> On Sep 23, 2:58 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 22, 7:46 pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <b92a04d8-9446-4bf0-8c5b-d99708a9f...@l14g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
> > > curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Sep 19, 8:26 pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <aa089741-aa0b-4fd8-b16a-7e5e32277...@f6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I am not sure that this has to do with 9/11, but many think the BY Photo
> > > > > > are tampered, and were generally used for propaganda type purposes instead
> > > > > > of honing in on the ways and character of an assassin.
> > > > > Many do think the photos were faked, and one of the claims I've seen most
> > > > > often that "proves" fakery is the shadow of the rifle in 133-b, which I
> > > > > myself have proved in my Youtube video is not in and of itself evidence of
> > > > > fakery. When it was so easy for me to demonstrate that that particular
> > > > > claim was invalid, it makes me wonder about the other claims of fakery for
> > > > > the three photos.
> > > > And from the great Jack White who recently passed:
> > > A fair number of these were obviously posted by CTs.
> > From the author of the link I previously posted:
> > The House Select Committee on Assassinations, the second major
> > investigatory body, conducted Pinrose Distance Statistics, where they
> > would compare body measurements of known Oswald photos with the
> > controversial shots of Lee in these suspicious poses. However, in
> > their final report, they left out important statistical data, that did
> > not jive. The essential chin measurements would have spoiled their
> > report, so they were omitted!
> > Jack White was able to account for the fact that one face has a frown
> > and one a smile, by the use of touchup, just on the lips. Everything
> > else in the face is identical, an impossibility, when you consider all
> > of the muscles in your face! Mister White actually models these
> > scientific facial characteristics, by mimicking a smile and a frown in
> > the video!
> > And so there you have it, a clever forgery was pulled off by using
> > graphics blenders in some sophisticated facility. Jack White has
> > unveiled this forgery very convincingly, from what I can tell, and the
> > implication of this is indeed chilly ... indeed most nefarious. A
> > conspiracy to frame Lee Oswald as the sole shooter of John Kennedy was
> > concocted, and the infamous backyard photos were an integral part of
> > this plot. Jim Marrs thanks Jack White for his groundbreaking work at
> > the end of the video, and urges citizens to look beyond the government
> > experts for the truth.
> > I fear that very few Americans even know anything about this clever
> > fabrication of these images of Oswald; it truly looks like they were
> > manipulated in a photographic lab of a very high caliber. I hope that
> > my humble article will reach a great amount of people, and that they
> > will begin to view this video in numbers; it contains razor-sharp
> > explanations for these enigmas of the camera, this flagrant trickery
> > that fooled 'We the People'. Most certainly they then will come to the
> > same conclusions that I have come to: that President Kennedy was slain
> > on the 'Streets of Dallas' by a cache of vengeful powerbrokers (Right
> > Wing Extremists) who found it a necessity to rid themselves of a
> > liberal JFK, and his progressive policies, that really transformed our
> > country and put it on a better path.
> > REQUIRED VIEWING FOR ALL AMERICANS!
> > Fake: The Forged Photograph that Framed Lee Harvey Oswald
> > The Many Faces Of Lee Harvey Oswald
> > Valuable biographical information on Jack White
> > "Inquiry is the life blood of truth, and the careful report of inquiry
> > is the newspaperman's cross and grail."
> > Penn Jones Jr. -Forgive My Grief
> > P.S. I have not been able to locate any convincing reb
> > CJ
> I don't follow why you are posting JFK material in a thread that was
> started as a 9/11 thread on the 3 towers that collapsed at the WTC.
> Chris
Didn't mean to steal your thunder, and I posed the same question to
the poster (King) who took it off topic. I just decided to answer
what he went off on after I put in my two cents on 9/11 and the
collapses (that look like demotitions that some people somehow think
that they don't). Sometimes I find stuff on the net I like, like the
post on the BY Photos) which I hadn't run into before. And I am one
who sees a clear line of conspiracy between JFK, Watergate, and 9/11.
It's about a mad dash for control at any expense, especially the
Public's.
> > > > curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 19, 8:26 pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <aa089741-aa0b-4fd8-b16a-7e5e32277...@f6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > > curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > I am not sure that this has to do with 9/11, but many think the BY Photo
> > > > > > > are tampered, and were generally used for propaganda type purposes instead
> > > > > > > of honing in on the ways and character of an assassin.
> > > > > > Many do think the photos were faked, and one of the claims I've seen most
> > > > > > often that "proves" fakery is the shadow of the rifle in 133-b, which I
> > > > > > myself have proved in my Youtube video is not in and of itself evidence of
> > > > > > fakery. When it was so easy for me to demonstrate that that particular
> > > > > > claim was invalid, it makes me wonder about the other claims of fakery for
> > > > > > the three photos.
> > > > > And from the great Jack White who recently passed:
> > > > A fair number of these were obviously posted by CTs.
