You Know You Are A Conspiracy Theorist If...

[royc]

•You are capable of critical thinking.
•You distrust mainstream media.
•You like nature.
•You think it’s a good idea to spend the Friday after Thanksgiving with your family rather than camping outside Best Buy to get a cheap plasma television made in China.
•You think it’s a little strange that WTC building 7 came down at free fall speed on 9/11 yet it was never hit by a plane.
•You think that drones in America might not be for Al Qaeda.
•You would like to be able to get on a plane without having to engage in a mandatory radiation bath and digital strip search.
•You have read a book in the past year.
•You think you have the right to protest.
•You think the War on Terror is a scam.
•You think the War on Drugs is a scam.
•You think the anger directed at America from the Middle East could possibly be related to our foreign policy rather than hating how amazingly free we are.
•You think the Republicans and Democrats are exactly the same on the important issues affecting our country.
•You think believing in The Constitution does not constitute a terrorist act.
•You have heard of the Bill of Rights and can even name what some of them are.
•You question whether the government loves you.
•You think the right to bear arms is not for hunting, rather so citizens can fight back should the government become a bunch of tyrannical thugs.
•You don’t own a television, and if you do, all you watch is RT, especially the Keiser Report and Capital Account.
•You don’t think the NDAA is the name of Kesha’s latest single.
•You think rich, powerful and connected people should be subject to the rule of law and go to jail if they commit crimes. Even if they are bankers and work at JP Morgan or Goldman Sachs.
•You think corporations aren’t people.
•You think Warren Buffet is a phony and a crony capitalist.
•You don’t care that Warren Buffet likes cherry coke, hamburgers and ice cream. He’s still a bad guy.
•You know that gold was made illegal by FDR in 1933 and confiscated from the American people. You know that gold bullion remained illegal for Americans to own until 1975.
•You think politicians that push for war should be sent to fight on the front lines. If they are unable, their children should go.
•You want your food to be labeled GMO so that you can make your own decisions on what you are consuming.
•You grow your own food.
•You buy raw milk.
•You think food and energy should be included in inflation calculations.
•You are aware that the Department of Homeland Security has purchased 1.2 billion rounds of ammo in the past year.
•You question whether said ammo purchases are in anticipation of a Normandy beach style landing by Al Qaeda.
•You think allowing a small group of unelected people (The Federal Reserve) to print unlimited amounts of money and distribute it as they please might not be a good idea.

Submitted by Mike Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog

[ga-hvac-tech]

Imagine in your mind Jeff Foxworthy saying:

You M I G H T be a conspiracy theorist if... :grin2:

[scrogdog]

•You think that a fact is something other than what is self-evident or mutually observable. :whistle:

[glennac]

.You like to be different and argue with everyone.

. You think you are superior.

. You grew up as a loner and still are.

. You have had at least one major failure.

And last but not least

. You believe that 911 was a inside job.
Thank you, thank you very much

[ga-hvac-tech]

.You like to be different and argue with everyone.

. You think you are superior.

. You grew up as a loner and still are.

. You have had at least one major failure.

And last but not least

. You believe that 911 was a inside job.
Thank you, thank you very much

You mean it was not... LOL

[Brian GC]

.You like to be different and argue with everyone.

. You think you are superior.

. You grew up as a loner and still are.

. You have had at least one major failure.

And last but not least

. You believe that 911 was a inside job.
Thank you, thank you very much

Glenn,

Conspiracies are happening all the time and at all different levels within our government. Are you saying there aren’t any or are you just not interested in them?

Please name a possible conspiracy other than one that has already been exposed that has really got your goat? Do you even suspect there is one?

Lastly, is it ok with you that building 7 fell down by itself? Do you even wonder about it or do you wait for Fox News to bring it up first?

I think people are nuts to not be interested in conspiracies. They are all around us.

[SolarMike]

Glenn,

Conspiracies are happening all the time and at all different levels within our government AND CORPORATIONS. Are you saying there aren’t any or are you just not interested in them?

Please name a possible conspiracy other than one that has already been exposed that has really got your goat? Do you even suspect there is one?

Lastly, is it ok with you that building 7 fell down by itself? Do you even wonder about it or do you wait for Fox News to bring it up first?

I think people are nuts to not be interested in conspiracies. They are all around us.

Fox news ......ha......not a news organization but a marketing agency for the extreme right.

[wolfstrike]

back when i was 12 years old i had an interest in conspiracy theory.
now, all of the old-time conspiracy theories turned out to be true and it's the legitimate government having a hard time proving themselves

[ga-hvac-tech]

Fox news ......ha......not a news organization but a marketing agency for the extreme right.

Change this to MSNBC, CBS, ABC, etc... and you have a marketing organization for the left.

Seems to me the #1 news organization in the country probably reflects the majority... shame it is FOX...

OTOH... a smart person would catch on quickly that the #1 news group probably represents the public mood and opinion.

[glennac]

Glenn,

Conspiracies are happening all the time and at all different levels within our government. Are you saying there aren’t any or are you just not interested in them?

Please name a possible conspiracy other than one that has already been exposed that has really got your goat? Do you even suspect there is one?

Lastly, is it ok with you that building 7 fell down by itself? Do you even wonder about it or do you wait for Fox News to bring it up first?

I think people are nuts to not be interested in conspiracies. They are all around us.

Sure Brian, there are conspiracies all the time but not 911 and I might add that would be an impossible conspiracy for Building 7 to fall down as a result of an inside job after the planes taking down the WTC. The odds of that happening timed after the destruction of the WTC is just to unbelievable to even bring it up in my mind.

I believe the assassination of JFK was a conspiracy, along with the start of WWI, the backdoor rush to pass LBJ's change of quotas based on nation origin to wide open immigration for the 3rd world to fundamentally change our country when there was zero demand for it at the time, the conspiracy of silence surrounding everything about Obama's past, etc., etc., etc.

I have read and saw a lot and remember a lot of what I have read and saw. I have seen see PC history change the facts. Don't have time to go into all that. I have seen a lot events about the war in Nam and about the protesters has been PCed by the liberals. Don't have to tell me about conspiracies. Thank you, thank you very much

[glennac]

Sure Brian, there are conspiracies all the time but not 911 and I might add that would be an impossible conspiracy for Building 7 to fall down as a result of an inside job after the planes taking down the WTC. The odds of that happening timed after the destruction of the WTC is just to unbelievable to even bring it up in my mind.

I believe the assassination of JFK was a conspiracy, along with the start of WWI, the backdoor rush to pass LBJ's change of quotas based on nation origin to wide open immigration for the 3rd world to fundamentally change our country when there was zero demand for it at the time, the conspiracy of silence surrounding everything about Obama's past, etc., etc., etc.

I have read and saw a lot and remember a lot of what I have read and saw. I have seen see PC history change the facts. Don't have time to go into all that. I have seen a lot events about the war in Nam and about the protesters has been PCed by the liberals. Don't have to tell me about conspiracies. Thank you, thank you very much

Brian, the above "conspiracy" in quotes I don't believe has been exposed. That is my possible conspiracy which has my goat. The start of WWI is supposed to have started in NY, NY. It is documented but by enlarge forgotten. Thank you, thank you very much

[cehs]

Fox news ......ha......not a news organization but a marketing agency for the extreme right.

EVERYTHING else is a marketing agency for the left (extreme or NOT)...
.

[Brian GC]

Sure Brian, there are conspiracies all the time but not 911 and I might add that would be an impossible conspiracy for Building 7 to fall down as a result of an inside job after the planes taking down the WTC.

The building fell for no reason. It’s not like seeing a ghost or a grainy picture of a UFO. It really fell…for no reason. That fact should spur curiosity as well as an investigation, but it didn’t. Why?

There are evil people in powerful places in this country but perpetrating 911 is hard for me to believe too. But a few things make me wonder. One is the fact that GWB knew of the first plane hitting the tower before he entered the classroom and was told of the second plane while he was in the class room, still doing nothing. The stupid look on his face in the classroom was very telling. It looked like no surprise to him. He should have responded as if his wife was hit by a Mach truck. But he didn’t.

Secondly, the Pennsylvania flight. It was probably shot out of the sky. Otherwise, how was debris found miles away if it crashed the way they claimed? It doesn’t add up.

Just because something is hard to believe is no reason to dismiss it entirely.

[LibertyTree]

Sure Brian, there are conspiracies all the time but not 911 and I might add that would be an impossible conspiracy for Building 7 to fall down as a result of an inside job after the planes taking down the WTC. The odds of that happening timed after the destruction of the WTC is just to unbelievable to even bring it up in my mind.

Glen, what are you smoking? 3 skyscrapers fall down from alleged fire damage in one day, one of which wasn't even hit by a plane yet its more inconceivable that someone could coincide the demolition of 3 buildings? Its completely insane that intelligent people argue in favor of the official fairytale of 911. There's some weird psychology attached. Its an even bigger smoking gun than the OKC bombing.

Speaking of 911, here's a video for everyone to chew on. It perfectly explains the mentality of the mainstream "experts". They thought they could squash the thermite debate by having some expert a$$clowns say that thermite couldn't cut vertically through steel and if it could you would need some ungodly amount of it to bring a building down. This guy called buII**** with store bought chemicals, steel beams, a welder and a backyard. The "experts" conducted their own lame experiments by haphazardly packing some thermite around steel and saying "See, it didn't melt!" The guy in this video is using home made ghetto thermate, imagine what you could do with nano-thermite and a clever way to focus the energy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

WATCH THE WHOLE THING

Please, any of you who believe the official story, give a counter argument to all points in this video including but not limited to; thermite found in the dust, iron spheres, molten metal, and the fact that this guy successfully cut through steel with small amounts of thermetic material when stated impossible by mainstream "experts"

[LibertyTree]

The building fell for no reason. It’s not like seeing a ghost or a grainy picture of a UFO. It really fell…for no reason. That fact should spur curiosity as well as an investigation, but it didn’t. Why?

There are evil people in powerful places in this country but perpetrating 911 is hard for me to believe too. But a few things make me wonder. One is the fact that GWB knew of the first plane hitting the tower before he entered the classroom and was told of the second plane while he was in the class room, still doing nothing. The stupid look on his face in the classroom was very telling. It looked like no surprise to him. He should have responded as if his wife was hit by a Mach truck. But he didn’t.

Secondly, the Pennsylvania flight. It was probably shot out of the sky. Otherwise, how was debris found miles away if it crashed the way they claimed? It doesn’t add up.

Just because something is hard to believe is no reason to dismiss it entirely.
NORAD standing down and letting the planes hit their targets is one of the big tells. Also, they were running drills of hijacked planes flying into the twin towers the same morning while GWB adresses America saying that "we never could have imagined terrorists hijacking planes and flying them into buildings" Gimme a break. There are so many facts that point to false flag its not even funny. You fail to realize that our government has been hijacked by mainly foreign enemies who could care less about killing thousands of Americans. Especially when, like clockwork, we're all on board with a huge war in the middle east whereas it would never fly otherwise.

[ga-hvac-tech]

The building fell for no reason. It’s not like seeing a ghost or a grainy picture of a UFO. It really fell…for no reason. That fact should spur curiosity as well as an investigation, but it didn’t. Why?

There are evil people in powerful places in this country but perpetrating 911 is hard for me to believe too. But a few things make me wonder. One is the fact that GWB knew of the first plane hitting the tower before he entered the classroom and was told of the second plane while he was in the class room, still doing nothing. The stupid look on his face in the classroom was very telling. It looked like no surprise to him. He should have responded as if his wife was hit by a Mach truck. But he didn’t.

Secondly, the Pennsylvania flight. It was probably shot out of the sky. Otherwise, how was debris found miles away if it crashed the way they claimed? It doesn’t add up.

Just because something is hard to believe is no reason to dismiss it entirely.

The conspiracy buffs in the investment community (most of them are called 'gold bugs')... think the reason 911 happened was to cover the tracks of a bunch of bankers and govts that have frauded both the American as well as the European people.

The glaring evidence 'someone' knew... is endless stuff that had been stored in vaults in the basements of the twin towers.... was for some reason moved out a couple of weeks prior (every last item of importance was removed and endless vacant space in HUGE vaults... the final moving the day before the planes hit... Wonder why???

Then there is the plane that hit the Pentagon... There were around half a dozen private businesses with video surveillance of the customers... camera angles that could have captured the flight on its way to the building... Within 10 minutes after the crash... the FBI collected ALL those videos... and they have NEVER been released... Again, why?

I can tell you this much: The truth will ONLY come out (whatever the truth is and if it ever does) AFTER anyone who could be held accountable is dead. Just the way the system works. Again... raises questions.

They say the person who has nothing to hide does not care what is said.... That alone should raise some questions.

GA's bottom line: Too many people are on the govt dole... and they do not bite the hand that feeds them.

[Brian GC]

We also went into Afghanistan without any evidence that Bin Laden did it. I remember that a few months after the invasion we found a video tape of Bin Laden laughing about it and held it up to the world to show the evidence of his involvement. Well, where was our evidence before that? And, who can believe Bin Laden taking credit for the attack…those guys always take credit for another guy’s bombings.

People do not want to consider what would make them sick to their stomach.

[AStudent]

Too many questionable things happened on 911.

[Brian GC]

Its an even bigger smoking gun than the OKC bombing.



That manure bomb was proven to not be powerful enough to do that damage. Furthermore, the debris was never examined. It was cordoned off and cleaned up in thirty days.

The ATF and Feds were back on good graces the very next day…what a coincidence.

[AStudent]

Glen, what are you smoking? 3 skyscrapers fall down from alleged fire damage in one day, one of which wasn't even hit by a plane yet its more inconceivable that someone could coincide the demolition of 3 buildings? Its completely insane that intelligent people argue in favor of the official fairytale of 911. There's some weird psychology attached. Its an even bigger smoking gun than the OKC bombing.

Speaking of 911, here's a video for everyone to chew on. It perfectly explains the mentality of the mainstream "experts". They thought they could squash the thermite debate by having some expert a$$clowns say that thermite couldn't cut vertically through steel and if it could you would need some ungodly amount of it to bring a building down. This guy called buII**** with store bought chemicals, steel beams, a welder and a backyard. The "experts" conducted their own lame experiments by haphazardly packing some thermite around steel and saying "See, it didn't melt!" The guy in this video is using home made ghetto thermate, imagine what you could do with nano-thermite and a clever way to focus the energy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

WATCH THE WHOLE THING

Please, any of you who believe the official story, give a counter argument to all points in this video including but not limited to; thermite found in the dust, iron spheres, molten metal, and the fact that this guy successfully cut through steel with small amounts of thermetic material when stated impossible by mainstream "experts"

Buildings don't fall straight down, collapsing floor by floor unless the supports were taken out, eventually the falling portion of the building would have lost momentum, causing a slower fall...not a free fall.

[scrogdog]

Buildings most certainly DO fall straight down, as they are about 95% air, and any claim to the contrary must show how sideways inertia was initiated.

As always, the explanation is there. Google the science of progressive collapse.

And what? Building 7 was undamaged? LMAO! Ok, if you only look at pics from one angle. Others show much of the building gouged out like a giant hand had come in to scoop it out.

I've debated this many times, shown the links, etc. So far, NO ONE has apparently even read about progressive collapse.

It's all readily available on the internet. I really don't feel like wasting my time, yet again, on this poorly laid out "intellectual inquiry".

Conspiracy theorists also, apparently, hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil. A more pathetically and apparently INTENTIONALLY ignorant crowd cannot be found on this planet.

You can always find the links in one of the older topics on this if you are lazy (still).

As for the trade center itself, there is no other way it could have collapsed (as shown in a study performed by The Lord Professor of Materials Science at MIT). The joists that held the floors were only meant to hold the weight of one floor. Once another floor crashed down on it, the weight was obviously much more. Thus a "progressive" collapse. The laws of phyisics, ie inertia, dictate that it should fall EXACTLY as it did. There was no "force" to begin an off center movement of the building.

Once again, the "science minds" of ARP reign supreme. :eek:

[Six]

Wow, people still think those buildings came down with exosives ?

And that building 7 was "undamaged " ??

They're chosing to ignore the photos that show the obvious damage to building 7 from the attack and NORAD ignoring the planes ??

Seriously ?

[OldSchoolMech]

So what was those flashes before the plane made contact with the towers?

Why was thier something on the bottom of the plane that hit the second tower?

America faked going to the moon. Why not fake an attack on itself to start a war that they want?

The towers where bombed in 93 but didn't go down they knew they where gonna be attacked again

The pentagon is the most high security building on the planet with the most CCTV camera of any other building but yet none of them show a plane or plane parts after the crash.

Remember bush was in power during 911

[royc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIOC1J44RYw&feature=youtu.be

[Brian GC]

The pentagon is the most high security building on the planet with the most CCTV camera of any other building but yet none of them show a plane or plane parts after the crash.

We know all the CCTV footage was confiscated and never shown to the public for some reason but where are the people on the ground that should have witnessed a huge plane flying so low on approach to the pentagon? Where are those witnesses? I’ve never seen one speak about it. How can a plane fly into the Pentagon and not be seen just beforehand.

[coolwhip]

That was an interesting video Liberty!

IMO, there is no doubt in my mind that these buildings were sabotaged.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wx2yvZhS0M

Those that believe in the official government story are the same people (for the most part) that believe that the assault in Waco on the Mt. Carmel center was justifed.

[scrogdog]

Sorry, that these "youtube" experts, who, by the way, choose to say that the NIST report was not valid science (actually it was, published and with peer review) then choose to make a youtube video (not peer reviewed, not scientifically arrived at) is somewhat laughable.

Pot meet kettle?

Here's what the peer reviewed science white papers say. By the way, it was indeed an implosion. It is onlty the cockamayme conclusions derived from that which indicates a problem.

Your "experts" don't even understand the science of fire, much less other more esoteric considerations. Laughably, they seem to confuse temperature with heat! A quick review of simple combustion science would have cleared that right up, but hey, we don't want to confuse things by USING SCIENTIFIC BASICS now would we? None of them know the difference bewteen a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame!

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

Here's one with pretty pictures for you youtube scientists; be sure to read the part "buildings DON'T tumble!"

http://eagar.mit.edu/EagarPresentations/WTC_TMS_2002.pdf

The science of progressive collapse (note that such is MANDATED in building design).

http://www.appliedscienceint.com/Services.aspx/ProgressiveCollapseAnalysis

Progressive collapse and the WTC;

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

Of course, I don't particularly expect much. As I said, all been done before.

Though I would urge you to get your science from actual peer reviewed science white papers. Not youtube. As you can see (if you read... as I said not expected, tried this already), most of the conclusions from the "expert" testimony on youtube is pretty far off the mark.

[Brian GC]

So if the scientists that did the peer review were videoed and put on Youtube they too would become “Youtube experts”? You better not record them giving their estimations. Someone might put that footage on Youtube and trash them. “White paper” is far more impressive.

I think what is laughable is when people put down Youtube like it is a whacked out conspiracy organization.

[scrogdog]

No, I'm saying that valid science is a methodology not found on youtube. Science makes its reports with scientific white papers. So, if a valid piece of science is found on youtube, it would already have been published as a peer reviewed white paper.

Have you ever read the scientific method? Wait, what am saying, of course you haven't to make such a post. The scientific method REQUIRES peer review.

Any idiot can make and post a youtube video. There are no standards or review whatsoever.

[scrogdog]

Can we say that we can plainly see yet another trait of conspiracy theorists right before our eyes?

Facts and science be damned, just give me agenda baby!

[tedkidd]

Too many questionable things happened on 911.

+... 9 or whatever number it's up to..


Buildings don't fall straight down, collapsing floor by floor unless the supports were taken out, eventually the falling portion of the building would have lost momentum, causing a slower fall...not a free fall.

great video

[scrogdog]

+... 9 or whatever number it's up to..



great video

See what I mean? Reading the articles would have shown that there was no other way for the collapse to occur. Did you read any of it?

No. Just like last time and just as I predicted. You people are not interested in knowing what happened at all!

Once a CT makes up their mind, there is little use for additional conversation as I've said. It's all about agenda and what fuels it. Not facts.

Building most certainly DO fall straight down. It's called inertia. You know, laws of physics and all that?

[ADillon]

•You are capable of critical thinking.
•You distrust mainstream media.
•You like nature.
•You think it’s a good idea to spend the Friday after Thanksgiving with your family rather than camping outside Best Buy to get a cheap plasma television made in China.
•You think it’s a little strange that WTC building 7 came down at free fall speed on 9/11 yet it was never hit by a plane.
•You think that drones in America might not be for Al Qaeda.
•You would like to be able to get on a plane without having to engage in a mandatory radiation bath and digital strip search.
•You have read a book in the past year.
•You think you have the right to protest.
•You think the War on Terror is a scam.
•You think the War on Drugs is a scam.
•You think the anger directed at America from the Middle East could possibly be related to our foreign policy rather than hating how amazingly free we are.
•You think the Republicans and Democrats are exactly the same on the important issues affecting our country.
•You think believing in The Constitution does not constitute a terrorist act.
•You have heard of the Bill of Rights and can even name what some of them are.
•You question whether the government loves you.
•You think the right to bear arms is not for hunting, rather so citizens can fight back should the government become a bunch of tyrannical thugs.
•You don’t own a television, and if you do, all you watch is RT, especially the Keiser Report and Capital Account.
•You don’t think the NDAA is the name of Kesha’s latest single.
•You think rich, powerful and connected people should be subject to the rule of law and go to jail if they commit crimes. Even if they are bankers and work at JP Morgan or Goldman Sachs.
•You think corporations aren’t people.
•You think Warren Buffet is a phony and a crony capitalist.
•You don’t care that Warren Buffet likes cherry coke, hamburgers and ice cream. He’s still a bad guy.
•You know that gold was made illegal by FDR in 1933 and confiscated from the American people. You know that gold bullion remained illegal for Americans to own until 1975.
•You think politicians that push for war should be sent to fight on the front lines. If they are unable, their children should go.
•You want your food to be labeled GMO so that you can make your own decisions on what you are consuming.
•You grow your own food.
•You buy raw milk.
•You think food and energy should be included in inflation calculations.
•You are aware that the Department of Homeland Security has purchased 1.2 billion rounds of ammo in the past year.
•You question whether said ammo purchases are in anticipation of a Normandy beach style landing by Al Qaeda.
•You think allowing a small group of unelected people (The Federal Reserve) to print unlimited amounts of money and distribute it as they please might not be a good idea.

Submitted by Mike Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog

That's great! Right on!

[Brian GC]

Building most certainly DO fall straight down. It's called inertia. You know, laws of physics and all that?

So why would a demolition crew spend weeks placing charges in specific locations around a building? It is going to fall straight down regardless of where they place them, right? Why demo the middle first, it will fall straight down …its called inertia. Boy, you should head up a demo crew. You could save them a lot of money.

Some people believe in science, some in God and others in common sense.

[ga-hvac-tech]

So why would a demolition crew spend weeks placing charges in specific locations around a building? It is going to fall straight down regardless of where they place them, right? Why demo the middle first, it will fall straight down …its called inertia. Boy, you should head up a demo crew. You could save them a lot of money.

Some people believe in science, some in God and others in common sense.

If indeed a bui8lding would fall straight down on its own... without careful 'nudging'... then there would be NO controlled demolition industry. Since there is... then buildings do not fall as they should.
Regardless... there is still those little puffs of dust and Dan Rather saying on national news something like: Gee, that looks like one of those controlled demolition things.

Still too many un-answered questions. If the govt had nothing to hide... why are they silent?

[tedkidd]

So why would a demolition crew spend weeks placing charges in specific locations around a building? It is going to fall straight down regardless of where they place them, right? Why demo the middle first, it will fall straight down …its called inertia. Boy, you should head up a demo crew. You could save them a lot of money.



lmao.

concise.




I can tell you this much: The truth will ONLY come out (whatever the truth is and if it ever does) AFTER anyone who could be held accountable is dead. Just the way the system works.



Isn't Dick Cheney dead YET?!?

[ga-hvac-tech]

lmao.

concise.



Isn't Dick Cheney dead YET?!?

More than Cheney... I would say a couple of dozen... Whoops...

[royc]

So why would a demolition crew spend weeks placing charges in specific locations around a building? It is going to fall straight down regardless of where they place them, right? Why demo the middle first, it will fall straight down …its called inertia. Boy, you should head up a demo crew. You could save them a lot of money.

Some people believe in science, some in God and others in common sense.

Just in case you missed this .....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4&feature=player_embedded

[LibertyTree]

You guys who are obsessed with "Peer Review" crack me up. There are peer reviewed articles on how great Fluoride is for you and its now proven to mess you up and lower your IQ. There are peer reviewed articles on the benefits of genetically modified food that is now proven to REALLY mess you up and give you cancer. There are peer reviewed articles on bloodletting which is now considered ludicrous. There are probably peer reviewed articles on cutting holes in peoples heads to let the demons out LOL. Screw your peer review. Your experts claimed its impossible to cut steel horizontally or vertically with thermetic material, the video I posted clearly squashes that statement. Why don't you debate any specific points in my original post? There's a list there. Lets see what you come up with

[LibertyTree]

Wow, people still think those buildings came down with explosives ?

