News clips from 9-11-2001 **You can't debunk this** [Archive]

View Full Version : News clips from 9-11-2001 **You can't debunk this**

Pages : [1] 2 3

Ganymede

10-09-07, 09:49 AM

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

Checkmate!

Ganymede

10-09-07, 06:23 PM

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.

Count Sudoku

10-09-07, 06:34 PM

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

Orleander

10-09-07, 06:37 PM

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

spidergoat

10-09-07, 06:39 PM

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

iceaura

10-09-07, 06:46 PM

Tiassa

10-09-07, 06:46 PM

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?

Ganymede

10-09-07, 06:55 PM

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?

Ganymede

10-09-07, 06:56 PM

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

spidergoat

10-09-07, 06:57 PM

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

Ganymede

10-09-07, 07:00 PM

John99

10-09-07, 07:04 PM

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.

shichimenshyo

10-09-07, 07:04 PM

Ganymede

10-09-07, 07:05 PM

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.

Ganymede

10-09-07, 07:07 PM

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.

John99

10-09-07, 07:07 PM

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

Ganymede

10-09-07, 07:09 PM

Ganymede

10-09-07, 07:11 PM

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

10-09-07, 07:12 PM

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.

shichimenshyo

10-09-07, 07:14 PM

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

GeoffP

10-09-07, 07:15 PM

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.

GeoffP

10-09-07, 07:17 PM

GeoffP

10-09-07, 07:23 PM

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.

Ganymede

10-09-07, 07:23 PM

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.

Ganymede

10-09-07, 07:27 PM

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.

GeoffP

10-09-07, 07:28 PM

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?

GeoffP

10-09-07, 07:29 PM

Typical Slave.

Of what, idiot?

Ganymede

10-09-07, 07:34 PM

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.

Michael

10-09-07, 07:39 PM

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.

Ganymede

10-09-07, 07:40 PM

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!

Count Sudoku

10-09-07, 07:42 PM

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?

Ganymede

10-09-07, 07:44 PM

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.

Ganymede

10-09-07, 07:45 PM

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

Count Sudoku

10-09-07, 07:46 PM

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 Sudoku

10-09-07, 07:47 PM

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.

Count Sudoku

10-09-07, 07:51 PM

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

nietzschefan

10-09-07, 07:53 PM

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.

TruthSeeker

10-09-07, 07:56 PM

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:

nietzschefan

10-09-07, 08:02 PM

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

John99

10-09-07, 08:23 PM

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.

Ganymede

10-09-07, 08:59 PM

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.

Carcano

10-09-07, 09:28 PM

Another good documentary here Ganymede:

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

Buffalo Roam

10-09-07, 09:36 PM

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.

shichimenshyo

10-09-07, 09:58 PM

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.

iceaura

10-09-07, 09:59 PM

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.

John99

10-09-07, 10:03 PM

Cry more n00b, it was a joke.

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

John99

10-09-07, 10:23 PM

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.

John99

10-09-07, 10:44 PM

What type of power source did the towers use?

Gas
Oil

Do electrical supplies cause explosions?:scratchin:

madanthonywayne

10-09-07, 11:05 PM

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.

GeoffP

10-10-07, 02:06 PM

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.

VitalOne

10-10-07, 04:06 PM

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!

GeoffP

10-10-07, 04:36 PM

Checkmate!

LOL.

MacGyver1968

10-10-07, 05:03 PM

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?

madanthonywayne

10-10-07, 05:07 PM

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.

nietzschefan

10-10-07, 05:49 PM

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.

MZ3Boy84

10-10-07, 05:58 PM

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".

superluminal

10-10-07, 06:13 PM

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!

Carcano

10-10-07, 06:16 PM

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

superluminal

10-10-07, 06:18 PM

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.

MZ3Boy84

10-10-07, 06:19 PM

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

superluminal

10-10-07, 06:25 PM

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.

Carcano

10-10-07, 06:36 PM

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.

quadraphonics

10-10-07, 06:37 PM

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.

quadraphonics

10-10-07, 06:56 PM

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.

Ganymede

10-10-07, 07:14 PM

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.

MZ3Boy84

10-10-07, 07:29 PM

Ganymede

10-10-07, 07:30 PM

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!

quadraphonics

10-10-07, 07:32 PM

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.

MZ3Boy84

10-10-07, 07:34 PM

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.

MZ3Boy84

10-10-07, 07:35 PM

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

I second that. :)

quadraphonics

10-10-07, 07:37 PM

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.

madanthonywayne

10-10-07, 07:37 PM

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!

MZ3Boy84

10-10-07, 07:38 PM

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.

quadraphonics

10-10-07, 07:39 PM

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.

MZ3Boy84

10-10-07, 07:41 PM

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.

quadraphonics

10-10-07, 07:42 PM

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.

MZ3Boy84

10-10-07, 07:43 PM

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.

MZ3Boy84

10-10-07, 07:47 PM

quadraphonics

10-10-07, 07:50 PM

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?

John99

10-10-07, 07:51 PM

superluminal

10-10-07, 07:53 PM

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.

MZ3Boy84

10-10-07, 07:53 PM

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.

MZ3Boy84

10-10-07, 07:56 PM

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.

quadraphonics

10-10-07, 07:57 PM

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.

Ganymede

10-10-07, 07:58 PM

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.

quadraphonics

10-10-07, 07:58 PM

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?

John99

10-10-07, 08:01 PM

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

MZ3Boy84

10-10-07, 08:03 PM

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?

MZ3Boy84

10-10-07, 08:03 PM

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?

quadraphonics

10-10-07, 08:05 PM

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.

John99

10-10-07, 08:06 PM

MZ3Boy84

10-10-07, 08:07 PM

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.

quadraphonics

10-10-07, 08:10 PM

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.

