revisiting 911 truth in the Obama days...

[Ron 10]

Quote

So being there makes you an expert?

No, being a guy with multiple Advanced degrees in Engineering makes him an expert.

Him being HIRED to investigate as an engineer on these types of situations for 20+ years makes him an expert.

Quote

Try rading what is been written.

So you want me to listen to you... A guy that can't back up his position when questioned rather than listen to an Uncle that has advanced engineering degrees and 20+ years experience in accident investigation?

REALLY!?!?!?!?!?

That would be like listening to a whuffo and ignoring Airspeed on how to do a block.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 3,100]

>time to replace the foil around your head.

One warning for everyone (not just Belgian) - enough with the personal attacks. Strong disagreement with someone does not justify such attacks.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Sorry, rhys.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[rhys 0]

O.k., engineer guy, keep walkng back into the corner you'll meet the wall soon.

Quote

Because they focus one what is possible according to the evidence gathered. Truthers focus on what they want to believe regardless of the evidence.

So how is refusing to acknowledge, documented, photographed, and experimented evidence, scientific and within the guidelines for investigating such a circumstance.

They have failed to fulfill the legal requirement as pointed out clearly to you in many of the above posts.

When you call yourself an expert, you produce an expectation to us all that you know what you are talking about, It is quite clear that you have minimal knowlwdge of usual protocol that is required for such a situation.
Namely the National Fire Protection Association's, “Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations”.

What do you know of this guide and what it points out as 'Mandatory' in the investigaton of an explosion?

Quote

You may have some Rupert Murdoch 'TV science for subdued americans', type debunking, but where is the scientific peer reviewed journals debunking such claims.

They are all around you. Many have been posted here on this forum. All you have to do is take your blinders off and look.

I have looked, I have read, listened, watched, looked into and I have understood.

They are all based on information releasd by NIST rather than being independent. They come to the same conclusion and disregard the same information.

They use the very same calculations that NIST released. How can you debunk the hypothesis of the NIST releasing a false hypothesis, by using the data from the hypothesis in question.

You can't seem to get you head around the real science, why? Because you don't look, you refuse to, your emotions are in the way of your common sence.

Quote

Only if you believe the BS being spewed out by the truthers. Some of it is misunderstanding, some ignorance, most of it lies, but it is all BS just the same.

So are we truthers or conspiracy theorists? have you come to realise your hypothesis is in fact a conspiracy theory and not a scientific conclusion?

Conclusions are made from observing all known possibilities, once agsin, how is your method of ignoring 'FACTS' scientific?

If you so strongly believe Richard Gages observations to be Lies, as in they are making everyhting up, how do you make such an accusation without looking at or understanding what they are asking?

If you do, would you mind substanciating your standpoint?

You act as if it is only me that thinks this way.

This forum (SC) is visited by many but contributed by many less, over time there have been many others that have asked the same questions as I have, these questions have met ridicule, mockery and disrespect.

The same people with the same closed minded opinions argue the same arguments, year after year and time after time.
How is that a debate? This forum is a Joke if i call you an idiot for beliving a lie, I am responable for a PA, If you call me a tin hattet fool, you are rewarded with applause.

It is laughable, and you may feel confident behind all your ego ridden, self proclaimed experts, that refute the real truth yet admit to not studying the various possibilities.

This Logic is quite simply, illogical.

It is about high time you substanciate your viewpoint by posting your beliefs and findings.
If you are only capable of stating, 'You're Wrong, I'm right and I am more qualified than you'.

Why not try sounding like you actually know what it is you are talking about.
I don't claim to be a scientist, I don't claim to be an engineer, I simply claim to understand, I put my viewpoint on the table and discuss it openly.

You just tell me I am wrong because of the simple fact that you are more qualified than me.

The problem with 'americans' is that EGO is rewarded, In most of the world it is shunned. This is how you are so far begind everyone else in the western world, yet you would like to believe you are the big brother of the world, your ego does not allow you to adapt to variation as you will never want to be seen as less experienced.


Stomping your foot and turning your back is not scientific, ignoring truth is not scientific and your agument is not scientific.