And that building 7 was "undamaged " ??

They're chosing to ignore the photos that show the obvious damage to building 7 from the attack and NORAD ignoring the planes ??

Seriously ?
Are you denying that NORAD stood down as the planes hit their targets? BTW no one is saying that building 7 did not sustain any damage, only that the damage was not sufficient to cause total collapse. There are witnesses on the ground that heard the countdown and video of cops saying the building is about to blow up. Those guys must have been engineering experts... Also many witnesses that heard explosions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU_43SwWD9A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw&feature=r%C2%ADelated

Then there's this poor f*ck who died mysteriously before giving testimony and making waves...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXn9qWBb4oM

[LibertyTree]

Just in case you missed this .....
People never want talk about this. They just avoid it like it doesn't exist, how convenient

[coolwhip]

Why people choose to believe in the governments story rather than independent professionals and eye witnesses is beyond me. What I do know, is that if I were King, these are the kind of people I would want plowing the fields in my Kingdom.

[ADillon]

Why people choose to believe in the governments story rather than independent professionals and eye witnesses is beyond me. What I do know, is that if I were King, these are the kind of people I would want plowing the fields in my Kingdom.

Heard that!

[scrogdog]

Because all eyewitness' can do is provide 1st person accounts. Which is as valuable as people who say they've been abducted by aliens, had encounters with ghosts, etc.

Again, DID ANY OF YOU read the actual science? Right. Didn't think so. Just as I predicted.

Why don't you at least take a look? You'll notice something very different in approach from either eyewitness accounts or youtube videos. Things like diagrams, formulas and math BACKING UP WHAT IS SAID. See the difference? Yeah, right, you'll find agenda ways to gloss over it.

So, given that none of you will read, or is actually interested in the truth of what actually happened, I think I'm going to have to use a method suggested by someone in congress a few years ago. I will have to explain it to you like you're 5 years old, since, apparently, a large number of you slept through middle school science.

First to the matter of the building toppling or not. Again, this is simple basic physics regarding mass and kinetic energy. A regular science book will do ya, you don't even have to look at anything to do with this particular incident to get in the know.

The planes did not topple the buildings becauce they had insufficient mass. The same reason that you won't topple the fence post in your yard with a bullet. But what they do have, similar to the bullet, is sufficient kinetic energy to achieve penetration. When the building fell, due to the laws of motion and physics, there would have had to have been a force of some kind to intitate any sort of sidewards movement, because the intertia was going DOWN from the word go, not to either side.

Your comparison to an actual demo is amusing, since you obviously fail to understand that topic as well. Demo seeks to use the weight and mass of the building to do the dirty work (initiate a PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE) as it were, and that's just what happened here too, it is simply that process was initiated by something other than a demo charge.

Each of the towers had 110 stories. Let's take a close look at one. At 8:45 AM on that day Flight 11 hit the North face of the North tower and penetrated the 96th floor.

Please note that while there was not a situation where the joists supporting the floors could melt, there certainly was enough heat to make them brittle and deformed ESPECIALLY because the heat was not evenly applied. When that happened, the floors above the point of penetration fell. The joists holding the floor beneath were rated to only hold the weight of THAT particular floor, not the weight of all the floors above it falling on top of it. That's why the inertia was STRAIGHT DOWN, there was no force that would even suggest a sideways movement, and even if there were, there would have been insufficient time for it to "grow", if you will, in to anything meaningful. The fall took mere seconds.

Scientifically speaking, in other words, there was ZERO lateral load. I'm scratching my head here in an attempt to figure out what is so hard to understand.

Also, since the building was 95% air, it was in a situation where implosion was the only thing that *could* happen given the governing laws of physics.

I love the quality of your evidence. Such as the claim that there was insufficient damage to building 7. What exactly do you base that on? Why, nothing. Nothing at all. It simply sounds good to you so you eat it for lunch. You obviously have ZERO standards for what you believe to be true, other than someone simply making a statement. In the science articles you will see the proofs of math. You will see that progressive collapse is built in BY DESIGN (that's why we can safely have skyscrapers stand next to each other. DUH!). You will see that what happened to building 7 was nothing at all unusual IN FACT IT WOULD BE EXPECTED.

In addition, please note that one of my links about progressive collapse has nothing to do with 9/11, it simply discusses what it is AND HOW IT IS BUILT IN BY DESIGN all over the world.

I see some pop singer has claimed she had sex with ghosts. This has the same "quality" of evidence as anything you folks have presented here, so I suppose that sex with ghosts now becomes a new truth in your lives.

You people are effing nutjobs. :)

When will I learn that a forum full of creationists and conspiracy theorists is not exactly a bastion of science? lol

[coolwhip]

You would be a good tiller of soil in the Kings fields. :)

[scrogdog]

Perhaps so, but I'd also have a very comfortable grip on a little thing called reality. ;)

[tedkidd]

And did you see the way gb looked as if he wasn't surprised?...

[scrogdog]

And did you see the way gb looked as if he wasn't surprised?...

LMFAO!

I rest my case.

Some guy named Joe told me that the Zombie Apocalypse is upon us! Run!

[coolwhip]

None are so blind as those who will not see.

[scrogdog]

None are so blind as those who will not see.

Without standards of belief, CW, literally ANYTHING that the human mind can imagine becomes a potential "fact". ANYTHING!

If having standards means that I'm blind, OK. I'll take that over believing in things just because someone told me I should.

Instead, I'll take this path every time...


Things like diagrams, formulas and math BACKING UP WHAT IS SAID. See the difference?

Ever read Orwell? Did you understand the nature and the danger of the situations presented?

[coolwhip]

If you read Orwell, you would not trust the government.

Have you not read the testimony of independent engineers and scientists?....after all, these are men of science too. Why is it that you exclude their findings and back those of a government who's liar mouth is larger than the Grand Canyon?

[scrogdog]

Because, as I've often said, scientists are human beings with human agendas. Just like we all are.

That's is PRECISELY why there is such a thing as the Scientific Method. ITS EXACT PURPOSE is to minimize human failings with regards to research. Like that guy in South Korea who claimed to clone humans. Once his methods were exposed by his peers, his statements became junk.

Does that mean that he is without qualifications? Nope. It means he's a human being and he was obviously seeking underserved glory, something that we see humans attempt on a regular basis.

Scientists are not exempt from being human. If they were, then we would not need the standards of science that describe what a fact is, and what the proper methods are. Without those things, you are only left with the "junk science" that you folks put forth as actual evidence.

It is not.

If your youtube scientists wish to make a relevant contribution, then they will have to adhere to the methods just like every other scientist in the world. What a scientist may say outside of that realm is as suspect as any other first person account.

I await their white papers with baited breath. You know, the ones with diagrams, formulas and the proofs of math that have all been peer reviewed.

Incidentally, Orwell's work had nothing at all to do with government, but rather, the danger of human failings run rampant.

[tedkidd]

Oh my GOD, did you see the one where molten metal was pouring out of the buildings!

[scrogdog]

Please show us how you determined that was from the joists and not office furniture?

[coolwhip]

Steven Hawking is on Youtube, according to your thinking is he to be discredited for this?

Youtube is a vessel...a tool used to reach the masses. By your thinking, you are using a computer to reach the masses on HVACTALK...does this make you an idiot to be ignored?

Sherlock Holms said it best!
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"

[scrogdog]

Steven Hawking is on Youtube, according to your thinking is he to be discredited for this?

Youtube is a vessel...a tool used to reach the masses. By your thinking, you are using a computer to reach the masses on HVACTALK...does this make you an idiot to be ignored?

Hawking goes on youtube to discuss his already published white papers!

You want to show me the already published white papers from the experts in the video?

You can ignore ME if you like, but I haven't done anything other than parrot the published science. I wouldn't suggest that you ignore that.

[Brian GC]

Scrogdog,
You ask us to counter arguments presented by your scientists so you should counter the comments made by the professional Architects, Structural Engineers and demolition experts presented in post #40. Just because Youtube is the medium that makes their comments available to us doesn’t make them “Youtube Scientists”.

If you have the guts to watch it I have one question for you. Do your credentials surpass any of theirs? You seem to throw around scientific terms and expect us to cower in response to it. Do you really think you could stand before these professional skyscraper contractors and speak to them as condescendingly as you do to us? Do you really think you could teach them thing or two.

When I mention common sense applied to this discussion this is one example: Those professional skyscraper builders said building 7 is the first building in the history of all skyscrapers in the world to fall from an office fire, and a small fire at that. Does that make you scratch your head or are you still clinging to your select scientists? And, before you challenge their statements, do as they did, state your credentials first.

[coolwhip]

You want to show me the already published white papers from the experts in the video?


Sure, as soon as you show me where the government has admitted to its lies and deception since the creation of the federal reserve.

As soon as you show me that we have enough gold to back the US dollar.

As soon as you tell me why people will trust an economist and not a fortune teller.

[scrogdog]

Scrogdog,
You ask us to counter arguments presented by your scientists so you should counter the comments made by the professional Architects, Structural Engineers and demolition experts presented in post #40. Just because Youtube is the medium that makes their comments available to us doesn’t make them “Youtube Scientists”.

If you have the guts to watch it I have one question for you. Do your credentials surpass any of theirs? You seem to throw around scientific terms and expect us to cower in response to it. Do you really think you could stand before these professional skyscraper contractors and speak to them as condescendingly as you do to us? Do you really think you could teach them thing or two.

When I mention common sense applied to this discussion this is one example: Those professional skyscraper builders said building 7 is the first building in the history of all skyscrapers in the world to fall from an office fire, and a small fire at that. Does that make you scratch your head or are you still clinging to your select scientists? And, before you challenge their statements, do as they did, state your credentials first.

As usual, you seem quite confused.

I have made NO CLAIMS WHATSOEVER. I have simply pointed you to the proper science. Upon the realization that you will not actually read it, I simply told you what the articles said. Again, I HAVE NOT MADE ONE SINGLE CLAIM IN THIS TOPIC. I have simply showed you peer reviewed science.

Comments are NOT science. White papers are science. Apparently you have not read or understand my posts that describe what the scientific method is and why we need to use it, and why even scientists who DO use the proper method can make non-scientific claims that have nothing to do with what they published!

Science can only happen one way. Youtube ain't it.

I invite ANY one of those experts to demonstrate what they say to be true in the proper way. Just like any other scientist in the world; we aren't asking them for anything more than we ask of ALL scientists.

It is true that not only was building 7 the first to fall by fire, that is true of the towers as well. What neither you or the experts have done is to show how that would affect progressive collapse. It wouldn't. Progressive collapse is progressive collapse. It can be initiated in many ways.

Progressive collapse is based on the laws of physics. It has little to do with HOW the damage was incurred. The laws of physics don't change based upon what type of damage was incurred.

You certainly are a strange sort of thinker.

[wherzamizat]

but I'd also have a very comfortable grip on a little thing called reality. ;)

Me too! see attachment.

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/fluoride.HTML

http://www.naturalnews.com/030952_CDC_fluoride.html

[scrogdog]

You want to show me the already published white papers from the experts in the video?


Sure, as soon as you show me where the government has admitted to its lies and deception since the creation of the federal reserve.

As soon as you show me that we have enough gold to back the US dollar.

As soon as you tell me why people will trust an economist and not a fortune teller.

None of those things are potential scientific inquiries since none of it can be shown to meet the scientific standard of fact. Show me something self-evident or mutually observable about any of those things, then science can tackle it.

Except for the gold standard. But then seemingly you should know that Nixon changed all that and didn't hide anything about it.

Which is the precise reason why God cannot be a subject of scientific study.

Who said I trust economists? That's a judgement call again not subject to scientific standards. How could one possibly trust all of them? Just because they wear a badge that says "economist"? There are no exacting standards to economic strategies, we simply view them through the lens of history and take our best shot. Note that we are not very good at it. :)

[scrogdog]

Me too! see attachment.

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/fluoride.HTML

http://www.naturalnews.com/030952_CDC_fluoride.html

I'm not sure what your point is here. The theory of gravity was changed from Newton to Einstien.

Please describe for us how this changed apples falling to the ground.

[wherzamizat]

I'm not sure what your point is here. The theory of gravity was changed from Newton to Einstien.

Please describe for us how this changed apples falling to the ground.

That is my point.

[wherzamizat]

lol

[scrogdog]

That is my point.

?

Ok, guess I'm having an off day becuase I'm still not getting it.

The laws of physics are unchanging. As far as we know anyway. I think we have sufficient precedent at this point, wouldn't you say?

[coolwhip]

My point is that the government lies and cannot be trusted...even their scientists.

Nixon didn't hide anything about it huh? I have not the time nor the patience to teach you to drink water from a glass.

[scrogdog]

My point is that the government lies and cannot be trusted...even their scientists.

I see.

My friend Joe told me that the Zombie Apocalypse is coming. RUN! ;)

[Brian GC]

Scrogdog,
If you watched the video of these scientists you would know that they are pleading for a reopening of the case to be brought before scientists. What more can they do to make it more “peer reviewed”?

One question: If a demolition crew only placed explosives in one quarter of the base of a skyscraper, off to one side, would it still fall straight down into its footprint, or would it tilt to the side as it falls?

You seem to want to stand next to the guy with the most medals on his lapel.

[scrogdog]

Scrogdog,
If you watched the video of these scientists you would know that they are pleading for a reopening of the case to be brought before scientists. What more can they do to make it more “peer reviewed”?

One question: If a demolition crew only placed explosives in one quarter of the base of a skyscraper, off to one side, would it still fall straight down into its footprint, or would it tilt to the side as it falls?

You seem to want to stand next to the guy with the most medals on his lapel.

Brian, I ask that you try to undertand. The reason science will not re-open the case is because science has already made its case! In order to reopen it, you would need to show how those white papers are wrong.

Pretty hard to do without actually reading them. Yes?

Every single point that the videos bring up is addressed. You'll need to do some reading and some investigation. Some of those papers I posted are quite long, and are chock full of advanced formulas and math.

So, given that you won't even read the science, and I can only assume that is also the case with your experts, there is nothing to review, since you have not read, nor have you made an actual case against what science HAS ALREADY SAID.

Because of that, there is no reason to re-open it. We have a youtube video up against MIT white papers. None of the youtube material addresses the actual science, they only make bold and unsubstantiated claims.

They are perfectly welcome to properly challenge what was said. Of course, one would need to read what was actually said first.

The thing that you seem to be missing is that ANY of them are welcome to challenge the science. But you can only do that with more science. Not one of them has performed any science with regards to this matter.

And once again, you do not read you do not listen. The whole idea behind progressive collapse is to keep building from toppling in to each other. It does not matter where charges are placed. What matters is was there enough damage to inititate progressive collapse. If so, then progressive collapse proceeds as normal.

The building would NOT topple, by design. Again, all there for you in the science. Which you refuse to read. Brilliant!

I even invited you to observe the version with lots of pretty pictures! One section is called "BUILDINGS DON'T TOPPLE".

I guess even that was too much for you.

[Brian GC]

Brian, I ask that you try to undertand. The reason science will not re-open the case is because science has already made its case! In order to reopen it, you would need to show how those white papers are wrong.

Pretty hard to do without actually reading them. Yes?

Every single point that the videos bring up is addressed. You'll need to do some reading and some investigation. Some of those papers I posted are quite long, and are chock full of advanced formulas and math.

So, given that you won't even read the science, and I can only assume that is also the case with your experts, there is nothing to review, since you have not read, nor have you made an actual case against what science HAS ALREADY SAID.

Because of that, there is no reason to re-open it. We have a youtube video up against MIT white papers. None of the youtube material addresses the actual science, they only make bold and unsubstantiated claims.

They are perfectly welcome to properly challenge what was said. Of course, one would need to read what was actually said first.

The thing that you seem to be missing is that ANY of them are welcome to challenge the science. But you can only do that with more science. Not one of them has performed any science with regards to this matter.

You avoided my qustion. Will a skyscraper fall straight into its footprint if only one quarter to one half of its foundation is taken out? If you can read and understand these white papers you should be able to answer this question.

[scrogdog]

You avoided my qustion. Will a skyscraper fall straight into its footprint if only one quarter to one half of its foundation is taken out? If you can read and understand these white papers you should be able to answer this question.

I most certainly DID anser your question. As I said, it does not matter where charges are placed! Only that progressive collapse is initiated.

My, my. If you could only read!

There is much more to progressive collapse than the foundation. Much, much more. Unfortunately, since you refuse to read about it you will continue to wallow in ignorance.

A situation which seems par for the course for you.

And with that gents, I'm done for today. I'll try to review replies over the weekend.

Watch them vampires and the like. Nasty!

[coolwhip]

I think Scrog needs a bib from all the sheit he has been spoon fed.

[tedkidd]

Oh my GOD, how about that black helicopter! Is that a grassy knoll or what!?



(LMAO. Scrogdog, do you have absolutely NO sense of when you are being baited?)

[ga-hvac-tech]

This is interesting...

We see one side using facts as it suits their politics... while the other side wants the facts to be front/center without politics.

History tells us which side will win is based on whether folks are cronies or free thinkers.

And history also shows us that pain (financial pain usually is the foremost one) is what it takes for the cronies to become free thinkers. On that basis... re-electing BHO might be a good idea... so everyone can feel enough pain to think for themselves rather than parroting the 'party line'. The result in GA's opinion would be BOTH parties would become more responsive to the will of the people.

The real looser when too many folks behave as cronies is... even the cronies get screwed sooner or later. Wonder how many cronies getting screwed it will take to have a majority of free thinkers on an election day?

[newoldtech]

Oh my GOD, how about that black helicopter! Is that a grassy knoll or what!?



(LMAO. Scrogdog, do you have absolutely NO sense of when you are being baited?)

Pretty much anything imaginable is daily portrayed on ARP as fact by someone. So it can be very hard to know if someone is sincere or not.

[ADillon]

I think Scrog needs a bib from all the sheit he has been spoon fed.

x2

[Brian GC]

As I said, it does not matter where charges are placed! Only that progressive collapse is initiated.


That is double talk. In order to get progressive collapse (the uniform and simultaneous dropping of one floor onto another) you need to weaken the supports of the first floor to fall instantaneously. That would not be accomplished by only weakening half of a skyscraper’s vertical columns.

I’d like to see you sell that one to a skyscraper demolition expert. That’s a pay-per-view that I would gladly pay for.

And the fact that no analysis was done on building 7 debris doesn’t arouse your curiosity either. WOW! And you call me dense. But just like the UFO phenomenon that scientists like to comment on, the lack of evidence doesn’t stop them from forming a conclusion.

[tedkidd]

Lol,

So if you kick a leg out of a chair, the chair falls straight down?

Somebody Google "building demolition gone wrong".

This all makes one wonder if high buildings are purposely built with charges set, so if some unforeseen event occurs they can avoid them toppling like trees. Imagine what would have happened if one side of a tower was cut down low. A huge part of lower Manhattan would have been crushed.

[Brian GC]

Imagine what would have happened if one side of a tower was cut down low. A huge part of lower Manhattan would have been crushed.

Now according to Scrogdog, our resident scientist. To him it is impossible for a skyscraper to not fall into its footprint…regardless of the structural weakening sequence.

[tedkidd]

Brian, that might be rephrased as a question unless you really want to put words in the mouths of others.

Particularly when teasing or baiting you may lose capital with that approach. Of course you should do as I say and not as I do and watch the masters. They know how and where to draw the lines, AND how to not cross them.

[wherzamizat]

?

Ok, guess I'm having an off day becuase I'm still not getting it.

The laws of physics are unchanging. As far as we know anyway. I think we have sufficient precedent at this point, wouldn't you say?


You want facts on a "conspiracy"! I give you facts (for your hometown) nontheless, on a silver platter, and you are still to slow to catch on to what I am talking about? Obviously this "conspiracy" works, and you and the other mindless are the ultimate proof of its success.

[Brian GC]

Brian, that might be rephrased as a question unless you really want to put words in the mouths of others.


I tried to get him to speak in more specific terms but he won’t. But what little he did say, I thought I interpreted him correctly. Pardon me if I misunderstood him.

I thought he said a building would fall down onto its footprint irrespective of where the charges were placed or what part of the structure begins to crumble first. That is the question I clearly asked him. If he did not give an answer to that question then he evaded it.

[scrogdog]

I tried to get him to speak in more specific terms but he won’t. But what little he did say, I thought I interpreted him correctly. Pardon me if I misunderstood him.

I thought he said a building would fall down onto its footprint irrespective of where the charges were placed or what part of the structure begins to crumble first. That is the question I clearly asked him. If he did not give an answer to that question then he evaded it.

Brian, it is difficult to continue this conversation until you learn what we're actually talking about here.

First off, Ted is correct. What I said was that buildings don't topple.

Thanks, Ted, good to know that someone can at least follow. :)

Also, again, I'm not the scientist here, but I have posted thier work, which should clear things up for you. Now, if only you were willing to learn! That you don't wish to and instead continue debating from a position of ingnorace is stunning.

Do you wish to understand progressive collapse, or not?

Incidentally, chairs are not designed to progressively collapse. :rolleyes:

Now, just one example from one of the papers I posted talks about EXACTLY the type of damage the YOU claim should topple a building;


Many disasters other than the WTC attest to the danger of
progressive collapse, e.g., the collapse of Ronan Point apartments
in the United Kingdom in 1968 Levy and Salvadori 1992, where
a kitchen gas explosion on the 18th floor sent a 25-story stack of
rooms to the ground; the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building
in Oklahoma City, Okla., in 1995, where the air blast pressure
sufficed to take out only a few lower floors, whereas the upper
floors failed by progressive collapse; the 2000 Commonwealth
Ave. tower in Boston in 1971, triggered by punching of insufficiently
hardened slab; the New World Hotel in Singapore; many
buildings in Armenia, Turkey, Mexico City, and other earthquakes,
etc. A number of ancient towers failed in this way,
too, e.g., the Civic Center of Pavia in 1989 Binda et al. 1992;
the cathedral in Goch, Germany; the Campanile in Venice in
1902, etc. Heinle and Leonhardt 1989, where the trigger was
centuries-long stress redistribution due to drying shrinkage and
creep Ferretti and Bažant 2006a,b.

Did you note the part that said "that took out only a few lower floors"? Isn't that just the type of damage you were curious about? Did the building topple? Nope. Did it progressively collapse? Yep.

This is only one paper as well. There are many examples in the history of progressive collapse.

The idea of progressive collapse can be seen in the design diagrams of, AGAIN, the articles that I posted. It's about weight distribution. Either the system is overwhelmed or it is not. Partial failures DO NOT cause toppling. PERIOD.

Now, that's not to say that it is theoretically impossible to topple a building. If you were paying attention (that's a laugh in itself right there!) I implied otherwise when I said that the aircraft did not have sufficient mass. So, yes, an object with sufficient mass could very well topple a building. Would you mind telling me, in the name of logic, what such an object might be?

Maybe you could hire godzilla to throw an aircraft carrier at the empire state building.

Brian, get real. Buildings are designed for "real life" incidents. Even after the MIT studies, no engineer or scientists recommended a re-design. Here's what Thomas Eagar, The Lord Professor of Materials Science at MIT said;


It would be impractical to design buildings to withstand the fuel load induced by a burning commercial airliner. Instead of saving the building, engineers and officials should focus on saving the lives of those inside by designing better safety and evacuation systems.

In other words, while building codes certainly were affected, no one called for structural redesign as preparing for an aircraft strike would be impratical from a cost to benefit ratio standpoint. Instead, we focus on other systems that allow the building to be evacuated in the shortest amount of time possible.

One more chance;

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

I suggest that you either read it, or concede the issue. You comments only show how much you DON'T know.

Why would I bother continuing to debate someone who is CLEARLY clueless on the matter, especially when I have provided a way for you to become educated to some extent on the matter but refuse?

[Brian GC]

Scrogg,
If we stop with the condescending remarks and clarify our comments a little better we might get somewhere. There is something about Building 7 that I would like you to comment on if we could just get there.

The reason I bring this up is the “Youtube” architects, structural engineers and demo professionals had these concerns and they made sense to me. You I assume are in opposition to their observations.

We are talking about two different aspects of progressive collapse. One is: Will exploding/severing one quarter to one half of the vertical columns in a high-rise cause the remaining half to tilt (topple)? It might cause a progressive collapse of the effected half but who is to know what will happen to the reamining half of something the size of Building 7. BTW, if you Google ‘implosions gone wrong’ you WILL see a building fall like a tree (topple). So it can happen when half the vertical supports are taken out.

The other aspect we are not clarifying properly centers on the evenness, levelness and uniformity of the collapse of Building 7. If some smaller portion of the building suffered vertical structural damage and gave way, why didn’t that portion of the build start dropping first? Why did the entire roofline drop in a level position if only a portion of the vertical structure beneath it collapsed?