John99

10-10-07, 08:10 PM

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.

superluminal

10-10-07, 08:12 PM

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

MZ3Boy84

10-10-07, 08:22 PM

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.

John99

10-10-07, 08:25 PM

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.:)

quadraphonics

10-10-07, 08:27 PM

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.

MZ3Boy84

10-10-07, 08:37 PM

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:

madanthonywayne

10-10-07, 08:57 PM

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

draqon

10-10-07, 09:01 PM

Fake Voices

MZ3Boy84

10-10-07, 09:12 PM

Fake Voices

huh???

draqon

10-10-07, 09:18 PM

huh???

I am talking about youtube links

shichimenshyo

10-10-07, 09:26 PM

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?

GeoffP

10-10-07, 10:10 PM

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.

Pandaemoni

10-11-07, 10:02 AM

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!"

Buffalo Roam

10-11-07, 12:27 PM

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.

Nikelodeon

10-11-07, 12:42 PM

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

Checkmate!

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

quadraphonics

10-11-07, 01:16 PM

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.

Ganymede

10-11-07, 01:45 PM

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.

Ganymede

10-11-07, 01:47 PM

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.

Ganymede

10-11-07, 01:50 PM

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?

shichimenshyo

10-11-07, 01:55 PM

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

Nikelodeon

10-11-07, 01:59 PM

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

John99

10-11-07, 02:05 PM

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

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

GeoffP

10-11-07, 02:48 PM

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?

otheadp

10-11-07, 03:22 PM

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

GeoffP

10-11-07, 03:44 PM

Checkmate!

Ganymede

10-11-07, 04:08 PM

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

shichimenshyo

10-11-07, 04:10 PM

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

Ganymede

10-11-07, 04:19 PM

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:

shichimenshyo

10-11-07, 04:22 PM

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/

Nikelodeon

10-11-07, 04:25 PM

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

shichimenshyo

10-11-07, 04:26 PM

Funnily enough

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

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

Ganymede

10-11-07, 04:34 PM

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:

draqon

10-11-07, 04:35 PM

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

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

shichimenshyo

10-11-07, 04:36 PM

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!

Ganymede

10-11-07, 04:42 PM

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:

Tiassa

10-11-07, 04:45 PM

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.

shichimenshyo

10-11-07, 04:58 PM

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

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

Ganymede

10-11-07, 05:06 PM

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

John99

10-11-07, 05:08 PM

You are dense. But somehow tollerable.

shichimenshyo

10-11-07, 05:12 PM

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

MacGyver1968

10-11-07, 05:17 PM

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

John99

10-11-07, 05:17 PM

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:

Ganymede

10-11-07, 05:32 PM

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.

Ganymede

10-11-07, 05:33 PM

....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:

shichimenshyo

10-11-07, 05:38 PM

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

superluminal

10-11-07, 06:55 PM

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?

GeoffP

10-11-07, 07:01 PM

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".

GeoffP

10-11-07, 07:03 PM

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.

superluminal

10-11-07, 07:09 PM

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

Ganymede

10-11-07, 07:18 PM

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:

draqon

10-11-07, 07:22 PM

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.

Ganymede

10-11-07, 07:24 PM

.

Sound familiar, dipshit?

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

superluminal

10-11-07, 07:24 PM

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

superluminal

10-11-07, 07:25 PM

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?

GeoffP

10-11-07, 07:25 PM

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.

GeoffP

10-11-07, 07:26 PM

Checkmate!

superluminal

10-11-07, 07:28 PM

Booya!

draqon

10-11-07, 07:34 PM

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

Yours truly,

draqon

Ganymede

10-11-07, 07:34 PM

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.

Ganymede

10-11-07, 07:35 PM

superluminal

10-11-07, 07:38 PM

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

draqon

10-11-07, 07:39 PM

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

superluminal

10-11-07, 07:45 PM

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

Ganymede

10-11-07, 07:59 PM

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

superluminal

10-11-07, 08:01 PM

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...

Ganymede

10-11-07, 08:05 PM

You got infracted? Hmmm...

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

:wtf:

superluminal

10-11-07, 08:08 PM

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

Ganymede

10-11-07, 08:23 PM

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

superluminal

10-11-07, 08:23 PM

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

superluminal

10-11-07, 08:26 PM

Balogny
What's "balogny" ?

superluminal

10-11-07, 08:27 PM

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

James R

10-11-07, 08:29 PM

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.

GeoffP

10-11-07, 10:17 PM

: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.

GeoffP

10-11-07, 10:22 PM

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?

shichimenshyo

10-11-07, 10:22 PM

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

draqon

10-11-07, 10:23 PM

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.

shichimenshyo

10-11-07, 10:24 PM

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

draqon

10-11-07, 10:27 PM

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

moementum7

10-12-07, 12:32 AM

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.

GeoffP

10-12-07, 12:50 AM

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

moementum7

10-12-07, 02:09 AM

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.

iceaura

10-12-07, 02:54 AM

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.

GeoffP

10-12-07, 10:59 AM

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?

GeoffP

10-12-07, 11:18 AM

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!

moementum7

10-12-07, 01:42 PM

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!

GeoffP

10-12-07, 01:56 PM

Ganymede

10-12-07, 02:59 PM

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

Ganymede

10-12-07, 03:03 PM

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!!

shichimenshyo

10-12-07, 03:04 PM

Ganymede

10-12-07, 03:28 PM

GeoffP

10-12-07, 03:38 PM

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!

moementum7

10-12-07, 03:45 PM

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 and they didn't want to say it.

Danny Jowenko: Exactly .
http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/danny_jowenko_022207.mp3

William Rice, PE – Registered Professional Civil Engineer who worked on structural steel and concrete buildings in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. Former Professor at Vermont Technical College where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other building related courses.