> > > From the author of the link I previously posted:
> > > The House Select Committee on Assassinations, the second major
> > > investigatory body, conducted Pinrose Distance Statistics, where they
> > > would compare body measurements of known Oswald photos with the
> > > controversial shots of Lee in these suspicious poses. However, in
> > > their final report, they left out important statistical data, that did
> > > not jive. The essential chin measurements would have spoiled their
> > > report, so they were omitted!
> > > Jack White was able to account for the fact that one face has a frown
> > > and one a smile, by the use of touchup, just on the lips. Everything
> > > else in the face is identical, an impossibility, when you consider all
> > > of the muscles in your face! Mister White actually models these
> > > scientific facial characteristics, by mimicking a smile and a frown in
> > > the video!
> > > And so there you have it, a clever forgery was pulled off by using
> > > graphics blenders in some sophisticated facility. Jack White has
> > > unveiled this forgery very convincingly, from what I can tell, and the
> > > implication of this is indeed chilly ... indeed most nefarious. A
> > > conspiracy to frame Lee Oswald as the sole shooter of John Kennedy was
> > > concocted, and the infamous backyard photos were an integral part of
> > > this plot. Jim Marrs thanks Jack White for his groundbreaking work at
> > > the end of the video, and urges citizens to look beyond the government
> > > experts for the truth.
> > > I fear that very few Americans even know anything about this clever
> > > fabrication of these images of Oswald; it truly looks like they were
> > > manipulated in a photographic lab of a very high caliber. I hope that
> > > my humble article will reach a great amount of people, and that they
> > > will begin to view this video in numbers; it contains razor-sharp
> > > explanations for these enigmas of the camera, this flagrant trickery
> > > that fooled 'We the People'. Most certainly they then will come to the
> > > same conclusions that I have come to: that President Kennedy was slain
> > > on the 'Streets of Dallas' by a cache of vengeful powerbrokers (Right
> > > Wing Extremists) who found it a necessity to rid themselves of a
> > > liberal JFK, and his progressive policies, that really transformed our
> > > country and put it on a better path.
> > > REQUIRED VIEWING FOR ALL AMERICANS!
> > > Fake: The Forged Photograph that Framed Lee Harvey Oswald
> > > The Many Faces Of Lee Harvey Oswald
> > > Valuable biographical information on Jack White
> > > "Inquiry is the life blood of truth, and the careful report of inquiry
> > > is the newspaperman's cross and grail."
> > > Penn Jones Jr. -Forgive My Grief
> > > P.S. I have not been able to locate any convincing reb
> > > CJ
> > I don't follow why you are posting JFK material in a thread that was
> > started as a 9/11 thread on the 3 towers that collapsed at the WTC.
> > Chris
> Didn't mean to steal your thunder, and I posed the same question to
> the poster (King) who took it off topic. I just decided to answer
> what he went off on after I put in my two cents on 9/11 and the
> collapses (that look like demotitions that some people somehow think
> that they don't). Sometimes I find stuff on the net I like, like the
> post on the BY Photos) which I hadn't run into before. And I am one
> who sees a clear line of conspiracy between JFK, Watergate, and 9/11.
> It's about a mad dash for control at any expense, especially the
> Public's.
> CJ
Yes, I agree. The group I recommend has gained some backing and has
been speaking in the U.S. and in other countries where the people are
far more believing that the collapses were controlled demolition.
mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 18, 8:22?pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <6cfaa52a-63e6-4a55-a6a5-3d5a112f3...@u15g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
> > > ? ?Over 1,700 architects and engineers have signed off that the WTC
> > > 9/11 catastrophy was done with controlled demolition, and they can
> > > prove it.
> > Really? ?More than 1700 architects and engineers have specifically said
> > that? ?Where may we see a list of the names of all 1700+ of these
> > architects and engineers so that we may independently verify whether or
> > not there are really that many, and so that we may independently verify
> > that they really are accredited architects and engineers?
Thank you, and I have no idea why it took me six days to see this reply from you to me. Sorry about that. Ok, let's take a look at this. Ah, cool, you can click on each one and see their profile and their statement about 9/11.
Richard Gage says:
'The WTC Twin Towers and Building #7 appear to have been brought down not by jet impacts and/or fires as we have been led to believe - but by controlled demolition with explosives. The evidence noted on AE911Truth.org and other excellent websites is "prima facie" and will, with the increasing public awareness and demand for the truth, result in a new truly independent investigation with subpoena power. A/E's must now become leaders for 9/11 Truth - Join Us!'
He says he believes that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. But where does he say he himself can prove it? I don't see that.
Daniel B. Barnum says:
'I have "known" from day-one that the buildings were imploded and that they could not and would not have collapsed from the damage caused by the airplanes that ran into them.'
Nowhere does he say he himself can prove it, however.
David Paul Helpern says:
"The speed and symmetry of the collapses is not consistent with the damage. A new investigation is needed."
