9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

[KennyJC]

There wasn't one piece of scientific evidence presented in that video. Just random quotes. Can't you see how weak your position is? All you can provide is youtube video's with nameless pundits pontificating emotional arguments, not scientific ones.

Perfect evasion.

My question to you was wether or not the firefighters and first responders today believe that there were bombs in the WTC.

They don't.

I have read of some of those people were angry that their out of context quotes have been included in propaganda movies like Loose Change. I have read quotes of the Flight 93 coroner reacting angrily to his out of context quotes being used in Loose Change.

I'm sure you will say these people are just being paid off by the Bush administration however.

 

[EndLightEnd]

Wow, conditioning really works.

 

[BlueMoose]

I have been reading Arthur C. Clarke - Childhoods End, about 120 pages now.
Oh yeah, and this forum too

 

[Stryder]

Moved to the only place fit for Conspiracy "Pseudoscience".

 

[BlueMoose]

As I said before, there is no use for word conspiracy, its like a leprosy, nobody wants to touch it,
and those whom has courage to do it are treated like lepers.
Down to pseudoscience with other diseased specimens, oh yeah

 

[KennyJC]

You invalidate your own argument with our own words. The arabs didn't have the skills to pull of that maneuver at 550 MPH. Renowned Pilot John Lear had this to say.

John Lear: Maybe if I had a couple tries to line up a few building, I could have done it. But certainly not the first time and certainly not at 500 or 600 miles an hour.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2879177663747998295

Is this the same John Lear who is an Alien/UFO nut?

http://www.greatdreams.com/John-Lear.htm

And you lambast me for using "nameless youtube pundits". It's hardly surprising anybody who believes that aliens are on planet Earth would also believe in a coverup on 9/11.

I find it funny you would use him to back up your fantasy.

It took nine seconds for WTC one to fall, the Government apologists say that it fell in 15 seconds. That's bullshit even the NIST said WTC 1 fell in 9 seconds.

NIST said it took the WTC 9 seconds to collapse? Now this does interest me. Could you show me where they say this?

Yes they did, they imploded perfectly and settled in their own footprints.

It's own footprints? Are you fucking kidding me? Did you see an overhead picture of ground zero? There was catastrophic damage to the surrounding area and rubble was scattered over a wide area.

I really love it when you post strawman pictures like this. This one wasn't as amusing as your plane crash pictures though.

Is this the picture of a high-rise steel framed building? Was it hit by an airliner going 550mph? No.

Anybody looking at this picture with expertise in controlled demolition will tell you this is not what a controlled demolition looks like. Please see my video I posted showing what a real controlled demolition looks like.

How in the fuck do you know since no building has ever collapsed due to fire. What historical references are you basing your hypothesis on?

What you aren't so quick to point out is that no building in history prior to 9/11 was hit by a 200 ton bullet.

As for WTC7: No other building in history has ever had 47 stories of weight on it's support after having the lower 10 floors scooped out 25% into the depth of the building and then had raging fires untreated for 7 hours.

Most high rise buildings have a concrete inner core or concrete encased outer columns (or both), the WTC had neither.

But lets take your point about "never in history has a building collapsed due to fire"... In April 2007, sections of I-580 collapsed from fire alone.

In 1997 three 4 story buildings at the Kader toy factory in Singapore caught fire. All three collapsed from fire alone in 2 hours.

The Dogwood Elementary School in Virginia caught fire in 2000 resulting in many of the fire-affected areas collapsing.

In 2005, fires broke out on the steel-framed Mumbai High North Platform causing it to completely collapse in 2 hours.

In 2005, the 32 story Windsor building in Madrid caught fire. Although only the top 11 floors (minus the concrete inner core) were comprised of a steel-framed structure, all 11 floors collapsed from fire alone.

The structural failure of the WTC is why chief engineer Leslie Robertson's latest project, the World Financial center is designed with a concrete core and concrete-encased outer columns. And it is the same reason why the new WTC7 and Freedom Tower are being designed with a concrete core and concrete-encased outer colums.

Here's a video of a NY firefighter instructing people to clear out the area because there's a bomb in the building.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpZdulv66n8&feature=related

NBC News Coverage regarding the bombs in WTC

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=db9_1172623113

You really are shameless. Exploiting vague reports, confusion and hearsay for your own benefit.

There is a video on YouTube of a firefighter saying "get back, there is a bomb in the high school", even though there was no such thing. The media was also reporting that there were bombs being reported in the nations capitol. If we just take these as false reports or confusion in the "fog of war", then there is no problem. But if we assume the reports were completely accurate, then the police, the fire fighters and all of the first reponders as well as those in the clean up operation have explicit knowledge that there was indeed an inside job, yet they are saying nothing of it. Either there was no such thing, or let me guess... they are all being silenced by the men in trench coats who are wearing hats and sunglasses whilst smoking a cirgarette.