I understand the concept of progressive collapse and that it would be impossible to engineer the strength to avoid it. Demo crews utilize progressive collapse. The “Youtube architects and Engineers” are also familiar with progressive collapse, so they are also saying that that concept does not answer the mysteries surrounding Building 7.

[tedkidd]

Ooooo, now THAT'S impressive grasshopper... No anger or malice, just reasonable. Nice.

[LibertyTree]

Brian, it is difficult to continue this conversation until you learn what we're actually talking about here.

First off, Ted is correct. What I said was that buildings don't topple.

Thanks, Ted, good to know that someone can at least follow. :)

Also, again, I'm not the scientist here, but I have posted thier work, which should clear things up for you. Now, if only you were willing to learn! That you don't wish to and instead continue debating from a position of ingnorace is stunning.

Do you wish to understand progressive collapse, or not?

Incidentally, chairs are not designed to progressively collapse. :rolleyes:

Now, just one example from one of the papers I posted talks about EXACTLY the type of damage the YOU claim should topple a building;



Did you note the part that said "that took out only a few lower floors"? Isn't that just the type of damage you were curious about? Did the building topple? Nope. Did it progressively collapse? Yep.

This is only one paper as well. There are many examples in the history of progressive collapse.

The idea of progressive collapse can be seen in the design diagrams of, AGAIN, the articles that I posted. It's about weight distribution. Either the system is overwhelmed or it is not. Partial failures DO NOT cause toppling. PERIOD.

Now, that's not to say that it is theoretically impossible to topple a building. If you were paying attention (that's a laugh in itself right there!) I implied otherwise when I said that the aircraft did not have sufficient mass. So, yes, an object with sufficient mass could very well topple a building. Would you mind telling me, in the name of logic, what such an object might be?

Maybe you could hire godzilla to throw an aircraft carrier at the empire state building.

Brian, get real. Buildings are designed for "real life" incidents. Even after the MIT studies, no engineer or scientists recommended a re-design. Here's what Thomas Eagar, The Lord Professor of Materials Science at MIT said;



In other words, while building codes certainly were affected, no one called for structural redesign as preparing for an aircraft strike would be impratical from a cost to benefit ratio standpoint. Instead, we focus on other systems that allow the building to be evacuated in the shortest amount of time possible.

One more chance;

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

I suggest that you either read it, or concede the issue. You comments only show how much you DON'T know.

Why would I bother continuing to debate someone who is CLEARLY clueless on the matter, especially when I have provided a way for you to become educated to some extent on the matter but refuse?
Funny you cite the OKC bombing which was clearly a government Op as well. Not that you would believe it, no matter what evidence is provided to you. Eyewitness account testimony right after that event as well as 911 clearly mean no more to you than redneck mongoloids claiming to have been abducted by aliens, even though it was far too early in both accounts for any such witnesses to have an agenda. People like you used to infuriate me, now you just make me laugh. Why do you keep ignoring me? Probably because I'm not focusing on the building imploding into its own footprint at almost freefall speed and focusing more on smaller detials that add up to the sum of the big picture.

In regards to your "scientific experts" (who'm you're so hung up on credintials yet ignore the whole of AE911 Truth), picture some of the most powerful people in the world perpetrating a ghastly criminal act upon the American people as a pretext to infinite war and a state of total contol. These people own and completely control the media, prestigious educational institutions, scientific organizations, ETC. Do you really think that they are not going to have their "experts" come out with reports to substantiate their fairytale?

You mentioned in an earlier post that there is no proof that the glowing molten liquid pouring from the building was molten metal framework. You fail to realize that there is no proof to substantiate the theory that its office materials mixed with aluminum from the planes. No experiments were done on your side to prove this theory, just babble. NIST neglected to prove their own theory. This guy on Youtube at least tried to mix burned organic material with molten aluminum with no success.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6Fid_b3_eQ

You ignored my first post that had a video and plenty of testimony stating that there was MANY cases of molten metal including but not limited to the red hot pit of molten metal at the base center of the building that burned for weeks. You need to address the molten metal that was found such as the "911 Meteorite". Don't dodge all this with a big post of hard headed babble. Please address the iron spheres, nan-thermite particles in the dust, and tons of evidence of molten STEEL. Lets keep it light and start with these items.
You and this nitwit would get along great!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkO0lZ7BZJc

[ga-hvac-tech]

Brian, that might be rephrased as a question unless you really want to put words in the mouths of others.

Particularly when teasing or baiting you may lose capital with that approach. Of course you should do as I say and not as I do and watch the masters. They know how and where to draw the lines, AND how to not cross them.

This is good advise if one wants to avoid a mandatory vacation at the hands of the mod staff.

[scrogdog]

Liberty, I am responding to multiple parties the best I can. I've already said that YouTube videos do not meet scientific standards.

Guess what? That is true no matter how many times you post them.

Dude, it's not my fault you slept through science class.

Your experts are welcome to present a case scientifically. Perhaps it would be useful to ask yourself why they do not if they know so much.

Not worth thier time? Too much work?

Fortunately, we do have scientists who know the methods. Unfortunately your experts are not among them.

So far. They still could but don't.

Why is that do you think?

[scrogdog]

Awesome, Brian! Coherent, dude!

Ok we'll go over the case if building 7 in great detail. Useful as it will serve to demonstrate many of the principles I've spoken of.

Won't have time until Monday though.

One thing, you mentioned the debris of building 7 what were you driving at there? Just so I can address if possible.

You also might consider retaining that posting style. :)

[glennac]

Your doing a great job there scrog and very time consuming if I may say so. Describing with logic and details why it there was no inside job or conspiracy to take down the buildings other than the one of Al Quadea and radical Muslims. Thank you, thank you very much

[Brian GC]

Awesome, Brian! Coherent, dude!

Ok we'll go over the case if building 7 in great detail. Useful as it will serve to demonstrate many of the principles I've spoken of.

Won't have time until Monday though.

One thing, you mentioned the debris of building 7 what were you driving at there? Just so I can address if possible.

You also might consider retaining that posting style. :)

I did not mention debris of Building 7 in my last question in post #84. I did mention it earlier in that the debris of Building 7 was never allowed to be tested by scientists for stress analysis, cause of structural failure, temperatures reached within the structure or most importantly for the presence of incendiary compounds or evidence. The debris was whisked off to china for immediate recycling. The scientists thought that was strange since this high rise was the first to ever collapse from a simple office fire. Also the “Youtube Architects and Engineers” said this immediate removal and lack of investigation was a gross violation of law.

BTW – Regarding my posting style, I don’t believe I was the only one slinging insults here…but let’s put that behind us. The problem with offensive comments is that one begets another until you lose track of who started it. I would rather just discuss the subject and have neither of us assume the other is out to lunch… or at least say that.

[chuckcrj]

More YouTube;
http://youtube.com/watch?v=A-iE-hrdgZg
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RhP_QzxpO-o
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JKBztC4szGQ

A few facts compiled which point out the problems with the "truth" movement.

[LibertyTree]

Liberty, I am responding to multiple parties the best I can. I've already said that YouTube videos do not meet scientific standards.

Guess what? That is true no matter how many times you post them.

Dude, it's not my fault you slept through science class.

Your experts are welcome to present a case scientifically. Perhaps it would be useful to ask yourself why they do not if they know so much.

Not worth thier time? Too much work?

Fortunately, we do have scientists who know the methods. Unfortunately your experts are not among them.

So far. They still could but don't.

Why is that do you think?
You've been served! Its now obvious you have no counter argument to anything, all you can do is make your broad statements. You are just another goon that will not debate specifics, there are tons and tons of you guys out there and you aren't getting any less pathetic as the years go by. You refuse to answer any of my points because you can't do it, all you can do is spit the same nonsense about peer review and scientific this and that. The video's I just posted were mostly testimony of molten metal peppered with a backyard experiment that blows a gaping hole right into thermite experiments done in the mainstream. Face it, all you have are straw man arguments:

Straw man - To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

[chuckcrj]

You've been served! Its now obvious you have no counter argument to anything, all you can do is make your broad statements. You are just another goon that will not debate specifics, there are tons and tons of you guys out there and you aren't getting any less pathetic as the years go by. You refuse to answer any of my points because you can't do it, all you can do is spit the same nonsense about peer review and scientific this and that. The video's I just posted were mostly testimony of molten metal peppered with a backyard experiment that blows a gaping hole right into thermite experiments done in the mainstream. Face it, all you have are straw man arguments:

Straw man - To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
And yet you haven't attempted to refute points made by scrog on the first page of the thread... Nor read the material he posted links to!

[LibertyTree]

And yet you haven't attempted to refute points made by scrog on the first page of the thread... Nor read the material he posted links to!
The existence of molten steel is not admitted by Scrog's beloved experts. This is because it comepletely trashes their entire "scientific" explanation of why the towers and building 7 fell. So I guess in a way I've refuted everything he's ever said in this thread by that fact alone. Until the molten steel can be dispoved, those theories are garbage as the jet fuel fires are clearly insufficient in producing temperatures hot enough to melt steel as acknowledged by the "experts" And by the way, I have read every link he's ever posted as well as every single mainstream document on the subject long ago

[chuckcrj]

Another thing the conspiracy nuts forget is human nature. There is competition in everything, especially news reporting. There are enough "sources", enough reporters, enough people trying to get the jump on the next guy that it would be impossible for a conspiracy of the magnitude needed to orchestrate those towers' destruction to be kept quiet. It would have taken a lot of people and a lot of planning to make something like that happen, too many people to keep it quiet.

Something, someone, somewhere would have been leaked, can you imagine what a juicy story that would make? It boggles my mind that hvac professionals, that deal with logic on a daily basis and use critical thinking and analytical skills, could swallow the "truther" claims!!!

It's a good thing most of them here in ARP don't give technical info in the other forums!

[chuckcrj]

The existence of molten steel is not admitted by Scrog's beloved experts. This is because it comepletely trashes their entire "scientific" explanation of why the towers and building 7 fell. So I guess in a way I've refuted everything he's ever said in this thread by that fact alone. Until the molten steel can be dispoved, those theories are garbage as the jet fuel fires are clearly insufficient in producing temperatures hot enough to melt steel as acknowledged by the "experts" And by the way, I have read every link he's ever posted as well as every single mainstream document on the subject long ago
Where is your proof of molten steel? There was molten metals, not steel. Big difference, go study it.

Since YouTube is the final authority in your mind, watch the videos in post 92, they explain this.

[Brian GC]

Another thing the conspiracy nuts forget is human nature. There is competition in everything, especially news reporting. There are enough "sources", enough reporters, enough people trying to get the jump on the next guy that it would be impossible for a conspiracy of the magnitude needed to orchestrate those towers' destruction to be kept quiet. It would have taken a lot of people and a lot of planning to make something like that happen, too many people to keep it quiet.

Something, someone, somewhere would have been leaked, can you imagine what a juicy story that would make? It boggles my mind that hvac professionals, that deal with logic on a daily basis and use critical thinking and analytical skills, could swallow the "truther" claims!!!

It's a good thing most of them here in ARP don't give technical info in the other forums!

Exactly what is a “conspiracy nut”? Someone who feels Kennedy was likely shot by more than one gunman and the Warren Commission was a sham? Some who feels the three highest ranking officers at Roswell Army Airfield were qualified to identify a common Mogul spy balloon? Or is it someone that realizes there are elements within our govt and private sector that plot against us and sometimes pull it off?

Saying they could not do this is naive. The CIA does raids of the Bin Laden type all the time and we don’t hear about it. They destabilize govts all the time. As a matter of fact nearly everything they do is not leaked to the public. Iran-Contra was very elaborate. What did we learn about their capabilities with that? Not very much I assume.

If you think 911 does not deserve an investigation because we don’t have anybody within our govt or private sector that would plant charges in those buildings, I think you are very mistaken. I also think you are very mistaken about those in the HVAC field being qualified to analyze the capabilities of rogue element in the CIA.

[Brian GC]

You've been served! Its now obvious you have no counter argument to anything, all you can do is make your broad statements. You are just another goon that will not debate specifics, there are tons and tons of you guys out there and you aren't getting any less pathetic as the years go by. You refuse to answer any of my points because you can't do it, all you can do is spit the same nonsense about peer review and scientific this and that. The video's I just posted were mostly testimony of molten metal peppered with a backyard experiment that blows a gaping hole right into thermite experiments done in the mainstream. Face it, all you have are straw man arguments:


Liberty,
Let’s go easy on him. He said he was coming back tomorrow to go into depth on it. I don’t want to give him a reason to bail out. Many here are obviously looking forward to a respectful, in-depth discussion.

[corny]

You dont have to melt steel to bring a building down. Look at your small 2 story commericial buildings..... hospitals and the like with steel in them.

They will spray that insulating crap all over the steel to fireproof it..... to insulate it so it doesnt become hot and weaken..... doesnt have to melt...it just has to weaken and then the load on the steel will begin to distort it and bend it.......then its all over.

And of course this stuff doesnt make it impossible for the steel to become too hot to weaken.... it just makes it last a bit longer in the heat....like a firewall does....to give people time to escape or to give more time for the fire to be put out.

[RoBoTeq]

Most events are a conspiracy of some sort or another. Conspiracy theorists come in all flavors. Leftist conspiracy theorists tend to be ridiculous when it comes to not accepting rational facts. Conservative conspiracy theorists tend to be more bent toward understanding the evils that man will do to promote their agenda, whether liberal, conservative or just nutso fascist.

[Brian GC]

Most events are a conspiracy of some sort or another. Conspiracy theorists come in all flavors. Leftist conspiracy theorists tend to be ridiculous when it comes to not accepting rational facts. .

This thread is about discussing those ‘rational facts’ and not dragging it into another Left vs Right thread.

Let’s stay focused here.

[SolarMike]

Most events are a conspiracy of some sort or another. Conspiracy theorists come in all flavors. Leftist conspiracy theorists tend to be ridiculous when it comes to not accepting rational facts. Conservative conspiracy theorists tend to be more bent toward understanding the evils that man will do to promote their agenda, whether liberal, conservative or just nutso fascist.

Some conspiracies have no political bent.....just that the act itself looks WRONG

[ga-hvac-tech]

Most events are a conspiracy of some sort or another. Conspiracy theorists come in all flavors. Leftist conspiracy theorists tend to be ridiculous when it comes to not accepting rational facts. Conservative conspiracy theorists tend to be more bent toward understanding the evils that man will do to promote their agenda, whether liberal, conservative or just nutso fascist.

Yes, conspiracies come in many flavors... And each group loves to fuss about the opposing group's flavor or theory. However:

The simple fact that each group fusses about the other's pet conspiracy PROVES beyond any doubt the obvious:

Human nature is capable of all kinds of deceitful things. To say these things do not happen on my side of the fence, while pointing my finger at the other side of the fence... is in GA's opinion a classic example of blatant hypocrisy.

[Brian GC]

I wish we could get back to the facts surrounding the collapse of those buildings but I will digress with you a bit.


Human nature is capable of all kinds of deceitful things. To say these things do not happen on my side of the fence, while pointing my finger at the other side of the fence... is in GA's opinion a classic example of blatant hypocrisy.

Politicians are Lawyers. It is standard practice for a lawyer to never give any credibility to the other side. That’s why we see politicians behave that way.

We however are the jury. We should be able to see beyond those tactics that politicians play by. We should be able to see that CNN will not give the Right a fair shake or that Fox News will not give the Left fair representation.

The problem in my opinion is that people forget how politicians and news outlets play the game and begin believing their “client is totally innocent”. Hypocrisy, maybe – gullibility, definitely.

[ga-hvac-tech]

I wish we could get back to the facts surrounding the collapse of those buildings but I will digress with you a bit.



Politicians are Lawyers. It is standard practice for a lawyer to never give any credibility to the other side. That’s why we see politicians behave that way.

We however are the jury. We should be able to see beyond those tactics that politicians play by. We should be able to see that CNN will not give the Right a fair shake or that Fox News will not give the Left fair representation.

The problem in my opinion is that people forget how politicians and news outlets play the game and begin believing their “client is totally innocent”. Hypocrisy, maybe – gullibility, definitely.

Good post!

We the American people, have the govt we deserve... because we do not do anything about it.

In GA's opinion... the first thing to do is to stop trusting them and make them accountable... the media will jump on the wagon as soon as they realize it is a viable trend.

[RoBoTeq]

Yes, conspiracies come in many flavors... And each group loves to fuss about the opposing group's flavor or theory. However:

The simple fact that each group fusses about the other's pet conspiracy PROVES beyond any doubt the obvious:

Human nature is capable of all kinds of deceitful things. To say these things do not happen on my side of the fence, while pointing my finger at the other side of the fence... is in GA's opinion a classic example of blatant hypocrisy.
No one has stated that these things do not happen on both sides of the fence, just that they are more prevelant on the leftist side than from conservatives.

Those who spew out conspiracies about the attacks of September 11, 2001 being an inside job from members of the U.S. government while completely disregarding all of the absolute facts that dispute their worthless theories are not in the same league as those who spew out conspiracies of our government organizations deliberately manipulating facts about world wide weather patterns in order to keep feeding so called environmentalist organizations.

[Brian GC]

Those who spew out conspiracies about the attacks of September 11, 2001 being an inside job from members of the U.S. government while completely disregarding all of the absolute facts that dispute their worthless theories…

Care to state some of those “absolute facts” instead of sidetracking this thread to another Left vs. Right issue? And along with those convincing facts it would be nice know whether you are aware of the opposing viewpoints and facts that are shared by the fifteen hundred professional high-rise Architects, Engineers and Demo Experts.

[ga-hvac-tech]

No one has stated that these things do not happen on both sides of the fence, just that they are more prevelant on the leftist side than from conservatives.

Those who spew out conspiracies about the attacks of September 11, 2001 being an inside job from members of the U.S. government while completely disregarding all of the absolute facts that dispute their worthless theories are not in the same league as those who spew out conspiracies of our government organizations deliberately manipulating facts about world wide weather patterns in order to keep feeding so called environmentalist organizations.

Robin, I think you miss my point:

The amount of history of conspiracies (real ones) govts have pulled... in GA's opinion it would be silly to NOT question literally anything a govt is involved with... Keeps them (polecat types) honest... :)

Throughout the history of govts run by humans... corruption and conspiracy and deceit and usery have been documentable. To think 'oh, they would not do that'... or 'that could not happen'... or 'it is not feasable for a govt do do __________'... well in GA's opinion one is putting their thought process inside a box. So how small or large is the box?

[chuckcrj]

Care to state some of those “absolute facts” instead of sidetracking this thread to another Left vs. Right issue? And along with those convincing facts it would be nice know whether you are aware of the opposing viewpoints and facts that are shared by the fifteen hundred professional high-rise Architects, Engineers and Demo Experts.

The facts and links to those facts have been posted in this thread, too bad you refuse to read them.

1,700,000 of the architects and engineers in this country disagree with your 1,500 experts. When 99.99% of the experts in a certain field agree on something, we usually accept their conclusion as true.

[RoBoTeq]

The facts and links to those facts have been posted in this thread, too bad you refuse to read them.

1,700,000 of the architects and engineers in this country disagree with your 1,500 experts. When 99.99% of the experts in a certain field agree on something, we usually accept their conclusion as true.
Sort of supports my point, eh?

[SolarMike]

This conversation has got so convoluted that I cannot tell who believes the towers (and #7) came down with the help of someone in the govt and who doesn't. Will someone state what side of the fence you are on.

[corny]

I believe the towers and 7 fell as the result of heat from fires weakening the steel support structures.

Not melting them.....just getting them hot enough to compromise their strength.

Those columns and girders and joists went fetal..... Like GA did on the fourty.....his spelling not mine.....lol.........thread.

I know you probably didnt want my clarification but I just saw it as an opportunity to get that jab in.....

[corny]

9:18 pm.... Ive got to get up around 2 am or so so I can leave by 3 am and get to work at 4:30 or so..... Gotta to look at some VAVs in an office and they wont let me put my ladder on their desks to get to VAVs while people are in the office.

"For safety reasons we cannot allow you to put a six foot ladder on a desk and stand on top of it and work on a vav during normal office hours. It is however ok to slip in here during the middle of the night and do your dangerous work."

Cant move the desks....they are in long rows and all connected together...and they have wiring trays between them.

Aint no movin the desks......and you cant get to the vavs off an 8 footer next to the desks.

Got to get to four of them this way.

30 minutes a piece if I get there at 4.... but I really need to be there earlier so that I can get my tools in there....drag the ladders out of a mens locker room.....and get my laptop set up in the janitors closet.....lol

Im gonna be like the matrix guy...... anybody sees me in there is going to report a UFO.......unidentifried flying object....

Like some kind of hvac ninja.......but I gotta use ladders.....

[newoldtech]

This conversation has got so convoluted that I cannot tell who believes the towers (and #7) came down with the help of someone in the govt and who doesn't. Will someone state what side of the fence you are on.

Most of the guys are pretty vocal in their views but I'll give you a quick handicap of it. The main conspiracy guys are liberty, roy, wolfstirke, coolwhip, brian and honorable mention to GA who appears to by on the fence. But who's counting? ;)

[RoBoTeq]

This conversation has got so convoluted that I cannot tell who believes the towers (and #7) came down with the help of someone in the govt and who doesn't. Will someone state what side of the fence you are on.
There is no viable evidence that indicates that the U.S. government had anything to do with the destruction of the twin towers. Even if local government made decisions to aid in bringing down the already vastly damaged towers in order to prevent more collateral damage, that would not exactly be any sort of conspiracy, but a prevention of more damage than would occur otherwise. However, there is not even anything rational in any argument that can support any sort of demolition perpetrated by any U.S. organization. All evidence concludes that the aircraft attacks on the towers were what were the cause, direct or indirect, of all of the destruction at the World Trade Center.

This is not a matter of being on one side of the fence or the other. With all of the available evidence as to the destruction from the attacks on the U.S. on September 11, 2001, only those who want to believe that the U.S. is bad and that Islam is innocent will continue to perpetrate such idiotic notions.

[RoBoTeq]

Most of the guys are pretty vocal in their views but I'll give you a quick handicap of it. The main conspiracy guys are liberty, roy, wolfstirke, coolwhip, brian and honorable mention to GA who appears to by on the fence. But who's counting? ;)Those may be conspiracy theorists about the U.S. government orchestrating the attacks of September 11, 2001, but there are others who believe there were conspiracies to cover up the Islamic perpetrators of the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal building and the assasination of JFK. The difference is that those who want to blame the U.S. for killing thousands of American citizens on U.S. soil don't have a shred of evidence or even a viable theory that cannot be dismissed by facts.

[LibertyTree]

Where is your proof of molten steel? There was molten metals, not steel. Big difference, go study it.

Since YouTube is the final authority in your mind, watch the videos in post 92, they explain this.
I have already watched the videos you posted long ago when they were first made. Some of the evidence of molten metal is in videos I already posted. You see one of the main problems is that the debris was carted off before any real studies could be done. Much of the molten steel testimony comes from fire fighters and the folks who were doing cleanup, but we all know that they are all in cahoots and working with the terrorists. Either that or they were previously abducted by aliens. Funny thing about the videos you posted is that there are no comments allowed, this is always a tell... Wouldn't want anyone calling BS

Most debunkers cite the NASA thermal imaging to say that temps weren't hot enough to melt steel. The images could not take below surface readings. Answer me this: If the buildings came down from progressive collapse from weakened steel in the upper floors why was there a red hot cauldron that burned for weeks at the BASE of the rubble? One would assume 100+ floors worth of debris would be sufficient in squelching any sort of fire that may be near the base of the building.

The video says "If molten steel were present, how would it be evidence of a controlled demolition?" LOL If molten steel were found how could the official story be substantiated is the real question. There is, in no way, shape or form reason for there to be molten metal in the building rubble if the official story is true. Buildings that collapse don't leave molten steel behind. The video even says "no molten steel has ever been left behind from an implosion" Hahaha that's because "Bob's Demolition" doesn't use a thermetic material that burns at over 4,500 degrees to decommission old buildings...

" There was molten metals, not steel. Big difference, go study it."

Oh believe me I have. I've been at this for over 10 years now. I even heard alternative radio personalities warning that this was going to happen before it ever did and I thought they were nuts, until it happened. Everyone has heard of the NIST report on molten aluminum mixed with office debris. Problem is NIST never conducted experiments to test their theory, they just spit it out and the majority of Americans such as yourself sucked it right up. I posted video earlier of a dude who tried to get burning material to mix with molten aluminum with no luck as objects or materials mixed with molten aluminum tend to float. But we all know that he was a tin foil hat wearing lover of Islam...

