at the aircraft impact point. Did the evil Lizardoids plant bombs there. Can you perhaps give any reason for why WTC7 would have been blown? Why were there no explosions at the base?

Lizardoids?!...wtf are you talking about?
Sorry bro, your a little too crazy or jaded for me.:)
But keep on keeping on brother!

Well then, I guess that wraps up the WTC7 investigation. No conspiracy, no demolition. Almost a hundred thousand litres of diesel fuel, massive electricity transformers and a column of smoke that was probably visible from space sort of sorts out the "why" in "Why did WTC7 fall down?"

Thankyou for playing. I've been your host, Geoff P. Good night.

Well then, I guess that wraps up the WTC7 investigation. No conspiracy, no demolition. Almost a hundred thousand litres of diesel fuel, massive electricity transformers and a column of smoke that was probably visible from space sort of sorts out the "why" in "Why did WTC7 fall down?"

Thankyou for playing. I've been your host, Geoff P. Good night.

Here's what seperates me from you.

1) I can provide real life examples that prove fires don't bring down buildings.

2)You on the other hand, can only provide punditry from non independently verifiable sources. The Government doesn't qualify as a nuetral source. Their modus operandi is to provide a conclusion of the facts that best suits them. They have no interest in the truth(The Pat Tilman intentional lies are a good example). That's why WTC7 was left out of 911 commision report. So i'm going to provide you with real life examples to support my theory that fires can't bring down buildings. While you on the other hand, can not.


Here's proof, that fires don't bring down buildings. Until you can show me another example outside of the WTC (That's my challenge to you, if you're man enough to take it) Then I win by default, because I have more evidence to support my theory then you do.

Here's what a real fire looks like

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/Madrid55.jpg
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/Madrid44.gif
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/Madrid33.jpg

Now look at the WTC fires.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/wtc7_louvers_fire.jpg

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/WTCMADRID.jpg

Geoff, your version of physics should apply to these buildings also (But, But, the Jet Fuel) Lets forget about the twin towers. And lets conentrate on building 7. That way you can't use the phantom Jet fuel crunch to mask the weakness of your theory.

Game, Set, Match...NEXT!!

ugh....like i said just because its never happened before doent mean it never will happen..posting the same pictures over and over again doesnt help either, link me a real professional source that is not linked to a conspiracy site that has a professional structural engineer telling us this couldnt have happened..please

ugh....like i said just because its never happened before doent mean it never will happen..posting the same pictures over and over again doesnt help either, link me a real professional source that is not linked to a conspiracy site that has a professional structural engineer telling us this couldnt have happened..please

Me posting someting is better then you posting nothing. That's why I win by default. I use real examples, you provide punditry and conjecture.

Here's what seperates me from you.

Ganymede, there are many things that separate us, and the points you illustrate least of all.

1) I can provide real life examples that prove fires don't bring down buildings.

All of which - as you have, I believe, already stipulated to - constitute different cases. These buildings have not been hit by aircraft; nor have they apparently had 24,000 gallons of diesel fuel and a dozen transformers explode on the same floor. Good attempt, however.

2)You on the other hand, can only provide punditry from non independently verifiable sources. The Government doesn't qualify as a nuetral source.

Actually, it's your opinion so far that doesn't count as independent or verifiable, since you've been consistently unable to locate a single parallel case to either WTC7 or the Twin Towers. Your conspiracy fetish is driving your entire argument.

Here's proof, that fires don't bring down buildings. Until you can show me another example outside of the WTC (That's my challenge to you...

Please show me another example involving a) an aircraft strike with attendant fire or b) a massive gas reserve and exploding transformers. That's my challenge to you, assuming you're man enough to take it.

Geoff, your version of physics should apply to these buildings also (But, But, the Jet Fuel)

:yawn: Correct. You appear at first glance to be learning. Yet, I suspect the truth is rather more complex. You perhaps forget that these buildings didn't burn all day, but rather were hit by aircraft and collapsed at or near the impact points? :rolleyes:

Lets forget about the twin towers. And lets conentrate on building 7. That way you can't use the phantom Jet fuel crunch to mask the weakness of your theory.

Okay, I'll just go with the massive diesel fuel reserves, half a day of fire (since water pressure failed, and because of the tiny distraction of two collapsed hundred-story buildings next door), the professional opinions of firefighters on imminent building collapse (a subject they know well, unlike bombs), 12 transformers (not the kind you play with) and the FEMA report.

Thanks. Your narrowing down my response really helped.

...

Checkmate!

ugh....like i said just because its never happened before doent mean it never will happen..posting the same pictures over and over again doesnt help either, link me a real professional source that is not linked to a conspiracy site that has a professional structural engineer telling us this couldnt have happened..please


Your right, people with structural and architectural experience should be listed.
Sorry bro, here you go

Structural engineering is usually considered a specialty discipline within civil engineering, but it can also be studied in its own right. In the US, most practising structural engineers are currently licensed as civil engineers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_engineer



Also, not to take the position of Architects lightly...

"An architect is a person who is involved in the planning, designing and oversight of a building's construction. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architect


I understand your current skepticism so if you are really only interested in those who have the label structural rather than the more general term civil engineer no problem...glad to help

Jörg Schneider, Dr hc – Professor Emeritus, Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Former President, Joint Committee on Structural Safety, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Elected member of the Swiss Academy of Engineering Sciences. Former Vice President and honorary lifetime member of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering.

" In my opinion the building WTC 7, with the few available video recordings is evidence that the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished."