You Ignore peer reviewd journals, and palm them off as crap.

You ignore the many industry professionals that are more experienced than you, have been more invloved than you, and make more sence than you, don't have your inflated ego, they are producing scientific, peer reviewed, non partial and well founded information.

Why not start with explaining how these people are not qualified to make these observations?

Quote

You and the other truthers have been saying that for years but not a single spec of anything resembling real evidence has been shown, only allegations and insinuations.

If you would take the time at some stage to read the peer reviewd journals posted on numerous occasions, you will find that it is the imminent result that makes the accusations, not the text, for the most part.

It is NIST's refusal to discuss any other possibility other than their own singular, unlikely and unscientific hypothesis that has been manufactured to fit the description of the assumtions 'apparently' made by the GWB admin shortly after the catyclism.

Your lack of understanding of what the focus of the journals are, is a testement to you not having ever read or understood thrir content.

Quote

These 'debunkings' you speak of are not scientific, the popular belief is not scientific, in fact the final NIST report renders most of the arguments made by the right wing neo con follwers in here since 9/11 'wrong'.

Really? Does that include the data gathered by the investigation teams onsight? Does that include the FEA study done at Purdue?

You mean the computer simulation which claims to have found the real cause behind the collapse of the World Trade Center.

from Rouge government.com

Quote

The computer simulation supports the official conspiracy theory by endorsing many of the findings in the National Institute of Standard and Technology (NIST) report. The findings presented in the video fail to answer many questions that researchers in the 9/11 truth movement have been asking for quite sometime now.

This study was funded by the National Science Foundation.

The National Science Foundation is a government agency whose board is appointed by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate. The director of the National Science Foundation, Dr. Arden L. Bement Jr. has also worked for employers such as General Electric, Battelle Northwest Laboratories, and DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) which is an agency that actively develops new technology for military use.

That computer simulation has been considered and studied and debunked, why don't you know this?

because you didn't look.

Quote

Here are a few key points that this computer simulation fails to explain or address.

1. Failure to explain the presence of molten metal at the base of WTC-1, WTC-2 and WTC-7 following their collapse indicating explosive usage.

2. No explanation for the numerous amounts of eyewitness accounts including rescue workers that heard explosions prior to the building collapses.

3. Failure to explain the pulverization of concrete much of which ended up in the lungs of emergency workers.

4. Failure to explain how the critical central steel columns in WTC-1 and WTC-2 all failed at the same time causing the buildings to collapse at free fall speed.

5. No explanation of how WTC-7 collapsed which was not hit by a plane and fell at free fall speed at 5:20 PM EST on 9/11.

6. Even with fireproofing removed, steel doesn’t melt until it reaches around 3000 degrees Fahrenheit. Jet fuel burns at 1500 degrees Fahrenheit. The temperatures in both buildings did not get hot enough to melt the steel. The Purdue report fails to explain this anomaly.

7. Even the NIST report said that the fires in WTC-1 and WTC-2 from the jet fuel only burned for a few minutes making it a stretch to believe the fires lead to the building collapses. Audio tapes of firefighters in the buildings reported that the fires were under control. The Purdue report also fails to debunk this.

8. Failure to explain or address the research of people like Dr. Steven Jones who have debunked the theory that fireproofing material was responsible for contributing to the building collapses.

9. The Purdue study much like the NIST report only focuses on a small portion of the buildings instead of the entire structure.

This study from Purdue University simply fails to answer many key questions and is nothing more than the latest attempt to whitewash the events of 9/11. The fact that this report was funded by people involved with the military industrial complex is reason enough to question its credibility.

Quote

You and the other truthers would rather believe some high school dropout who has issues with society as a whole than believe even the most educated engineers and scientists.

There are now close to 1000 licenced architects and engineers the are actively petitioning against your false hypothesis, these people are only one group of many that have been actively refuting what you claim.

You pass them off as a few dropouts because you (half) watched loose change a few years ago and have based you judgments of the entire truth movement on your depiction of the directors of that movie.

That ignorance explains why you still actively cling to your 'easy option' and refuse to contemplate another hypothesis.