Now wait, he does not specifically say here that controlled demolition was used, although I suppose he may be implying that. But where does he say he himself can prove it? I don't see him saying any such thing.
Kevin A. Kelly says:
"The Presentation made by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth at the AIA Convention in San Francisco made a sufficient case that a new investigation into the collapses of the 3 high rise buildings on 9/11/01 would be worthwhile."
Well now wait. I thought you said that all these people have said that 9/11 definitely *was* caused by controlled demolition, and that they can prove it. But that's not quite what Mr. Kelly is saying here. He is merely saying that due to the presentation for 911 Truth a new investigation would be worthwhile. He isn't saying it actually *was* caused by controlled demolition, or that he himself can prove it. He is obviously just articulating a possibility.
Paul Stevenson Oles says:
"There appear too many unexplained events and unverified circumstances to be satisfied with the official version of the New York building collapses. As unthinkable as it is to suspect the United States government or military of willful complicity in these horrendous acts, it is even more heinous to allow such complicity--if indeed it exists--to remain undiscovered and unpunished. Therefore, a thorough and impartial investigation by an independent, well-funded commission is fully merited."
He's definitely unsatisfied with the official explanation, but nowhere there does he specifically say that the collapses were due to controlled demolition, nor does he come anywhere remotely close to specifically saying he can prove it.
Eason Cross says:
"The third building evidence is truly troubling. The 'why' is very hard to comprehend."
I guess he means WTC 7, but he just says he's very troubled by it, and does not comprehend why it collapsed. But he's not specifically saying that he believes it *did* collapse due to controlled demolition, nor is he saying he can prove it.
Harry G. Robinson III says:
"The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated. The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to implode as they did."
Well, he certainly seems to believe that controlled demolition was involved. But he's not saying that he himself can prove it.
Abby Goodman's statement at this moment is "pending review."
Alan Anderson, Jr. says:
"? Why were two extremely tall buildings (110 stories - 1,362 feet), completely destroyed, after burning for less than two hours, each coming straight down, symmetrically, at freefall speed, all elements characteristic of a controlled demolition, rather than toppling to the side and failing only partially if at all? ? Why did Building 7collapse? It was 47 stories high (571 feet), steel frame, more than 300 feet from the nearest tower (WTC 1), was not hit by an airplane, had no significant fire, and yet it too was completely destroyed coming straight down, symmetrically, at freefall speed as if by controlled demolition. ? What materials in the WTC provided the fuel to generate enough heat (2,500 degrees F) to create the pools of molten steel reported by firefighters and cleanup crews, when jet fuel has an open air burning temperature of 600 degrees F and a maximum burning temperature of 1,800 degrees F? ? Why did the US Government spend only $600,000 to investigate the collapse of all three WTC skyscrapers, when it spent $40 million to investigate Clinton?s sex life?"
Heh, well he sure has a lot of questions, and especially like his last one. And he certainly appears to believe that controlled demolition was involved. But he's not saying that he himself can prove it.
Alan Haymond says:
"Suspicious on 9/11 about the collapses and the size of the original hole in the Pentagon. Thoroughly convinced of cover up by April '02 - too many unanswered questions. Recommend David Ray Griffin's books."
He says he's suspicious of the collapses, and was convinced well under a year later that there was a coverup. But nowhere there does he specifically say that he believes the collapses were the result of controlled demolition, nor does he specifically say that he can prove it.
I've cited only the first ten here, but I've spent quite a lot of time looking at many of the others, including in the engineers farther down and also in the non-U.S. list. In some of them I'm finding the qualifications listed in the Bio section to be questionable. I saw one that listed his experience only in railroad engineering, and another who didn't really list any experience with anything. I do see quite a few saying they believed controlled demolitions were involved, but I'm also seeing about the same number who merely are voicing suspicions and calling for further investigation.
I haven't even found one yet, however, who specifically says that he or she can prove that the buildings collapsed due to controlled demolitions. There are a lot of them I haven't looked at yet, so I won't deny that there may be some that I haven't seen yet who say that, but I've looked at something like a hundred of them so far, and I still haven't found one yet who says they can prove this.
Your original statement that I first replied to was this:
"Over 1,700 architects and engineers have signed off that the WTC 9/11 catastrophy was done with controlled demolition, and they can prove it."
In my reply I was obviously asking if it was really true that more than 1700 of them really said what you're attributing to them, and in your reply to me you produced a link to a webpage that clearly shows your statement to be rather exaggerated.
> > > > ? ?Over 1,700 architects and engineers have signed off that the WTC
> > > > 9/11 catastrophy was done with controlled demolition, and they can
> > > > prove it.
> > > Really? ?More than 1700 architects and engineers have specifically said
> > > that? ?Where may we see a list of the names of all 1700+ of these
> > > architects and engineers so that we may independently verify whether or
> > > not there are really that many, and so that we may independently verify
> > > that they really are accredited architects and engineers?