Mario Fontana, Dr Sc CE – Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, Institute of Structural Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Former Director of the Steel Construction Division, Geilinger AG. Author of more than 40 papers on structural engineering.

Petitioning for:
"On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe that there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore that the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7." http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php

Charles N. Pegelow, BS CE – Licensed Civil Engineer (Structural), State of California. Over 25 years experience in structural design and analysis and project management of major construction projects, including large steel structures.

"The FEMA / Kean Commission Report was a flawed investigation. ...

In addition to the firemen calling the Commission a cover up, there are the victim's family organizations that are saying the same thing.

The commission did gather many experts but did not provide them with the full information they needed. FEMA hampered and distorted the investigation of the professionals they hired.

In conclusion, FEMA / Kean Commission Report was a flawed investigation and it needs to be reopened.

An open, independent of the Federal Government, public inquiry into the attacks should be set up under an independent judicial body with power to subpoena evidence."

Doyle Winterton, B.ES (Engineering Science) – Retired Structural Engineer.

Member: Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice Association Statement: "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is a non-partisan organization consisting of independent researchers and activists engaged in uncovering the true nature of the September 11, 2001 attacks."

Haluk Akol – Architect & Structural Engineer
Lafayette, CA

Dennis J. Kollar, PE – Structural Engineer. Licensed Professional Engineer, State of Wisconsin

Rich Reed, BS Structural Engineering
San Diego, CA

and many more, (I'll continue to post them if you like)all petitioning for an independant investigation.

Please continue to educate yourself to new emerging evidence.
Theres a part in this short clip I know you will enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9Bo...elated&search=



Joseph M. Phelps, MS CE, PE (ret) – Structural Dynamicist, Charter Member, Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Life member, ASCE. Former member of the Marine Technology Society, the American Society for Oceanography, and the Society of Photo-optical Instrumentation Engineers. Founder of Phelps/ABC, an engineering and industrial marketing firm.

"Research proves the current administration has been dishonest about what happened in New York and Washington, D.C. The World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the government's official story about the attack on the Pentagon."


H. Theodore Elden, Jr., B.Arch – Practicing registered architect in West Virginia for over 25 years. Now retired. Graduate of Carnegie Mellon University. Member, American Institute of Architects, West Virginia Chapter. Appointed Member of West Virginia State Board of Architects. Former Member, National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB), and Member, National Committee, Intern Development Program for Architects (IDP).

"Have we, as building professionals, been hoodwinked? Who should better understand the collapse of the World Trade Towers than those in our profession, possibly with the consultation of demolition experts?
As I and millions have reviewed the events of that day, it seems much of the cover story is not true and impossible. As the nation is confused on the reality of that day, have we been making bad decisions ever since?
My web site collects salient information that isolates the demise of the World Trade Towers – linking many experienced, dedicated and articulate technical analysis that show clearly that the World Trade Towers were destroyed by internal explosives and not "fires from the airlines".
After hundreds of hours of research, and thousands of dollars purchasing materials and information, this letter outlines my most salient, articulate examples of things that architects should investigate. If I err slightly in any single item, that does not discount this letter. On the contrary, even if only part of these accusations are true, they should be investigated."
http://www.abodia.com/911/Articles/A...ter_Nov_06.htm


Frank A. DeMartini – WTC victim. Architect and WTC Construction Manager, North Tower, 88th floor. Demartini first worked at the World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the terrorist truck bombing in 1993.

"The [Twin Tower] building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door. This intense grid * and the jet-plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...+martini&hl=en


Danny Jowenko– Proprietor, Demolitons Expert, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie B.V., a European demolition and construction company, with offices in the Netherlands. Founded 1980, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie is certified and holds permits to comply with the Dutch Explosives for Civil Use Act and the German Explosives Act. Jowenko's explosives engineers also hold the German Certificate of Qualifications and the European Certificate for Shotfiring issued by The European Federation of Explosive Engineers.
(discussion with demoliton expert Danny Jowenko)

Jeff Hill: I was just wondering real quickly, I know you had commented on World Trade Center Building 7 before.

Danny Jowenko: Yes, that's right.

Jeff Hill: And I've come to my conclusions, too, that it couldn't have came down by fire.

Danny Jowenko: No, it -- absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: Are you still sticking by your comments where you say it must have been a controlled demolition?

Danny Jowenko: Absolutely.

Jeff Hill: Yes? So, you as being a controlled demolitions expert, you've looked at the building, you've looked at the video and you've determined with your expertise that --

Danny Jowenko: I looked at the drawings, the construction and it couldn't be done by fire. So, no, absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: OK, 'cause I was reading on the Internet, people were asking about you and they said, I wonder -- I heard something that Danny Jowenko retracted his statement of what he said earlier about World Trade Center 7 now saying that it came down by fire. I said, "There's no way that's true."

Danny Jowenko: No, no, no, absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: 'Cause if anybody was -- Like when I called Controlled Demolition here in North America, they tell me that , "Oh, it's possible it came down from fire" and this and that and stuff like that --.

Danny Jowenko: When the FEMA makes a report that it came down by fire, and you have to earn your money in the States as a controlled demolition company and you say, "No, it was a controlled demolition", you're gone. You know?

Jeff Hill: Yeah, exactly, you'll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right?

Danny Jowenko: Of course, of course. That's the end of your -- the end of the story.

Jeff Hill: Yeah, 'cause I was calling demolitions companies just to ask them if they used the term, "Pull it" in demolition terms and even Controlled Demolitions, Incorporated said they did. But the other people wouldn't -- didn't want to talk to me about Building 7 really because obviously 'cause they knew what happened a