A weak standpoint, and undeserving of the energy I have put into this post.

You ridicule, will be will worth it though once the legal process finally emerges.

Remember it has only been '1' year since the final report has been released and made public.

You have been arguing for the result before it was established, much akin to my assumably correct opinion that; You beleive the alleged perpertrators that will be standing trial in New York in ther near future, are already guilty before you have a basis it believe so, other than taking the word of the GBW admin and the right wing.

Quote

Really? Does that include the data gathered by the investigation teams onsight? Does that include the FEA study done at Purdue? You and the other truthers would rather believe some high school dropout who has issues with society as a whole than believe even the most educated engineers and scientists.

I believe this has been explained well enough in this thread and your failure to acknowledge that, is a testemant to your one sided and closed minded attitude towards the truth. The only 3 steel framed high rise buildings in history, fell due to fire, at free fall speed, the only 3 ever, and at an unprecendented speed, into its own footprint through the path of greatest resistance. This is a difficult processs to explain without considering the use of explosive charges in the building.

The failure to even consider that possibility is also a testement to the weakness and unorthodx nature of you current opinion and the NIST's movements toward their unconclusive, conclusion.

Quote

What changed? Did the towers not come down? Were there not two aircraft? Tell us, what changed in the outcome according to NIST?

At first you and your mates believed the buliding came down due to the jet fuel, that was the official hypothesis at first, and they/you also claimed it took 40% longer than freefall for the buildings to collapse.

Then when it was pointed out to NIST by 'truthers' that this was not the case, and was contradictory to the many first hand witness, video and photographic evidence.

The hypotheis was changed to office equipment fires...

They also admit free fall speed of collapse and indicate the 'freefall' of the initial floors collapsing simultainiously for the distance between the said floors, without any resistance whatsoever, they also allowed themselves to grossly over estimate pressure produced by the building on the damaged area by hundreds of times.

They then used this false and misleading information to calculate their hyposthesis, they did not consider explosives, that is the mandated protocol for such an investigation, they are in violation of those rules and the hypothesis is rendered incomplete and inconclusive.

Quote

Again, tell us. Stop keeping it a secret.

There is no secret, it is out there, you just hve to use avenues other than rupert murdochs empire to gather your information.

I hold no secret, i have pointed it out to you, once again you fail to understand how debate and scientific evaluatuon is conducted, but proclaim to be an expert?

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/techbeat/tbx2008_1120_wtc7.htm

Here it is if you wish to read it. it was one of my birthday presents last year, 20/11 is my birthday.

Quote

You mean the opinion of the truthers? I wouldn't consider it either.

Read your statement here, and read it literally.

Have you decided the truth is not what you wish to pursue? Or do you consider people that fight for truth to be ill informed idiots?

You have clearly pointed out to us that you have no intention of considering any information, be it, to your advantage as long as someone of my ilk presents it to you?

What kind of open mind has such a closed mind?

Quote

Exactly. We agree on something. Too bad you and the other truthers don't understand the physics behind the collapse.

Enlighten us as to how you can draw that conclusion when you admit you have not even considered the information that has been presented to you.

You are palming yourself off as an expert engineer yet you disregard the ample effort of hundreds of people that have higher qualifications than you and quite obviously not hindered by an apathetic and Lazy approach to thier chosen proffession, such as you have decided to do.

Quote

I have never changed my belief once.

So you believed it was 'burning office furniture that caused the collapses' before novemebr 2008.

That is the NIST's final and short assumtion and conclusion.

Do you concur with that and do you suggest that has been your standpoint for a period of greater than one year?

If so can you provide us evidence that you were so enlightened when the rest of the people of this plannet were waiting for the final result of the investigation.

Gee you could have saved the american people some serious dollars with you superior enlightenment.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[mnealtx 0]

Still nothing on the super-duper magic explosives?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Do you understand how rediculous the truthers arguments are?

Truther: "The steel never got hot enough to melt!"

Scientists & Engineers: "It didn't need to. It easily reached a temperature that substantialy weakened the structure."

Truther: "The steel never got hot enough to melt!"