[LibertyTree]

Those may be conspiracy theorists about the U.S. government orchestrating the attacks of September 11, 2001, but there are others who believe there were conspiracies to cover up the Islamic perpetrators of the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal building and the assasination of JFK. The difference is that those who want to blame the U.S. for killing thousands of American citizens on U.S. soil don't have a shred of evidence or even a viable theory that cannot be dismissed by facts.
Hey Robo, you're a fairly smart guy but you make me question that with posts such as this... Most run of the mill lame brained Americans think that America is the government. It boggles my mind when people like yourself fall into this idiotic way of thinking. Unchecked government gets perverted into gangs of murdering looters no matter which country. Its happened throughout history across the board. To think it couldn't happen here, especially with the current state of the country, is absurd. I bet you were calling people tin foil mad hatters who called the OKC bombing a false flag back in the 90's. Same probably goes for the JFK assassination which was clearly an inside job as well. The day will come Robo when you WILL admit 911 was a false flag. May be in 1 year, may be in 20.

[LibertyTree]

Liberty,
Let’s go easy on him. He said he was coming back tomorrow to go into depth on it. I don’t want to give him a reason to bail out. Many here are obviously looking forward to a respectful, in-depth discussion.
Brian, this fires me up. I see footage of people being covered in dust, bloodied and battered and videos of children talking about how they still wait for daddy to come home and I fly off the handle. This vile act that has been done to the citizens of this country should not be taken lightly. When people defend those who had a hand in this I cannot help but get filled with fury. And I thought I was being nice...

[newoldtech]

Hey Robo, you're a fairly smart guy but you make me question that with posts such as this... Most run of the mill lame brained Americans think that America is the government. It boggles my mind when people like yourself fall into this idiotic way of thinking. Unchecked government gets perverted into gangs of murdering looters no matter which country. Its happened throughout history across the board. To think it couldn't happen here, especially with the current state of the country, is absurd. I bet you were calling people tin foil mad hatters who called the OKC bombing a false flag back in the 90's. Same probably goes for the JFK assassination which was clearly an inside job as well. The day will come Robo when you WILL admit 911 was a false flag. May be in 1 year, may be in 20.

I agree that in theory a 9/11 type conspiracy could happen here. I could even see an interesting movie being made about it. Where a bunch of top level government officials were behind the whole thing. And there was one guy, maybe Tom Cruise who knew the truth and they were trying to kill him before he exposed them. But in reality I dont believe that a conspiracy of this mangitude could be covered up in our country. There might be some loose ends or debatable issues but the bottom line is even if the government wanted to perpetrate it,They could never pull it off. Too many people would of had to be in on it and it would of leaked out all over the place.

[scrogdog]

I am writing the article on building 7 offline. When done I will post, hopefully it will fit in one reply.

There are some things I’d like to say as a preamble to that post. In preparation as it were.

I have to say that I find one of the initial bullet points in the OP to be ironically amusing. The one that says that CTers are “critical thinkers”. What sort of critical thinker continually refuses to read the articles posted by the opposition? Note that you will not see something similar in the upcoming formal presidential debates. To get a clue on how these go, I would highly suggest watching and realizing how the art of debate works.

NONE of the CTers here have read ANY of the science that has been posted. Seriously? That’s how you debate? Then someone makes the claim that they know what progressive collapse is. NO. You may have heard of it, but if you actually understood its principles, then I would not need to write an article on building 7 or WTC in general. This understanding, or at least the beginnings of it, could have been fostered through a reading of the articles I posted, particularly the one I posted a second time.

Bail? The only reason I would bail from this debate is that the opposition, quite obviously, does not know how debate is conducted. Again, watch the upcoming ones and learn.

Secondly, I feel the need to show what a fact is. There seems to be some confusion here even though it’s one of the first things that we learn in middle school science.

Facts, just like you need to have repeatable experiments in science, are also based upon repeatable observations. In other words, facts can only be that which is self-evident or mutually observable.

You seem to be confusing “fact” with “that which I believe to be true”. Don’t worry, I get how belief works. In fact, if I did not have beliefs, I would not be able to study history. The study of history is interesting in the context of this discussion. You don’t, or at least *I* don’t consider a thing to be true just because one or a few say it is. That’s why a study of history involves multiple sources. I may read a German tank commander’s account of a battle, and that person, an obvious expert on the matter, may make the claim that Russian tankers basically sucked.

Can’t you see how that claim is based on human bias? The same as your claims are. You’ve decided that the collapses look like demolitions (as well they should as demos seek to initiate progressive collapse) so now you seek to debate using that bias as some sort of fact. It isn’t, not even close.

In any case, that commander’s comment flies in the face of multiple other sources. In fact, oodles of it. Therefore, I choose to believe that not to be true. IS MY BELIEF A FACT? No. Not even close.

One could say, however, that the evidence for the opposing case, that Russians BECAME (after some learning pains) some of the finest tankers of the war, is widely held and somewhat overwhelming in scope. THAT IS MY OPINION. IT IS NOT A FACT.

There is also the idea that what you may consider a fact cannot be considered one scientifically. Let’s say I get picked up and taken for a ride on an alien spaceship on my way home from work. Guess what, I now consider aliens driving spaceships around to be a flat out fact! But guess what else? I have no way to show it. Unless they leave me a ray gun or something.

In that case, I WOULD FULLY EXPECT that my first person account be treated as it should be; certainly NOT A FACT in the scientific sense. One could charge that I was on drugs or hallucinating, perhaps. Even if I was not, that is one reason why science must be given something tangible to study. In the case of my ride upon a UFO, I still have nothing tangible to present.

That is precisely why Liberty looks, um, not so good by attempting to toss around the rules of logic when it is clear that he doesn’t understand them. CTers violate the rules of logic practically daily, but I don’t bring it up because CTers are as illiterate about logic as they are about science.

Don’t get your feathers ruffled. I am not calling you stupid. Far from it, in fact. I find Royc to be one of the more compelling writers on these boards. But that doesn’t mean I agree with his low standards of belief. Low standards of belief is not scientific. Belief ITSELF is not scientific.

Further, this is not a court of law. Facts are not established “beyond a reasonable doubt” and therein lies PRECISELY what I find compelling about science. It’s in your face. Facts cannot be denied.

However, beliefs most certainly can be. Theories too, but you have to understand what that is in science as well. If a theory has not been overwhelmingly confirmed, then it is not a theory! It is a hypothesis. Therefore, to challenge what that theory says requires MORE science that is performed using the scientific method. Apparently, this is yet another 7th grade science topic which CTers don’t get and apparently do not wish to.

So, Liberty, you are not claiming that the idea of molten steel is a belief or theory; you are holding it up as fact. However, since it does not meet the criteria of fact, that is, it is not self-evident or mutually observed, we can only, rightly, discard it. A straw man can only be erected in front of a VALID argument.

The rule of formal logic you are violating is called “appeal to authority”. Yes, we’ll pause while you look it up. :rolleyes:

Generally speaking, as I said, pretty much all of your videos are in violation as well. They show nothing. They demonstrate nothing. Therefore, there is no need to refute improperly made assertions.

You could make them proper. It’s really simple. All one needs to do is to present their case scientifically. I have repeatedly asked; why is it do you think that if the case is so solid, your experts refuse to demonstrate it like any other scientist in the world MUST DO. You don’t get in the journals with invalid or improper science. You will be rejected on that basis.

That would not necessarily mean that you are wrong, mind you, only that science can only work a certain way. It has rules. The rules MUST be followed or you don’t have science. SO, IF YOUR EXPERTS DO NOT HAVE SCIENCE, WHY THEN MUST SCIENCE RESPOND?

There is nothing to respond TO.

Finally, if you wish to observe a true straw man, it would be all this hubbub about debris. This world is FULL of accidental happenings that are potentially devastating and leave pretty much no debris to analyze. As a matter of fact, it’s kind of funny, not one science white paper needed debris to perform their science properly. In fact, the guy who wrote the article did indeed bemoan something, and it wasn’t the lack of debris. It was that the smoke was too thick and obscured some things about the fall that he would have liked to see. The things that he would have liked to see had nothing to do with anything other than trying to get a better understanding about progressive collapse in this situation.

I can name several cases where we determined what happened, no debris required. How about the Shuttle Accident Report? Are you really ready to say that we can have no idea what happened in any disaster that leaves no debris?

There’s your straw man, if you would like to see one. Debris analysis is not required to make accident determinations. There are many examples in history. You simply like to jump up and down and make something irrelevant seem relevant. We have a law of logic about that too. Look it up!

Please note that understanding progressive collapse is also an issue of public safety. If you’ll note, in the part of the article that I actually quoted here shows some pretty ancient structures progressively collapsing even though they were not built with that in mind. We never know all about a thing. Even if we know something is a fact doesn’t mean that we know all about it from a explanation standpoint.

Bottom line; the way that the buildings fell is something that CTers wish you to believe was not expected, when, in fact, there is no other way things could have gone. It looks like a demo because a demo also seeks to initiate progressive collapse. They also wish you to believe that steel melted simply because they say, incorrectly, that the only way those buildings could have fallen like that would be a demo situation. THAT IS NOT TRUE. SO WHY SHOULD SCIENCE ACT AS THOUGH IT WERE?

In fact, I’ve seen pictures of beams held up as a case for melted steel. Just one problem, the steel that they showed is deformed, not melted. Again, this is as expected.

I mean, it only makes sense if you access your knowledge database. How does an old time metal smith make a sword? He puts it in coals or some other heat source until it becomes “soft” but NOT melted! Then he can work it. In the world of metals, “melted” means molten, and deformed means, well, softened and deformed.

So, we have an interesting case that the pictures actually support the case of science, and not youtube video pseudo-science.

Why then can’t you just apply that knowledge to the schematics of either building 7 or WTC? Look at the positions of the floor joists and imagine what happens to the floor should they become “soft” (not melted).

Finally, there is another “rule” of logic we call Occam’s Razor. It means that the simplest explanation is virtually always the best one in terms of physics especially. The buildings fell AS EXPECTED. There was some undetermined melted metal among the debris WHICH WAS EXPECTED.

If you wish to make something of it, you can. Using science. Now if you only had some to present.

Next up, building 7, which not only was NOT a demo, but serves as a shining monument to the principles of modern building design, including progressive collapse, multiple redundancies and shared weight loads along multiple points.

Again, that the building fell uniformly is EXPECTED. Here’s something to chew on, as a matter of fact, had it not fallen as expected, THAT would have been the scientific surprise, not what actually happened!

One last thing, flight 93 didn't make its target. Where then are the demo charges you folks have uncovered that were not exploded?

[ga-hvac-tech]

Most of the guys are pretty vocal in their views but I'll give you a quick handicap of it. The main conspiracy guys are liberty, roy, wolfstirke, coolwhip, brian and honorable mention to GA who appears to by on the fence. But who's counting? ;)

GA has found in recent years... the REAL conspiracies (the ones that affect us the most) are perpetrated by govt and bankers... and NEVER see the light of day.

If one knew how thoroughly and completely the banking and govt are taking them to the cleaners every day (literally being herded like dumb sheep)... they would keep their $$$ in a mason jar and fire the entire govt tomorrow morning.

Having said that: There is a HUGE amount of evidence that suggests lots of banker and financial types 'conveniently' had a lot of bad debts and potentially incriminating evidence destroyed when the towers collapsed.
Somehow... there are just too many folks who should be either locked up for life or executed... that got off scott free.

But nobody cares... unless the media and the 'tide of opinion' on the internet supports the issue. Even when folks are taken to the cleaners financially, they do not care... they just want to feel good and think they are in control of their lives... when they are totally deceived. Asking the TUFF questions, the ones that make the polecats SQUIRM, is in GA's opinion the only way to make them accountable.

So far... I do not see the media even close to asking the tuff questions. Does anyone else?

OK, rant off.

[ga-hvac-tech]

I agree that in theory a 9/11 type conspiracy could happen here. I could even see an interesting movie being made about it. Where a bunch of top level government officials were behind the whole thing. And there was one guy, maybe Tom Cruise who knew the truth and they were trying to kill him before he exposed them. But in reality I dont believe that a conspiracy of this mangitude could be covered up in our country. There might be some loose ends or debatable issues but the bottom line is even if the government wanted to perpetrate it,They could never pull it off. Too many people would of had to be in on it and it would of leaked out all over the place.

Hmmm... While GA has more or less let the 911 truthers thingy go... (still thinks the govt is culpable)... How about lets shift this discussion to conspiracies the govt HAS been involved in? Lots of times the govt has been found to be guilty of perpetrating things which are definitely WRONG and even criminal... can you say 'Fast and Furious' just for one?

And lets not forget that guy who ran the FBI for decades who had an incriminating file on every president he served under.

GA's position on this whole thing is: The public should be viewing the govt with suspicion EVERY TIME there is any question... rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt. It is proven govts are nothing more than a collection of humans who are power mongers, who already have a history of lieing, cheating, extorting, manipulating, and even murdering when it is convenient... to promote their influence and fortune.

As a society, we hate them when they run a business... yet as soon as they are elected to public office; somehow their attitudes and behavior is all of a sudden perfect... and all past sins are forgotten. Wake up folks... they are the same scoundrels... just with MORE power... power to take YOUR $$$ and use it to promote their careers. The difference is: In private business they can be held accountable... seems when they get to govt they are immune from responsibility... and we think we will get a fair and honest deal under these jerks? Wake up folks.

Sheesh... and folks wonder why voting should be restricted... DUH

[RoBoTeq]

Hey Robo, you're a fairly smart guy but you make me question that with posts such as this... Most run of the mill lame brained Americans think that America is the government. It boggles my mind when people like yourself fall into this idiotic way of thinking. Unchecked government gets perverted into gangs of murdering looters no matter which country. Its happened throughout history across the board. To think it couldn't happen here, especially with the current state of the country, is absurd. I bet you were calling people tin foil mad hatters who called the OKC bombing a false flag back in the 90's. Same probably goes for the JFK assassination which was clearly an inside job as well. The day will come Robo when you WILL admit 911 was a false flag. May be in 1 year, may be in 20.

I have always maintained that the OKC bombing was the product of Islamic perpetration that was covered up by government which focused all of its efforts to cover up the Islamic connection by maintaining that all blame was on misguided Americans who just happened to have lose ties with American militia groups that the government administration at that time opposed. There is no way that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols orchestrated that bombing. All of the initial reporting of Middle Eastern looking men seen at the van/bomb and the Murray building were squashed by the media within 48 hours, when the White House administration began it's attack of American militia groups being responsible;
It is unconscionable to accept that the FBI never interviewed a primary Middle-Eastern suspect in the Oklahoma City bombing about the bombing itself, never issued an official on-the-record statement exonerating him of complicity in the Oklahoma City bombing, and despite the numerous questions surrounding the ties and activities of this individual, did nothing as he gained employment following April 19, 1995 but before September 11, 2001 at Boston-Logan airport – an airport where two of the 9/11 hijacked planes originated. http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/hagmann122706.htm

It is unfortunate that Americans usually need to go to news sources outside of the U.S. to get all perspectives of events that occur in the U.S.

As for JFK, being old enough to remember his assassination and the disappearances of so many who opposed the Warren report findings, there is no way I can accept that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin, or at least not the lone assassin. There were so many influential people and organizations worldwide that wanted JFK dead, I would not be surprised to find out that the JFK assassination was a real life murder on an orient express scenario. With the finding out that JFK was terminally ill, even JFK himself is implicated in being responsible for his assassination.

[scrogdog]

Politicians are subject to the same human failings as scientists.

Unfortunately, we have no formal exacting standard under which they should operate.

Indeed, when speaking of an entity that votes NO to the question "should we be required to READ the bills we sign" then it is clear that not only do they not have any standard whatsoever, they can actually throw that in our collective faces without consequence.

[RoBoTeq]

I agree that in theory a 9/11 type conspiracy could happen here. I could even see an interesting movie being made about it. Where a bunch of top level government officials were behind the whole thing. And there was one guy, maybe Tom Cruise who knew the truth and they were trying to kill him before he exposed them. But in reality I dont believe that a conspiracy of this mangitude could be covered up in our country. There might be some loose ends or debatable issues but the bottom line is even if the government wanted to perpetrate it,They could never pull it off. Too many people would of had to be in on it and it would of leaked out all over the place.

This is pretty much how I view this as well. Yes, U.S. government, being made up of people and all people are capable of committing evil and justifying it, could very well orchestrate horrific scenarios in which innocent people are sacrificed. I think that the cases of Ruby Ridge, the Whacko Waco Koreshians, the OKC Islamic cover up and most recently the Fast and Furious fiasco all indicate that persons in government are willing to do horrifically evil things for specific agendas. however, like you state, a government conspiracy to attack or allow the attack of the U.S. on the scale of the September 11, 2001 attacks would be a legistical nightmare involving literally thousands of Americans. This is what I mean by saying that leftist conspiracy theories are so often way out in left field.

[RoBoTeq]

GA has found in recent years... the REAL conspiracies (the ones that affect us the most) are perpetrated by govt and bankers... and NEVER see the light of day.

If one knew how thoroughly and completely the banking and govt are taking them to the cleaners every day (literally being herded like dumb sheep)... they would keep their $$$ in a mason jar and fire the entire govt tomorrow morning.

Having said that: There is a HUGE amount of evidence that suggests lots of banker and financial types 'conveniently' had a lot of bad debts and potentially incriminating evidence destroyed when the towers collapsed.
Somehow... there are just too many folks who should be either locked up for life or executed... that got off scott free.

But nobody cares... unless the media and the 'tide of opinion' on the internet supports the issue. Even when folks are taken to the cleaners financially, they do not care... they just want to feel good and think they are in control of their lives... when they are totally deceived. Asking the TUFF questions, the ones that make the polecats SQUIRM, is in GA's opinion the only way to make them accountable.

So far... I do not see the media even close to asking the tuff questions. Does anyone else?

OK, rant off.
Your posting in the third person is getting a bit creepy......I'm just saying.....

You didn't use to post in the third person. Have you been taken over by aliens or been given liberal hormone shots or something?

[scrogdog]

Your posting in the third person is getting a bit creepy......I'm just saying.....

Glad it's not just me. :)

[Brian GC]

There is also the idea that what you may consider a fact cannot be considered one scientifically. Let’s say I get picked up and taken for a ride on an alien spaceship on my way home from work. Guess what, I now consider aliens driving spaceships around to be a flat out fact! But guess what else? I have no way to show it. Unless they leave me a ray gun or something.

In that case, I WOULD FULLY EXPECT that my first person account be treated as it should be; certainly NOT A FACT in the scientific sense. One could charge that I was on drugs or hallucinating, perhaps. Even if I was not, that is one reason why science must be given something tangible to study. In the case of my ride upon a UFO, I still have nothing tangible to present.

The leap you are making is that we should not consider something to be real unless we first have science study it and come to a unanimous conclusion that it is a fact. But something can be very real and not yet be studied by science.

Science wants to be the governing authority on who tells us what is real. They like to use the word ‘fact” to mean “real”, but as you have pointed out, they are two very different things. Something can be very real and not yet be a fact. Real supersedes fact, not the other way around.

In your above example, if one hundred scientists were taken aboard a spacecraft, each shown a ray gun, were allowed to shoot it, study its effects, and each had the same experience with it, but were given nothing to bring back to earth to show their fellow scientists, their experience would not prove the existence of a superior species among us. Science would say since there are no facts to the case there is nothing real to the case, but that is a leap. It would raise the probability of their experience being real even though it was not proven as scientific fact.

How this applies to Building 7 is that missing evidence cannot provide facts. I’m not saying there was a conspiracy but someone knows that missing evidence will suppress factual evidence. When that is done you get scientists to say what you are saying and poo-poo any conclusion other than the mundane.

[chuckcrj]

Hmmm... While GA has more or less let the 911 truthers thingy go... (still thinks the govt is culpable)... How about lets shift this discussion to conspiracies the govt HAS been involved in? Lots of times the govt has been found to be guilty of perpetrating things which are definitely WRONG and even criminal... can you say 'Fast and Furious' just for one?

And lets not forget that guy who ran the FBI for decades who had an incriminating file on every president he served under.

GA's position on this whole thing is: The public should be viewing the govt with suspicion EVERY TIME there is any question... rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt. It is proven govts are nothing more than a collection of humans who are power mongers, who already have a history of lieing, cheating, extorting, manipulating, and even murdering when it is convenient... to promote their influence and fortune.

As a society, we hate them when they run a business... yet as soon as they are elected to public office; somehow their attitudes and behavior is all of a sudden perfect... and all past sins are forgotten. Wake up folks... they are the same scoundrels... just with MORE power... power to take YOUR $$$ and use it to promote their careers. The difference is: In private business they can be held accountable... seems when they get to govt they are immune from responsibility... and we think we will get a fair and honest deal under these jerks? Wake up folks.

Sheesh... and folks wonder why voting should be restricted... DUH

Your statement that the US government is culpable, in some degree, in the wtc attack, I agree with. I believe they likely had enough intelligence info to stop it. It is simply impossible for them to have planned and executed the job without someone leaking enough to eventually bring it into the open.

[jtrammel]

Your posting in the third person is getting a bit creepy......I'm just saying.....

You didn't use to post in the third person. Have you been taken over by aliens or been given liberal hormone shots or something?

Same here...lol

[scrogdog]

The leap you are making is that we should not consider something to be real unless we first have science study it and come to a unanimous conclusion that it is a fact. But something can be very real and not yet be studied by science.

Science wants to be the governing authority on who tells us what is real. They like to use the word ‘fact” to mean “real”, but as you have pointed out, they are two very different things. Something can be very real and not yet be a fact. Real supersedes fact, not the other way around.

In your above example, if one hundred scientists were taken aboard a spacecraft, each shown a ray gun, were allowed to shoot it, study its effects, and each had the same experience with it, but were given nothing to bring back to earth to show their fellow scientists, their experience would not prove the existence of a superior species among us. Science would say since there are no facts to the case there is nothing real to the case, but that is a leap. It would raise the probability of their experience being real even though it was not proven as scientific fact.

How this applies to Building 7 is that missing evidence cannot provide facts. I’m not saying there was a conspiracy but someone knows that missing evidence will suppress factual evidence. When that is done you get scientists to say what you are saying and poo-poo any conclusion other than the mundane.

You say a lot but say nothing at the same time.

A lot of times we say something is a fact in a colloquial sense, but that is not the same as the scientific standard of fact. If you don't believe me, perhaps you will believe Nobel Prize Winner Stephen Gould who said "in science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withold provisional assent'".

True, there are philosophical things which cannot be observed that are not subject to scietific inquiry simply because they present nothing tangible in the real world.

Fact trumps ASSUMED reality in every case, unless you would like to attempt to demonstrate that the moon does not exist (or similar mutually observable self-evident thing). Further, facts are not things we conclude. Please tell us how you had to CONCLUDE that the moon exists? You didn't. You saw it, and you know everyone else sees it. No conclusions needed to be reached.

You saw the moon and then CONCULDED it must exist? lol

Besides, evidence is evidence, fact are facts, and should not be confused with one another. Evidence is that which we use to build a case for belief. It is NOT how we establish fact, because evidence can have multiple interpretations of what it means. That's why scientific theories are also not facts. They are explanations which have been repeatedly confirmed by experiement, however.

Again, quite a number of scientists have written papers on several things about WTC on 9/11. NOT ONE OF THEM required debris. Not one.

Again, there are also multiple examples of this in history such as the aforementioned shuttle accident report.

In short, you hardly addressed ANY of my points! Hmmmmm....

Sorry, but I seem to detect a pattern emerging. ;)

[ga-hvac-tech]

Your posting in the third person is getting a bit creepy......I'm just saying.....

You didn't use to post in the third person. Have you been taken over by aliens or been given liberal hormone shots or something?

Actually, neither... Rather I (GA) have learned to not make my thoughts simply about me.

I perceive that stepping back and seeing things as a 'third person' view seems to give GA a better perspective... rather than I this or I that.

Third person view: Generally defined as a person writing a book or telling a story about themselves, yet through the eyes of a different person than themselves.

So why take a third person view? Simple: Taking 'me' out of the picture allows the view to be more balanced, most importantly not being swayed by my personal short-comings.

It is easy to see whether one is thinking, or spouting off, or parroting... simply by how much of themselves is in what they say.

Yet here is the most important thing: It really is NOT about me... part of growing up in GA's opinion is to learn that simple reality.

[ga-hvac-tech]

Your statement that the US government is culpable, in some degree, in the wtc attack, I agree with. I believe they likely had enough intelligence info to stop it. It is simply impossible for them to have planned and executed the job without someone leaking enough to eventually bring it into the open.

So this raises the question...

If the govt knew it was gonna happen... why did they not stop it?
What reason was there which was important enough to allow close to 3000 American citizens to be murdered, to destroy the buildings, and destroy that level of records of business and govt activity? Unless someone (or many someones) would profit or not be held accountable for; something or somethings...

This is a question which John Stossel or perhaps all of Fox (Or most importantly ALL OF AMERICA) should be DEMANDING answers to... However we know it will never happen as long as any of those folks who profited or were vindicated, or their spouses, are alive.

[scrogdog]

I believe they likely had enough intelligence info to stop it.

If I may comment on this with attempting to invalidate it (as some seem to think I am doing).

History presents us many, many potential conspiracies. Did the president have prior knowledge to the attack on Pearl Harbor? Was the dropping of two bombs on Japan necessary to win the war, or was it more about sending a message to the Soviets?

