Discussion: Was 9/11 an inside job?

Status
Not open for further replies.
leopold99 said:
frankly i do not believe you.
Click to expand...
What in the paper do you not "believe"?

perhaps this is the problem, that you allow your "beliefs" to dictate your reality, rather than evidence based research. This is a science forum, is it not? your "beliefs" have no weight in this discussion.
 
Last edited:
psikeyhackr said:
.
:roflmao:
I already told you that I downloaded the entire NCSTAR1 report long ago and how to search it with Adobe and Evince.

The usual JREF type bullshit. I ask for 24 numbers that should be on one page if they exist and you throw up a 166 page report that I would bet you haven't looked through.

So tell us what page has the number and weights of the perimeter wall panels.

Gregory Urich claims to have read the whole 10,000 pages and he has told me about stuff that I didn't know was there but he admits that what I am talking about ain't there.

By all means continue to advertise your ignorance and incompetence.

It is moderately entertaining but on the wane.

psik

PS - I searched that report on my DVD just for the hell of it. It mentions wall panels quite often. No information on weights. It does not even point out that there were 12 types of wall panels. I won't be holding my breath until you show that the information is there.
Click to expand...


Have you ever figured out what you intend to do with the "information" you pretend to seek? The real engineers, from whom you are incapable of learning anything, think you're blowing smoke.

AGAIN--What do you know that they don't know, and how did you learn it?
 
Headspin said:
you are now trolling because you have no valid comment regarding the discovery of unreacted high tech nanothermite in the world trade centre dust.
Click to expand...

No "high tech nanothermite" was discovered in WTC dust. You are either lying, deluded, or both.
 
Headspin said:
edit - the chain of custody is documented, we've been over it on another thread. it is obvious you are now looking for strawmen to avoid addressing the paper and its conclusions.
Click to expand...
where? the only thing you posted about this is a video describing this as chips and these chips were found in two separate apartments.
to my knowledge you have posted no names of the people that found the chips.
 
frankly this discussion is moot.
why weren't these chips discovered in the pile?
don't hand me the dust crap headspin.
 
Headspin said:
What in the paper do you not "believe"?

perhaps this is the problem, that you allow your "beliefs" to dictate your reality, rather than evidence based research. This is a science forum, is it not? your "beliefs" have no weight in this discussion.
Click to expand...

He must think you are not credible because all you have to go by are your beliefs and a few people who played no part in the actual investigation. Credibility plays a role in everything.

I already posted a few times that both building collapses contradict the remotest possibility of a deliberate demolition, no one can or has disputed that. One person here made a feeble attempt but i think he now sees how ridiculous his beliefs were. And i am not reposting it for a third time so dont ask me to

The collapses could not be done with explosives and any possibility of using them would have made them collapse in an entirely different way. The buildings would have come down in larger parts, realistically it would have been dozens of floors at a time.

You know that the steel was weakened to minimum 50% strength so basicall what you have left are building standing with half the capabilities they were designed with. The result is the pancaking collapse we see on the video (evidence).

This is why people call in your and the others credibility or your just capacity to understand what happened.
 
RonWieck said:
No "high tech nanothermite" was discovered in WTC dust. You are either lying, deluded, or both.
Click to expand...
can you show where the paper is incorrect?
Acting like a cheap lawyer by simply attacking me doesn't push this forward any.
do you have anything that contradicts the paper and its conclusions?
 
Headspin said:
can you show where the paper is incorrect?
Acting like a cheap lawyer by simply attacking me doesn't push this forward any.
do you have anything that contradicts the paper and its conclusions?
Click to expand...
yes, THE EVIDENCE TRAIL HEAD SPIN ! ! ! ! ! ! !
why wasn't these chips found at the pile?
 
