9/11 Poll

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I really don't know what question I didn't answer. Can you repeat it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you aren't dishonest you sure have an extraordinary drive to be able to say that the events of Sept. 11, 2001 were not a result of a domestic conspiracy. Why?

The problem I have with otherwise intelligent people like yourself, Frank Greening, Ryan Mackey, etc. are the completely convoluted and mind numbingly illogical explanations they are willing to use to continue to try and say 911 was not the result of a domestic conspiracy.

The sizing of that one constituent you are missing happens to be critical to your argument. You have no argument without it and you can't discount it. Fires don't burn without fuel and heat and oxygen. Take any one of them away and there will be no fire.

 

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694

Take a gander at this information. Thanks for whomever gave the heads up to check the JREF site.

There is kaolinite in the material folks. For those unaware of what it is I suggest you check it out.

My concern is that some folks in this thread already knew about this finding, but hid it in the name of 'truth'.

 

yes, you mentioned these other scientists. i believe neither one of us are agreed as to exactly who they were, what they were doing there, or who they worked for.
harritt has already been connected with jones by invite.
harritt is also biased against the official story.
all of these facts was bore out in the paper tony posted.

find out about what?
if USGS destroyed their sample?
scott listen, these samples that have been turned in 4 years after the fact with no custody records are nothing more than dirt as far as evidence goes.
the only way this evidence would be valid is if these "witnesses" were interrogated. maybe even given a polygraph.

what happened to "innocent until proved guilty"?
there is no reason to believe any type of explosive was used at WTC 1 and 2.

of course your side doesn't resort to such low brow tactics do they?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

or maybe it was david ray griffin that tampered with it.
or jones.
or harritt.
someone else want to take a guess?

 

It has many meanings. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pull

If it does mean ‘to demolish’, then that is possibly the most obscure definition.

Didn’t The Esotericist bring it up?

It was then challenged and has been defended by you and scott.

Look at the damn quote in full.

“remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "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.”

In that context it makes very little sense if the owner is saying that the fire chief has decided to blow up the building to save lives. If you look at the context and consider that at the time firemen were being pulled back due to the suspected loss of structural integrity it is clear what he meant.

Wasn’t this supposedly pre-planned? Why would such a conversation even happen if it was planned weeks ahead? Why would a fire chief be deciding to blow up the building? The implication there is that the fire department were also involved. They kept quiet all these after the deaths of friends? Not likely. It would make no sense meaning anything else.

It is one of weakest and most repeated claims within the 9/11 conspiracy. If something as weak and easily dismissed as this will pass for damning evidence then it isn't really a good sign is it?

The accepting of claims such as this as a smoking gun gives an insight into how much people want to believe in this conspiracy.

 

According to discussions over at JREF Jones has decided that there wasn't enough thermite or nanthermite or femtothermite or even picothermite to knock the buildings down so Jones decided that the *thermite was used as a fuse. Seems that Jones agrees that a hundred coats of *thermite paint would raise the temperature of the steel a whopping 50 degrees. Ouch!

The pyroclastic flows are not.
The explosions are not.
Pulverized concrete dust is not.
The *thermite is not.

 

Have you given any thought as to the cause of WTC 7 being in full freefall acceleration for the initial 100 feet or 2.25 seconds of it's fall and the upper block of WTC 1 accelerating at 70% of gravity, while never decelerating, for the initial nine stories of it's fall which was measureable?

Had they at least decelerated upon impact with the first several floors below where the initial collapses occurred I would be less inclined to believe they were controlled demolitions.

Unfortunately, the fall of WTC 2's upper block is not measureable due to it's large tilt and quick obscuration.

Of course, even without evidence that something untoward occurred, to believe the buildings collapsed naturally due to fires requires believing the explanation from people who we now know lied to unsuspecting American citizen's to get support for a pre-planned war in Iraq, told us they weren't torturing people when they were to establish a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Queda and 911, and whose FEMA appointees eliminated all of the physical evidence from WTC 7 and over 99.5% of it from the Twin Towers before a forensic analysis could be performed.

 

Actually Tony I asked a long time ago how people are so sure which floors were the exact locations of the start of the failures. No one bothered to address that.

So now you make claims about the initial collapse speeds.

This is a suspicious line. You know why? Because you are claiming 3 digits of precision. Where did you get 3 digits of precision?

 

This is a meaningless rant. This is desperation talking. Maybe we can pick this up tomorrow.

 

The NIST Report shows the failures in the Twin Towers to have initiated at the 98th floor of WTC 1 and the 82nd floor of the WTC 2.

NIST itself was forced to admit the 2.25 second freefall of WTC 7. It was David Chandler who initially measured closer to 2.5 seconds and when forced to remeasure the NIST said they got 2.25 seconds of freefall. You will have to ask the NIST how they got three digits of precision.

 

Are you denying the truth of any of it?

I think credibility issues and possible ulterior motives of those who were in control of an investigation is quite important to consider in one's own investigation. I think most people would agree with that.

 

What a shame for you that "pull" is not an industry standard term in the demolition industry... except for when literally pulling structures down with cables. It IS however, an industry term for the FDNY. And again, let's remember he stated he was on the phone with the FDNY, and also that fire fighters WERE pulled.

Exactly... because they were pulled 1 or 2 hours before the building collapsed.

I see you missed my recent post replying to this issue in detail.

Pulling the contingent of fire fighters, yes. I keep having to remind you that this makes sense in the context of speaking to the FDNY and that the FDNY WERE pulled.

Except I put it in quotes to highlight your nonsense use of the word.

On the back foot? Why would that be? I only started on the "pull it" thing because I caught hapless scott mentioning it along with other easily debunked nonsense.

If anything, it's you on the back foot because you're concentrating purely on the red/grey chips thing because it's vague enough to go over the heads of people without an education in chemistry. I'm sure it's ripped apart on JREF though, and perhaps Trippy is doing the same (although I haven't been following it).

 

does this mean we get to go for another 26 pages for WTC 7?