> Thank you, and I have no idea why it took me six days to see this reply
> from you to me. Sorry about that. Ok, let's take a look at this. Ah,
> cool, you can click on each one and see their profile and their statement
> about 9/11.
> Richard Gage says:
> 'The WTC Twin Towers and Building #7 appear to have been brought down not
> by jet impacts and/or fires as we have been led to believe - but by
> controlled demolition with explosives. The evidence noted on
> AE911Truth.org and other excellent websites is "prima facie" and will,
> with the increasing public awareness and demand for the truth, result in a
> new truly independent investigation with subpoena power. A/E's must now
> become leaders for 9/11 Truth - Join Us!'
> He says he believes that the buildings were brought down by controlled
> demolition. But where does he say he himself can prove it? I don't see
> that.
> Daniel B. Barnum says:
> 'I have "known" from day-one that the buildings were imploded and that
> they could not and would not have collapsed from the damage caused by
> the airplanes that ran into them.'
> Nowhere does he say he himself can prove it, however.
> David Paul Helpern says:
> "The speed and symmetry of the collapses is not consistent with the
> damage. A new investigation is needed."
> Now wait, he does not specifically say here that controlled demolition
> was used, although I suppose he may be implying that. But where does he
> say he himself can prove it? I don't see him saying any such thing.
> Kevin A. Kelly says:
> "The Presentation made by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth at the
> AIA Convention in San Francisco made a sufficient case that a new
> investigation into the collapses of the 3 high rise buildings on 9/11/01
> would be worthwhile."
> Well now wait. I thought you said that all these people have said that
> 9/11 definitely *was* caused by controlled demolition, and that they can
> prove it. But that's not quite what Mr. Kelly is saying here. He is
> merely saying that due to the presentation for 911 Truth a new
> investigation would be worthwhile. He isn't saying it actually *was*
> caused by controlled demolition, or that he himself can prove it. He is
> obviously just articulating a possibility.
> Paul Stevenson Oles says:
> "There appear too many unexplained events and unverified circumstances
> to be satisfied with the official version of the New York building
> collapses. As unthinkable as it is to suspect the United States
> government or military of willful complicity in these horrendous acts,
> it is even more heinous to allow such complicity--if indeed it
> exists--to remain undiscovered and unpunished. Therefore, a thorough and
> impartial investigation by an independent, well-funded commission is
> fully merited."
> He's definitely unsatisfied with the official explanation, but nowhere
> there does he specifically say that the collapses were due to controlled
> demolition, nor does he come anywhere remotely close to specifically
> saying he can prove it.
> Eason Cross says:
> "The third building evidence is truly troubling. The 'why' is very hard
> to comprehend."
> I guess he means WTC 7, but he just says he's very troubled by it, and
> does not comprehend why it collapsed. But he's not specifically saying
> that he believes it *did* collapse due to controlled demolition, nor is
> he saying he can prove it.
> Harry G. Robinson III says:
> "The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated.
> The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to
> implode as they did."
> Well, he certainly seems to believe that controlled demolition was
> involved. But he's not saying that he himself can prove it.
> Abby Goodman's statement at this moment is "pending review."
> Alan Anderson, Jr. says:
> "? Why were two extremely tall buildings (110 stories - 1,362 feet),
> completely destroyed, after burning for less than two hours, each coming
> straight down, symmetrically, at freefall speed, all elements
> characteristic of a controlled demolition, rather than toppling to the
> side and failing only partially if at all?
> ? Why did Building 7collapse? It was 47 stories high (571 feet), steel
> frame, more than 300 feet from the nearest tower (WTC 1), was not hit by
> an airplane, had no significant fire, and yet it too was completely
> destroyed coming straight down, symmetrically, at freefall speed as if
> by controlled demolition.
> ? What materials in the WTC provided the fuel to generate enough heat
> (2,500 degrees F) to create the pools of molten steel reported by
> firefighters and cleanup crews, when jet fuel has an open air burning
> temperature of 600 degrees F and a maximum burning temperature of 1,800
> degrees F?
> ? Why did the US Government spend only $600,000 to investigate the
> collapse of all three WTC skyscrapers, when it spent $40 million to
> investigate Clinton?s sex life?"
> Heh, well he sure has a lot of questions, and especially like his last
> one. And he certainly appears to believe that controlled demolition was
> involved. But he's not saying that he himself can prove it.
> Alan Haymond says:
> "Suspicious on 9/11 about the collapses and the size of the original
> hole in the Pentagon. Thoroughly convinced of cover up by April '02 -
> too many unanswered questions. Recommend David Ray Griffin's books."
> He says he's suspicious of the collapses, and was convinced well under a
> year later that there was a coverup. But nowhere there does he
> specifically say that he believes the collapses were the result of
> controlled demolition, nor does he specifically say that he can prove it.