S&E's: "It didn't need to."

Truther: "The steel never got hot enough to melt!"

S&E's: "It... didn't... need... to."

Truther: "The steel never got hot enough to melt!"

S&E's: "I'm going home now and enjoy a nice cold iced tea."

Truther: "The steel never got hot enough to melt!"

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[rhys 0]

Quote

Do you understand how rediculous the truthers arguments are?

Truther: "The steel never got hot enough to melt!"


...

You are really showing you misrepresentation ow arent you, we are actually saying, steel melted, for what reason and how is this explained.

We are not saying the steel didin't melt, we are saying it did, and it shouldn't have.

There is evidence of this, eye witness acounts, photographs, residue, nasa imagry and many other reasons to discuss and investigate this phenomenon.

We are saying it was some form of thermate thaty casued this.

You are saying that that is rediculaousn and not worthy of a scond thought, yet you portray yourself as an educated, engineer with first hand experience in the matter.

Are the people in this video lying?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcqf5tL887o&NR=1

it is sure that John Gross is lying, but the eye witnesses, the nasa imagry, the multitude of evidence...

Science will 'out science' faux science, and law will determine what protocol should be followed in such a situation.

Just imagine the consequnece if we are right? what sdoes this implicate?

obviously too much for you to comprehend, it all paints a picture that makes perfect snce to me.

I know humans, and i know the truth is not always prevelant, the more apathetic we are towards our right to speak our voice, the less of a right we have to do so.

Deniers need to grow a backbone and confront the fear that is obviously driving them to think irrationally and defend such obvious corruption and bigotry.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[mike_forsythe 0]

Quote

Deniers need to grow a backbone and confront the fear that is obviously driving them to think irrationally and defend such obvious corruption and bigotry

Yes, YOU should. I have provided you with MY first hand expert account, something you are not able to because you were not there nor do you have the education, experience or background to do so. You have not submitted a single report on the incident, I have. NASA imagery that you reference I was immediately able to send you a photo of that is hanging in my office that was used for our daily briefings, you were able to provide nothing more than what you have posted from the web which included dead links. YOU sacrificed NOTHING, risked NOTHING so it is clear that YOU are the one that needs to "grow a backbone" and admit the truth that you have been unable to dispute any evidence that I have presented.

[rhys 0]

Quote

You have not submitted a single report on the incident, I have. NASA imagery that you reference I was immediately able to send you a photo of that is hanging in my office that was used for our daily briefings, you were able to provide nothing more than what you have posted from the web which included dead links.

dead link, whooo, I must be wrong

So you still deny any knowledge of red hot moulten steel discovered weeks after the incident.

Are you with the NIST with that, do you deny any steel was melted in the catyclism?

You may have been there, thousands were, you were.

These people generally take your side, usually based on emotion. you did your job, you gathred the information you were paid to and you made your own conclusons.

This does not mean you are correct, it also does not mean the information you gathered was channeled and managed correctly and legally.

In fact it is quite obvious that it wan't. It must be a hard concept for you to comprehend that the people that you were working for were directed by the perpertraotors of this attack, many thousands of people have died due to the backlash.

You still do not see that your efforts were in vein as they decided_before_ you ever showed up on the scene what the out come was going to be.

It would be hard to imagine and i sympathise with your position of being implicated in the conpiracy, but i truly believe that those in similar positions to yours were undoubtably, simply doing thier jobs, were oblivious to any wrongdoing and would accept the given results of your work.

The one real question I ask of you is; Do you believe there were temperatures within the rubble at ground zero, greater than what is achieveable by hydrocarbon fires in an uncontrolled environment?

Since you are such an expert on the matter, that is.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

YOU sacrificed NOTHING, risked NOTHING so it is clear that YOU are the one that needs to "grow a backbone" and admit the truth that you have been unable to dispute any evidence that I have presented.

for fucks sake mike, you are saying that a firefighter that fight s a fire and risks his life automatically is an expert on the mechanics of the cause of that fire?

You are letting your emotion get in the way of common sence aain, i have a backbone, I have faced ridicule, personal attacks and various other insults, I have stood by my belief and debated and studied both sides of the story.