Simple, to destroy the towers and any evidence that could incriminate those who're actually responsible.

Do you have any idea how long it would take to rig up a building the size of the WTC with explosives required to bring it down? A long fucking time, and a hell of a lot of materials and miles of wire which the thousands of office workers could not turn a blind eye to. And with recovery workers with experience in controlled demolition, the evidence of controlled demolition would not evade their eyes too.

The 911 commission didn't investigate building 7. So please stop making such deceptive claims. There's a multitude of inconsistencies, to many for us to pick. So it's prudent for us to examine all the evidence, because allot of the evidence contradicts the official story.

NIST have investigated WTC7, and why would the 911 commission investigate building 7 when it was not even a crime scene? The terrorists attacked the two towers incase you didn't notice.

 

[shaman_]

You invalidate your own .....

Kenny has responded better than I could so I wont address your points.


This picture, however, should be seen again as it is pretty funny.

:shrug:

 

[Ganymede]

Is this the same John Lear who is an Alien/UFO nut?

His belief in alien life forms has nothing to due with his skill as a Pilot. Since he worked for the CIA in the past.

I find it funny you would use him to back up your fantasy.

I have evidence, you don't, stop talking, and start letting the facts speak for you.

NIST said it took the WTC 9 seconds to collapse? Now this does interest me. Could you show me where they say this?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

It's own footprints? Are you fucking kidding me? Did you see an overhead picture of ground zero? There was catastrophic damage to the surrounding area and rubble was scattered over a wide area.

Sorry, but the facts don't back your fantasy.

I really love it when you post strawman pictures like this. This one wasn't as amusing as your plane crash pictures though.

Nope, it's called supporting evidence, something you severely lack.

Anybody looking at this picture with expertise in controlled demolition will tell you this is not what a controlled demolition looks like. Please see my video I posted showing what a real controlled demolition looks like.

It looks just like what happened to WTC 1 & 2.

What you aren't so quick to point out is that no building in history prior to 9/11 was hit by a 200 ton bullet.[/quote[

An Airliner is made of Aluminum, not Steele, only the engines are made of Steele. Also, the WTC were designed to resist wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft. Nice try though.

As for WTC7: No other building in history has ever had 47 stories of weight on it's support after having the lower 10 floors scooped out 25% into the depth of the building and then had raging fires untreated for 7 hours.

This entire post is a lie, I wouldn't even lower myself to answer it. Please link any credible evidence that backs up your absurd opinion.

Most high rise buildings have a concrete inner core or concrete encased outer columns (or both), the WTC had neither.

WTC had a Steele inner core, nice try though.

But lets take your point about "never in history has a building collapsed due to fire"... In April 2007, sections of I-580 collapsed from fire alone.

Ha Ha, I take 580 to work every day, and it's no where near the size or weight. Please, know the facts before you make yourself look like a fool.

In 1997 three 4 story buildings at the Kader toy factory in Singapore caught fire. All three collapsed from fire alone in 2 hours.

4 stories BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

The Dogwood Elementary School in Virginia caught fire in 2000 resulting in many of the fire-affected areas collapsing.

Not even a valid comparison. I'm talking Steele Skyscrapers!!!

In 2005, fires broke out on the steel-framed Mumbai High North Platform causing it to completely collapse in 2 hours.

Now you're plagiarizing, you fail at debating.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...Mumbai+High+North+Platform&btnG=Google+Search

You really are shameless. Exploiting vague reports, confusion and hearsay for your own benefit.

And you're really moronic for ignoring the mountain of evidence against the official story.

NIST have investigated WTC7, and why would the 911 commission investigate building 7 when it was not even a crime scene? The terrorists attacked the two towers incase you didn't notice.

The NIST didn't investigate WTC7 until after the 911 commission did. Only after the public put pressure on them to do so. Please, learn the facts before you pretend to have a command of them.

 

[Ganymede]

Moved to the only place fit for Conspiracy "Pseudoscience".

Moving the thread changes nothing. The American people disagree with you.

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

 

[KennyJC]

Oh my god! I laughed all the way through your reply. It's funny to see you react as you get backed into a corner.

His belief in alien life forms has nothing to due with his skill as a Pilot. Since he worked for the CIA in the past.

It reduces his credibility. If you are going to use experts to back up your claims, you need credible ones. The A&E for truth movement has someone as their main spokes person who believes that Jesus visited North America. So they are nothing but conspiracy nuts, even outside of 9/11.

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.

NOW I understand. So basically the debris that fell off the side of the building hit the ground before the building fully collapsed? I already knew this, and this alone proves that there was no free fall speed of the main structure, just the debris falling off the side. This is very easy to understand for honest people.