It is tough to imagine either of these things becoming "fact" even in a colloquial sense. No matter what is argued from either side.

In addition, neither of these ideas are subject to scientific inquiry. Once one, say a CTer (and I know you are not one and have supported the case of science) figures out WHY, then the whole tempo and purpose of this discussion would most definitely change.

Again, evidence builds a case for BELIEF and has nothing to do with facts.

[scrogdog]

If the govt knew it was gonna happen... why did they not stop it?

If true that the President had foreknowledge that Pearl Harbor was to be attacked, can you think of no valid reason that he let it slide?

Not saying it's true, or was the right thing to do IF true, mind you.

[ga-hvac-tech]

If true that the President had foreknowledge that Pearl Harbor was to be attacked, can you think of no valid reason that he let it slide?

Not saying it's true, or was the right thing to do IF true, mind you.

A discussion about Pearl Harbor is a whole-nother story... many believe FDR knew and let it happen for one or another reason... a short googling will give lots of reasons.

Fact still remains: Why are these questions not asked? Seems whether a polecat cheats on his wife (with or without her knowing) is more important in the media than whether or not a polecat starts a war or allows the murder of close to 3000 citizens... IMO it does not take a rocket scientist to see there is something wrong there.

[royc]

I agree that in theory a 9/11 type conspiracy could happen here. I could even see an interesting movie being made about it. Where a bunch of top level government officials were behind the whole thing. And there was one guy, maybe Tom Cruise who knew the truth and they were trying to kill him before he exposed them. But in reality I dont believe that a conspiracy of this mangitude could be covered up in our country. There might be some loose ends or debatable issues but the bottom line is even if the government wanted to perpetrate it,They could never pull it off. Too many people would of had to be in on it and it would of leaked out all over the place.


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

http://rense.com/general95/why_dev.html


Roy

[Brian GC]

True, there are philosophical things which cannot be observed that are not subject to scientific inquiry simply because they present nothing tangible in the real world.

No. There are tangible things which cannot be observed that are not subject to scientific inquiry simply because they cannot get their hands on it. Therefore they draw conclusions from that lack of information.


Fact trumps ASSUMED reality in every case…

That is what science wants us to believe, but it is not so. The lack of fact, which in the case of 100 scientists not coming back with anything to validate their experience, would not trump assumed reality. It may not close the book on ET’s but it would indeed affect assumed reality.

Facts just happen to be the data and conclusions we have reached so far. It does not dictate reality. There is far more that is real than has been examined on a scientist’s table.


Again, quite a number of scientists have written papers on several things about WTC on 9/11. NOT ONE OF THEM required debris. Not one.

But debris would illuminate, validate or discredit their findings.


Again, there are also multiple examples of this in history such as the aforementioned shuttle accident report.

The shuttle disaster was not just witnessed. It had audio, telemetry and black box data as well as wreckage to examine.

[RoBoTeq]

Your statement that the US government is culpable, in some degree, in the wtc attack, I agree with. I believe they likely had enough intelligence info to stop it. It is simply impossible for them to have planned and executed the job without someone leaking enough to eventually bring it into the open.

Culpable is a good term to use. With all the money we spend on so called "intelligence", our government agencies certainly should have been able to detect signs that forces were plotting against us.

[glennac]

Culpable is a good term to use. With all the money we spend on so called "intelligence", our government agencies certainly should have been able to detect signs that forces were plotting against us.

True there robo but lets narrow it down a little. IMO the liberal Democrats in Congress hold most of the blame for the intelligence let down.

They passed legislation forbidding our intelligence agencies from sharing information. The CIA couldn't talk to the FBI, NSA, etc. Thank you, thank you very much

[scrogdog]

No. There are tangible things which cannot be observed that are not subject to scientific inquiry simply because they cannot get their hands on it. Therefore they draw conclusions from that lack of information.

No, science DOES NOT make conclusions about things UNLESS they are trying to explain a FACT. That's what science does, it explains fact. Even then, it requires a repeatable test to draw conclusions FROM. Science does NOTHING with a lack of information. That is not to say that a scientist cannot venture an opinion, even an unsupported one, outside the realm of science.

But we've already gone over all that. Carl Sagan appearing on Johnny Carson is NOT science. Sorry.

Please point us all to the scientific white paper that draws the types of conclusions you describe. Of course, we all know you will not do this as your debating style seems to be make bold assertions and then do NOTHING to back them up.


That is what science wants us to believe, but it is not so. The lack of fact, which in the case of 100 scientists not coming back with anything to validate their experience, would not trump assumed reality. It may not close the book on ET’s but it would indeed affect assumed reality.

What? You don't even read the science, understand what a fact is, know what the scientific method is (apparently) but now YOU judge what is valid?

You, sir, are out to lunch. What you've just said is, at best, innaccurate, at worst, utterly foolish and uninformed.


Facts just happen to be the data and conclusions we have reached so far. It does not dictate reality. There is far more that is real than has been examined on a scientist’s table.

Again, facts are NOT CONCLUDED. Logic also says that as well as science. Basically, you don't know what you are talking about, so I am forced to call GARBAGE. Let's see some source that supports this ridiculous contention. I have plenty on my side, but of course, it is useless to post them as YOU WILL NOT READ THEM.


But debris would illuminate, validate or discredit their findings.


According to you, one who thinks that facts are concluded. Science has NEVER needed debris to conduct accident reports before, and for many other disasters besides the shuttle. Now, all of a sudden we do because you say so?

It is to laugh, as they say.


The shuttle disaster was not just witnessed. It had audio, telemetry and black box data as well as wreckage to examine.

Yep, and WTC and building 7 have floor plans, combustion science, progressive collapse science and the laws of physics. It's been explained, modeled and reviewed by hundreds of thousands of scientists who have not said in peer review "where's the debris"?

I can see the problem you have with science quite clearly. Only someone that thinks facts are that which he WISHES were true could possibly use these line of illogical arguments.

So, we come full circle to my friend Joe says the Zombie Apocalypse is coming. RUN!

That has as much rationality, fact and logic to it as anything you've presented. That you cannot see that makes describing what facts and science are pretty pointless. Of course, you could also try reading any one of a billion BASIC science texts. But you won't.

Again, this is middle school stuff, what science is, what its purpose is, what a fact is, what a theory is, what the methods are... is not some hard to understand esoteric science that you need to get your science dictionary out to understand.

MIDDLE SCHOOL SCIENCE!

[Brian GC]

Culpable is a good term to use. With all the money we spend on so called "intelligence", our government agencies certainly should have been able to detect signs that forces were plotting against us.

The same can be said about our "intelligence" prior to invading Iraq. Israel is Iraq’s next door neighbor and constantly watches them from above and within. You cannot say that Israel was also fooled into thinking they had WMD’s. But Israel wanted us to take out Saddam’s massive army and infrastructure so they just sat on that info and let the U.S., their little puppet, do their dirty work.

[coolwhip]

Robo is entitled to his opinion as well as others who disagree with the sabotage evidence. After all, there wouldn't be any right people if there were not any wrong people now would there?

The truth will not be hidden long and will come out eventually...when everyone involved is in their 80's or dead.

[scrogdog]

There is no 9/11 sabotage evidence, apparently only things that have been constructed in agenda-laden minds. That's the point.

Jeez, even Wiki says what all other basic science texts say. Facts muct be verified in order to be considered facts.

Look it up!

Ok, so where's the evidence? I wish to hold it in my hand or observe it for myself.

That folks here don't understand what science is or how it works is not the fault of science. It is the fault of people who refuse to consult a seventh grade science text.

I'd link you to one, but then of course, it will remain unread and then even dismissed by the very people who didn't read it.

Amazing!

[RoBoTeq]

Actually, neither... Rather I (GA) have learned to not make my thoughts simply about me.

I perceive that stepping back and seeing things as a 'third person' view seems to give GA a better perspective... rather than I this or I that.

Third person view: Generally defined as a person writing a book or telling a story about themselves, yet through the eyes of a different person than themselves.

So why take a third person view? Simple: Taking 'me' out of the picture allows the view to be more balanced, most importantly not being swayed by my personal short-comings.

It is easy to see whether one is thinking, or spouting off, or parroting... simply by how much of themselves is in what they say.

Yet here is the most important thing: It really is NOT about me... part of growing up in GA's opinion is to learn that simple reality.
OK, then....now it is officially creepy. :whistle:


I hope you realize that you are pretending to be someone else while giving opinions from yourself. So, what kind of third person are you pretending to be? Does your third person not have the exact same opinions that you, the person your third person personification is referring to? If not, then you are not really speakingin the third person, but rather, you are a schizoid.....:anyone:

[scrogdog]

Ok, I think rather than post a long winded reply about building 7, I will use youtube. The language of science to many here.

Be sure to note the damage to building 7 from pictures taken from where it actually was instead of the other side of the buildings. DUH! Real honesty we see from the truthers, yes indeed!

Also please note the photo which clearly establishes that none of the buildings that fell on that day did so "in thier own footprint" as Brian and others claim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gIv4KwMoic

Whoops.

Next I'll look for some pretty pictures or videos that show progressive collapse. That should help some of you intellectuals. :)

[RoBoTeq]

So this raises the question...

If the govt knew it was gonna happen... why did they not stop it?
What reason was there which was important enough to allow close to 3000 American citizens to be murdered, to destroy the buildings, and destroy that level of records of business and govt activity? Unless someone (or many someones) would profit or not be held accountable for; something or somethings...

This is a question which John Stossel or perhaps all of Fox (Or most importantly ALL OF AMERICA) should be DEMANDING answers to... However we know it will never happen as long as any of those folks who profited or were vindicated, or their spouses, are alive.
The answer to why we did not stop the attack is easy; everything run by government agencies is basically inept! The information for the signs that we were being plotted against were there, just being gathered by different agencies that did not work with each other so no one got to see the whole picture.

So what have we done since to overcome inept government agencies? We created more government agencies......:gah:

[Brian GC]

Ok, so where's the evidence?

Where is the Rowell debris?

But WTC debris isn’t so hard to answer. It was whisked off to China for recycling.


I wish to hold it in my hand or observe it for myself.

You are forgetting what you just said. You witnessing or holding something in your hand means nothing to the scientific community, so why bother?

[scrogdog]

OK, then....now it is officially creepy. :whistle:


I hope you realize that you are pretending to be someone else while giving opinions from yourself. So, what kind of third person are you pretending to be? Does your third person not have the exact same opinions that you, the person your third person personification is referring to? If not, then you are not really speakingin the third person, but rather, you are a schizoid.....:anyone:

Maybe the next step is to introduce a sock puppet?

[RoBoTeq]

A discussion about Pearl Harbor is a whole-nother story... many believe FDR knew and let it happen for one or another reason... a short googling will give lots of reasons.

Fact still remains: Why are these questions not asked? Seems whether a polecat cheats on his wife (with or without her knowing) is more important in the media than whether or not a polecat starts a war or allows the murder of close to 3000 citizens... IMO it does not take a rocket scientist to see there is something wrong there.

The only government conspiracy surrounding the 9-11 attacks seem to involve government agencies hiding what ever they can that could implicate them for being inept. So yes, government was somewhat responsible for the attacks in the respect that government agencies did not do their jobs correctly in preventing the attacks because government agencies were inept.

[scrogdog]

Where is the Rowell debris?

But WTC debris isn’t so hard to answer. It was whisked off to China for recycling.



You are forgetting what you just said. You witnessing or holding something in your hand means nothing to the scientific community, so why bother?

No, you are not understanding what I said. It can only be that is intentional, at this point.

See if you can follow along here, if I can hold it in my hand then I can pass it along to the science community. I'd be happy to do so.

Where is it?

Of course debris was whisked off because no one in thier wildest dreams thought it would matter. Why did they think that?

Because it doesn't. What, you think that molten metal has never been observed from office fires before? Nothing at all unusual about it.

That's the thing, if normal and expected things happen, science is not surprised, nor are most logical thinkers. Why would we be? Seen it many times before. And as I've said, dozens of scientists were able to perform there work sans debris. Not one of them, that I'm aware of, perhaps you can find one for me, said in their white paper that something was missing from the puzzle because the debris was not recovered.

Again, why would it be? There was absolutely nothing unusual about it. No science that I read even mentioned debris. Why? Because it is irrelevent.

[RoBoTeq]

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

http://rense.com/general95/why_dev.html


Roy

It's a bit difficult to accept information from a site that promotes that the holocaust never happened or that UFO's are causing Earth's weather to change.

[RoBoTeq]

True there robo but lets narrow it down a little. IMO the liberal Democrats in Congress hold most of the blame for the intelligence let down.

They passed legislation forbidding our intelligence agencies from sharing information. The CIA couldn't talk to the FBI, NSA, etc. Thank you, thank you very muchBig government is not just the result of Democrats or even liberals. There has been way too much government growth with so called conservative Republican leaders as well. I agree that Democrats and liberals like government growth that takes the U.S. in a Socialist direction, but big government is the result of all political party's, liberals, conservatives and everything in between with the exception of Ron Paul.

[Gib's Son]

It's a bit difficult to accept information from a site that promotes that the holocaust never happened or that UFO's are causing Earth's weather to change.

Agreed; everyone knows it is a result of the Annunaki's from the 12 planet.:grin2:

[RoBoTeq]

The same can be said about our "intelligence" prior to invading Iraq. Israel is Iraq’s next door neighbor and constantly watches them from above and within. You cannot say that Israel was also fooled into thinking they had WMD’s. But Israel wanted us to take out Saddam’s massive army and infrastructure so they just sat on that info and let the U.S., their little puppet, do their dirty work.
Every country in the world believed that Iraq had WMD's, as did every member of Congress. Hussein simply bluffed his way to being attacked.

[scrogdog]

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

There's an article from Structure Magazine which described how the failure of a single column could well result in uniform collapse of building 7 specifically.

You asked how it could happen, there it is.

Complete with pretty pictures and diagrams!

Of course, we know you won't read it.

Does a great job showing redundancy, shared loads, and weight RE-distibution, e.g. progressive collapse.

[scrogdog]

I just thought of something else for you youtube guys to consider... thermite doesn't explode.

:)

Well, most varieties in common use anyway.

[scrogdog]

Now let's look a molten metal claims.

Here's a popular one;

"New York Fire Department Captain Philip Ruvolo reported “molten steel running down the channel rails, like lava.”

Do none of you see the problem with this? It's common sense not science.

Let's see if any of you CT folks get the answer to this puzzle. :)

[newoldtech]

OK, then....now it is officially creepy. :whistle:


I hope you realize that you are pretending to be someone else while giving opinions from yourself. So, what kind of third person are you pretending to be? Does your third person not have the exact same opinions that you, the person your third person personification is referring to? If not, then you are not really speakingin the third person, but rather, you are a schizoid.....:anyone:

I asked newoldtech and he(we,us)saw nothing unusual about it. And that guy is a genos. :whistle:

[scrogdog]

Every country in the world believed that Iraq had WMD's, as did every member of Congress. Hussein simply bluffed his way to being attacked.

Putin himself said that he informed Bush directly based on KGB reports.

[ga-hvac-tech]

OK, then....now it is officially creepy. :whistle:


I hope you realize that you are pretending to be someone else while giving opinions from yourself. So, what kind of third person are you pretending to be? Does your third person not have the exact same opinions that you, the person your third person personification is referring to? If not, then you are not really speakingin the third person, but rather, you are a schizoid.....:anyone:

Sorry Robin... that dog will not hunt... nor if it were a bird would it fly.

As usual here at ARP (both sides of the fence), you either missed my point... or do not want to accept it.

Try again... :)

[ga-hvac-tech]

The answer to why we did not stop the attack is easy; everything run by government agencies is basically inept! The information for the signs that we were being plotted against were there, just being gathered by different agencies that did not work with each other so no one got to see the whole picture.

So what have we done since to overcome inept government agencies? We created more government agencies......:gah:

Ga believes the ineptness is not by accident. Think with me: How can anyone hold anyone responsible if there is a bureaucratic mess beyond untangling? Lets face it... power and $$$ are more important in Wash DC than the lives of American citizens. That alone should make folks mad enough to change the dirty diapers on the Potomac.

[ga-hvac-tech]

Putin himself said that he informed Bush directly based on KGB reports.

Not sure I would take Putin's word for anything... Kinda like p*ssing into the wind to believe a former KGB boss... (whoops)

[corny]

A lot of the material...structural supports etc....was kept in the US and examined.

A google search or google image search might turn up some pics.

[corny]

Maybe the next step is to introduce a sock puppet?

GA hungry.

GA go sleep.

GA go fetal cause GA not know answer.

that guy is wound up tighter than dicks hatband.

He went fetal last night.... I would have enjoyed one more chance just so I could take it to a personal level...... He would probably still be lying in the corner of his trailer home living room.....in the fetal position....still twitching.

Of course Im not normally that type.....till I smell fear........and I sure got a whiff of it last night.

fear.....

ye............... YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EE

[Brian GC]

Not sure I would take Putin's word for anything... Kinda like p*ssing into the wind to believe a former KGB boss... (whoops)

And since Russia is allies with Iran it made them enemies with Iraq. So why not encourage us to snuff out an opponent.

They did not convince Colin Powell, and he had access to all that top secret intel too. What made Mr. Powell so smart and all the others so wrong? Was it just the lucky guess of his career? I think not. He was just the only honest one. And how does other country’s intel compare to ours? Most of them do not even have spy satellites.

But back to my main point. Israel should have known since they are right next door with the best intel money can buy. But they too wanted them snuffed out.

[ga-hvac-tech]

And since Russia is allies with Iran it made them enemies with Iraq. So why not encourage us to snuff out an opponent.

They did not convince Colin Powell, and he had access to all that top secret intel too. What made Mr. Powell so smart and all the others so wrong? Was it just the lucky guess of his career? I think not. He was just the only honest one. And how does other country’s intel compare to ours? Most of them do not even have spy satellites.

But back to my main point. Israel should have known since they are right next door with the best intel money can buy. But they too wanted them snuffed out.

There are instances where Saddaam used WMD's during his rule... how about when he gassed the Kurds in the 1980's?
Lots of what I read (mostly from sources OUTSIDE the USA... as in not censored by the US govt) suggest Saddaam had WMD's, yet managed to get them out/country before the USA found them... This raises the questions... where are they now, and WHO controls them now?

[scrogdog]

That's true and he also used them in the war against Iran.

There are many possibilities. Syria might have been the destination. Didn't some Iraqi pilots and planes flee there early on? Hell they might be in a hole in the ground for all we know.

There is also this ironic and darkly amusing possibility. When one of Iraq's top scientists was captured, if you'll remember, he claimed that Saddam never supported them with proper funds so when he asked for progress reports they'd basically trump something up to trick him in to believing all was well.

Not sure how much we can beleive of that though. Can't deflect forever.

I wouldn't trust Putin necessarily, but if three of the top intel agencies in the world believe a thing then it's hard to believe its completely baseless.

Bottom line; we went with that justification and found nothing. Not good no matter what one believes.

[hearthman]

When you put a large fire inside an extremely tall skyscraper, you have "stack effect", which means the entire building becomes a chimney. Now, chimney draft is a function of the temperature difference btw flue gases and outside, and the height of the flue. In this case, you have an incredible draft sucking up this, the world's tallest chimney making the fires into blast furnaces. It doesn't matter what the fuel is, when fanned by a strong breeze, you can drive temps way up. Take the lowly blacksmith's forge. You take coke, coal or wood burning at un-fanned temps. of about 900-1,200F. Fan those flames with a forge and you can actually melt steel (2,500+F). Now, if you read the internet, it is absolutely flooded with dozens of engineers and 'experts' quoting maxmium flame temps for jet fuel in open air from ~1,200-1,900F give or take a few degrees, then some anti-conspiracy types quoting temps between 2,700-6,750F. A lot depends on free air vs. compressed air burn in a jet engine. What I have not read anywhere are two key points: one, the stack effect as I noted above and B, the building acted like an oven to contain the heat driving temps. up. Now, once other combustibles in the building ignited such as furnishings, furniture, clothing, plastic wiring insulation, you have an added fuel load but you also drive up the heat release rate of all fuels burning. Now, ignite some metals and you have even more heat being released into the cauldron but contained within it like a crucible. I can take a propane torch and heat a copper pipe for quit some time without melting the copper. Cut off a section of 1/2" copper, put it in a crucible and heat it with that same torch and you can melt the copper tubing. It's magic! No, it is focusing the heat back upon itself. BTW, was this fire dept. captain a metalurgist and did he conduct experients on the molten metal he encountered? How did he know it wasn't a lot of aluminum, which melts around 1,220F depending upon the alloy? How about the babbit metal in bearings in elevator hoists and motors? Who knows what all was up there? Go fish... Instead of tilting at windmills, why don't you paranoid types concern yourself with the creeps running the country trying to hand it over to worse creeps who want to kill us?

[Brian GC]

When you put a large fire inside an extremely tall skyscraper, you have "stack effect", which means the entire building becomes a chimney. Now, chimney draft is a function of the temperature difference btw flue gases and outside, and the height of the flue. In this case, you have an incredible draft sucking up this, the world's tallest chimney making the fires into blast furnaces. It doesn't matter what the fuel is, when fanned by a strong breeze, you can drive temps way up. Take the lowly blacksmith's forge. You take coke, coal or wood burning at un-fanned temps. of about 900-1,200F. Fan those flames with a forge and you can actually melt steel (2,500+F). Now, if you read the internet, it is absolutely flooded with dozens of engineers and 'experts' quoting maxmium flame temps for jet fuel in open air from ~1,200-1,900F give or take a few degrees, then some anti-conspiracy types quoting temps between 2,700-6,750F. A lot depends on free air vs. compressed air burn in a jet engine. What I have not read anywhere are two key points: one, the stack effect as I noted above and B, the building acted like an oven to contain the heat driving temps. up. Now, once other combustibles in the building ignited such as furnishings, furniture, clothing, plastic wiring insulation, you have an added fuel load but you also drive up the heat release rate of all fuels burning. Now, ignite some metals and you have even more heat being released into the cauldron but contained within it like a crucible. I can take a propane torch and heat a copper pipe for quit some time without melting the copper. Cut off a section of 1/2" copper, put it in a crucible and heat it with that same torch and you can melt the copper tubing. It's magic! No, it is focusing the heat back upon itself. BTW, was this fire dept. captain a metalurgist and did he conduct experients on the molten metal he encountered? How did he know it wasn't a lot of aluminum, which melts around 1,220F depending upon the alloy? How about the babbit metal in bearings in elevator hoists and motors? Who knows what all was up there? Go fish... Instead of tilting at windmills, why don't you paranoid types concern yourself with the creeps running the country trying to hand it over to worse creeps who want to kill us?



We probably had no data or experience with the high temps of burning jet fuel confined inside of a high-rise but we have data and experience with high-rise fires. Why was Building 7 the first to fall from a fire? What were the successive explosions heard on the videos. And why were there no residue tests on the debris?

I don’t doubt that science can do a fine job of analyzing these structural failures. I would just like science to have more to work with.

It’s not case closed.

[ga-hvac-tech]

We probably had no data or experience with the high temps of burning jet fuel confined inside of a high-rise but we have data and experience with high-rise fires. Why was Building 7 the first to fall from a fire? What were the successive explosions heard on the videos. And why were there no residue tests on the debris?

I don’t doubt that science can do a fine job of analyzing these structural failures. I would just like science to have more to work with.

It’s not case closed.

Seems to me if TPTB wanted to find answers... they would follow through. Seeing the case is closed officially... it would appear there is something to hide.

What I do not understand is why the public does not care? Oh yeah, the polecats really do have the public's interest at heart... NOT!

[LibertyTree]

Your statement that the US government is culpable, in some degree, in the wtc attack, I agree with. I believe they likely had enough intelligence info to stop it. It is simply impossible for them to have planned and executed the job without someone leaking enough to eventually bring it into the open.
You just don't get it. In these operations, only a handful of individuals get to see the big picture. The rest of the minions have their jobs to do. When the event happens its understood that you don't talk and if you do you will end up getting suicided or have a mystery collapse and end up dead. There have been numerous persons that aware of too much or made waves that have turned up dead. To name a few:

David Graham
Hunter S Thompson
Barry Jennings
Kenneth Johannemann
Paul Wellstone
Christopher Landis
Deborah Palfrey (DC Madam)

You clearly underestimate unlimited resources, think tanks, years of operational experience. The government has been up to this for a long long time and 911 was their Magnun Opus. Just because you can't wrap your head around it doesn't mean its impossible

[LibertyTree]

Of course debris was whisked off because no one in thier wildest dreams thought it would matter. No science that I read even mentioned debris. Why? Because it is irrelevent.

LOL whenever there is a building collapse the debris is thoroughly studied to learn exactly why it happened and how to prevent it in the future. The architect of the damn building said that he designed it to withstand a plane crash so obviously the collapse was a surprise. It wasn't until way later that your beloved peer reviewed goons came out with the explanation. A thorough processing of the debris would have painted a clear picture, beyond the shadow of a doubt, of the exact reason ALL THREE skyscrapers went down. The site was locked down and the evidence destroyed. Don't try to play the irrelevance of the debris card, just makes you look bad.