I have the audacity to question this, present the recent findings and contribute to the debate.

You just use the 'i'm more qualified than you' argument, claiming that because you gathered some data that you are an expert.

Instead of ignoring Richard Gage and his professional comrades' questions, why not try answering them, rather than palming off thier expertise as foolishness.

You make yourself the fool if you fail to include all aspects of this incident in your conclusions. Your obvious one sided, closedminded interpretaion, coupled with the emotion you would have experienced will make it very difficult for you to acknowledge any other outcome.

That is why jurys are alway non partial individuals.

You gathered information, you did not make the conclusions, that job was the NIST's.

You should be ensuring your work was not in vein, at this stage it seems it was.

The only evidence you have presented iss your self proclaimed expertise.

That Nasa chart you say you had on your wall, NIST denied any knowledge of it.

Does that not make you suspicious?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

What do you mean Mike?

Are you asking me how such a huge amount of thermate was planted without witnesses seeing, as such a large amount of thermate would have been needed, even though you believe the building was more than capable of collapsing on its own accord without any such explosives, due to the damageed already sustained?

Is that the qiestion you want me to answer?

Here is another high school dropout that has no experience whatsoever the is a two bit truther with nothing educational to share;

Quote

FORMER NASA DIRECTOR SAYS THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS WERE FELLED BY CONTROLLED DEMOLITION

On October 21st at the University of San Diego, Mr. Dwain Deets, former Director of NASA Aerospace Projects, gave a multimedia presentation on behalf of nearly one thousand architects and engineers who cite evidence of explosive demolition in all three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11 and are calling for a new, independent investigation into their destruction. These architects and engineers are listed on their website at ae911Truth.org.
Mr. Deets was an engineering executive with NASA Dryden Flight Research Center for more than 37 years and formerly served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden. He received the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the federal government's Senior Executive Service (1988). In 1986, Deets was awarded the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics, a distinguished speaking engagement sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA).

Resolutely empirical, non-political, and non-finger-pointing, ae911Truth only asks for a new investigation of the towers’ collapse that does justice to the forensic evidence it presents. The concerns presented by Mr. Deets and the conclusions of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth are shared by hundreds of scientists; senior-level military, intelligence, and government officials; firefighters; pilots and aviation professionals; scholars and university professors; 9/11 survivors and family members; and media professionals around the world.

Mr. Deets will continue giving presentations and is in the writers group for ae911Truth.org.

For more clarifying information see: ae911Truth.org, 911PressForTruth.com, 911Truth.org, 911Research.wtc7.net, stj911.org, and 911Review.com.

what a douche bag!

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Fact is, you and the rest of the truthers have no idea WHAT you are saying or talking about.

Here's your "molten steel" theory debunked.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YXzjAKJQOg&feature=fvw

BTW, the cut beam in the vid you posted was cut with an oxy-fuel torch after the collapse to facilitate search efforts.

I am willing to discuss this with you but just one issue at a time. Right now let's just focus on the idea that there was molten steel present where there shouldn't be.
I, and other engineers, say there wasn't any molten steel. You and the truthers say there was. I watched your vid, you watch the one I posted in response and give your thoughts. Fair enough?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[mike_forsythe 0]

Quote

dead link, whooo, I must be wrong

Yes, providing a link with no information means what your are claiming that supports your position is not there.

Quote

So you still deny any knowledge of red hot moulten steel discovered weeks after the incident

I have directly addressed this about a half a dozen times here. Your denial is just that.

Quote

These people generally take your side, usually based on emotion.

Yeah, all those professionals with years and years of education and experience are ALL operating on emotion............NOT. It is consistently clear by even the most casual of observers how little you know about this entire incident.

Quote

You still do not see that your efforts were in vein as they decided_before_ you ever showed up on the scene what the out come was going to be.

You are still clueless beyond belief. You know nothing of how our teams work, who responds us, who we report to or how our (not yours) country works or its structure in incidents like this.

Quote

In fact it is quite obvious that it wan't.

Wrong again. YOU have still failed to debunk a single fact that I have presented.