HAHaHAHAHAHHA! You have really out-done yourself this time. You do realize this picture was taken after the debris had been cleared up? Try looking at the picture before the recovery work had begun. I'm beginning to think you are just being satirical now, you can't really be THIS stupid.

Nope, it's called supporting evidence, something you severely lack.

It would be supporting evidence in a Kangaroo Court maybe.

It looks just like what happened to WTC 1 & 2.

All experts in controlled demolition disagree with you. Even for the lamen, you can clearly see the building collapse is preceeded with visible flashes and huge explosions heard for miles, the building then falls from it's base, and not as the WTC did - top to bottom.

An Airliner is made of Aluminum, not Steele, only the engines are made of Steele. Also, the WTC were designed to resist wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft. Nice try though.

And you wonder why this thread was moved to 'pseudoscience'

Wind pressure is over a wide area, the entire face of the building infact, the force of the plane occurrs over a tiny area and would easy punch a hole straight through the building. Why do you think tanks have wide tracks and not thin wheels? Because it would sink in soft ground.

Your comparison of a 767 travelling at 550mph to wind pressure is a strawman.

This entire post is a lie, I wouldn't even lower myself to answer it. Please link any credible evidence that backs up your absurd opinion.

Why don't you read the NIST report, or read what the Firefighters had to say about the WTC7?

WTC had a Steele inner core, nice try though.

I don't know if you realise, but that was my point. If the WTC had a concrete inner core it would have been more resiliant to fire.

4 stories BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Not even a valid comparison. I'm talking Steele Skyscrapers!!!

Really? Because in your post you said 'building' thus indicating that no BUILDING has collapsed due to fire, in which instance you are probably wrong by a factor of a few million.

As for steel skyscrapers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I really don't think there has been any steel framed skyscraper hit by a 767 at 550mph blowing away much of the fireproofing and igniting thousands of gallons of jet fuel with lots of office equipment fueling the fire and being untreated by firefighters. Has that happened before 9/11 or since?

Now you're plagiarizing, you fail at debating.

I thought I was just citing a source?

And you're really moronic for ignoring the mountain of evidence against the official story.

The "mountain of evidence" against the "official story" is a mountain of shit. When things like Loose Change which is full of deliberate lies and deception and that seems to be the main weapon of conspiracy theories, it's very clear which side of the argument is lying.

Why for example did Loose Change use a picture of the Pentagon where the bulk of the damage is hidden by water from a fire hose, when they could have used other pictures better showing the damage? Why do they use part of a quote instead of the hole quote "like a missle with wings" when if they included the whole quote the same person would have described an American Airlines jet?

It's dishonesty like this that gains no followers amongst academic circles. There actually needs to be evidence.

 

[KennyJC]

Moving the thread changes nothing. The American people disagree with you.

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Incase you didn't realise... most Americans also believe in a Flying Zombie.

 

[EndLightEnd]

It reduces his credibility. If you are going to use experts to back up your claims, you need credible ones.

How does his belief in alien life forms affect his credibility as a pilot AT ALL? :shrug:

Especially this person who has worked in the high echelons of the government.

 

[Ganymede]

Oh my god! I laughed all the way through your reply. It's funny to see you react as you get backed into a corner.

I more then proved my case. You didn't back me into shit.

It reduces his credibility. If you are going to use experts to back up your claims, you need credible ones. The A&E for truth movement has someone as their main spokes person who believes that Jesus visited North America. So they are nothing but conspiracy nuts, even outside of 9/11.

99.9% of everything of posted came from mainstream news sources. 99.9% of every piece of evidence you posted came from obscure sources.

NOW I understand. So basically the debris that fell off the side of the building hit the ground before the building fully collapsed? I already knew this, and this alone proves that there was no free fall speed of the main structure, just the debris falling off the side. This is very easy to understand for honest people.

Yes it was, it feel in 9 seconds. Let the math prove your point. Not your worthless opinion.

HAHaHAHAHAHHA! You have really out-done yourself this time. You do realize this picture was taken after the debris had been cleared up? Try looking at the picture before the recovery work had begun. I'm beginning to think you are just being satirical now, you can't really be THIS stupid.

Do you have photographic evidence to back up your claim? I do, you don't, that's why you fail at debating.

It would be supporting evidence in a Kangaroo Court maybe.

You haven't presented one credible source yet.

All experts in controlled demolition disagree with you. Even for the lamen, you can clearly see the building collapse is preceeded with visible flashes and huge explosions heard for miles, the building then falls from it's base, and not as the WTC did - top to bottom.

Make up your mind. When the WTC fell seismic spikes were recorded. So what caused the seismic spikes? The collapse or bombs?

And you wonder why this thread was moved to 'pseudoscience'

You know what's pseudoscience, believe that you can make a cell phone call at 10,000 ft traveling at 500 MPH.