> I've cited only the first ten here, but I've spent quite a lot of time
> looking at many of the others, including in the engineers farther down
> and also in the non-U.S. list. In some of them I'm finding the
> qualifications listed in the Bio section to be questionable. I saw one
> that listed his experience only in railroad engineering, and another who
> didn't really list any experience with anything. I do see quite a few
> saying they believed controlled demolitions were involved, but I'm also
> seeing about the same number who merely are voicing suspicions and
> calling for further investigation.
> I haven't even found one yet, however, who specifically says that he or
> she can prove that the buildings collapsed due to controlled
> demolitions. There are a lot of them I haven't looked at yet, so I
> won't deny that there may be some that I haven't seen yet who say that,
> but I've looked at something like a hundred of them so far, and I still
> haven't found one yet who says they can prove this.
> Your original statement that I first replied to was this:
> "Over 1,700 architects and engineers have signed off that the WTC 9/11
> catastrophy was done with controlled demolition, and they can prove it."
> In my reply I was obviously asking if it was really true that more than
> 1700 of them really said what you're attributing to them, and in your
> reply to me you produced a link to a webpage that clearly shows your
> statement to be rather exaggerated.
> In article > <051ad4cf-68b1-46b5-8d2d-9fb69b44c...@v15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 18, 8:22?pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <6cfaa52a-63e6-4a55-a6a5-3d5a112f3...@u15g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > ? ?Over 1,700 architects and engineers have signed off that the WTC
> > > > 9/11 catastrophy was done with controlled demolition, and they can
> > > > prove it.
> > > Really? ?More than 1700 architects and engineers have specifically said
> > > that? ?Where may we see a list of the names of all 1700+ of these
> > > architects and engineers so that we may independently verify whether or
> > > not there are really that many, and so that we may independently verify
> > > that they really are accredited architects and engineers?
> Thank you, and I have no idea why it took me six days to see this reply > from you to me. Sorry about that. Ok, let's take a look at this. Ah, > cool, you can click on each one and see their profile and their statement > about 9/11.
> Richard Gage says:
> 'The WTC Twin Towers and Building #7 appear to have been brought down not > by jet impacts and/or fires as we have been led to believe - but by > controlled demolition with explosives. The evidence noted on > AE911Truth.org and other excellent websites is "prima facie" and will, > with the increasing public awareness and demand for the truth, result in a > new truly independent investigation with subpoena power. A/E's must now > become leaders for 9/11 Truth - Join Us!'
> He says he believes that the buildings were brought down by controlled > demolition. But where does he say he himself can prove it? I don't see > that.
> Daniel B. Barnum says:
> 'I have "known" from day-one that the buildings were imploded and that > they could not and would not have collapsed from the damage caused by > the airplanes that ran into them.'
> Nowhere does he say he himself can prove it, however.
> David Paul Helpern says:
> "The speed and symmetry of the collapses is not consistent with the > damage. A new investigation is needed."
> Now wait, he does not specifically say here that controlled demolition > was used, although I suppose he may be implying that. But where does he > say he himself can prove it? I don't see him saying any such thing.
> Kevin A. Kelly says:
> "The Presentation made by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth at the > AIA Convention in San Francisco made a sufficient case that a new > investigation into the collapses of the 3 high rise buildings on 9/11/01 > would be worthwhile."
> Well now wait. I thought you said that all these people have said that > 9/11 definitely *was* caused by controlled demolition, and that they can > prove it. But that's not quite what Mr. Kelly is saying here. He is > merely saying that due to the presentation for 911 Truth a new > investigation would be worthwhile. He isn't saying it actually *was* > caused by controlled demolition, or that he himself can prove it. He is > obviously just articulating a possibility.
> Paul Stevenson Oles says:
> "There appear too many unexplained events and unverified circumstances > to be satisfied with the official version of the New York building > collapses. As unthinkable as it is to suspect the United States > government or military of willful complicity in these horrendous acts, > it is even more heinous to allow such complicity--if indeed it > exists--to remain undiscovered and unpunished. Therefore, a thorough and > impartial investigation by an independent, well-funded commission is > fully merited."
> He's definitely unsatisfied with the official explanation, but nowhere > there does he specifically say that the collapses were due to controlled > demolition, nor does he come anywhere remotely close to specifically > saying he can prove it.
> Eason Cross says:
> "The third building evidence is truly troubling. The 'why' is very hard > to comprehend."
> I guess he means WTC 7, but he just says he's very troubled by it, and > does not comprehend why it collapsed. But he's not specifically saying > that he believes it *did* collapse due to controlled demolition, nor is > he saying he can prove it.
> Harry G. Robinson III says:
> "The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated. > The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to > implode as they did."
> Well, he certainly seems to believe that controlled demolition was > involved. But he's not saying that he himself can prove it.
> Abby Goodman's statement at this moment is "pending review."