""Having worked on structural steel buildings as a civil engineer in the era when the Twin Towers were designed and constructed, I found some disturbing discrepancies and omissions concerning their collapse on 9/11. ...

The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This violates Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit, the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases.

Even if Newton’s Law is ignored, the prevailing theory would have us believe that each of the Twin Towers inexplicably collapsed upon itself crushing all 287 massive columns on each floor while maintaining a free-fall speed as if the 100,000, or more, tons of supporting structural-steel framework underneath didn't exist.

Controlled demolition is so politically unthinkable that the media not only demeans the messenger but also ridicules and "debunks" the message rather than provide investigative reporting. Curiously, it took 441 days for the president’s 9/11 Commission to start an "investigation" into a tragedy where more than 2,500 WTC lives were taken. The Commission’s investigation also didn't include the possibility of controlled-demolition, nor did it include an investigation into the "unusual and unprecedented" manner in which WTC Building #7 collapsed"

Dennis Holloway, B.Arch., M.Arch. (Urban Design) – Former Associate Professor of Environmental Design at the University of Colorado. Former Associate Professor of Architecture, University of Minnesota School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture. Member, National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB). Registered Architect in Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming. Former Licensed/Registered Architect in Michigan and Minnesota. Recipient of the Environmental Quality Award in Science and Technology from the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

"It was the discovery of molten steel in the Tub that made me realize there was something really wrong about the MSM coverage of the Towers. The discovery of intergranular melting has so far not been explained, officially. Building 7 collapse looks like a demolition to me, and if nothing else happens, this should be intensively re-investigated by an independent team of architects and engineers."

There's hundreds more with outstanding credentials if you would like me to list them.
Here's a direct link to over 200 Structural, Architectural and Demolition experts demanding a new and truly independent investigation into the events of 9/11 if your interested.
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

@ the 49:30 mark, an engineer who designed many fire proof steel structures comments...however I would reckomend giving this entire video attention.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...15681105&hl=en

However, I am well aware that most people in your position of stance take this more of a challenge, rather than an opportunity for sharing, so the possibility that you will take any of what I have to share with you without egotistcal filters is slim and none...just the way it is.

Again, it would be impossible to convince the likes of people like Geoff because of their habitual deffensive state they have developed...they can not be wrong as their is to much self involvement of value involved in them being right.

If you have made it this far Geoff, I've been meaning to ask someone like yourself...do you deal in absolutes, or are you always open to new information?
Do you claim that what you believe happened is an absolute certainty, or is it just a higher probability that it is the way you have percieved these events to have unfolded?

Thanks

GeoffP

10-12-07, 03:47 PM

I see you a house full of loonies and raise you a FEMA report.

Call or fold.

Tiassa

10-12-07, 03:52 PM

It was the discovery of molten steel in the Tub that made me realize there was something really wrong about the MSM coverage of the Towers.

What do gay men have to do with anything?

shichimenshyo

10-12-07, 03:54 PM

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.

way to dodge the challenge i have to get the inof from antoher source because I dont think your as knowledgable as you seem or pretend to be

shichimenshyo

10-12-07, 03:55 PM

thank you momentum

moementum7

10-12-07, 04:00 PM

I see you a house full of loonies and raise you a FEMA report.

Call or fold.

:D

Np shichimenshyo.

draqon

10-12-07, 04:01 PM

:D

Np shichimenshyo.

thank you momentum

Ganymede

10-12-07, 04:09 PM

I see you a house full of loonies and raise you a FEMA report.

Call or fold.

This is my last reply to you. Until you can provide any other examples of buildings collapsing due to fire, then you lost. The kerosene fire in the WTC wasn't the hottest buidling fire on record.. And that's a fact!

Try thinking for yourself, and since you're mimicing my catch phrases, it further illustrates just how unoriginal you are.

shichimenshyo

10-12-07, 04:12 PM

the man/women who whines about other members insulting him/her, resorts to even less mature and more obscure insults. bravo ...bravo

moementum7

10-12-07, 04:14 PM

the man/women who whines about other members insulting him/her, resorts to even less mature and more obscure insults. bravo ...bravo

Ahh, let the kids have their fun:D

Ganymede

10-12-07, 04:23 PM

shichimenshyo you're right. Thanks for reminding me. There's a double standard on this board when it comes to infractions. Only when I highlight the blatant hypocrisy of the mods do the infractions get handed out evenly. Since i'm not afforded the equal opportunnity to repeatedly insult (Like Geoff 4 example) I'll have to adjust my verbiage to facilitate the Jim Crow laws on this forum. Because everyone isn't treated equally. Especially me.

GeoffP

10-12-07, 04:25 PM

This is my last reply to you. Until you can provide any other examples of buildings collapsing due to fire, then you lost. The kerosene fire in the WTC wasn't the hottest buidling fire on record.. And that's a fact!

Sorry, I already illustrated what's wrong with your thinking. It really doesn't matter what the hottest fire was. It matters more the impact (you remember the plane? :eek:) and the fire. But, don't worry yourself about it. Go play Xbox.

Try thinking for yourself

I do! That's why I know you're full of shit.

, and since you're mimicing my catch phrases

Naw, I'm just handing you back the crap you deal others.

Duck my Sick

Aww. Gany's lonely tonight. :shrug: Can't help ya.

Checkmate!

superluminal

10-12-07, 06:28 PM

Excuse me, but who rigged up the thousands upon thousands of points of demo gear in both towers and wtc7? And when was this done?

I've seen buildings rigged for controlled demo, and they look like it. Wire everywhere. Thousands of fet of it. And det cord. Not to mention all of the pre-cutting and removal of key structural elements :eek: (forgot about that as part of any controlled demo, did we?).