Wind pressure is over a wide area, the entire face of the building infact, the force of the plane occurrs over a tiny area and would easy punch a hole straight through the building. Why do you think tanks have wide tracks and not thin wheels? Because it would sink in soft ground.

Are you X military or a spook Like I said, the wind shears that the WTC 1 & 2 endure on a windy day is greater then the impact of an aluminum 757.

Your comparison of a 767 travelling at 550mph to wind pressure is a strawman.

Not it's not, it's called physics.

Why don't you read the NIST report, or read what the Firefighters had to say about the WTC7?

The NYFD is under a gag order. That's why you can't find any testimony from them in the mainstream press regarding what they saw on 911. That's why the 911 commission didn't interview any of the NYFD. If you can find any testimony of the actions of any firefighter on 911. Please link them so we can observe them. Since your story is so real, and not fantasy, you should be able to provide links from ABC,NBC,FOX,CBS,etc.

I don't know if you realise, but that was my point. If the WTC had a concrete inner core it would have been more resiliant to fire.

A Kerosene fire only burns at 800 degrees Celsius The melting point of Steel is 1500 degrees. Science isn't on your side.

Really? Because in your post you said 'building' thus indicating that no BUILDING has collapsed due to fire, in which instance you are probably wrong by a factor of a few million.

I'm talking high rise Steel Skyscrapers. Like this one. This fire burned all night and until the next morning. No collapse.

As for steel skyscrapers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I really don't think there has been any steel framed skyscraper hit by a 767 at 550mph blowing away much of the fireproofing and igniting thousands of gallons of jet fuel with lots of office equipment fueling the fire and being untreated by firefighters. Has that happened before 9/11 or since?

You're confusing kerosene with Thermate. Most, if not all of the Kerosene would of been incinerated in the initial fireball during the explosion. Dr. Steven Jones found traces of Thermate in the WTC steel, that would explain the pools of molten Steele.

The "mountain of evidence" against the "official story" is a mountain of shit. When things like Loose Change which is full of deliberate lies and deception and that seems to be the main weapon of conspiracy theories, it's very clear which side of the argument is lying.

Loose Change contains allot of independently verifiable evidence, unlike the official story.

Why for example did Loose Change use a picture of the Pentagon where the bulk of the damage is hidden by water from a fire hose, when they could have used other pictures better showing the damage? Why do they use part of a quote instead of the hole quote "like a missle with wings" when if they included the whole quote the same person would have described an American Airlines jet?

Why did Bush say he saw the first plane hit the WTC when video of the first impact wasn't shown on TV?

It's dishonesty like this that gains no followers amongst academic circles. There actually needs to be evidence.

Bullshit, ever hear of scholars for 911 truth?

Dr. James Fetzer, Dr. David Ray Griffin & Dr. Steven Jones just to name a few.

 

[KennyJC]

Yes it was, it feel in 9 seconds. Let the math prove your point. Not your worthless opinion.

No, you don't understand this, so I will explain it to you like you are a 3 year old child.

The peices of metal that fell off to the side were falling at free fall speed. I do not deny this and nor does anybody deny this. What I am saying is the collapse is not finished until all of the floors have been destroyed. When the 1st peice of debris hits the ground, there are still many floors intact in the WTC.

Do you have photographic evidence to back up your claim? I do, you don't, that's why you fail at debating.

Why yes I do:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/ground_zero_arial2_ort.jpg

I win at debating since my picture is before the recovery workers cleared up all the debris.

You haven't presented one credible source yet.

That's kind of hard to do when any source that contradicts you is considered invalid.

Make up your mind. When the WTC fell seismic spikes were recorded. So what caused the seismic spikes? The collapse or bombs?

You think that thousands of tons of falling materials can not make a seismic spike?

Furthermore, don't you think that if it was a bomb, we would have heard it?

You know what's pseudoscience, believe that you can make a cell phone call at 10,000 ft traveling at 500 MPH.

It's not pseudoscience if the cell phone calls came when the plane was flying in rural areas where there is less interferance.

Like I said, the wind shears that the WTC 1 & 2 endure on a windy day is greater then the impact of an aluminum 757.

I can't say that I disagree with that. But the difference of course is that a 767 travelling at 550mph is concentrated into a minescule area and a split second in time. Pretty much nothing can withstand that.

Not it's not, it's called physics.

Ask any high level physics professor about your wind comparison to a 550mph Boeing 767 and I'm sure he will side with me on this.

The NYFD is under a gag order. That's why you can't find any testimony from them in the mainstream press regarding what they saw on 911

That's very presumptious of you is it not? But then again, that's the point.

If you can find any testimony of the actions of any firefighter on 911. Please link them so we can observe them. Since your story is so real, and not fantasy, you should be able to provide links from ABC,NBC,FOX,CBS,etc.

I will make a post later about this. I don't have time to trawl through google right now.