> Alan Anderson, Jr. says:
> "? Why were two extremely tall buildings (110 stories - 1,362 feet), > completely destroyed, after burning for less than two hours, each coming > straight down, symmetrically, at freefall speed, all elements > characteristic of a controlled demolition, rather than toppling to the > side and failing only partially if at all? > ? Why did Building 7collapse? It was 47 stories high (571 feet), steel > frame, more than 300 feet from the nearest tower (WTC 1), was not hit by > an airplane, had no significant fire, and yet it too was completely > destroyed coming straight down, symmetrically, at freefall speed as if > by controlled demolition. > ? What materials in the WTC provided the fuel to generate enough heat > (2,500 degrees F) to create the pools of molten steel reported by > firefighters and cleanup crews, when jet fuel has an open air burning > temperature of 600 degrees F and a maximum burning temperature of 1,800 > degrees F? > ? Why did the US Government spend only $600,000 to investigate the > collapse of all three WTC skyscrapers, when it spent $40 million to > investigate Clinton?s sex life?"
> Heh, well he sure has a lot of questions, and especially like his last > one. And he certainly appears to believe that controlled demolition was > involved. But he's not saying that he himself can prove it.
> Alan Haymond says:
> "Suspicious on 9/11 about the collapses and the size of the original > hole in the Pentagon. Thoroughly convinced of cover up by April '02 - > too many unanswered questions. Recommend David Ray Griffin's books."
> He says he's suspicious of the collapses, and was convinced well under a > year later that there was a coverup. But nowhere there does he > specifically say that he believes the collapses were the result of > controlled demolition, nor does he specifically say that he can prove it.
> I've cited only the first ten here, but I've spent quite a lot of time > looking at many of the others, including in the engineers farther down > and also in the non-U.S. list. In some of them I'm finding the > qualifications listed in the Bio section to be questionable. I saw one > that listed his experience only in railroad engineering, and another who > didn't really list any experience with anything. I do see quite a few > saying they believed controlled demolitions were involved, but I'm also > seeing about the same number who merely are voicing suspicions and > calling for further investigation.
> I haven't even found one yet, however, who specifically says that he or > she can prove that the buildings collapsed due to controlled > demolitions. There are a lot of them I haven't looked at yet, so I > won't deny that there may be some that I haven't seen yet who say that, > but I've looked at something like a hundred of them so far, and I still > haven't found one yet who says they can prove this.
> Your original statement that I first replied to was this:
> "Over 1,700 architects and engineers have signed off that the WTC 9/11 > catastrophy was done with controlled demolition, and they can prove it."
> In my reply I was obviously asking if it was really true that more than > 1700 of them really said what you're attributing to them, and in your > reply to me you produced a link to a webpage that clearly shows your > statement to be rather exaggerated.
> > > > > ? ?Over 1,700 architects and engineers have signed off that the WTC
> > > > > 9/11 catastrophy was done with controlled demolition, and they can
> > > > > prove it.
> > > > Really? ?More than 1700 architects and engineers have specifically said
> > > > that? ?Where may we see a list of the names of all 1700+ of these
> > > > architects and engineers so that we may independently verify whether or
> > > > not there are really that many, and so that we may independently verify
> > > > that they really are accredited architects and engineers?
> > Thank you, and I have no idea why it took me six days to see this reply
> > from you to me. Sorry about that. Ok, let's take a look at this. Ah,
> > cool, you can click on each one and see their profile and their statement
> > about 9/11.
> > Richard Gage says:
> > 'The WTC Twin Towers and Building #7 appear to have been brought down not
> > by jet impacts and/or fires as we have been led to believe - but by
> > controlled demolition with explosives. The evidence noted on
> > AE911Truth.org and other excellent websites is "prima facie" and will,
> > with the increasing public awareness and demand for the truth, result in a
> > new truly independent investigation with subpoena power. A/E's must now
> > become leaders for 9/11 Truth - Join Us!'
> > He says he believes that the buildings were brought down by controlled
> > demolition. But where does he say he himself can prove it? I don't see
> > that.
> > Daniel B. Barnum says:
> > 'I have "known" from day-one that the buildings were imploded and that
> > they could not and would not have collapsed from the damage caused by
> > the airplanes that ran into them.'
> > Nowhere does he say he himself can prove it, however.
> > David Paul Helpern says:
> > "The speed and symmetry of the collapses is not consistent with the
> > damage. A new investigation is needed."
> > Now wait, he does not specifically say here that controlled demolition
> > was used, although I suppose he may be implying that. But where does he
> > say he himself can prove it? I don't see him saying any such thing.
> > Kevin A. Kelly says:
> > "The Presentation made by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth at the
> > AIA Convention in San Francisco made a sufficient case that a new
> > investigation into the collapses of the 3 high rise buildings on 9/11/01
> > would be worthwhile."
> > Well now wait. I thought you said that all these people have said that
> > 9/11 definitely *was* caused by controlled demolition, and that they can
> > prove it. But that's not quite what Mr. Kelly is saying here. He is
> > merely saying that due to the presentation for 911 Truth a new
> > investigation would be worthwhile. He isn't saying it actually *was*
> > caused by controlled demolition, or that he himself can prove it. He is
> > obviously just articulating a possibility.