I am an engineer, but anyone who knows a damn thing about what it takes to bring down even a moderately sized building in a precise fashion (let alone two of the tallest in the world) can tell you immediately how massive and invasive such an undertaking would be.

I've also seen many controlled demo jobs. (I helped develop a wireless remote firing system) The activity of the pre-charges and primary charges is not subtle. It's like watching a simultaneous strafing of every supporting member, by a squadron of fighter jets shooting depleted uranium slugs.

I think your "sources" are worthless and at best, lying. I think you all fail at physics, and common sense.

So, let's forget about speculating on the images and testimony of "experts" and focus on just how such a massive undertaking could occurr in two buildings with tens-of-thousands of occupants virtually 24/7?

What? No scars or evidence of this activity was ever seen before 9-11? Massive wiring and placement of explosives? Plus... did anyone, any scientist, any chemical-sniffing dog ever detect any trace of (or MASSIVE traces) of explosive residue at the WTC site?

So, these buildings were completely wired and prepped for the most amazing demonstration of controlled demo ever attempted, and everyone (except for "reports" after the fact) missed it?

Oh, I forgot. All of the thousands of occupants (many of whom worked there for years and years) were flashy-thingied (like in Men In Black).

So, how, exactly was this pulled off?

iceaura

10-12-07, 06:53 PM

The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. I'm going to pick on that one, because it comes up so often and is so easily handled - by my stopwatch, double checked with frame calculations at the time, the buildings took more than 11 seconds to drop (on the high side - well over 10 on the low side) That is almost 40% more time than free fall. Furthermore, the drop speed did not increase much after about the halfway point.

It's a bit difficult to measure, because most of the time is used up in the initial few feet before it gets rolling, so the exact moment of beginning collapse is critical - and obscured by smoke. Also, the exact moment of ground contact is completely hidden by billowing debris and other buildings. If you try to go by the seismic records, keep in mind that the big impact was from the floor level just above the plane strike - you can't use that to compare with the very top of the builidng fall time, many floors above. The sections above the strike fell as a unit in both buildings. (Demolition experts rigging the whole thing would had to have known the exact floors the planes would strike).

superluminal

10-12-07, 06:56 PM

The sections above the strike fell as a unit in both buildings. (Demolition experts rigging the whole thing would had to have known the exact floors the planes would strike).
That makes too much sense. You are dismissed.

Ganymede

10-12-07, 08:03 PM

That makes too much sense. You are dismissed.

It makes no sense at all. Ever heard of pre meditated murder?

GeoffP

10-12-07, 08:31 PM

superluminal: thankyou. The post was a pleasure to read.

Ganymede, it's time for nightie-night.

Ganymede

10-12-07, 08:41 PM

Congratulations. You've now joined Baron Max, Princess James & Count Soduku. On the ignore list! YIPEE

Exhibiting primitive behavior, and debasing with childish insults serve no purpose during intellectual conversations. Have fun obessing over me.

GeoffP

10-12-07, 09:51 PM

Awesome! Thanks. I'm not sure why you'd pull this move; fear of argumentation is a possibility, but sheer ignorance is also fairly likely.

But I won't be obsessing over your idiocy at all, actually. I'm unbelievably happy when fools put me on ignore - it allows me to trash their foolishness without having to deal with nonsensical comebacks or bickering, which permits me to get the truth across to the reader. Reaching the mind of the willfully unenlightened is something no scholar can manage.

For example, I was especially amused how the obvious differences between a building fire in Spain, and WTC7 and the Twin Towers was deemed unworthy of your rebuttal even though the differentiation was obvious to anyone with a working brainstem.

Thanks again for putting on me ignore,

Geoff

moementum7

10-12-07, 10:54 PM

Lol, I would tend to think it's just your personality.
Just a hunch.:)
You come across as kind of ignorant.
You have probly heard this before I'm sure....just guessing.

I would put you on ignore too if you weren't so cute and entertaining.

moementum7

10-12-07, 11:14 PM

I'm going to pick on that one, because it comes up so often and is so easily handled - by my stopwatch, double checked with frame calculations at the time, the buildings took more than 11 seconds to drop (on the high side - well over 10 on the low side) That is almost 40% more time than free fall. Furthermore, the drop speed did not increase much after about the halfway point.

It's a bit difficult to measure, because most of the time is used up in the initial few feet before it gets rolling, so the exact moment of beginning collapse is critical - and obscured by smoke. Also, the exact moment of ground contact is completely hidden by billowing debris and other buildings. If you try to go by the seismic records, keep in mind that the big impact was from the floor level just above the plane strike - you can't use that to compare with the very top of the builidng fall time, many floors above. The sections above the strike fell as a unit in both buildings. (Demolition experts rigging the whole thing would had to have known the exact floors the planes would strike).

I can not speak on all of the little intricacies of the falling of the twin towers and how and why they fell like they did.
The issues that do concern me however are...
-Building 7 collapsing the way it did...
-The owner of these 3 towers (Silverstein)taking out a huge insurance policy just a few months before the attack ,putting in an extra clause for terrorist attacks and making a 7,000,000,000 (yes 7 billion) on his measily 15 million dollar investment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9BofDUXv0

-The fact that Bush and others in high positions lied about not having any knowledge of these types of possible attacks (twin towers being attacked by hijacked airliners) when in fact these very drills were indeed practiced.

-The first time in history a president or vice president took direct control of the military agency (NORAD) on June 1 2001 making the general in charge stand down and on the very morning of 9/11 ran drills of airliners running into the twin towers.