A Kerosene fire only burns at 800 degrees Celsius The melting point of Steel is 1500 degrees. Science isn't on your side.

The only people who say that steel melted are conspiricy theorists. No self respecting expert who has studied the facts will say that any steel melted. The temperature measured was high enough to WEAKEN the steel. Another strawman... you are full of them.

I'm talking high rise Steel Skyscrapers. Like this one. This fire burned all night and until the next morning. No collapse.

Is that not one of the buildings I used as a source? Wasn't that the one where the top 11 floors collapsed because they were steel framed? The rest of the building stood because of it's concrete core?

Dr. Steven Jones found traces of Thermate in the WTC steel

Is Stephen Jones the one that believed Jesus visited North America?

It's pretty sad when all of the "experts" you cite also believe in other whacky bullshit.

Anyway, Thermate is not an explosive substance. Make up your mind, was it bombs or Thermate? When Thermate burns, it creates such a huge reaction that it would likely be visible throughout the tower to all of the cameras at the scene.

that would explain the pools of molten Steele.

How do you know it wasn't Aluminium which has a much lower melting point?

Loose Change contains allot of independently verifiable evidence, unlike the official story.

No, it doesn't. You never addressed why Loose Change used a picture of the Pentagon obscurred by lots of water from fire hoses rather than many other pictures they would have used showing the true extent of the damage? It is simply dishonest.

I know you simply won't read the following link, and even if you do, I'm pretty sure none of it will sink into that brain of yours... but this link debunks Loose Change in it's entireity. And you'll be glad to know, that he states his sources better than I do:

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

Why did Bush say he saw the first plane hit the WTC when video of the first impact wasn't shown on TV?

He didn't see the first plane hit the tower, he saw the aftermath of the tower being hit.

Bush is a moron, but not enough of a moron to confess to the biggest crime in history live on TV.

Bullshit, ever hear of scholars for 911 truth?

Yes I have (I know you won't watch this):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6fe9YlHQwA

My bad, I said it was one of the A&E for truth that was the one that believed Jesus visited North America... but it was the guy from scholars for 911 truth, lol!

 

[Ganymede]

No, you don't understand this, so I will explain it to you like you are a 3 year old child.

The peices of metal that fell off to the side were falling at free fall speed. I do not deny this and nor does anybody deny this. What I am saying is the collapse is not finished until all of the floors have been destroyed. When the 1st peice of debris hits the ground, there are still many floors intact in the WTC.

All of the core columns collapsed at the same time, a natural collapse couldn't produce such precision.

Why yes I do:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/ground_zero_arial2_ort.jpg

I win at debating since my picture is before the recovery workers cleared up all the debris.

Your picture didn't show shit. Name one building that suffered this fantasy damage you're theorizing. You're picture is inconclusive.

That's kind of hard to do when any source that contradicts you is considered invalid.

Name one credible source you've used?

You think that thousands of tons of falling materials can not make a seismic spike?

The sesimic waves peaked before the towers finished its collapse.

Furthermore, don't you think that if it was a bomb, we would have heard it?

Everyone on the scene heard it was a bomb, here's the reporters from NBC, CNN, & Fox, saying they heard a loud explosions.

Here's a Fox News reporter live on the scene. He said 15 minutes after the bomb squad entered the towers, they heard a loud explosion, then the towers can crashing down. So when you lie and say no one heard a loud explosion before the collapse is demonstrably false.

Fox News reporter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTfM7CXhz1k

NYFD, explain they heard bombs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2A8VMg_B64

WABC reporter interviews man inside of WTC who heard and felt loud explosions prior to collapse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU-t-wbBXm0

So once again, to say that nobody heard explosions is demonstrably false.

It's not pseudoscience if the cell phone calls came when the plane was flying in rural areas where there is less interferance.

What I want to know is why Ted Olson lied about getting a call from his wife Barbara. Answer that, since the official record refutes his account.

I can't say that I disagree with that. But the difference of course is that a 767 travelling at 550mph is concentrated into a minescule area and a split second in time. Pretty much nothing can withstand that.

The force of the wind shears is 30 times greater then the force of the Aluminum plane, traveling at 500mph that hit it. The math doesn't support your hypothesis.

Ask any high level physics professor about your wind comparison to a 550mph Boeing 767 and I'm sure he will side with me on this.

Why don't you, since you're unaware how wind loads effects skyscrapers.

The only people who say that steel melted are conspiricy theorists. No self respecting expert who has studied the facts will say that any steel melted. The temperature measured was high enough to WEAKEN the steel. Another strawman... you are full of them.

The steel was melted, pools of molten Steel were visible.

I'm talking high rise Steel Skyscrapers. Like this one. This fire burned all night and until the next morning. No collapse.

Is that not one of the buildings I used as a source? Wasn't that the one where the top 11 floors collapsed because they were steel framed? The rest of the building stood because of it's concrete core?