Also, I want to point out that you never debate specific points. You just take big broad strokes and parrot words like "science" and "peer review".

[LibertyTree]

It's a bit difficult to accept information from a site that promotes that the holocaust never happened or that UFO's are causing Earth's weather to change.
Doesn't change the fact that everything in the video is true, does it? Is that NWO swine not advocating false flag attacks and provocation as pretext to war at a press conference?

[LibertyTree]

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

There's an article from Structure Magazine which described how the failure of a single column could well result in uniform collapse of building 7 specifically.

You asked how it could happen, there it is.

Complete with pretty pictures and diagrams!

Of course, we know you won't read it.

Does a great job showing redundancy, shared loads, and weight RE-distibution, e.g. progressive collapse.
LOL column 79 isn't even close to the point of damage from tower 1. This article is merely an engineer or 2 given the task of corroborating the official story and this is the only thing they could come up with. Why did the east penthouse collapse into the building? Wasn't the debris damage roughly in the center of the structure? Also, the title of the article is "How the loss of one column MAY HAVE led to the collapse of WTC7" Not "How the loss of 1 column led to the collapse of WTC7"

I'm sure columns 76-81 played a part in WTC7's global collapse, just not in the way you're thinking

[scrogdog]

LOL column 79 isn't even close to the point of damage from tower 1. This article is merely an engineer or 2 given the task of corroborating the official story and this is the only thing they could come up with. Why did the east penthouse collapse into the building? Wasn't the debris damage roughly in the center of the structure? Also, the title of the article is "How the loss of one column MAY HAVE led to the collapse of WTC7" Not "How the loss of 1 column led to the collapse of WTC7"

I'm sure columns 76-81 played a part in WTC7's global collapse, just not in the way you're thinking

An engineer or two? Articles in Structures magazine are peer reviewed by thousands of engineers world wide (don't take my word for it, RESEARCH something for yourself FOR ONCE), but thanks for exposing your level of knowledge on that matter for us. Very telling.

And BTW, the charge made was that it CANNOT happen, that's what you think lends weight to your kook ideas. It certainly CAN happen.

BTW, Mr. Science, ALL THEORIES are not facts. DUH!

MIDDLE SCHOOL SCIENCE that last line right there!

BTW, I wonder if you have checked out the fate of some of YOUR experts after thier comments were not appreciated by the University he worked for (in other words - peer review). Suspended because your work is an embarressment? In fact, your "credentialed" experts are deserving of a whole post by themselves!

[scrogdog]

LOL whenever there is a building collapse the debris is thoroughly studied to learn exactly why it happened and how to prevent it in the future. The architect of the damn building said that he designed it to withstand a plane crash so obviously the collapse was a surprise. It wasn't until way later that your beloved peer reviewed goons came out with the explanation. A thorough processing of the debris would have painted a clear picture, beyond the shadow of a doubt, of the exact reason ALL THREE skyscrapers went down. The site was locked down and the evidence destroyed. Don't try to play the irrelevance of the debris card, just makes you look bad.

Also, I want to point out that you never debate specific points. You just take big broad strokes and parrot words like "science" and "peer review".

Bull crapio. How about posting some support for these misguided comments about debris? I mean from the science community, not you tube.

[scrogdog]

The architect of the damn building said that he designed it to withstand a plane crash so obviously the collapse was a surprise.

Only problem is, since you don't actually check something out for yourself, you will never understand anything.

Check the design spec and please come back and tell exactly what aircraft it was designed to withstand. Was that the aircraft that hit?

Again, shoddy, shoddy, shoddy. Par for the course for you.

You do know the difference between a 707 and what hit, yes?

Thanks for continually demonstrating that not only do you not have a clue, but why you don't.

[scrogdog]

Doesn't change the fact that everything in the video is true, does it?

Ladies and gents. I rest my case.

Looney tunes reign supreme.

[scrogdog]

It’s not case closed.

Finally something worth replying to. :)

Credit where credit is due, Brian. This is exactly correct.

What I don't get is why both you and GA consider the matter closed.

Science is never closed. Theories are always being debated and in some cases modified. Indeed it took quite some time for Einstien to modify Newton's work on gravity, right? And it could happen again. It never ends.

That's precisely why I say, if you could only understand, your experts are FREE TO SUBMIT PROPER SCIENCE. Maybe one will win a Nobel for thier work. But again, for reasons that I don't understand, YOU don't seem to understand that science has rules that MUST be followed.

Science can't respond until someone does that; make a white paper that follows the rules. Don't confuse that with "case closed".

[scrogdog]

Oustanding post, Hearthman!

I figure you might enjoy the following since you say you haven't seen anything from the scientific community on it. MIT's Thomas Eagar had this to say about the fires (from one of the articles I posted early on);


The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.

Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame. A jet burner generally involves mixing the fuel and the oxidant in nearly stoichiometric proportions and igniting the mixture in a constant-volume chamber. Since the combustion products cannot expand in the constant-volume chamber, they exit the chamber as a very high velocity, fully combusted, jet. This is what occurs in a jet engine, and this is the flame type that generates the most intense heat.

In a pre-mixed flame, the same nearly stoichiometric mixture is ignited as it exits a nozzle, under constant pressure conditions. It does not attain the flame velocities of a jet burner. An oxyacetylene torch or a Bunsen burner is a pre-mixed flame.

In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace flame is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire.

Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types.

If the fuel and the oxidant start at ambient temperature, a maximum flame temperature can be defined. For carbon burning in pure oxygen, the maximum is 3,200°C; for hydrogen it is 2,750°C. Thus, for virtually any hydrocarbons, the maximum flame temperature, starting at ambient temperature and using pure oxygen, is approximately 3,000°C.

This maximum flame temperature is reduced by two-thirds if air is used rather than pure oxygen. The reason is that every molecule of oxygen releases the heat of formation of a molecule of carbon monoxide and a molecule of water. If pure oxygen is used, this heat only needs to heat two molecules (carbon monoxide and water), while with air, these two molecules must be heated plus four molecules of nitrogen. Thus, burning hydrocarbons in air produces only one-third the temperature increase as burning in pure oxygen because three times as many molecules must be heated when air is used. The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C.

But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.2,3 It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best.

Some reports suggest that the aluminum from the aircraft ignited, creating very high temperatures. While it is possible to ignite aluminum under special conditions, such conditions are not commonly attained in a hydrocarbon-based diffuse flame. In addition, the flame would be white hot, like a giant sparkler. There was no evidence of such aluminum ignition, which would have been visible even through the dense soot.

It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.

[ga-hvac-tech]

There is another detail GA has not come to peace with...

When a member of the military is killed protecting his/her country... they get a pittance... not even enough to bury them... however:

When 911 happened, every family got upwards of $250K... and we never heard much from them. Sounds like buy-off $$$ to me.

And as usual... the media does not investigate.

Too many fishy things wit no explanation... or an explanation a grade-schooler would see through.

The public is not looking... therefore they do not see.

[scrogdog]

I agree with you on that one.

Victims families recieved over 38 billion dollars; a large portion was from insurance companies but 42% was from the Feds.

Ostensibly, first the families had to sign an agreement not to sue the airlines. The Fed story is that the move was to protect them (the airlines) and the economy.

To me, it makes no more sense than openly telling Mexicans to come to America and taxpayers will feed them.

That the feds mishandle our money in countless ways on a daily basis is, I think, not in question. :)

And neither Romney or Obama will fix that, I assure you.

[ga-hvac-tech]

I agree with you on that one.

Victims families recieved over 38 billion dollars; a large portion was from insurance companies but 42% was from the Feds.

Ostensibly, first the families had to sign an agreement not to sue the airlines. The Fed story is that the move was to protect them (the airlines) and the economy.

To me, it makes no more sense than openly telling Mexicans to come to America and taxpayers will feed them.

That the feds mishandle our money in countless ways on a daily basis is, I think, not in question. :)

And neither Romney or Obama will fix that, I assure you.

Seems to me the American public does not have the gonads to elect someone that would ask some HARD questions and demand answers... In GA's opinion a sign the American public has the govt they deserve.

Just a side note... I did not see a single candidate on the GOP debates I think would ask the hard questions and demand answers...
Now I suspect we will see some real fantasy with supporters of their fringe candidates saying different... <grin>

To add a thought... Seems to me (yes, me), when I watch media types answering questions from the audience (even the so called investigative ones... thinking of John Stossel here), they are VERY careful to follow a company line and NOT say anything even remotely questionable. Almost like they have dual agendas... Anyone else notice this?

[Brian GC]

What I don't get is why both you and GA consider the matter closed.


This case is closed without something new to examine like the debris, which will never surface. You seem to infer that science is above public scrutiny. Public opinion has closed this case far more than the findings have. As Liberty said, science can say what may have brought WTC7 down but without the raw materials to examine, it has a hint of speculation attached to it.

Where was the scientific community when the Warren Commission offered their take on the JFK assassination? Why didn’t they tell us that Kennedy’s brain could only blow out the back of his head if he was shot from the front? Seems like a fact that 1.7 millions scientists would agree on.

Many scientists are funded by grants and they are often the last to ruffle feathers. Besides there are too many Americans that do not want to know the truth…if that is where the truth leads. There are too many that think like you - that science is to be completely trusted and that nobody in this country would or could pull this off. So, case closed.

[Brian GC]

Fifteen hundred scientists are opposing the “white paper” findings of 911 and look what is happening to them. They are being publicly tarred and feathered as kooks. So how many others agree with them but do not want to join their group only to be ridiculed and jeopardize their careers? Scientists are not above public ridicule as you infer.

[scrogdog]

Did you read the actual article?

That was NOT speculation. Niether was any of the science that I posted.

For one simple reason, no "evidence" can change the way that the laws of physics works or how combustion science works. So, you are wrong. Debris, no matter what it is, will NOT demonstrate that the laws that govern this universe have all of a sudden changed.

If you'll actually read something for once, you'll see that even the color and thickness of the smoke tells us WHAT THE FIRE WAS. The photos of the columns IN THREES (meaning they were support) showed no sign of melting whatsoever. CTers photos of molten metal do not actually show molten metal. For example, this one...

http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/hotslagil3.jpg

Do you understand what MOLTEN means? Obviously Dr. Wood does not. How could such a highly credentialed (in dentistry, as far as I can tell in investigating your team so far. All of two civil engineers) person make such a mistake?

Note that the fact that her specialty is dentistry does not make her wrong, but does go a long way in explaining her interpretation of things.

We spoke earlier about the bias of mankind. Like the guy from South Korea who said he cloned humans but was exposed as a glory grabbing liar. Again, this is the PRECISE reason why there are rules and standards. To help us weed out the charlatans.

It appears we could say the same about Susan Wood, who if, by the way, was any sort of physics person, or even a pool player, would clearly understand that her billiard ball example fails to take in to account a fairly simple concept in science; the transfer of momentum. You could not play the game of billiards without it.

Do I need to examine the billiard ball to know this? No. Similarly, science has no need of the debris. We discover what happened in multiple other ways that you clearly don't undertand, even when someone tries to explain them to you.

Tell me Brian, how many of these "experts" had you heard of before this supposed controversy? :rolleyes:

So, what's your judgement on Susan Wood? Over her head? Unprincincipled liar? Downright fool? Glory grabbing moron?

Again, debris is irrelevent. If public opinion has given up, that doesn't mean that science has.

[scrogdog]

Fifteen hundred scientists are opposing the “white paper” findings of 911 and look what is happening to them. They are being publicly tarred and feathered as kooks. So how many others agree with them but do not want to join their group only to be ridiculed and jeopardize their careers? Scientists are not above public ridicule as you infer.

That's sort of the point. The scientists of the world are peer reviewing junk science. And are calling it such.

Rightly so. What else should we do, Brian?

Kooks might be going a little far. Clearly unprincipled folks, however.

[Brian GC]

So where was the scientific community when the Warren Commission told us that a bullet entering the back of Kennedy’s head would cause his brain to blow out the back, not the front? I’ll tell you what they did. They stood down to public pressure.

[scrogdog]

Could be. I wasn't concerned enough about it to check it out, to be honest.

What might be of more concern to me given the world as it is... is the name of his brother's assassin.

Sirhan Sirhan.

Seems things began with the Muslims in the 60's then.

That has nothing to do with the task at hand.

So, your opinion of Susan Wood?

[coolwhip]

Scrog, why do you keep making post after post....cant you say it with one post? Its annoying! quit being an annoyance! damn sheesh!...some peoples kids.

[scrogdog]

Scrog, why do you keep making post after post....cant you say it with one post? Its annoying! quit being an annoyance! damn sheesh!...some peoples kids.

No, simply because I refuse to allow the intellectually dishonest technique of attempting to change the subject when one doesn't know where to go next in the face of what was just presented, or is out of ammo, so to speak.

Concede the point if one likes. But don't debate in that cowardly fashion.

This topic is about conspiracy theories and has evolved from that to specific ones like potential junk science involving WTC and building 7. If one wishes to discuss some other matter, like science itself, they are welcome to start a new thread and discussion.

JFK could rightly be considered here, but not exactly what we were just talking about. Otherwise, point and counter-point. That's how debate works.

At least I'm reviewing YOUR stuff. Who the experts are, what their credentials are, what their claims are. You folks do no such thing. Do you think I just pulled the billiard balls thing out of thin air, or did I observe one of your sources?

Put that up against CTers FLAT OUT REFUSAL to give the opposition similar consideration. Please find for us ONE SINGLE THING that was responded to with regards to my sources, thier expertise, thier claims.

You won't find a single instance of that.

So, clueless about science AND debate. Par for the course with this crowd I suppose. No wonder thier proper forms upset you.

Perhaps you need a break, CW, as I often take myself. :)

[coolwhip]

I got a break when I started this life. You should have seen me in past lives!...you have heard of Plato and Socrates? they were fools compared to me. Some think that it was the Florentine artist Andrea del Verrocchio that taught Devinci how to paint...nope, it was coolwhip!
God even told me that I could have rivaled Alexander the Great at his best.

I also tried to tell the Jews at the Sanhedrin trial to pick Jesus, but the idiots chose a criminal instead....nobody listened then, and nobody listens now...mankind will never change.

Anyway, I digress...carry on.

[royc]

lol

[LibertyTree]

An engineer or two? Articles in Structures magazine are peer reviewed by thousands of engineers world wide (don't take my word for it, RESEARCH something for yourself FOR ONCE), but thanks for exposing your level of knowledge on that matter for us. Very telling.

And BTW, the charge made was that it CANNOT happen, that's what you think lends weight to your kook ideas. It certainly CAN happen.

BTW, Mr. Science, ALL THEORIES are not facts. DUH!


MIDDLE SCHOOL SCIENCE that last line right there!

BTW, I wonder if you have checked out the fate of some of YOUR experts after thier comments were not appreciated by the University he worked for (in other words - peer review). Suspended because your work is an embarressment? In fact, your "credentialed" experts are deserving of a whole post by themselves!
Hey don't blame me for the fact that nowhere in your stupid little article did it explain how column 79 over the east penthouse gave way when it was one of the furthest away from the impact zone, a middle schooler (LOL) could see thats a legitimate question. This article was written to pose a theory of how it came down, not to explain exactly how it happened. Just because its possible doesn't make it likely. So how did column 79 give way Einstein?

"BTW, I wonder if you have checked out the fate of some of YOUR experts after thier comments were not appreciated by the University he worked for (in other words - peer review). Suspended because your work is an embarressment? In fact, your "credentialed" experts are deserving of a whole post by themselves!"

Why do you think more experts in the field have not come out? Because they will get ridiculed by the borg. You fail to realize the social aspect of this issue and I'm pretty sure you never will. You should read Atlas Shrugged, that would give you a clue as to how this whole thing works, but I highly doubt you'll give it a second thought. There is a reason why people in show business do not voice their opinions on 911 either. The zionist masterminds own hollywood completely. If an actor never wanted to work again they would speak out about 911.

[LibertyTree]

Ladies and gents. I rest my case.

Looney tunes reign supreme.
Hey listen up, just because have lost your powers of observation doesn't mean everyone else has. Clueless morons always look for a straw man or some little piece of dirt to attempt to discredit everything from the opposition. I don't care if those guys believe in Santa Claus, theres no mistaking what the guy in the video was talking about, even the likes of you can see that yet you "rest your case".

[Brian GC]

Scrog,
After nearly two hundred posts I have noticed something about your “debating“ style, or should I say lack of debating style.

I come from a family of Mechanical and Chemical Engineers. I am very familiar with someone who knows what they are talking about by them delving right in to and substantiating the subject matter. You on the other hand just keep telling us to read the links you provided and to hold the authors of this material in the highest regard because they were kept in check by other scientists. This is not how someone defends a position or wins a debate. As Liberty has already pointed out, you fail to defend your position.

I apparently have not researched this topic nearly as well as Liberty has. I challenge you to stand toe-to-toe with him and answer his direct questions. Also, stop referring to the sanctity of the science industry. Do not mention peer review, white papers or my scientist is better than your scientist. Get right to the subject matter and stay on point.

Now I’m going to hand this back to Liberty.

BTW – His point about scientists not commenting on this topic because of political fallout is very real. But maybe not to you because you hold them in such high regard.

[LibertyTree]

LOL whenever there is a building collapse the debris is thoroughly studied to learn exactly why it happened and how to prevent it in the future. The architect of the damn building said that he designed it to withstand a plane crash so obviously the collapse was a surprise. It wasn't until way later that your beloved peer reviewed goons came out with the explanation. A thorough processing of the debris would have painted a clear picture, beyond the shadow of a doubt, of the exact reason ALL THREE skyscrapers went down. The site was locked down and the evidence destroyed. Don't try to play the irrelevance of the debris card, just makes you look bad.

Also, I want to point out that you never debate specific points. You just take big broad strokes and parrot words like "science" and "peer review".


Bull crapio. How about posting some support for these misguided comments about debris? I mean from the science community, not you tube.
Haha how do they know what caused buildings to collapse Einstein? Search for collapsed buildings and ask yourself how they have come to a conclusion for the cause of failure in most cases. Sometimes its pretty obvious (Hartford Civic Center, Grover Shoe factory) but many others needed further study of debris to verify cause of collapse (Kemper Arena, Hyatt Regency Walkway, 2003 Chicago Balcony Disaster, to name a few) To assume that investigators do not look at debris to determine cause of failure is asinine. Sorry I don't have a peer reviewed white paper on structure failure investigation but I do have this:

http://www.exponent.com/structural_failures/

One of my favorite lines "Quick response to failures to assist with stabilization of the debris, preservation of important evidence, and working with oversight agencies such as OSHA or local jurisdictions."

Want more?

http://www.lwgconsulting.com/forensic_scientists_and_engineers/civil_structural.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_engineering

http://books.google.com/books?id=vxmPC-WcB3QC&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=structure+failure+investigation&source=bl&ots=WPeRYHtDXH&sig=fnsGl8hJujmq0buGTPZYSL4SV_A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yMBrUMfODOiligLd7oGoBQ&ved=0CFkQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=structure%20failure%20investigation&f=false

http://www.asce.org/Product.aspx?ID=2147485960&ProductID=5702

http://www.ctlgroup.com/OurExpertise/ConsultingServices/Detail/29

Want me to buy you this book?
http://books.google.com/books/about/Guide_to_Investigation_of_Structural_Fai.html?id=v xmPC-WcB3QC

http://www.structint.com/what-we-do/forensic-engineering/forensic-information-management
::DD:::DD:::DD:::DD:::DD:::DD:::DD:::DD:::DD:::DD: ::DD::

[LibertyTree]

Only problem is, since you don't actually check something out for yourself, you will never understand anything.

Check the design spec and please come back and tell exactly what aircraft it was designed to withstand. Was that the aircraft that hit?

Again, shoddy, shoddy, shoddy. Par for the course for you.

You do know the difference between a 707 and what hit, yes?

Thanks for continually demonstrating that not only do you not have a clue, but why you don't.
What are you smoking? The buildings were designed to to take a 707, they were hit with a 767. The 767 is slightly heavier and slower than the 707. Not a huge difference in fuel capacity either. The north tower was within the limits of design, south tower was only about 10% over limit for a 707 impact. From an engineering standpoint the difference between 707 and 767 is negligible, at least for the north tower. I like how you try to make me look like an a$$ by citing differences between the plane that hit and the plane that it was designed to withstand while your beloved peer reviewed experts think its a non issue and that lack of fireproofing was the cause...

[chaard]

If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to fly a plane into it, was it really a conspiracy afterall.

[scrogdog]

Scrog,
After nearly two hundred posts I have noticed something about your “debating“ style, or should I say lack of debating style.

I come from a family of Mechanical and Chemical Engineers. I am very familiar with someone who knows what they are talking about by them delving right in to and substantiating the subject matter. You on the other hand just keep telling us to read the links you provided and to hold the authors of this material in the highest regard because they were kept in check by other scientists. This is not how someone defends a position or wins a debate. As Liberty has already pointed out, you fail to defend your position.

I'm not defending anything. I'm showing you what science says. Most of what you argue is already refuted IN THOSE PAPERS, but it's hard to know that when YOU WON'T READ THEM OR REFUTE THIER POINTS. That's your idea of debate? And as pointed out already, the claims you make are errant at best, flat out lies at worst.

Did you see the photo evidence I presented? Buldings DID NOT fall thier footprint as you said. You ignore it and move on.

What have you done? Whine, change the subject, and violate about every rule of formal logic there is with just about every post.

There was NO MOLTEN STEEL. I already addressed that charge too. You ignore and move on.

So, I guess you guys missed that. Also, again, the idea of posting links is not to say the argument is over. It is for you to read, consider, and respond to.

This you ALSO have not done.

Please tell me Brian, what should I respond to. More DEMONSTRABLE lies and innaccuracies? Did you answer my direct question about Susan Wood?

Pot meet kettle.

A more intelllectually dishonest group cannot be found. Your experts hold no expertise in relevant fields. Susan Wood is a dental specialist. She has also left the group due to pressure put on her for NOT understanding the BASIC AND UNCHANGING laws of phyisics. One has been removed from his university, not because of consipracy, but because we don't want flat out liars teaching our kids.

Susan Wood would not know physics if it whapped her in the head. AGAIN, ANYONE WHO READS THE SCIENCE CAN MAKE THIS DETERMINATION; YOUR SCIENCE IS FLAT OUT JUNK.

I'm done trying to explain science to the clueless.

So, let's review. You post links. I review them and contest what THEY said (not what YOU said). I post links. You ignore them. Then you charge that it is *I who doesn't know how to debate!!

LMFAO!

Just wanted to set the record straight there. Apparently you could use a reading comprehension class as well as a seventh grade science text.

Now you can claim victory and move on, even though I've PLAINLY SHOWN at least two of your claims to be FLAT OUT WRONG or LIES. You just ignore like nothing at all happened, just like any intellectually dishonest person would do at this point.

Shameful debating style. Absolutely shameful.

No one can be this stupid. Therefore, I have concluded that your attempt to mislead is intentional.

Ah, another case study on agenda and the human condition. A whole team of "experts" who are glory grabbing liars (one more time I ask, had you ever heard of any of them before the youtube film?), supported by those who wish to mislead to suit their little agenda.

[Brian GC]

Scrog,
Do not direct your frustration at me. Rather direct it at Liberty by responding to ALL of his points. That is how you win a debate.

Up to now you have been very transparent due to your substance less approach.

[scrogdog]

Why respond?

Like you responded to the CLEAR EVIDENCE that the buildings did not fall as you say?

Or the CLEAR EVIDENCE that truthers don't even know what MOLTEN means?\

Or the PLAIN FACT the Susan Wood has no clue about physics?

Liberty is even more dishonest than you. You wish me to respond, yet YOU don't.

As noted.

Like I said, I'm done with the both of you.

So, again, feel free to claim your intellectually dishonest victory, as is the usual case when things go like this with the dishonest and clueless among us.

[Brian GC]

Why respond?

Like you responded to the CLEAR EVIDENCE that the buildings did not fall as you say?

Or the CLEAR EVIDENCE that truthers don't even know what MOLTEN means?\

Or the PLAIN FACT the Susan Wood has no clue about physics?

Liberty is even more dishonest than you. You wish me to respond, yet YOU don't.

As noted.

Like I said, I'm done with the both of you.

So, again, feel free to claim your intellectually dishonest victory, as is the usual case when things go like this with the dishonest and clueless among us.

I don't blame you. I wouldn't want to go up against Liberty on this either.

Best to run and hide.

[scrogdog]

Keep in mind, folks, that these "truthers" had all the debris they wanted at the pentagon, yet concluded that it was hit by a missle.

Need I say more?

Keep in mind that these "truthers" intentionally used photographs of the wrong side of buiding 7 in a clearly dishonest effort to build thier agenda laden case.

I really don't feel the need to respond to that brand of "truth", thanks. lol

Con artistry often goes just like this.