Quote

Do you believe there were temperatures within the rubble at ground zero, greater than what is achieveable by hydrocarbon fires in an uncontrolled environment?

No, but you are incorrectly basing your question as to all the contributing factors. Available fuel was only one of the components.

In the end, the FACT is that out of the 10 teams and over 720 responders not a single one has ever supported YOUR claims. Please keep the delusions going because with every post you make it gets weaker and weaker.

[rhys 0]

Quote

Fact is, you and the rest of the truthers have no idea WHAT you are saying or talking about.

you are talking about Hundreds of industry proffesionals. How do you dismiss thier combines knowledge, rationally?

They have produced peer reviewed journals and clearly explain their findings, your team of experts seem too lazy to look because, due to thier superior knowledge, refuse to consider the potential of explosives to have been used, be it thermate, tnt or any other explosives.


They never even looked for explosives, it is mandatory to investigate the possibilty of explosives in such an investigation and the failure to do so, proves either incompetence or corruption.

Quote

Here's your "molten steel" theory debunked.
http://www.youtube.com/...JQOg&feature=fvw

You consider yourself an engineer with a great deal of knowledege of these events and you use a completely non scientific, non credible, competely partial, and inconclusive video off 'you tube' as your evidence against the actual findings and eye witness reports.

Now wouldn't this be considered an example of the pot calling the kettle balck?

You video fails to address the eye witnes encounters. It mentions them but blows them off as if they are not credible, the investigation should take the observations of 'ALL' of the workers at the site, and study them. As well as any other eye witness encounters.

Why were these people ignored, why Did NIST say they had never heard of any such observastions, thier work is hardly thourough, here is one individuals findings of thier report.

http://www.intelresponder.com/Videos-Autoresponder/video/qFpbZ-aLDLY&feature=youtube_gdata

Quote

BTW, the cut beam in the vid you posted was cut with an oxy-fuel torch after the collapse to facilitate search efforts.

This photo could be debated for ever more, you video you linked before said it was aluminium the was moulten, maybe so, but what of the red/orange hot steel being pulled from the rubble, you video showed thes phots but did not explain them, also the use of a simple magnet on some of the resulting dust attract many micro spheres of previously moulten steel, the thermate flakes also found found partialy combusted, in the dust collected from the WTC buldings on the day, before any clean up was initiated.

Do you believe as an engineer that aluminium glowes a bright orange when falling through the air for hundreds of feet? do you also believe that organic matter freely mixes with moulten aluminium to produce this orange colour?
photos of motlen metal pouring from the building before the collpase Notice it colour and remnd yourself of what colour moulten aluminium is and for how long is can remain hot enough to be an orange colour, i'm sure if you are an engineer, you will at least have some knowledge of moulten aluminium.

This is what was published as the origin of the moulten metal videographed pouring from one of the buildings shortly before it collapsed. This anomily is yet to be explained, it was evident before the collapses and should be well explained, but faux rupert murdoch science was produced.


The NIST final report took over 7 years to produce and was only up for publc opinion for a period of three weeks, How is this an acceptable method of proving its worthiness, it could ttake much longer than that to compile a complete and thourough study on the report.

Quote

I am willing to discuss this with you but just one issue at a time. Right now let's just focus on the idea that there was molten steel present where there shouldn't be.

O.K.

I opologise for spelling and punctuation, my time is limted at present, I am tired and I have to sleep.

I will continue tomorrow

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[jakee 1,586]

Quote

you are talking about Hundreds of industry proffesionals. How do you dismiss thier combines knowledge, rationally?

How do you dismiss all the of the professionals who don't support youer conspiracy theory?

Quote

They have produced peer reviewed journals and clearly explain their findings, your team of experts seem too lazy to look because, due to thier superior knowledge, refuse to consider the potential of explosives to have been used, be it thermate, tnt or any other explosives.

They never even looked for explosives, it is mandatory to investigate the possibilty of explosives in such an investigation and the failure to do so, proves either incompetence or corruption.