That's what happens when you plagiarize your answers, you can't refer to any specific pictures or articles because you didn't research it yourself. You're just parroting lines from propaganda sites.

Is Stephen Jones the one that believed Jesus visited North America?

Stephen Jones was a B.Y.U Physics professor, I've only read about his scientific conclusions, not his religious beliefs. Now that's a strawman argument.

It's pretty sad when all of the "experts" you cite also believe in other whacky bullshit.

Jerome Corsi believes Dr. Stephen Jones, is Jerome Corsi a wackjob?

Anyway, Thermate is not an explosive substance. Make up your mind, was it bombs or Thermate? When Thermate burns, it creates such a huge reaction that it would likely be visible throughout the tower to all of the cameras at the scene.

Thermate was used to cut the core collums. Here's a picture. Observe how the metal is melted around the area where the steel was cut.

No, it doesn't. You never addressed why Loose Change used a picture of the Pentagon obscurred by lots of water from fire hoses rather than many other pictures they would have used showing the true extent of the damage? It is simply dishonest.

Loose change used pictures of the crime scene, not misleading in the slightest.

I know you simply won't read the following link, and even if you do, I'm pretty sure none of it will sink into that brain of yours... but this link debunks Loose Change in it's entireity. And you'll be glad to know, that he states his sources better than I do:

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

I've read that already. It's mostly punditry with no scientific evidence to back up any of the claims.

He didn't see the first plane hit the tower, he saw the aftermath of the tower being hit.

Bush is a moron, but not enough of a moron to confess to the biggest crime in history live on TV.

"I saw an airplane hit the tower - the TV was obviously on - and I used to fly myself, and I said, 'There's one terrible pilot.' And I said, 'It must have been a horrible accident

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/dec/05/september11.usa

Oh, and here's the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xgk6bE58DQ

My bad, I said it was one of the A&E for truth that was the one that believed Jesus visited North America... but it was the guy from scholars for 911 truth, lol!

Strawman, let the science argue for you, not insults.

 

[KennyJC]

All of the core columns collapsed at the same time, a natural collapse couldn't produce such precision.

Don't you know that the core of the south tower was seen still standing momentarily after the building collapsed around it?

Your picture didn't show shit. Name one building that suffered this fantasy damage you're theorizing. You're picture is inconclusive.

Doesn't show shit? So all that debris spread out far and beyond the WTC footprints doesn't show shit? The mind see's what it wants to see apparently.

Name one credible source you've used?

Only NIST, Popular Mechanics, Mark Roberts and "debunking 9/11" series, all of which state their sources.

The sesimic waves peaked before the towers finished its collapse.

When exactly did it peak in relation to the towers collapse?

Everyone on the scene heard it was a bomb, here's the reporters from NBC, CNN, & Fox, saying they heard a loud explosions.

Here's a Fox News reporter live on the scene. He said 15 minutes after the bomb squad entered the towers, they heard a loud explosion, then the towers can crashing down. So when you lie and say no one heard a loud explosion before the collapse is demonstrably false.

Fox News reporter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTfM7CXhz1k

NYFD, explain they heard bombs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2A8VMg_B64

WABC reporter interviews man inside of WTC who heard and felt loud explosions prior to collapse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU-t-wbBXm0

So once again, to say that nobody heard explosions is demonstrably false.

I have no doubt people heard explosions, but what is your opinion to the fact that the media who reported explosions and the fire fighters who heard explosions claim today, that they weren't bombs?

How many of these quoted "explosions" where from the planes hitting the tower? From the sound of the collapse itself? From debris falling down elevator shafts? From electric explosions (which do happen in sky scrapers: SOURCE)?

I assume you don't care to find out, because to you this can only mean BOMB. Even though Thermite does not result in a large explosion, you seem to think Thermite was used.

What I want to know is why Ted Olson lied about getting a call from his wife Barbara. Answer that, since the official record refutes his account.

That's one thing I don't know about.

The force of the wind shears is 30 times greater then the force of the Aluminum plane, traveling at 500mph that hit it. The math doesn't support your hypothesis.

I will attempt to explain this to you again...

Put your hand out of a moving car and you will feel a strong wind on your hand, but this is not painful in anyway.

Put your hand out in front of a 550mph 767 and you will loose your hand.

Why don't you, since you're unaware how wind loads effects skyscrapers.

Your the one posting the idiotic argument that a 767 should bounce off a skyscraper. This isn't a cartoon y'know...

The steel was melted, pools of molten Steel were visible.

That was most likely Aluminium. It certainly wasn't steel.

Stephen Jones was a B.Y.U Physics professor, I've only read about his scientific conclusions, not his religious beliefs. Now that's a strawman argument.

Maybe.. maybe.. But if your experts are saying that there are Aliens on Earth and Jesus visited North America, I simply can't consider them honest people.