Headspin said:
can you show where the paper is incorrect?
Acting like a cheap lawyer by simply attacking me doesn't push this forward any.
do you have anything that contradicts the paper and its conclusions?
Click to expand...

isnt that what he is doing? this is a discussion forum, i dont see you being attacked but lets not avoid the subject.

leopold99 said:
yes, THE EVIDENCE TRAIL HEAD SPIN ! ! ! ! ! ! !
why wasn't these chips found at the pile?
Click to expand...

he has not even gotten to that point. afa dust or chips, the people who did the actual investigation would know about that and what to look for. at this point it may be a saving face attempt...:shrug:
 
John99 said:
he has not even gotten to that point. afa dust or chips, the people who did the actual investigation would know about that and what to look for. at this point it may be a saving face attempt...:shrug:
Click to expand...
not to mention the cops, firemen, structural engineers, demolition experts, and investigators that was on the pile.
especially after hearing the phrase" it almost looks like one of those controlled demolitions" uttered by dan rather.
 
leopold99 said:
yes, THE EVIDENCE TRAIL HEAD SPIN ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Click to expand...
why don't you read the paper, it is documented there.
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

it is clear you are not searching for information, if you were, you would have at least read the paper by now. what are you scared of?

why wasn't these chips found at the pile?
Click to expand...
these chips were found in dust samples next to the pile and near the pile. if you had looked at the paper you would have immediately seen a map showing the locations. given they are intrinsic to the dust and the dust was on and in the pile, then the chips were on and in the pile.
 
Headspin said:
why don't you read the paper, it is documented there.
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

it is clear you are not searching for information, if you were, you would have at least read the paper by now. what are you scared of?

these chips were found in dust samples next to the pile and near the pile. if you had looked at the paper you would have immediately seen a map showing the locations. given they are intrinsic to the dust and the dust was on and in the pile, then the chips were on and in the pile.
Click to expand...
okay headspin don't ask me to read that link again.
it IS NOT STATED ANYWHERE IN THE ABOVE LINK WHO FOUND THESE CHIPS.

furthermore it isn't stated they were found at the pile.
anyone could have submitted any old thing and said anything they wanted.
 
Headspin said:
if you had looked at the paper you would have immediately seen a map showing the locations. given they are intrinsic to the dust and the dust was on and in the pile, then the chips were on and in the pile.
Click to expand...
there is no map at the link you have provided.

names headspin. until then your posts will be ignored by me.
 
leopold99 said:
not to mention the cops, firemen, structural engineers, demolition experts, and investigators that was on the pile.
especially after hearing the phrase" it almost looks like one of those controlled demolitions" uttered by dan rather.
Click to expand...

yeah. and all collapses 'almost' look like controlled demos.
 
leopold99 said:
okay headspin don't ask me to read that link again.
it IS NOT STATED ANYWHERE IN THE ABOVE LINK WHO FOUND THESE CHIPS.

furthermore it isn't stated they were found at the pile.
anyone could have submitted any old thing and said anything they wanted.
Click to expand...

have you read the actual paper?
do you see the green button that says "Download"?
click it and read the document that pops up.
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
 
Headspin said:
have you read the actual paper?
do you see the green button that says "Download"?
click it and read the document that pops up.
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
Click to expand...

Headspin, it is obvious now that Leopold is playing a stonewall with questions game with you. He refuses to accept any evidence of the authenticity of the dust unless it was found ON THE PILE!

Apparently he thinks it is okay to simply dismiss that the paper gives the bonifides of when, where, and by whom the dust was found and collected and why it is certain that it was from the towers and/or WTC 7, and that affidavits were signed about the circumstances when it was handed over to researchers.

In one case it was collected 10 minutes after the fall of the second twin tower on the Brooklyn bridge, so that one is strictly tower dust.

He drove me to the point of putting him on Ignore with this type of inanity. I also think John99 and Leopold99 are trolls of some sort, with the objective of wasting the time of serious people and keeping the waters muddied.

wda1026l.jpg


I wonder if they are assigned specific information bridges to cover. It would seem a massive crime like 911 would have had contingencies for protecting the cover-up, with trolls of this sort being one of several methods employed to keep the masses at bay.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top