Oh, there it is. You accuse them of being lazy, corrupt, incompetent and elitist, anything to invalidate to invalidate their opinions. Nevermind that quite a few of those are mutually exclusive, if you throw enough shit somethings bound to stick - and that means you'll never have to actually listen to what they have to say.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Why were these people ignored, why Did NIST say they had never heard of any such observastions, thier work is hardly thourough, here is one individuals findings of thier report.

For a number of reasons including, but not limited to: A very small percentage of the population has actually observed molten steel up close and would have no isea how to indentify it as such, no solidified pools or remnants of molten steel were found, and the temparatures in the fire did not reach a level that could melt steel.

Quote

This photo could be debated for ever more, you video you linked before said it was aluminium the was moulten, maybe so, but what of the red/orange hot steel being pulled from the rubble, you video showed thes phots but did not explain them, also the use of a simple magnet on some of the resulting dust attract many micro spheres of previously moulten steel, the thermate flakes also found found partialy combusted, in the dust collected from the WTC buldings on the day, before any clean up was initiated.

Steel turns red/orange several hundred degrees before melting. Don't think so? Lay a nail on the burner of your stove and see what happens.
The thermate/thermite myth has been debunked many times ove, why it is still being brought up is anyones guess, but if you want to discuss that issue we can as soon as we are done with the myth of molten steel.

Quote

Do you believe as an engineer that aluminium glowes a bright orange when falling through the air for hundreds of feet? YES do you also believe that organic matter freely mixes with moulten aluminium to produce this orange colour? YES
photos of motlen metal pouring from the building before the collpase Notice it colour and remnd yourself of what colour moulten aluminium is and for how long is can remain hot enough to be an orange colour, i'm sure if you are an engineer, you will at least have some knowledge of moulten aluminium.

Yes, I have quite a bit of knowledge of aluminum and it's properties. Nothing is unexpected or the least bit surprising about aluminum glowing red/orange even after falling for hundreds of feet.

The video I posted the link to is based on scientific fact, not lies and twisted physics like the myths is dispels.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

What do you mean Mike?

Are you asking me how such a huge amount of thermate was planted without witnesses seeing, as such a large amount of thermate would have been needed, even though you believe the building was more than capable of collapsing on its own accord without any such explosives, due to the damageed already sustained?

Is that the qiestion you want me to answer?

Seeing as that is your claim, that explosives brought down the WTC, that is EXACTLY what I want you to answer.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[cliffwhite 0]

[billvon 3,100]

>Interesting is that nano-thermite

I love it! Nano-thermite? Add some secret microfilm proving the conspiracy (but that no one can release because it's so secret) some high tech detonators hidden in plain sight (they look just like fire sprinklers) and a villain named Kaiser Soze and you've got yourself a whole new line on 9/11.

[cliffwhite 0]

Quote

>Interesting is that nano-thermite

I love it! Nano-thermite? Add some secret microfilm proving the conspiracy (but that no one can release because it's so secret) some high tech detonators hidden in plain sight (they look just like fire sprinklers) and a villain named Kaiser Soze and you've got yourself a whole new line on 9/11.

So I take it ,Bill, that you believe something like,"Directed by a beardy-guy from a cave in Afghanistan, nineteen hard-drinking, coke-snorting, devout Muslims enjoy lap dances before their mission to meet Allah...

Using nothing more than craft knifes, they overpower cabin crew, passengers and pilots on four planes...

And hangover or not, they manage to give the world's most sophisticated air defense system the slip...

Unphased by leaving their “How to Fly a Passenger Jet” guide in the car at the airport, they master the controls in no-time and score direct hits on two towers, causing THREE to collapse completely...

Our masterminds even manage to overpower the odd law of physics or two... and the world watches in awe as steel-framed buildings fall symmetrically - through their own mass - at free-fall speed, for the first time in history.

Despite all their dastardly cunning, they stupidly give their identity away by using explosion-proof passports, which survive the fireball undamaged and fall to the ground... only to be discovered by the incredible crime-fighting sleuths at the FBI...

…Meanwhile down in Washington...

Hani Hanjour, having previously flunked 2-man Cessna flying school, gets carried away with all the success of the day and suddenly finds incredible abilities behind the controls of a Boeing...