Thermate was used to cut the core collums. Here's a picture. Observe how the metal is melted around the area where the steel was cut.

Firstly, that is not a "core column".

Secondly, that was cut after the building collapsed in the clean up operation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySHgiUxnLC0&feature=related

It's important that you watch that video, because it actually shows the recovery workers cutting the remainder of the standing beams in exactly that fashion.

Loose change used pictures of the crime scene, not misleading in the slightest.

You are wrong. Using a picture of the Pentagon with a fire hose blocking the majority of the damage is extremely misleading.

"I saw an airplane hit the tower - the TV was obviously on - and I used to fly myself, and I said, 'There's one terrible pilot.' And I said, 'It must have been a horrible accident

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/dec/05/september11.usa

Oh, and here's the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xgk6bE58DQ

This is simply absurd. CT's pick up on quotes from Bush, Larry Silverstein and Donald Rumsfeld and try to use them in this manner. I have no idea why all three of those men would apparently admit to the biggest crime of all time in front of the media.

 

[Ganymede]

Don't you know that the core of the south tower was seen still standing momentarily after the building collapsed around it?

Part of it.

Doesn't show shit? So all that debris spread out far and beyond the WTC footprints doesn't show shit? The mind see's what it wants to see apparently.

Name the building that was damaged, this is the last time i'm going to ask you. You're a liar.

Only NIST, Popular Mechanics, Mark Roberts and "debunking 9/11" series, all of which state their sources.

The NIST studied less then 2% of the materials at the WTC. Far from conclusive. And the Popular Mechanics article is punditry, it doesn't share any of the scientific data that brought them to their conclusions. And the article was penned by Michael Chertoff's cousin, a clear conflict of interest.

When exactly did it peak in relation to the towers collapse?

I have no doubt people heard explosions, but what is your opinion to the fact that the media who reported explosions and the fire fighters who heard explosions claim today, that they weren't bombs?

That's pure speculation on your part. The WTC Janitor who saved several lives on 911 reported hearing a large explosion in the WTC basement.

Rodriguez held one of five master keys to the WTC—a tool he calls “the key of hope” that enabled him to save 15 people trapped inside the two towers.

At 8:46 a.m. he heard an explosion. “Boom!” Rodriguez imitated. He heard a man screaming “Explosion! Explosion!” from underneath. “I wanted to say a generator blew up. I thought it was a bomb.

How many of these quoted "explosions" where from the planes hitting the tower? From the sound of the collapse itself? From debris falling down elevator shafts? From electric explosions (which do happen in sky scrapers: SOURCE)?

Punditry and speculation. No facts.

I assume you don't care to find out, because to you this can only mean BOMB. Even though Thermite does not result in a large explosion, you seem to think Thermite was used.

Thermate charges aren't silent.



That's one thing I don't know about.

I will attempt to explain this to you again...

Put your hand out of a moving car and you will feel a strong wind on your hand, but this is not painful in anyway.

Put your hand out in front of a 550mph 767 and you will loose your hand.

That's an invalid comparison. Here's how you argue your case. In 1943 the a B-25 Bomber crashed into the empire state building. And guess what, it barley even dented the building. And yes there was a kerosene fire present also, still no collapse, not even one floor.

Your the one posting the idiotic argument that a 767 should bounce off a skyscraper. This isn't a cartoon y'know...

A blatant lie and misrepresentation of the facts. My point is an aluminum 757 can't take down a building holding 60,000+ tons of Steele and concrete. If so, the US and Brittan would be using aluminum laced bombs instead of depleted uranium laced bombs.

Maybe.. maybe.. But if your experts are saying that there are Aliens on Earth and Jesus visited North America, I simply can't consider them honest people.

A clear indicator that you're losing terribly.

Firstly, that is not a "core column".

Secondly, that was cut after the building collapsed in the clean up operation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySHgiUxnLC0&feature=related

It's important that you watch that video, because it actually shows the recovery workers cutting the remainder of the standing beams in exactly that fashion.

That video didn't show them cutting shit. Nor was any scientific data provided.

You are wrong. Using a picture of the Pentagon with a fire hose blocking the majority of the damage is extremely misleading.

A 757 didn't hit the Pentagon, you have zero video or photographic evidence to support your Fantasy.

This is simply absurd. CT's pick up on quotes from Bush, Larry Silverstein and Donald Rumsfeld and try to use them in this manner. I have no idea why all three of those men would apparently admit to the biggest crime of all time in front of the media.

It's called a Freudian slip. That's why Bush & Cheney were to Chickenshit to go under oath before the 911 commission.

 

[KennyJC]

Part of it.

No, virtually the whole thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4

42 seconds into this video, you see it is virtually completely intact.

Name the building that was damaged, this is the last time i'm going to ask you. You're a liar.