Iceaura...please check this out...it's all of these little coincidences that bother me the most.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=em_XyTeNA1g

There are way more points that I personly find to be...nothing short of...well, I just can't wrap my head around it.
Gotta go for now, watching a movie with the gf:)

Peace

GeoffP

10-13-07, 08:55 AM

Lol, I would tend to think it's just your personality.
Just a hunch.:)
You come across as kind of ignorant.
You have probly heard this before I'm sure....just guessing.

I have always found that the greatest of fools are always very quick to make the accusation of ignorance when they have no ground to stand on. By "ignorant" do you mean "comprehension of the particulars and a functional brain"?

But tell me: how does the mighty synthesis of eeevil conservative conspiracy stand against the particulars of impacting planes, thousands of gallons of diesel fuel, electrical transformers and the on-site opinions of firefighters about matter they're most fit to judge - i.e. imminent building collapse? Hmm?

I would put you on ignore too if you weren't so cute and entertaining.

Ah: please do. Again, it saves me much bother.

GeoffP

10-13-07, 09:23 AM

I can not speak on all of the little intricacies of the falling of the twin towers and how and why they fell like they did.

Yes, that seems apparent.

The issues that do concern me however are...
-Building 7 collapsing the way it did...

You just said you weren't able to speak on it.

-The owner of these 3 towers (Silverstein)taking out a huge insurance policy just a few months before the attack ,putting in an extra clause for terrorist attacks and making a 7,000,000,000 (yes 7 billion) on his measily 15 million dollar investment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9BofDUXv0

And Bush just decided to "give him a hand", did he? Thought he'd stop by and ram planes loaded with civilians into the Towers, eh? To which end? Ah - the invasion of Iraq, no? And yet the reason trumpeted in the media was the WMDs...which there weren't any of. What a logical conspiracy plan...not. Silverstein only got the $7 billion by suing people and making a nuisance of himself in court, I might add.

I started off the first link noting the classic Larry Silverstein misquote - "pull" meaning "pull the firefighters out", unless you also then accept his complete quote:

[QUOTE]"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire, and I said "you know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it", and they made that decision - to pull - and we watched the building collapse"

Well, well. I seem to have come across something else the conspiracy industry has missed in their rush to sell DVDs. But first, note his rationale for why the firefighters had to be pulled out, which completely agrees with the failure of water pressure and the FEMA statement.

Now - note the bolded text. So, taking Mr. Silverstein's words at complete face value - as you do in your unjudicious view - the fire department made the decision to "pull" the towers? They decided that? So now the fire department is in on it too? :rolleyes:

I will say this: the presentation of the film is frighteningly biased. "Unidentified smoke"...which emerged in a giant plume visible in every video of the building. The film says that "no firefighters were in the building", and then says they were pulled out and then attempts to use this complete and obvious falsehood to say that the FEMA report contradicts. And so and so on. Even in the end your expert decides to go with his impression ("the same day? are you sure? the 11th?") rather than accept that it wasn't demolition. (They certainly had to go far for that interview, didn't they? :)) The calm, placid way that the film delivers falsehood after falsehood is a real credit to blind credulity of "Troofers".

There are way more points that I personly find to be...nothing short of...well, I just can't wrap my head around it.

Yes. I can tell.

moementum7

10-13-07, 02:46 PM

Is that it, that's your response?
Good for you geoffy, you spin so well you should be a reporter, lol.

Edit: Geoffy, maybe you haven't noticed but I wasn't talking to you.
Notice how I was speaking to Ice by notice of that little quote box?
But since this is an open forum theres not much I can do about it...lucky for you huh:)
Who are you trying to convince, me or yourself of your own opinion?
It really comes across as though your talking to hear yourself speak, cause no one else wants to listen...lol

You come across as much too biased yourself and are too interested in trying to appear witty or superior with your subtle slanders which makes myself very uninterested in carrying out any further forms of direct communication with you.

It's not your opinions, it's your personality that is unattractive and distasteful.
Don't be offended, this is what we call constructive criticism.
Maybe you don't know your being an ass.

So for shitz n giggles in this instance I will speak to you directly since you seem to want the attention...
what about the insurance claim taken out just before 9/11 with specific clauses added to include acts of terrorsim specificaly?
What about the lying of Bush and other high up officials of saying they had no idea that airliners could be used as weapons when those very exact drills including the pentagon were indeed practiced repeatedly?
What about the stand down of NORAD(first time in history) and the twin tower drills THE MORNING of 9/11?

If this doesn't even make you blink...then what's really even the point of speaking with you?
Your mind is made up...period.

And so we disagree...big deal.

GeoffP

10-13-07, 03:23 PM

My points obliterated yours, just for clarity. I noticed you had no counterargument at all.

Troofers. :rolleyes: No "troof", and no interest in locating it.

moementum7

10-13-07, 03:32 PM

Haha, yeah right geoff.
See my edited post you silly boy.

superluminal

10-13-07, 03:34 PM

Is that it, that's your response?
Good for you geoffy, lol.
I win.
No. You all lose. Please explain how a job that would require virtually tearing apart two of the worlds largest publicly occupied buildings was done in order to do a controlled demo. And no one noticed until after 9-11?

Of course, anyone who's seen a controlled demo of even a small building knows they look nothing like the WTC towers falling, except for the falling part.

Maybe due to the hundreds of tons of building above the weakend section falling on the rest of them?

Just a note. One of the links Ganymede provided had a woman "scientist" saying, with no equations or justification, that the floors above didn't have nearly the kinetic energy required to cause those below to start collapsing. Gimme a fucking break.

I think he needs some more convincing sources...

Sheesh.

moementum7

10-13-07, 03:43 PM

Ganymede

10-13-07, 03:43 PM

Just a note. One of the links Ganymede provided had a woman "scientist" saying, with no equations or justification, that the floors above didn't have nearly the kinetic energy required to cause those below to start collapsing. Gimme a fucking break.