Instead of flying straight down into the large roof area of the Pentagon, he decides to show off a little...

Executing an incredible 270 degree downward spiral, he levels off to hit the low facade of the world's most heavily defended building...

...all without a single shot being fired.... or ruining the nicely mowed lawn... and all at a speed just too fast to capture on video...

...Later, in the skies above Pennsylvania...

So desperate to talk to loved ones before their death, some passengers use sheer willpower to connect mobile calls that otherwise would not be possible until several years later...

And following a heroic attempt by some to retake control of Flight 93, it crashes into a Shankesville field leaving no trace of engines, fuselage or occupants... except for the standard issue Muslim terrorists bandana...

...Further south in Florida...

President Bush, our brave Commander-in-Chief continues to read “My Pet Goat” to a class full of primary school children... shrugging off the obvious possibility that his life could be in imminent danger...

...In New York...

World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein blesses his own foresight in insuring the buildings against terrorist attack only six weeks previously...

While back in Washington, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz shake their heads in disbelief at their own luck in getting the 'New Pearl Harbor' catalyzing event they so desired to pursue their agenda of world domination...

And finally, not to be disturbed too much by reports of their own deaths, at least seven of our nineteen suicide hijackers turn up alive and kicking in mainstream media reports..."

Yeah ,Bill, you may be right.

Or it could be that nano-thermite was sprayed inplace of the fireproofing which was sprayed just before 9-11.

Blues,
Cliff

2muchTruth

[billvon 3,100]

>Using nothing more than craft knifes, they overpower cabin crew,
>passengers and pilots on four planes...

Yep. Before 9/11, SOP was to cooperate with hijackers.

>Unphased by leaving their “How to Fly a Passenger Jet” guide in the
>car at the airport, they master the controls in no-time and score
>direct hits on two towers, causing THREE to collapse completely...

Try it in a flight simulator sometime. It's not that hard to run into a building. It's hard to learn to land well, and it's hard to learn how to deal with engine-outs, systems failures etc. But take away those and it's pretty easy. You don't even have to know how to land a Cessna.

>So desperate to talk to loved ones before their death, some
>passengers use sheer willpower to connect mobile calls that otherwise
>would not be possible until several years later...

Again, try it sometimes. It really does work.

>Or it could be that nano-thermite was sprayed inplace of the
>fireproofing which was sprayed just before 9-11.

Like I said, I love the "secret nano-thermite" angle. Not as funny as the "missile with a 757 hologram generator", true. But still an excellent effort.

[cliffwhite 0]

[reply>Or it could be that nano-thermite was sprayed inplace of the
>fireproofing which was sprayed just before 9-11.

Like I said, I love the "secret nano-thermite" angle. Not as funny as the "missile with a 757 hologram generator", true. But still an excellent effort.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

So desperate to talk to loved ones before their death, some
>passengers use sheer willpower to connect mobile calls that otherwise
>would not be possible until several years later...

You mean the calls that were made from the phones in the seatbacks? Those calls? Only one or two were made from cell phones and, YES, it was entirely possible even with the stone age technology of the day.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[cliffwhite 0]

Quote

Quote

So desperate to talk to loved ones before their death, some
>passengers use sheer willpower to connect mobile calls that otherwise
>would not be possible until several years later...

You mean the calls that were made from the phones in the seatbacks? Those calls? Only one or two were made from cell phones and, YES, it was entirely possible even with the stone age technology of the day.

What do you make of Barbara Olsens' call to Solicitor General Ted Olsen, Belgian Draft?

And wasn't Solicitor Ted the guy who argued for George W's election in front of the Supreme Court ?

Blues,
Cliff

2muchTruth

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Interesting is that nano-thermite

I love it! Nano-thermite? Add some secret microfilm proving the conspiracy (but that no one can release because it's so secret) some high tech detonators hidden in plain sight (they look just like fire sprinklers) and a villain named Kaiser Soze and you've got yourself a whole new line on 9/11.

You can see this in action in "The World is not Enough."

Isn't that conclusive proof??