Actually LOOK at the picture. You see debris on the roof tops of nearby buildings. You see damage to the face of the buildings facing the WTC. You see a glass roof to the left of the image has been smashed even though it is more than 500 feet away from the footprint of the nearest tower. Fall into it's own footprint it certainly did not, my friend.

The NIST studied less then 2% of the materials at the WTC. Far from conclusive. And the Popular Mechanics article is punditry, it doesn't share any of the scientific data that brought them to their conclusions. And the article was penned by Michael Chertoff's cousin, a clear conflict of interest.

NIST was still able to establish a collapse without explosives. I should think they know what they are talking about.

As for the seismic data...Well there you go, the wave did peak before the collapse was complete. I'm not sure why this should be surprising?

That's pure speculation on your part. The WTC Janitor who saved several lives on 911 reported hearing a large explosion in the WTC basement.

Rodriguez held one of five master keys to the WTC—a tool he calls “the key of hope” that enabled him to save 15 people trapped inside the two towers.

At 8:46 a.m. he heard an explosion. “Boom!” Rodriguez imitated. He heard a man screaming “Explosion! Explosion!” from underneath. “I wanted to say a generator blew up. I thought it was a bomb.

Can I ask a question here? What does an explosion in the basement have to do with your hypothesis of controlled demolition? The WTC collapsed from top to bottom, meaning that any explosives in the basement were completely pointless to the eventual demolition of the WTC.

The fact it happened at the same time as the plane crash would suggest to me that something rushed down the elevator shaft... perhaps ignited jet fuel, perhaps compressed air? Oh I know, that's just pundity... OK It was a bomb!

Punditry and speculation. No facts.

Right back at ya. You have no facts to establish explosions were due to bombs.

Thermate charges aren't silent.

No, but from videos I've seen of thermate reactions, there is no loud noise and although very damaging, not instantaneos. As the tower fell very rapidly, I can not understand how thermate could account for the quickness. You could say it was explosive bombs instead, but then where was the noise?

With thermate, you have to account for the lack of a visible chemical reaction being visible to all the cameras

With bombs you have to account for why the towers fell without explosions being heard for miles around.

For both you have to account for the lack of evidence in the debris by the recovery teams.

That's an invalid comparison. Here's how you argue your case. In 1943 the a B-25 Bomber crashed into the empire state building. And guess what, it barley even dented the building. And yes there was a kerosene fire present also, still no collapse, not even one floor.

I was wondering how long it would take you to crack out that old chestnut.

B-25: loaded weight 33,500 lb, fuel capacity 670 gallons, hit ESB at approx 150 mph, it had dumped most of it's fuel, the fire took only 40 minutes to extinguish.

The 767s that hit the WTC weighed about 280,000 lbs and held over 10,000 gallons of fuel each. They hit the World Trade Center with over 200 times the kinetic energy of the B-25 that hit the ESB.

I hope even you can see why this is no comparison.

A blatant lie and misrepresentation of the facts. My point is an aluminum 757 can't take down a building holding 60,000+ tons of Steele and concrete. If so, the US and Brittan would be using aluminum laced bombs instead of depleted uranium laced bombs.

Are you trying to say that the plane should have bounced off the building? Just what the fuck is it you are saying? What do you think should have happened?

A clear indicator that you're losing terribly.

No, it is a clear indicator that conspiracy nuts are not to be trusted. Their "evidence" can and does get debunked by experts and this is why they can not get any scientific consensus on their theories.

This is why the only people who think they have any facts are people like you, who think it's valid to compare a B-25 with a 767. People like you who can't tell the difference between a 200 ton bullet and the wind.

That video didn't show them cutting shit. Nor was any scientific data provided.

Sigh :shrug:

43 seconds into the video, what is that if not somebody cutting down the remaining beams?

1 minute 10 seconds into the video, the clean up worker explains that they have already cut some of the beams and explains that they will cut the other beams "by midnight tonight".

What more fucking proof do you need. Your mind is totally clamped shut.

A 757 didn't hit the Pentagon, you have zero video or photographic evidence to support your Fantasy.

Then what the fuck is this:
http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

Plenty of photographic evidence there

 

[EndLightEnd]

With bombs you have to account for why the towers fell without explosions being heard for miles around.

Youve gone from no noises heard, to, well some noises were heard, but it was compressed air, right back to, there were no noises heard.:shrug:

 

[KennyJC]

Youve gone from no noises heard, to, well some noises were heard, but it was compressed air, right back to, there were no noises heard.:shrug:

Loud enough to be heard by people inside the building but silent to those outside the building nearby.

Would you care to take a look at the video I posted of a controlled demolition and note how loud the explosions are?

When a bridge was being demolished almost 2 miles from my home, even though I had no idea it was happening that day, I heard the explosion... It was fucking loud.

If you think I have contradicted myself, then you are wrong.