I think he needs some more convincing sources...

Sheesh.

Pot, meet Kettle.

superluminal

10-13-07, 03:44 PM

superluminal

10-13-07, 03:45 PM

Pot, meet Kettle.
Hi pot.

No responses to my multiple posts regarding the virtual impossibiliy of rigging the WTC towers for the most spectacular controlled demo ever attempted?

GeoffP

10-13-07, 03:57 PM

Is that it, that's your response?
Good for you geoffy, you spin so well you should be a reporter, lol.

Illustrate how that was spin, pedant.

It really comes across as though your talking to hear yourself speak, cause no one else wants to listen...lol

Yet you are. You're hearing something you don't want to; having your assumptions challenged doesn't seem to agree with you.

You come across as much too biased yourself and are too interested in trying to appear witty or superior with your subtle slanders which makes myself very uninterested in carrying out any further forms of direct communication with you.

OK, I'll just hammer your information then. It's easy enough, I have to admit. I always thought there'd be more to the whole "Troofer" thing...but this seems to be it.

It's not your opinions, it's your personality that is unattractive and distasteful.
Don't be offended, this is what we call constructive criticism.
Maybe you don't know your being an ass.

:yawn: The guy who can reason is the ass. I see.

So for shitz n giggles in this instance I will speak to you directly since you seem to want the attention...
what about the insurance claim taken out just before 9/11 with specific clauses added to include acts of terrorsim specificaly?
What about the lying of Bush and other high up officials of saying they had no idea that airliners could be used as weapons when those very exact drills including the pentagon were indeed practiced repeatedly?
What about the stand down of NORAD(first time in history) and the twin tower drills THE MORNING of 9/11?

First: any proof of any of that? Let's establish our claims before we get crucified with them.

If this doesn't even make you blink...then what's really even the point of speaking with you?

Well, you seemed to regard all the other 'evidence' as pretty canonical. Yet, none of the physical 'evidence' stoof up to even my very cursory reading of it. Why would I think this next round would be any better? I mean, I demolished the physical issues with the WTC7 fire and the Twin Towers in - what? 15 minutes? Yet instead of doing the intellectually honest thing and calling off your nonsense, you drop back to the new threshold for acceptance of a conspiracy. This is called "moving the goalposts", and it's bogus; the sign of an uneducated mind.

Ganymede

10-13-07, 04:03 PM

Hey Super, I didn't actually mean the "I win" part to all of those who disagree, only towards geoffy cause he seems like he kind of likes that "my dad can beat up your dad" type of communication...lol

Nah, Geoff is just demoralized because he can't provide any evidence of any other building collapsing to fire. The Earth is 4.5 Billion years old. And in it's 4.5 Billion year history, the only Steel Reinforced building to fall to a fire happend on September the 11th. The same day the President waited for 20 minutes while innocent Americans were getting burned alive by the thousands. The same day that our Military was ordered to stand down while another plane flew un-interrupted for over an hour before the second plane hit.

When I approach a convuluted challenge like this. I tend to fall back on Occam's Razor. So what is the simpilist explination?

We can believe 2 series of theories.

The first one being

1) The First time in the Planets History that a steel building collapsed to fire.

2) That the president was more concearned about the safe children in the classroom then the thousands of innocent americans that were being burned alive as he stood an waited.

3)The Worlds greatest radar system to ever go online, lost track of the Hijacked Planes.

4) The US military was unable to intercept the second plane, even though it was up in the air for an hour after the first plane attacked.

5) The Airforce was unable to intercept the plane that hit the pentagon, even though Andrews airforce base is located less then 10 mintues away.

6) You must also believe that Pentagon doesn't have a clear video of the alleged plane that hit it. Only a grainy amatuer UFO style video that shows a foggy blur at best. No satelite videos, not security cams, NADA.

Or we can believe this.

1)This was a inside job.

The simpilist explination is theory number 2 no doubt.

moementum7

10-13-07, 04:05 PM

No geoff, right from the start, your just not worth the time...sorry bro.
Your just too much of an ass.

moementum7

10-13-07, 04:13 PM

GeoffP

10-13-07, 04:14 PM

Nah, Geoff is just demoralized because he can't provide any evidence of any other building collapsing to fire.

Which was also hit by two planes, or which had nearly a hundred thousand litres of diesel fuel and 12 transformers on the same floor the collapse happened on. Oh yeah, you got me.

When I approach a convuluted challenge like this. I tend to fall back on Occam's Razor.

This should be amusing.

We can believe 2 series of theories.

The first one being

1) The First time in the Planets History that a steel building collapsed to fire.

After being hit by airplanes.

2) That the president was more concearned about the safe children in the classroom then the thousands of innocent americans that were being burned alive as he stood an waited.

Or, better yet, caused a panic in a crisis which the full extent of was not known. Somewhat un-Churchillian for a world leader, but let's continue.

3)The Worlds greatest radar system to ever go online, lost track of the Hijacked Planes.

After they turned off the FFI, with only another 3500 radar contacts to keep track of.

4) The US military was unable to intercept the second plane, even though it was up in the air for an hour after the first plane attacked.

See above.

5) The Airforce was unable to intercept the plane that hit the pentagon, even though Andrews airforce base is located less then 10 mintues away.

See above.

6) You must also believe that Pentagon doesn't have a clear video of the alleged plane that hit it. Only a grainy amatuer UFO style video that shows a foggy blur at best. No satelite videos, not security cams, NADA.

There's a 1 sec exposure from a security camera that clearly shows a plane streaking in. You can even see the tailfin.

Or we can believe this.

1)This was a inside job.

The simpilist explination is theory number 2 no doubt.