[glennac]

Keep in mind, folks, that these "truthers" had all the debris they wanted at the pentagon, yet concluded that it was hit by a missle.

Need I say more?

Keep in mind that these "truthers" intentionally used photographs of the wrong side of buiding 7 in a clearly dishonest effort to build thier agenda laden case.

I really don't feel the need to respond to that brand of "truth", thanks. lol

Con artistry often goes just like this.
Good job scrouge. You have

[scrogdog]

Thanks, Glenn.

I don't think these clowns know what a dis-service they are doing to the heroes of flight 93, the many first responders who lost thier lives trying to help others, or the surviving families of the victims who were lost in the planes and in the buildings, by putting forth a bold-faced lie.

Then they want you to believe they are "great Americans" who are the only ones who can see "the truth".

Yeah, we've seen thier brand of "truth" all right.

[LibertyTree]

Ahahahahaa thats what I thought

[royc]

Look people we can argue about who's expert has more weight than others, but one needs to use some common sense in this event. We have all seen the three building go down many times. So any average person in order to come to an opinion, was this a natural even due to the events as told, or are there some questions that should be asked.

1) Do we know of any high rise steel buildings that have collapsed by fire. Yes two were hit by airliners, but WTC7 didnt get hit.

2) Do we know of buildings of that type that have collapsed pretty much within their own footprint, due to an accidental event ??

3) In any criminal and accident investigations concerning airliners (I think we can agree it was also criminal), the scene is preserved, and all items involved are studied and tested to determine how and the why. So the question has to be why it wasnt done so at 911. They went to great effort to find remains of bodies and rightly so, but why not failed structual items, and who gave to order to remove such material before investigations were completed.
And btw, removal of evidence before an investigation is completed, is a criminal offence.

4) Certain items that were claimed to fail could have been preserved and studied, steel that has failed due to severe heating can be tested easily, to see the changes in the steel composition, and such findings should have been indroduced in the subsequent hearings.

One would think since no high rise building has never failed due to fire, never mind collapsed the way they did, it should have been a priority to see why, if for no other reason as to prevent such failures in the future.
.................................................. ................................................

Anyone that watched those three buildings go down, has to admit that it was amazing to see the two towers go down, cause no one expected it, even professionals who were at the scene, and many paid with their lifes because of it.

Anyone who believes that there are no such things as elements in goverments internal or external that are not cabable of keeping secrets of importence, is misinformed, for such secrets have been kept in the past, and some are still secret today, even though large amount of personell were involved. All one has to look at the Manhattan project, btw does anyone even know why it was called the Manhattan Project ??


The question is...who had the means, motive, and opportunity, was it just hijackers with box cutters, or is there something else going on here, and will this story end up like Kennedy's assasination, were we all know now that one lone shooter wasnt the cause, but we dont want to re-investigate for it will shame us.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=da1_1349060495

Roy

[scrogdog]

Very well, Roy.

I will speak to you on this matter under two conditions; number one you also apply a healthy dose of common sense. Number two, I will post what pictures and the like I can, but if I need you to read something, you must do it.

Deal?

If you agree, I will not only show you why there was no molten steel using nothing more than the laws of physics and common sense, but also why it doesn't even help your case if found.

Oh, and a little knowledge about how thermite reactions work.

Oh, and some photo evidence too.

I'll bet you could find a YouTube video on it before I even get back! :)

[chaard]

Answer this question. If there were any truth to these conspiracies, WHAT THE FRICK ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?
Other than waste our time reading your rants.
Stop biatching about conspiracies if you aren't going to do anything about it. :gah:

[LibertyTree]

Answer this question. If there were any truth to these conspiracies, WHAT THE FRICK ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?
Other than waste our time reading your rants.
Stop biatching about conspiracies if you aren't going to do anything about it. :gah:
Makes perfect sense:whistle:

[Brian GC]

Answer this question. If there were any truth to these conspiracies, WHAT THE FRICK ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?
Other than waste our time reading your rants.
Stop biatching about conspiracies if you aren't going to do anything about it. :gah:

Uncovering conspiracies, if that even took place on 911, is often difficult and frustrating work. Just because that type of work is not for you doesn’t’ mean it should not be done.

My thoughts about scientists weighing in on this is that when they give an explanation about how a building fell, they are not required to comment on all the other strange occurrences that took place that day. They do not put the whole thing to rest with their simple explanation as they would like to.

Just few of the strange occurrences are:
Who ordered there to be no debris investigation?
Who was the one who was not interested in an in-depth analysis of the structural failure?
Why was debris from the Pennsylvania flight found miles from the crash site? I thought eyewitness testimony was meaningless next to hard evidence.
Why was all footage of the Pentagon plane collected and never shown to the public when it obviously exists and there is an outcry for it to be released?

IMO – Science makes half baked statements but won’t follow through and answer the above questions. Therefore, if there was a conspiracy, science is being used as a pawn.

My suggestion to those who are agitated by reading this type of stuff, don’t read it. It isn’t for everybody.

[coolwhip]

Why was the investigation stonewalled for a year? Why were all videos from local buildings around the pentagon confiscated and remain so to this day?

[Brian GC]

Why was the investigation stonewalled for a year? Why were all videos from local buildings around the pentagon confiscated and remain so to this day?

Those who are asking for common sense to be used should answer some of the simpler questions first.

[Six]

People who tend to always gravitate towards conspiracy rather then accept the obvious truth all share one thing in common.

One or more personality disorders that defines them as a subset of society.

Scizoid, Narcisisstic, Avoidant, and Paranoia.

It has very little to do with the twin towers, the kennedy assasination or the moon landings.

Its why a debate with a conspiracy theorist always amounts to a flame thread. You're never going to convince them ottherwise because its much deeper than the data that contradicts their rhetoric.

Its why I try to stay away from threads like these with the exception of adding some general information about their true motives.

[Brian GC]

People who tend to always gravitate towards conspiracy rather then accept the obvious truth all share one thing in common.

One or more personality disorders that defines them as a subset of society.

Scizoid, Narcisisstic, Avoidant, and Paranoia.

It has very little to do with the twin towers, the kennedy assasination or the moon landings.

Its why a debate with a conspiracy theorist always amounts to a flame thread. You're never going to convince them ottherwise because its much deeper than the data that contradicts their rhetoric.

Its why I try to stay away from threads like these with the exception of adding some general information about their true motives.

I doubt you could give an adequate answer to even some of the simplest questions regarding 911... like the ones just posed.

And to some, they are OK with that.

[Six]

I doubt you could give an adequate answer to even some of the simplest questions regarding 911... like the ones just posed.

And to some, they are OK with that.


Your version of a adequate answer appears to be anything that cant be confirmed by eyewitness accounts, scientific objective data or rational explanations.

Did you read the part of my post that mentioned personality disorders ????

[coolwhip]

People who tend to always gravitate towards conspiracy rather then accept the obvious truth all share one thing in common.

One or more personality disorders that defines them as a subset of society.

Scizoid, Narcisisstic, Avoidant, and Paranoia.

It has very little to do with the twin towers, the kennedy assasination or the moon landings.

Its why a debate with a conspiracy theorist always amounts to a flame thread. You're never going to convince them ottherwise because its much deeper than the data that contradicts their rhetoric.

Its why I try to stay away from threads like these with the exception of adding some general information about their true motives.

You, my low fore headed friend call it a conspiracy theory, I call it the truth. The difference between you and I is that I question everything. You appear to be a mindless MSN lemming lacking the proper intellect to recognize the truth even if it bit you in the ass.

You would make a good tiller of soil in the Kings field.

That is all...carry on.

[Brian GC]

Your version of a adequate answer appears to be anything that cant be confirmed by eyewitness accounts, scientific objective data or rational explanations.

Did you read the part of my post that mentioned personality disorders ????

This is a typical response from someone who is running and hiding from the subject. They throw insults rather than engaging in the discussion.

Who cares what I think is an adequate answer? Give it a shot. Take a stab at any of the questions just posed. I’m not the only judge in the room.

Or is there another reason for you being on this thread?

[Six]

This is a typical response from someone who is running and hiding from the subject. They throw insults rather than engaging in the discussion.

Who cares what I think is an adequate answer? Give it a shot. Take a stab at any of the questions just posed. I’m not the only judge in the room.

Or is there another reason for you being on this thread?

To point out the complete waste of time and energy that is buying into conspiracies when there are so many other productive things to do.

I already pointed out why it's absolutely a waste of time to debate people who are neck deep in conspiracies.

I actually believe like most level headed people that large aircrafts traveling at over 400 knots loaded with jet fuel brought the buildings down.

Go figure.

[Brian GC]

To point out the complete waste of time and energy that is buying into conspiracies when there are so many other productive things to do.

I already pointed out why it's absolutely a waste of time to debate people who are neck deep in conspiracies.

I actually believe like most level headed people that large aircrafts traveling at over 400 knots loaded with jet fuel brought the buildings down.

Go figure.

Just as I thought. You know little to nothing about that day other what "level headed people" told you you should know.

[coolwhip]

Its wrestling pith a pig Brian...both of you will get dirty, but Six will like it. Don't feed the troll!

[LibertyTree]

Why was the investigation stonewalled for a year? Why were all videos from local buildings around the pentagon confiscated and remain so to this day?
A full year is plenty of time to destroy all the remaining evidence before anyone can get a closer look. This fact, and the fact Brian mentioned about the pentagon surveillance tapes (as well as the gas station tapes) are huge tells. If there were nothing to hide why do these things? This is one that idiot "debunkers" always avoid because there is no controlled pundit to give them the answer. "Debunkers" never have any independent thoughts or questions of their own. This is why Scrog melted down, you can only say the same general thing so many different ways before you get to "I'm done with you" which is code for "I can't answer any of your questions". And believe me, thats where it always ends up, "I'm done with you". If I only had a dollar for every time a 911 debate ends with that exact phrase.

[mark beiser]

Looks like I need to add the names of all the "truthers"(LOL) and moon landing deniers to the list of names of people who argued the plane couldn't take off in the "plane on a conveyor" thread from a few years ago.

The list is of people whose opinion on anything requiring scientific understanding, and/or critical thought, is highly suspect, and should be ignored.

Most of them are so closed minded, and ideologically invested in their delusional world view, that it isn't even worth wasting time speaking to them.

The tragic thing is that many of them are otherwise not stupid people, not like the "chemtrail" morons anyway.

[scrogdog]

You haven't yet addresses the two lies I've already caught you at.

I'm waiting for Roy. If he agrees I will will tear apart your case point by point. Using nothing more than what I have already posted.

That is why "truthers" change the subject when caught lying.

If you can't even address the demonstrable lies, what is the quality of the rest if your case?

As I said, you had all the debris that you wanted at the pentagon. Clear photo evidence of air craft parts all over the place, yet your analysis concluded a missile hit it. Lmao!

[scrogdog]

Looks like I need to add the names of all the "truthers"(LOL) and moon landing deniers to the list of names of people who argued the plane couldn't take off in the "plane on a conveyor" thread from a few years ago.

The list is of people whose opinion on anything requiring scientific understanding, and/or critical thought, is highly suspect, and should be ignored.

Most of them are so closed minded, and ideologically invested in their delusional world view, that it isn't even worth wasting time speaking to them.

The tragic thing is that many of them are otherwise not stupid people, not like the "chemtrail" morons anyway.

The best part is when they call for "common sense". :)

[coolwhip]

Here are a whole bunch of conspiracies that turned out not to be theories. Now all you wanks should open your mouth and insert your foot!

63 BC The second Catiline conspiracy
Failed assassination of Cicero on the morning of November 7 and plans to take control of the government through arson and slaughter of the senators.
44 BC Caesar assassination plot
On March 15, 44 BC, Julius Caesar was assassinated by a conspiracy that included his friend Brutus.

1600s
1605 The Gunpowder Plot
An attempt by a group of provincial English Catholic extremists to kill King James I of England, his family, and most of the Protestant aristocracy in one attack by blowing up the Houses of Parliament during the State Opening. Guy Fawkes Day is named after one of the (lesser) conspirators and is celebrated with fireworks. Some modern historians believe the plot may have been either orchestrated or allowed to run its course by the Protestant elite for propaganda value. See also: Popish Plot.

1700's
1763 Small pox infected blankets given to Native Americans
In response to the 1763 uprising known as Pontiac's Rebellion, Jeffrey Amherst, 1st Baron Amherst suggested using smallpox as a weapon for ending the rebellion. In a series of letters to his subordinate Colonel Henry Bouquet, the two men discussed the possibility of infecting the attacking Indians with smallpox through gifts of blankets that had been exposed to the disease. Apparently unbeknownst to both Amherst and Bouquet, the commander at Fort Pitt had already attempted this very tactic. Although Amherst's name is usually connected with this germ warfare because he was the overall commander and because of his correspondence with Bouquet, evidence appears to indicate that the attempt was made without Amherst's prior knowledge. See Pontiac's Rebellion for references and details.

1800's
1810 to 1850 the Underground Railroad
The Underground Railroad was a network of clandestine routes by which African slaves in the United States escaped to freedom, with the aid of abolitionists. It consisted of clandestine routes, transportation, meeting points, and safe houses maintained by sympathizers. These individuals were organized into small groups who, for the purpose of maintaining secrecy, knew only of connecting "stations" along the route.
1865 The Assassination of President Abraham Lincoln
President Lincoln was murdered by John Wilkes Booth but Booth was involved in a larger conspiracy to kill Lincoln and several members of his cabinet.
1894 The Dreyfus affair
In 1894 Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish officer in the French army, was convicted of treason. Dreyfus was innocent; the conviction rested on false documents, and when officials realised this they attempted a cover up. The writer Émile Zola exposed the affair.
1894 Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii
Queen Lili'uokalani was selected as the successor to King Kalākaua by Kalākaua upon his election in 1874. During her brother's reign the monarchy was left impotent by the Bayonet Constitution of 1887. In 1893, American businessmen organized in response to an attempt by Lili'uokalani to subvert the 1887 constitution, and took over the government of the Kingdom of Hawai'i. American troops aboard the USS Boston landed in Honolulu to protect American lives and property, while Sanford B. Dole and Lorrin A. Thurston's Committee of Safety, a 13 member council of businessmen, organized the Honolulu Rifles to depose Queen Lili'uokalani. The overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i and the subsequent annexation of Hawai'i are sometimes cited as examples of American imperialism.
1898-1913 Western Water Rights: Los Angeles vs. Owens Valley
The agent of the Bureau was a close friend of Eaton, so Eaton had access to inside information about water rights. Eaton bought land as a private citizen, hoping to sell it back to Los Angeles at a vast profit. Eaton lobbied Theodore Roosevelt and got the local irrigation system cancelled. Mulholland misled residents of the Owens Valley, by claiming that Los Angeles would take water only for domestic purposes, not for irrigation. By 1905, through purchases and bribery, Los Angeles purchased enough water rights to enable the aqueduct. The aqueduct was sold to the citizens of Los Angeles as vital to the growth of the city. However, unknown to the public, the initial water would be used to irrigate the San Fernando Valley, north of the city. A syndicate of investors (again, close friends of Eaton, including Harrison Gray Otis) bought up large tracts of land in the San Fernando Valley with this inside information. This syndicate made substantial efforts to the passage of the bond issue that funded the aqueduct including creating a false drought (by manipulating rainfall totals) and publishing scare articles in the Los Angeles Times. See California Water Wars.

1900's
1913 Federal Reserve Act
Claimed to have been written by Paul Warburg. Passed by quorum remaining as many left for Christmas break. Planned in secret on Jekyll Island some 3 years earlier1910. See among other sources "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin; Secrets of the Federal Reserve by Eustace Mullins
1919 Black Sox Scandal
During the 1919 World Series, Eight members of the Chicago franchise conspired with gamblers to intentionally lose games.
1930's National Crime Syndicate
1932 General Motors streetcar conspiracy
Before WWII, Los Angeles had the largest electric trolley system in the world. It is generally believed that General Motors, Firestone Tire and Rubber, Standard Oil, and National City Lines conspired to eliminate it. A federal court decided that the companies had violated the Sherman Antitrust Act and each was "fined" the paltry sum of $5,000. Company officials were also found guilty and fined one dollar each.
1932 to 1972 Tuskegee Syphilis Study
U.S. Public Health Service monitors 399 poor blacks with syphilis and withholds their diagnosis from them. Partners and children (congenially) are subsequently infected.
1945 Nazi gold
The whereabouts of the Nazi regime's gold deposits are still unknown. See also PBS Frontline: Nazi Gold
1950 Project MKULTRA
Project MKULTRA (also known as MK-ULTRA) was the code name for a CIA mind-control research program lasting from the 1950s through the late 1960s. It was first brought to wide public attention by the U.S. Congress (in the form of the Church Committee) and a presidential commission (known as the Rockefeller Commission) (see Revelation below) and also to the U.S. Senate. Also mentioned in the Rockefeller Commission report are other operations where informed consent was waived or unethically ignored for other operations like Operation Whitecoat.
1953 Operation Midnight Climax
Operation Midnight Climax was an operation initially established by Dr. George Hunter White under the alias of Morgan Hall for the CIA. The project consisted of a web of CIA run brothels in San Francisco and New York. It was established in order to study the effects of LSD on unconsenting individuals after the supply of consenting patients ran out.
1953 Operation Ajax
Operation Ajax (officially TP-AJAX) was an Anglo-American covert operation to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran and Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and restore the exiled Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi to the throne as a dictator.
1954 Operation PBSUCCESS
Operation PBSUCCESS was a CIA-organized covert operation that overthrew the democratically-elected President of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán in 1954.
1956 COINTELPRO
An FBI program originally begun to "increase factionalism, cause disruption and win defections" inside the Communist Party U.S.A., the program was soon enlarged to include the Socialist Workers Party, it quickly expanded to cover Black Liberation groups, Puerto Rican independence groups, the American Indian Movement, the Students for a Democratic Society & Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, antiwar, community, and religious groups. Its most infamous act was the assassination, carried out by the Chicago Police Department, of Black Panther Fred Hampton. The program was secret until 1971, when an FBI field office was burglarized by a group of left-wing radicals calling themselves the Citizens' Commission to Investigate the FBI.
1961 Bay of Pigs invasion
Cuban expatriates backed by the U.S. government attempted to invade Cuba at Cuba's Bay of Pigs in the Bay of Pigs invasion of April 1961. The expected urban revolt failed to materialise due to popular support for Castro. The Soviet Union had also warned Castro, who ordered executions and preemptive mass arrests of those thought likely to support a counter-revolution.
1961 The Cuban Project
The Cuban Project, also known as "Operation Mongoose" is the general name for CIA covert operations and plans initiated by President John F. Kennedy on November 30, 1961 which authorized aggressive covert terrorist operations against Communism in the Cuban Republic, including several assassination attempts against the Cuban head of state, Fidel Castro. The operation was led by Air Force General Edward Lansdale and came into being after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion.
The goal of The Cuban Project was to "help Cuba overthrow the Communist regime", overthrow its leader Fidel Castro, and aim "for a revolt which can take place in Cuba by October 1962". See also, "Operation Northwoods", proposed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which included terrorist actions against targets in the U.S. that were to be blamed on Cuba ("false flag" operations), which was never carried out.
1962 Operation Northwoods
Operation Northwoods or Northwoods was the code name for various proposals for false flag actions, including domestic terror attacks on U.S. soil, proposed in 1962 by senior U.S. Department of Defense leaders to generate U.S. public support for military action against Cuba. The proposal was presented in a document entitled "Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba," a draft memorandum pdf) written by the Department of Defense (DoD) and Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) representative to the Caribbean Survey Group. The draft memo was presented by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13 with one paragraph approved, as a preliminary submission for planning purposes. However, McNamara rejected the proposal. The draft memorandum was declassified in recent years through a Freedom of Information Act request by the National Security Archive.
1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident
On August 4, 1964, North Vietnamese ships had allegedly attacked US destroyers, in what has come to be known as the Gulf of Tonkin Incident which led to Lyndon B. Johnson to drastically increase troop levels in Vietnam. On November 30, 2005, the National Security Archive released hundreds of pages of documents revealing that President Johnson was shown only selective intelligence and that the August 4th attack in all likelihood never occurred.
1965 Suppressing Sarkhan
The followup book to The Ugly American by William Lederer and Eugene Burdick disappears from bookstores. Lederer claims the CIA did it because it revealed too much about then current operations in Thailand. It was finally released in 1977 under the title 'The Deceptive American'.
1967 to ? USS LIBERTY
Attack on USS Liberty (AGTR-5) LBJ called back rescue planes TWICE after Radio operator found a workaround jamming and called to carrier group for mayday. Israel used unmarked planes and boats to twice attack U.S.Navy listening post ship; jamming American radio channels as a "no flag"/false flag operation. Ruled officially a accident but some largely symbolic reparations were paid. Official coverup continues. The purpose was allegedly to suggest an attack on US by Egypt, in an attempt to get USA involved in the war, fighting on the Israeli side.
1969 Secret Bombing of Cambodia
Operation Menu was the codename for secret US bombing of alleged North Vietnamese strongholds and supply lines in Cambodia during the Vietnam War in 1969. The bombing, of a nation the US was not at war with, began with Operation Breakfast on March 17, 1969 and was conducted in secret until the New York Times broke the story on May 8, 1969.
1969 to 1982 Italian Strategy of tension
Conspiracy involving NATO and the Italian masonic lodge Propaganda Due
1970 to ? Air America & Operation Scatback
(linked to Mena Arkansas) Book By Terry Reed Contra/CIA contractor flight instructor:
Compromised: Clinton, Bush and the CIA* (How
the Presidency was co-opted by the Central Intelligence Agency) *
1972 to 1974 Watergate scandal
Grand conspiracy involving the President of the United States.
1975-1999 Indonesian occupation of East Timor
U.S. President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had met President Suharto of Indonesia in Jakarta where Ford made it clear that "we will not press you on the issue" of the invasion and occupation of East Timor. Several U.S. administrations up to and including that of Bill Clinton did not ban arms sales to the Indonesian government, though the latter did eventually end U.S. support of Suharto's regime. The territory was declared the 27th province of Indonesia in July 1976 as Timor Timur. However, internationally its legal status was that of a "non-self-governing territory under Portuguese administration." See also Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media: A centerpiece of the film is a long examination into the history of The New York Times's coverage of Indonesia's invasion and occupation of East Timor, which Chomsky claims exemplifies the media's unwillingness to criticize an ally and uses as an example of self-censorship in western media.
1981 to 1986 Iran-Contra
The Iran-Contra Affair (also known as "Irangate") was a mid-1980s political scandal in the United States. President Ronald Reagan's administration sold arms to Iran, an avowed enemy. At the time, Americans were being held hostage in Lebanon by Hezbollah, a militant Shi'a organization loyal to Ayatollah Khomeini, and it was hoped that Iran would influence them to release the hostages; at the same time, Iran, which was in the midst of the Iran-Iraq War, could find few nations willing to supply it with weapons. The U.S. diverted proceeds from the sale to the Contras, anti-Communist guerrillas engaged in an insurgency against the left wing Sandinista government of Nicaragua. Both the sale of weapons and the funding of the Contras violated stated administration policy as well as legislation passed by the Democratic-controlled Congress, which had blocked further Contra funding. * Incomplete without mentioning Mena Arkansas as a base of operations and the drugs for arms bartering * with among other connections, to The Bluegrass Conspiracy a book by Sally Denton detailing drugs and corrupton involving the commissioner of Kentucky State Police, (who resigned) officers and other officials as reported in newspapers.
1988 Nelson Bunker Hunt and Silver Thursday
Nelson Bunker Hunt declared bankruptcy and was convicted in August 1988 of conspiring to manipulate the market.
1990 Las Vegas American Coin Fixed Video Poker Conspiracy
Las Vegas Sun: November 06, 1997 Arrest made in '90 murder; warrant issued for second man "American Coin, at the time, was the state's fourth largest slot route operator, with more than 1,000 machines in various Las Vegas locations. The company was charged with altering 300 machines." "After Volk told authorities of the computer chip scam at American Coin, the company was closed and the gaming licenses of the owners -- Rudolph and Rudy M. LaVecchia and Frank Romano -- were surrendered in a deal that required them to pay a $1 million fine to the state in the February 1990 deal." Larry Volk, the programmer of the fixed computer chip (ROM), was found shot dead, execution style, after agreeing to testify in the case. See also Comdex '99: The mysterious death of Larry Volk, Las Vegas Review Journal: Harris case nothing compared to the big one that went away
1993 Assassination plot against President George H.W. Bush
On April 13, 1993, several Iraqi nationals were arrested in Kuwait and charged with plotting to assassinate former President Bush via car bomb during a visit to Kuwait. Later, a court in Kuwait convicted all but one of the defendants. On 26 June, 1993, President Clinton launched a missile attack targeting Baghdad intelligence headquarters in retaliation for the attempted attack against Bush.
1993 WTC terrorist attack
In the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, a truck filled with explosives was planted by terrorists and detonated in the underground garage of the north tower, opening a 30m hole through 4 sublevels of concrete. Six people were killed and over a thousand injured.
According to a presiding judge, the conspirators' chief aim at the time of the attack was to de-stabilize the north tower and send it crashing into the south tower, toppling both landmarks.
1994 Diamonds are forever?
In 1994 De Beers was charged by the United States Justice Department with Sherman Antitrust Act violations for conspiring to fix prices for industrial diamonds. On 14 July 2004 De Beers pleaded guilty to the charges and paid a $10 million fine. According to PBS: Frontline: The Diamond Empire: "EDWARD EPSTEIN, Author, "The Rise and Fall of Diamonds": Well, what I learned was that the diamond business wasn't a business of extracting, as I originally expected, something of enormous value and then simply seeing how much of this object you could get out of the ground and selling it. That was what the business appeared to be when I started my venture. But their real business was restricting what came out of the ground, restricting what was discovered, restricting what got cut, restricting what actually found its way into the retail market and, at the same time, through movies, through advertising, through Hollywood, through the manipulation of perceptions, creating the idea that there was this enormous demand for these shiny little objects that they seemed to have in abundant supply. So I wound up on this voyage of discovery starting off with the idea that there was this object of great value, and it was just a question of how many could you get out, and I wound up discovering it was just the opposite." See also Crater of Diamonds.
1995 The Bojinka Plot
The Bojinka plot refers to a three-part conspiracy: the plot to destroy 11 airliners on January 21 and 22, 1995; the plan to kill Pope John Paul II on January 15, 1995 during a papal visit to the Philippines; and the third part of this conspiracy was a plan to crash a plane into the CIA headquarters in Fairfax County, Virginia and other buildings. The Bojinka plot was prevented on January 6 and 7, 1995.
1995 Oklahoma City bombing
The Oklahoma City bombing was a terrorist attack on April 19, 1995, in which the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, a U.S. government office complex in downtown Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, was destroyed, killing 168 people. The (Oklahoma) McCurtain Daily Gazette has reported that at least one member of the secret services and an informant for the BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) had prior knowledge that the attack was about to take place, a charge which the FBI deny. The newspaper also alleges that the FBI and the Southern Poverty Law Section, as part of a top-secret undercover operation, may have indeed assisted the bombers in their plans as part of a failed sting operation, citing evidence given in a court case by a BATF informant and data published under the Freedom of Information Act as 'proof'.
Other reports point variously to the quick response of agents dressed in full 'mop-gear' clothing, as if pre-prepared for an explosion; the fact that the BATF offices (in the bombed building) were empty at the time of the explosion; FBI reluctance to release sensitive documentation relating to the case, and rumours of an SMS warning sent out to BATF staff as further 'evidence' of a major conspiracy. These reports are largely based on empirical evidence and circumstantial information, and remain unproven.
1995 to 2004 Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal
The Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal is a United States political scandal relating to the work performed by political lobbyists Jack Abramoff, Ralph E. Reed, Jr., Grover Norquist and Michael Scanlon on behalf of Indian casino gambling interests for an estimated $85 million in fees. Abramoff and Scanlon grossly overbilled their clients, secretly splitting the multimillion-dollar profits. In one case, they secretly orchestrated lobbying against their own clients in order to force them to pay for lobbying services.