> > Paul Stevenson Oles says:
> > "There appear too many unexplained events and unverified circumstances
> > to be satisfied with the official version of the New York building
> > collapses. As unthinkable as it is to suspect the United States
> > government or military of willful complicity in these horrendous acts,
> > it is even more heinous to allow such complicity--if indeed it
> > exists--to remain undiscovered and unpunished. Therefore, a thorough and
> > impartial investigation by an independent, well-funded commission is
> > fully merited."
> > He's definitely unsatisfied with the official explanation, but nowhere
> > there does he specifically say that the collapses were due to controlled
> > demolition, nor does he come anywhere remotely close to specifically
> > saying he can prove it.
> > Eason Cross says:
> > "The third building evidence is truly troubling. The 'why' is very hard
> > to comprehend."
> > I guess he means WTC 7, but he just says he's very troubled by it, and
> > does not comprehend why it collapsed. But he's not specifically saying
> > that he believes it *did* collapse due to controlled demolition, nor is
> > he saying he can prove it.
> > Harry G. Robinson III says:
> > "The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated.
> > The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to
> > implode as they did."
> > Well, he certainly seems to believe that controlled demolition was
> > involved. But he's not saying that he himself can prove it.
> > Abby Goodman's statement at this moment is "pending review."
> > Alan Anderson, Jr. says:
> > "? Why were two extremely tall buildings (110 stories - 1,362 feet),
> > completely destroyed, after burning for less than two hours, each coming
> > straight down, symmetrically, at freefall speed, all elements
> > characteristic of a controlled demolition, rather than toppling to the
> > side and failing only partially if at all?
> > ? Why did Building 7collapse? It was 47 stories high (571 feet), steel
> > frame, more than 300 feet from the nearest tower (WTC 1), was not hit by
> > an airplane, had no significant fire, and yet it too was completely
> > destroyed coming straight down, symmetrically, at freefall speed as if
> > by controlled demolition.
> > ? What materials in the WTC provided the fuel to generate enough heat
> > (2,500 degrees F) to create the pools of molten steel reported by
> > firefighters and cleanup crews, when jet fuel has an open air burning
> > temperature of 600 degrees F and a maximum burning temperature of 1,800
> > degrees F?
> > ? Why did the US Government spend only $600,000 to investigate the
> > collapse of all three WTC skyscrapers, when it spent $40 million to
> > investigate Clinton?s sex life?"
> > Heh, well he sure has a lot of questions, and especially like his last
> > one. And he certainly appears to believe that controlled demolition was
> > involved. But he's not saying that he himself can prove it.
> > Alan Haymond says:
> > "Suspicious on 9/11 about the collapses and the size of the original
> > hole in the Pentagon. Thoroughly convinced of cover up by April '02 -
> > too many unanswered questions. Recommend David Ray Griffin's books."
> > He says he's suspicious of the collapses, and was convinced well under a
> > year later that there was a coverup. But nowhere there does he
> > specifically say that he believes the collapses were the result of
> > controlled demolition, nor does he specifically say that he can prove it.
> > I've cited only the first ten here, but I've spent quite a lot of time
> > looking at many of the others, including in the engineers farther down
> > and also in the non-U.S. list. In some of them I'm finding the
> > qualifications listed in the Bio section to be questionable. I saw one
> > that listed his experience only in railroad engineering, and another who
> > didn't really list any experience with anything. I do see quite a few
> > saying they believed controlled demolitions were involved, but I'm also
> > seeing about the same number who merely are voicing suspicions and
> > calling for further investigation.
> > I haven't even found one yet, however, who specifically says that he or
> > she can prove that the buildings collapsed due to controlled
> > demolitions. There are a lot of them I haven't looked at yet, so I
> > won't deny that there may be some that I haven't seen yet who say that,
> > but I've looked at something like a hundred of them so far, and I still
> > haven't found one yet who says they can prove this.
> > Your original statement that I first replied to was this:
> > "Over 1,700 architects and engineers have signed off that the WTC 9/11
> > catastrophy was done with controlled demolition, and they can prove it."
> > In my reply I was obviously asking if it was really true that more than
> > 1700 of them really said what you're attributing to them, and in your
> > reply to me you produced a link to a webpage that clearly shows your
> > statement to be rather exaggerated.
Ha, I know the feeling as you seem to have avoided threads of mine of similar topic and have finished off topics without your response. I think what's important here is that so many professionals have stated a strong opinion to their felt reasons for the falls. When one says provable they might be wanting the exact scientific play by play of fall and won't accept anything less. Very unrealistic to expect something of that nature. If you feel like thumping your chest, why don't you come up with something that says it wasn't by a demolition? Kinda unproductive to just nitpick and not really say anything non- conspiratorial about it. I posted a couple of items above that you didn't respond to. One was a tremendous fire that burnt for much longer and would have been more
...