Requiring the explicit complicity of tens of thousands of people, having an extremely uncertain probability of success and at least three non-shaheed nutjobs suicidal enough to ram planes into buildings.

Oh, for sure: it's #2 all right. A big, steamy pile of it.

No geoff, right from the start, your just not worth the time...sorry bro.
Your just too much of an ass.

Then it's another win for me. Thanks again.

GeoffP

10-13-07, 04:16 PM

Yes Ganymede, I'm in agreeance with you.
I have discussed these issues with others who disagree but was still able to carry on a civilized debate in a respectful manner, and this geoffy guy is just clueless as to why it's painfull to even interact with him, it's like I'm back in kindergarden.
Yet he thinks it's his points or opinion that I'm avoiding.
Geoffy, a hint...it's not your opinions...your just an ass.

Funny. I bring the reason, Mo brings the insults.

And the bad spelling, I see.

Write back when you have an argument or some points or something. I know the Troof is very close to your heart; I do apologize for hurting your feelings so.

moementum7

10-13-07, 04:17 PM

Your hilarious geoffy.

GeoffP

10-13-07, 04:18 PM

That's "you're".

moementum7

10-13-07, 04:19 PM

Lol, "you're" right:)

For once....ooooh, low blow:D

GeoffP

10-13-07, 04:20 PM

Moe, your presence on the forum reminds me of rearranging my sock drawer. Do you have an actual argument or something?

moementum7

10-13-07, 04:21 PM

Yeah, do you?

GeoffP

10-13-07, 05:29 PM

I do; I have given it. It is now only for you to respond, or post something of merit.

moementum7

10-13-07, 05:36 PM

No, it's time for you to respond or post something of merit.
I'm waiting.

Tiassa

10-13-07, 05:41 PM

Congratulations to all those who think they've won something or another in this topic. At this time I would like to reiterate in a more general context that the 9/11 Truth movement doesn't seem to be much about truth itself, but rather the egotism of its players.

Let's start with a concession to the Truth movement: Let us imagine that the towers were brought down by carefully-placed detonations. Let us pretend that, in the words of one CNBC presenter, the question is how they did it.

The hijackers/pilots did not need to know that the buildings would be detonated.

The demolitions crew did not need to know that the buildings would be hit by a plane.

I raise these points because the argument against the official story seems to have two components that theorists try to cram into one:

(1) The official story is wrong
(2) The U.S. government is guilty

I have no doubt whatsoever that the official story is wrong. It always is at this scale. The question is how wrong. And another: Who is actually guilty?

Accepting point #1 does not require acceptance of point #2. The United States government's guilt in what happened on 9/11 can still be viewed as incompetence, negligence, &c.

Someone please, preferably a conspiracy theorist, sketch me a simple picture of 9/11 starting with one simple term: BCCI.

Just try it. I know it's not as simple as "Bush + Israel = 9/11", but at the very least you'll have some morbid fun.

moementum7

10-13-07, 05:41 PM

I love how Bush gets caught with his pants down when asked about prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks...lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK1Y8eB6vRs

His awnser "uhh, duh,...uhhh....uhhh, well uhhh...ummm denominator...uhhh yeah.

draqon

10-13-07, 05:43 PM

moementum7

10-13-07, 05:44 PM

moementum7

10-13-07, 05:45 PM

its not his own voice. watch the lips

Ok, I watched his lips...didn't see anything unusual:bugeye:
I think even more revealing is his body language.

draqon

10-13-07, 05:46 PM

Ok, I watched his lips...didn't see anything unusual:bugeye:

riiight...:confused: it is so obvious that it is not his own voice... 00:28...it is apparent!

moementum7

10-13-07, 05:47 PM

This one is good to:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60&mode=related&search=

moementum7

10-13-07, 05:48 PM

riiight...:confused: it is so obvious that it is not his own voice... 00:28...it is apparent!

Sure, whatever.
I disagree.

Ganymede

10-13-07, 05:49 PM

Geoff sitll can't handle that he lost the debate heh? To bad I can't see what he's saying. Im' sure it's more conjecture and no science. Geoff knows he lost the debate that's we he can't stop posting in this absurd thread as he calls it. I'll guarantee you 20 more posts from Geoff. He just can't take it that he lost. And more Americans believe a coverup then the official story. And that just boils his blood. He has no poll to support his theory that the Government is telling the truth. Isn't that sad? He can't provide just one poll showing that more people agree with him?

Checkmate

Ganymede

10-13-07, 05:50 PM

its not his own voice. watch the lips

The video is about one second behind. You can find better versions off all of those videos. Nice try though.

draqon

10-13-07, 05:50 PM

This one is good to:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60&mode=related&search=

they showed his face in the classroom...and how do we know he was told about 911 at that time? For all we know he could have been told that his two daughters got into yet another drinking accident. :rolleyes:

and that lame phrase " you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist..." gives it away that these are conspiracy theorists.

LAME LAME LAME

draqon

10-13-07, 05:51 PM

The video is about one second behind. You can find better versions off all of those videos. Nice try though.

this isnt about video being behind...this is about his lips moving and not matching what he is saying 1 second or 5 seconds behind.

CONSPIRACY CRAP.

Nikelodeon

10-13-07, 05:52 PM

The video wont load up on my computer.

draqon

10-13-07, 05:52 PM

The video wont load up on my computer.

its loaded with government viruses....:p:p:p...and "and you dont have to be a conspiracy theorist" hahahaa

moementum7

10-13-07, 05:57 PM

they showed his face in the classroom...and how do we know he was told about 911 at that time? For all we know he could have been told that his two daughters got into yet another drinking accident. :rolleyes:

and that lame phrase " you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist..." gives it away that these are conspiracy theorists.