2000's
2001 Enron and Arthur Andersen
The company and its Big Five accounting firm conspired to commit accounting fraud. Fortune named Enron "America's Most Innovative Company" for six consecutive years.
2002 Las Vegas Venetian Rigged Drawing
The Venetian casino employees conspired to rig drawings. According to the Las Vegas Sun: July 15, 2004 Venetian contest rigger lectured by regulators: "Mok said he rigged the drawing because a high-roller he was hosting lost $5 million gambling and the employee "didn't want to see him go home empty-handed."" The Venetian agreed to pay a $1 million fine to settle a 12 count complaint. "Board member Bobby Siller ... compared the additional damage inflicted by attempting to cover up the scheme with the trouble former President Richard Nixon brought upon himself during the Watergate burglary investigation." Four Venetian employees lost their licenses to work in the Nevada gaming industry but were quickly hired by casinos in other states. According to the Las Vegas Sun: "Michael French, the former senior vice president of operations, became the chief operating officer for the Inn of the Mountain Gods casino in Mescalero, N.M. Brian Parrish, formerly the vice president of marketing, became the marketing director for the same New Mexico tribal casino. The Mescalero Apache Tribe said they believed the involvement by French and Parrish in the scheme was more than offset by their wide-ranging experience. Don Richardson, another Venetian executive involved in the incident, surfaced as the director of operations at the Wildfire, a small casino owned by Station Casinos Inc. Station officials said the company's regulatory compliance department investigated the matter and determined that Richardson was suitable for the position."
2004 Secret CIA Prisons
A story by reporter Dana Priest published in The Washington Post of November 2, 2005, reported that "The CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important al Qaeda captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe, according to U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the arrangement."[4]
The report contends that the CIA has a worldwide covert prison system with facilities in Asia, Eastern Europe, and in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. The system is central to the agency's anti-terror role, and according to the report has been kept secret from government officials (including Congressional committees that oversee the CIA) through the agency's own efforts as well as cooperation with foreign intelligence services.
This conspiracy was proven in 2006 when President Bush admitted that indeed there are secret CIA prisons in Europe and elsewhere.
2005 Ahmed Omar Abu Ali
On November 23 a federal jury convicted Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, a citizen of the United States, on nine counts, including conspiracy to assassinate the president, and conspiracy to commit aircraft piracy.
2005 DRAM price fixing
In October Samsung pled guilty to conspiring with other companies, including Infineon and Hynix Semiconductor, to fix the price of DRAM. Samsung was the third company to be charged in connection with the international cartel and was fined $300M. In October 2004 four executives from Infineon were sentenced to 4 to 6 months in prison and $250,000 in fines after agreeing to aid the U.S. Department of Justice with their investigation of the conspiracy.
2005 Bernard Ebbers
He was convicted of fraud and conspiracy in the largest (to date) accounting scandal in U.S. history, as a result of WorldCom's false financial reporting, and subsequent 180 billion dollar loss to investors.

These would have all been cast aside if it were up to some of the likes of you.

[Brian GC]

Most of them are so closed minded, and ideologically invested in their delusional world view… that it isn't even worth wasting time speaking to them.

I think it is much to the contrary, we are more open-minded. If it was proven that those buildings fell from high temp jet fuel fires it would prove the other side wrong. Therefore they assume, if the other side is wrong about that part of the puzzle then it can be assumed they are wrong about everything else too. It means that they don’t have to answer any of the other hard questions. They do not have to look any further into the case. They can just keep beating their chests that they were correct about the way the buildings fell so all follow-on questions are mute because scientists solved the case. To me that is closed-mindedness.

Doing investigative work requires an open mind. It is tiresome and frustrating. Most people just want to find an answer. When they solve pieces of the puzzle they want to put a rest to the case. Well has anyone considered that there may have been elements within our government that knew of this attack and worked on the sidelines, not with them, but in a way allowed it to happen? Has anyone considered that if explosives were not used it does not totally exonerate all rogue elements of our government?

It was our impression that those two building would withstand a direct hit by a plane of that size. Maybe they thought the damage would be far less. What I see is a lack of questions from those that think science solved all of the events of that day. You never see guys like Scrog asking questions or even thinking outside the scientific box. He thinks solving one small piece of the puzzle allows him to turn his brain off and beat his chest.

Two things noted about Scrog and Mark:
Scrog has said that suspecting our government was complicit in this attack is unpatriotic.
Mark lumps those that want 911 questions answered with those that doubt the lunar landing. That is “A Giant Leap.”

Broad brushes equal closed & shallow mindedness.

[coolwhip]

To question everything our government does and says is patriotism. Those that do not question are not patriotic, rather apathetic...dissent is the highest form of patriotism!

Some of you should write this down so you don't forget it.

[scrogdog]

No, no, I'll solve most of the puzzle, in fact. All I need is someone willing to read and apply common sense. That's what I've asked of Roy.

If you are so investigative, why do you ignore the science link?. Why do you ignore the plain photo evidence I've posted that shows that you folks are holding up pictures of non-molten metal AS molten metal, and ignoring clear photo evidence of the buildings not exactly falling in thier footprint but instead flinging off a crapload of debris during the collapse?

It seems that your powers of observation are similar to your brand of "truth".

You ignored both, then with a straight face charge others with not considering or debating things properly.

As the robot on Lost in Space use to say, that does not compute.

What I said was that you were doing a dis-service to the families of the victims. But feel free to put words in my mouth as you have often done in this very topic. The first time, it wasn't even pointed out by me!

Clearly, intellectually dishonest folks.

[coolwhip]

And clearly, you are lost in space.

[Six]

I think it is much to the contrary, we are more open-minded. If it was proven that

those buildings fell from high temp jet fuel fires it would prove the other side wrong. Therefore they assume, if the other side is wrong about that part of the puzzle then it can be assumed they are wrong about everything else too. It means that they don’t have to answer any of the other hard questions. They do not have to look any further into the case. They can just keep beating their chests that they were correct about the way the buildings fell so all follow-on questions are mute because scientists solved the case. To me that is closed-mindedness.

Doing investigative work requires an open mind. It is tiresome and frustrating. Most people just want to find an answer. When they solve pieces of the puzzle they want to put a rest to the case. Well has anyone considered that there may have been elements within our government that knew of this attack and worked on the sidelines, not with them, but in a way allowed it to happen? Has anyone considered that if explosives were not used it does not totally exonerate all rogue elements of our government?

It was our impression that those two building would withstand a direct hit by a plane of that size. Maybe they thought the damage would be far less. What I see is a lack of questions from those that think science solved all of the events of that day. You never see guys like Scrog asking questions or even thinking outside the scientific box. He thinks solving one small piece of the puzzle allows him to turn his brain off and beat his chest.

Two things noted about Scrog and Mark:
Scrog has said that suspecting our government was complicit in this attack is unpatriotic.
Mark lumps those that want 911 questions answered with those that doubt the lunar landing. That is “A Giant Leap.”

Broad brushes equal closed & shallow mindedness.

This post takes the cake.

Keeping an open mind to do investigative work first requires that you're QUALIFIED in a field thats relevant to the investigation.

The fact about most conspiracy theorist is that their knowledge on any scientific principle combined wouldn't equal a Associates degree in mechanical engineering.

They critique level headed individuals for their lack of open mindedness but immediately clamp on to any crazy conspiracy and then argue it as truth citing more crazy conspiracy to back up their assertion.

They arm chair engineer the events of the day to make themselves feel more self important, add a context to their empty existence and proclaim a higher status over people who really just have better things to do with their time.

It reminds me of a persone who has maybe been verbally abused, called stupid, picked on and one day decides to gather up enough confidence to start thinking for his self.

But the first idea he siezes upon his the goofiest most absurd concept anyone could imagine but because he's not used to critical thought he goes all in and winds up worse off when he started.

[Brian GC]

No, no, I'll solve most of the puzzle, in fact. All I need is someone willing to read and apply common sense. That's what I've asked of Roy.

If you are so investigative, why do you ignore the science link?. Why do you ignore the plain photo evidence I've posted that shows that you folks are holding up pictures of non-molten metal AS molten metal, and ignoring clear photo evidence of the buildings not exactly falling in thier footprint but instead flinging off a crapload of debris during the collapse?

It seems that your powers of observation are similar to your brand of "truth".

You ignored both, then with a straight face charge others with not considering or debating things properly.

As the robot on Lost in Space use to say, that does not compute.

What I said was that you were doing a dis-service to the families of the victims. But feel free to put words in my mouth as you have often done in this very topic. The first time, it wasn't even pointed out by me!

Clearly, intellectually dishonest folks.

My post flew right over your head. I said if you are correct about no explosives being used to bring those buildings down it is not the end of the story as you would like it to be. There are many more questions to answer.

As for you implying that investigating this is “unpatriotic” just reread your post #209. Besides, how would uncovering that there were other factions involved in this do a disservice to the families?

[scrogdog]

My post flew right over your head. I said if you are correct about no explosives being used to bring those buildings down it is not the end of the story as you would like it to be. There are many more questions to answer.

As for you implying that investigating this is “unpatriotic” just reread your post #209. Besides, how would uncovering that there were other factions involved in this do a disservice to the families?

Because you are claiming that the people who died in the plane that hit the Pentagon weren't even there.

I never said it was the end. My idea is to try and take one thing at a time, put it to rest, then take on the next thing.

Your idea is to change the subject.

You also seem to believe that the preservation of materials was more important than trying to rescue survivors as once that process began, a lot of metal cutting ensued. Yes? That means that the evidence, whether in hanger 17 at JFK or in China was compromised from that very moment.

Besides, as I've said, debris is further irrelevent not only because it was compromised from the word go, but also because it would not even demonstrate your case if molten steel were found. I suggest doing a little INVESTIGATIVE (you know, that thing you say you are good at) work in the area of thermite demo charges, and where we currently stand with the technology.

By the way, the sites that debunk the "truther" sites have youtube videos to show you on the thermite matter. Just your cup of tea!

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

Ok, so just for giggles, lets say you agree that the buildings fell to something other than demo charges. What is the next thing you would like to discuss?

Let's try to keep politics out of it. Just what happened.

[bigtime]

Im a little confused. Do you guys think the government planted explosives in the buildings and set them off after the jets crashed into the buildings? If this is the theory, what do you think was the motive for doing this?

[LibertyTree]

No, no, I'll solve most of the puzzle, in fact. All I need is someone willing to read and apply common sense. That's what I've asked of Roy.

If you are so investigative, why do you ignore the science link?. Why do you ignore the plain photo evidence I've posted that shows that you folks are holding up pictures of non-molten metal AS molten metal, and ignoring clear photo evidence of the buildings not exactly falling in thier footprint but instead flinging off a crapload of debris during the collapse?

It seems that your powers of observation are similar to your brand of "truth".

You ignored both, then with a straight face charge others with not considering or debating things properly.

As the robot on Lost in Space use to say, that does not compute.

What I said was that you were doing a dis-service to the families of the victims. But feel free to put words in my mouth as you have often done in this very topic. The first time, it wasn't even pointed out by me!

Clearly, intellectually dishonest folks.
Oh save it already. You're beginning to sound like a broken record. I have read everything you posted long before you ever did, except for the building 7 document that says one lone column on the far east side of the building caused global collapse yet gives no explanation of how the damage somehow migrated from the center of the building to the port side to weaken the single column that could bring the whole building down... Your refusal to debate points shows your incapability of independent thought. I have never seen someone use so many words to say nothing. And to say say that those of us who question this 911 fairy tale are somehow doing the families who lost loved ones in these attacks a disservice is infuriating. So much so that it is taking great restraint on my part not to get banned from this site. Luckily, the fact that I understand that you are in a zombified somnambulant state of existence has a calming effect.

[LibertyTree]

Because you are claiming that the people who died in the plane that hit the Pentagon weren't even there.

I never said it was the end. My idea is to try and take one thing at a time, put it to rest, then take on the next thing.

Your idea is to change the subject.

You also seem to believe that the preservation of materials was more important than trying to rescue survivors as once that process began, a lot of metal cutting ensued. Yes? That means that the evidence, whether in hanger 17 at JFK or in China was compromised from that very moment.

Besides, as I've said, debris is further irrelevent not only because it was compromised from the word go, but also because it would not even demonstrate your case if molten steel were found. I suggest doing a little INVESTIGATIVE (you know, that thing you say you are good at) work in the area of thermite demo charges, and where we currently stand with the technology.

By the way, the sites that debunk the "truther" sites have youtube videos to show you on the thermite matter. Just your cup of tea!

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

Ok, so just for giggles, lets say you agree that the buildings fell to something other than demo charges. What is the next thing you would like to discuss?

Let's try to keep politics out of it. Just what happened.
Boy am I glad you posted this. Shows just how little you pay attention. You say no one is reading your sources while the first post I made absolutely destroys everything in this video. Its also a perfect example of how dullards are memorized by a bunch of formulas when in reality its a load of crap. Here's one for you:

2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe
(X= Y3 AB)
(27 + 80) g = 107 g of Al
0.5*4.2 kg = 2.1 kg = 4.8 lb
20.5 cc Al and 30.5 cc Fe2O3 weighs (54+160) g = 214 g. = You have no idea what you're talking about ^100
The below video is sufficient in annihilating all points made in your video regarding thermite. Done with a physical experiment and not just a bunch of stupid formulas meant to bamboozle the likes of you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5d5iIoCiI8g

[scrogdog]

Lol!

So, demonstrated that you can't read AGAIN!

What the heck is wrong with you? Show me what formulas you speak of because what I presented DID NOT EVEN USE THEM TO MAKE ITS POINT!

Hilarious!

These are your critical thinking invesitgatiors! Lmao!

[Brian GC]

What is the next thing you would like to discuss?



Explain the many explosions witnessed by all the people in and near those buildings.

[RoBoTeq]

Explain the many explosions witnessed by all the people in and near those buildings.
While there is no way to absolutely state what cuased all of the explosions after the initial damage to the buildings, there have been rational explainations as to what all most likely were. None of the U.S. government conspiracy theories about any of the explosions are rational for any reason nor for how they would have been conducted.

[scrogdog]

First off, thermite charges DO NOT EXPLODE.

Another documented FACT that you missed by not reading what I've posted. How do you figure that makes you "open minded" and investigative? Lol

So, there is no need to explain it in terms of this discussion, because no matter what made the sounds, it was most certainly NOT thermite.

Again, this is a matter if common knowledge, you don't need to read esoteric science formulas to know this. Freely available info you can get anywhere.

Thermite burns, like black powder.

But since you FLATLY REFUSE to read what the other side even says, mr investigator, you are welcome to use your amazing investigative powers and look it up!

My guess, probably metal buckling. Metal pops like that when stressed similar to all the pops and groans one hears from stressed metal when a ship sinks.

But like I said, whatever they were is irrelevent in terms of this discussion as it was not thermite.

[Brian GC]

While there is no way to absolutely state what cuased all of the explosions after the initial damage to the buildings, there have been rational explanations as to what all most likely were.

So what are the “rational explanations"?


None of the U.S. government conspiracy theories about any of the explosions are rational for any reason nor for how they would have been conducted.

Radio controlled detonation is one way. And, have the white vans that were seen visiting the WTC between 3:00am and 5:00am in late Aug. to early Sept. ever identified?

This is my point. Every single scrap of evidence must be answered for, but instead we dismiss investigating because we think rogue elements in our govt couldn’t/wouldn’t do that. Are we also not interested in the Israelis that were seen celebrating with each other while they watched and videoed the WTC come down? The fact that they worked for a domestic Israeli spy organization?

Instead of always looking at our Govt for the conspiracy why not look at the country that benefited from 911 the most. I wouldn’t put it past them. It is a fact that israel does not recognize borders when fighting thier fight.

[Brian GC]

First off, thermite charges DO NOT EXPLODE.

Another documented FACT that you missed by not reading what I've posted. How do you figure that makes you "open minded" and investigative? Lol

So, there is no need to explain it in terms of this discussion, because no matter what made the sounds, it was most certainly NOT thermite.

Again, this is a matter if common knowledge, you don't need to read esoteric science formulas to know this. Freely available info you can get anywhere.

Thermite burns, like black powder.

But since you FLATLY REFUSE to read what the other side even says, mr investigator, you are welcome to use your amazing investigative powers and look it up!

My guess, probably metal buckling. Metal pops like that when stressed similar to all the pops and groans one hears from stressed metal when a ship sinks.

But like I said, whatever they were is irrelevent in terms of this discussion as it was not thermite.

You do a lot of dancing. I did not mention thermite or think it caused explosions. You infer you investigated this matter completely. Well, what caused them?

Or is your best shot: “My guess, probably metal buckling.” And that explanation is OK with you? NO science needed this time?

[RoBoTeq]

So what are the “rational explanations"?



Radio controlled detonation is one way. And, have the white vans that were seen visiting the WTC between 3:00am and 5:00am in late Aug. to early Sept. ever identified?

This is my point. Every single scrap of evidence must be answered for, but instead we dismiss investigating because we think rogue elements in our govt couldn’t/wouldn’t do that. Are we also not interested in the Israelis that were seen celebrating with each other while they watched and videoed the WTC come down? The fact that they worked for a domestic Israeli spy organization?

Instead of always looking at our Govt for the conspiracy why not look at the country that benefited from 911 the most. I wouldn’t put it past them. It is a fact that israel does not recognize borders when fighting thier fight.

You obviously are choosing to stay ignorant of the many rational explainations of items in the buildings that could very well explode under intense heat that have been stated over and over and over again. If you choose to stay igorant, that is your problem. Since ignorance is your problem, please be responsible about your continued self inflicted ignorance.

Yes, yes....we can all come up with coulda, mighta scenarios, but none of them are rational. Why would any of the conspiracies have been implimented? When could any of the conspiracy theories have been set up? How would the conspirers have known to set up the detonations and where? Like I said; no rational.

[Brian GC]

You obviously are choosing to stay ignorant of the many rational explainations of items in the buildings that could very well explode under intense heat that have been stated over and over and over again. If you choose to stay igorant, that is your problem. Since ignorance is your problem, please be responsible about your continued self inflicted ignorance.

Yes, yes....we can all come up with coulda, mighta scenarios, but none of them are rational. Why would any of the conspiracies have been implimented? When could any of the conspiracy theories have been set up? How would the conspirers have known to set up the detonations and where? Like I said; no rational.

You still fail to list what exploded.

Building 7 was a regular high-rise fire right? Firefighters do not put themselves in know harms way. If high-rises regularly have multiple explosions when they burn then they would have documented it in their training. They would not enter a high-rise fire, but they do. When they do enter do they just accept the risk of being blown up? And where are all the other documented high-rise fire explosions?

Are you seriously asking how Israel benefited from 911? WOW! Next you are going say Sadam’s Kuwait invasion was not encouraged by our Ambassador April Gillespie.

Just because it is politically incorrect to look at Israel that way doesn’t mean we can’t. Hey. I smell ignorance too.

[RoBoTeq]

You still fail to list what exploded.

Building 7 was a regular high-rise fire right? Firefighters do not put themselves in know harms way. If high-rises regularly have multiple explosions when they burn then they would have documented it in their training. They would not enter a high-rise fire, but they do. When they do enter do they just accept the risk of being blown up? And where are all the other documented high-rise fire explosions?

Are you seriously asking how Israel benefited from 911? WOW! Next you are going say Sadam’s Kuwait invasion was not encouraged by our Ambassador April Gillespie.

Just because it is politically incorrect to look at Israel that way doesn’t mean we can’t. Hey. I smell ignorance too.

Who?
How?
Why?

Who are you blaming? U.S. government officials? Some world order? The Isrealis?

How did who you are blaming coordinate Muslims hijacking four aircraft, hitting two of the WTC towers and the Pentagon, then getting one of the towers to fall in a way that it would damage building seven in just the right way?

How did who you are blaming set up the explosives in the building(s) you are claiming were blown up?

How have the amount of people it would take to coordinate and impliment such a controlled set of explosions been kept such a secret with the area filled with police and firefighters? Were the police and firefighters ALL in on the conspiracy?

Why would anyone other than those who hate the U.S. and Americans commit such an atrocity? What has Isreal gained from the attacks? What has anyone other than the Islamic world gained from the attacks?

[Brian GC]

Who?
How?
Why?

Who are you blaming? U.S. government officials? Some world order? The Isrealis?

How did who you are blaming coordinate Muslims hijacking four aircraft, hitting two of the WTC towers and the Pentagon, then getting one of the towers to fall in a way that it would damage building seven in just the right way?

How did who you are blaming set up the explosives in the building(s) you are claiming were blown up?

How have the amount of people it would take to coordinate and implement such a controlled set of explosions been kept such a secret with the area filled with police and firefighters? Were the police and firefighters ALL in on the conspiracy?

Why would anyone other than those who hate the U.S. and Americans commit such an atrocity? What has Israel gained from the attacks? What has anyone other than the Islamic world gained from the attacks?

Knowing “who, how and why” beforehand should not determine whether we look into a crime. You must go where the evidence takes you. This is a downfall of UFO research. People won’t look into it because it is too far out in their minds, not because there isn’t any evidence.

We do not know enough about what happened to those buildings to suspect anyone. What I do know is that every anomaly must be answered for regardless of whether we understand where it might take us. But our media doesn’t work that way. When certain uncomfortable questions are asked the next question is always – what are you getting at? Or, who are you trying to accuse? Those two questions will stop many investigations cold.

One possibility for 911 would be those Israeli spies in the van that were seen celebrating as they watched WTC burn and fall. They must have known something. Did they want to see the US get hurt? No, we are their ally and backbone. That means they must have known at that instant who did it. How did they know that?

Before we go any further I want to test your knowledge of foreign affairs. When Sadam was on the border of Kuwait, ready to invade, why did April Gillespie give him the green light by telling him “we have no opinion on your border to border conflict with Kuwait?” It was an outright lie that definitely came from high ups in Washington. Why?