LAME LAME LAME

Not sure why your trying to defend Bush on this issue, he clearly states he watched the first plane hit the building on t.v. when there was no footage of the first plane hitting the towers until the next day.
But whatever bro, we disagree:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5JVYTxjmdc&mode=related&search=

moementum7

10-13-07, 06:15 PM

I also love the power down of the entire WTC complex the weekend before 9/11.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHJHAp49Lh8&mode=related&search=

draqon

10-13-07, 06:17 PM

I also love the power down of the entire WTC complex the weekend before 9/11.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHJHAp49Lh8&mode=related&search=

coicidences...coincidences...maybe since 9/11 is an erection...it is a coincidence as well...hot stuff....HAHAHAHAA

CRAP LAME PROPAGANDA

moementum7

10-13-07, 06:23 PM

Yep, gotta love all of these coincidences.

Tiassa

10-13-07, 06:31 PM

Re: YouTube "Bush Fumbles in his Lies About 9/11"

Just a note on one of the discussions taking place:

Moementum7: I love how Bush gets caught with his pants down when asked about prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks...lol http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK1Y8eB6vRs

Draqon: its not his own voice. watch the lips

Moementum7: Ok, I watched his lips...didn't see anything unusual ..., I think even more revealing is his body language.

Draqon: riiight... it is so obvious that it is not his own voice... 00:28...it is apparent!

You know, part of me can't believe I even bothered:

Q I know you said there will be a time for politics. But you've also said you wanted to change the tone in Washington. Howard Dean recently seemed to muse aloud whether you had advance knowledge of 9/11. Do you agree or disagree with the RNC that this kind of rhetoric borders on political hate speech?

THE PRESIDENT: There's time for politics. There's time for politics, and I -- it's an absurd insinuation.

(WhiteHouse.gov (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031215-3.html))

Anyway, I don't blame anyone for not having gone out to dig up the transcript of Bush's December, 2003 news conference. It took me a whole two and a half minutes. It still would have been a tough forty seconds if I hadn't been searching the wrong phrase.

Actually, having gotten that off my chest, it's more fair to say that I don't blame anyone for not having pulled up the transcript because this particular footage is one of those that is generally stamped into the public mind. It's not like "fool me once", but more like "now watch this drive". It's just a bad moment for the president that is fairly well known. I think that between the YouTube phenomenon and the blogosphere, it will be very difficult to fake Bush news footage. It's not that someone won't try, but "that's fake" is one of those arguments that should come with some sort of debunking reference. Whether the politics of denial or expedience, we should be careful about rushing to debunk as fake something so visible and critically studied as Bush's public-speaking problems and apparent lack of integrity.

Having said that, I do wonder why the question was so unsettling for the president.
_____________________

Notes:

WhiteHouse.gov. "President Bush Holds Press Conference". December 15, 2003. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031215-3.html

GeoffP

10-13-07, 07:04 PM

No, it's time for you to respond or post something of merit.
I'm waiting.

I already obliterated your nonsense about WTC7 and the Towers. You still haven't illustrated anything convincing about the actual incident, so it stands that you've stipulated to my points. I asked for proof about the NORAD thing and the rest, which is still forthcoming apparently.

Congratulations to all those who think they've won something or another in this topic. At this time I would like to reiterate in a more general context that the 9/11 Truth movement doesn't seem to be much about truth itself, but rather the egotism of its players.

True.

Geoff sitll can't handle that he lost the debate heh? To bad I can't see what he's saying. Im' sure it's more conjecture and no science.

:rolleyes: When Gany posts some science, I'll eat my hat.

Geoff knows he lost the debate that's we he can't stop posting in this absurd thread as he calls it. I'll guarantee you 20 more posts from Geoff.

Oh, more than that. I promise as many as it takes.

He just can't take it that he lost. And more Americans believe a coverup then the official story. And that just boils his blood. He has no poll to support his theory that the Government is telling the truth. Isn't that sad?

Argumentum ad popularum. Gany's done. He wasn't much of a contributor anyway, though. And I hear his music sucked.

Checkmate! LOL

:D

moementum7

10-13-07, 09:30 PM

Re: YouTube "Bush Fumbles in his Lies About 9/11"

Just a note on one of the discussions taking place:

Moementum7: I love how Bush gets caught with his pants down when asked about prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks...lol http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK1Y8eB6vRs

Draqon: its not his own voice. watch the lips

Moementum7: Ok, I watched his lips...didn't see anything unusual ..., I think even more revealing is his body language.

Draqon: riiight... it is so obvious that it is not his own voice... 00:28...it is apparent!

You know, part of me can't believe I even bothered:

Anyway, I don't blame anyone for not having gone out to dig up the transcript of Bush's December, 2003 news conference. It took me a whole two and a half minutes. It still would have been a tough forty seconds if I hadn't been searching the wrong phrase.

Actually, having gotten that off my chest, it's more fair to say that I don't blame anyone for not having pulled up the transcript because this particular footage is one of those that is generally stamped into the public mind. It's not like "fool me once", but more like "now watch this drive". It's just a bad moment for the president that is fairly well known. I think that between the YouTube phenomenon and the blogosphere, it will be very difficult to fake Bush news footage. It's not that someone won't try, but "that's fake" is one of those arguments that should come with some sort of debunking reference. Whether the politics of denial or expedience, we should be careful about rushing to debunk as fake something so visible and critically studied as Bush's public-speaking problems and apparent lack of integrity.

Having said that, I do wonder why the question was so unsettling for the president.
_____________________

Notes:

WhiteHouse.gov. "President Bush Holds Press Conference". December 15, 2003. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031215-3.html

Your like a breath of fresh air.
Balanced perspective seems so rare on open forums.

moementum7

10-13-07, 09:35 PM

Ron Paul kicks ass!!!