> > > > > ? ?Over 1,700 architects and engineers have signed off that the WTC
> > > > > 9/11 catastrophy was done with controlled demolition, and they can
> > > > > prove it.
> > > > Really? ?More than 1700 architects and engineers have specifically said
> > > > that? ?Where may we see a list of the names of all 1700+ of these
> > > > architects and engineers so that we may independently verify whether or
> > > > not there are really that many, and so that we may independently verify
> > > > that they really are accredited architects and engineers?
> > Thank you, and I have no idea why it took me six days to see this reply
> > from you to me. Sorry about that. Ok, let's take a look at this. Ah,
> > cool, you can click on each one and see their profile and their statement
> > about 9/11.
> > Richard Gage says:
> > 'The WTC Twin Towers and Building #7 appear to have been brought down not
> > by jet impacts and/or fires as we have been led to believe - but by
> > controlled demolition with explosives. The evidence noted on
> > AE911Truth.org and other excellent websites is "prima facie" and will,
> > with the increasing public awareness and demand for the truth, result in a
> > new truly independent investigation with subpoena power. A/E's must now
> > become leaders for 9/11 Truth - Join Us!'
> > He says he believes that the buildings were brought down by controlled
> > demolition. But where does he say he himself can prove it? I don't see
> > that.
> > Daniel B. Barnum says:
> > 'I have "known" from day-one that the buildings were imploded and that
> > they could not and would not have collapsed from the damage caused by
> > the airplanes that ran into them.'
> > Nowhere does he say he himself can prove it, however.
> > David Paul Helpern says:
> > "The speed and symmetry of the collapses is not consistent with the
> > damage. A new investigation is needed."
> > Now wait, he does not specifically say here that controlled demolition
> > was used, although I suppose he may be implying that. But where does he
> > say he himself can prove it? I don't see him saying any such thing.
> > Kevin A. Kelly says:
> > "The Presentation made by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth at the
> > AIA Convention in San Francisco made a sufficient case that a new
> > investigation into the collapses of the 3 high rise buildings on 9/11/01
> > would be worthwhile."
> > Well now wait. I thought you said that all these people have said that
> > 9/11 definitely *was* caused by controlled demolition, and that they can
> > prove it. But that's not quite what Mr. Kelly is saying here. He is
> > merely saying that due to the presentation for 911 Truth a new
> > investigation would be worthwhile. He isn't saying it actually *was*
> > caused by controlled demolition, or that he himself can prove it. He is
> > obviously just articulating a possibility.
> > Paul Stevenson Oles says:
> > "There appear too many unexplained events and unverified circumstances
> > to be satisfied with the official version of the New York building
> > collapses. As unthinkable as it is to suspect the United States
> > government or military of willful complicity in these horrendous acts,
> > it is even more heinous to allow such complicity--if indeed it
> > exists--to remain undiscovered and unpunished. Therefore, a thorough and
> > impartial investigation by an independent, well-funded commission is
> > fully merited."
> > He's definitely unsatisfied with the official explanation, but nowhere
> > there does he specifically say that the collapses were due to controlled
> > demolition, nor does he come anywhere remotely close to specifically
> > saying he can prove it.
> > Eason Cross says:
> > "The third building evidence is truly troubling. The 'why' is very hard
> > to comprehend."
> > I guess he means WTC 7, but he just says he's very troubled by it, and
> > does not comprehend why it collapsed. But he's not specifically saying
> > that he believes it *did* collapse due to controlled demolition, nor is
> > he saying he can prove it.
> > Harry G. Robinson III says:
> > "The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated.
> > The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to
> > implode as they did."
> > Well, he certainly seems to believe that controlled demolition was
> > involved. But he's not saying that he himself can prove it.
> > Abby Goodman's statement at this moment is "pending review."
> > Alan Anderson, Jr. says:
> > "? Why were two extremely tall buildings (110 stories - 1,362 feet),
> > completely destroyed, after burning for less than two hours, each coming
> > straight down, symmetrically, at freefall speed, all elements
> > characteristic of a controlled demolition, rather than toppling to the
> > side and failing only partially if at all?
> > ? Why did Building 7collapse? It was 47 stories high (571 feet), steel
> > frame, more than 300 feet from the nearest tower (WTC 1), was not hit by
> > an airplane, had no significant fire, and yet it too was completely
> > destroyed coming straight down, symmetrically, at freefall speed as if
> > by controlled demolition.
> > ? What materials in the WTC provided the fuel to generate enough heat
> > (2,500 degrees F) to create the pools of molten steel reported by
> > firefighters and cleanup crews, when jet fuel has an open air burning
> > temperature of 600 degrees F and a maximum burning temperature of 1,800
> > degrees F?
> > ? Why did the US Government spend only $600,000 to investigate the
> > collapse of all three WTC skyscrapers, when it spent $40 million to
> > investigate Clinton?s sex life?"
> > Heh, well he sure has a lot of questions, and especially like his last
> > one. And he certainly appears to believe that controlled demolition was
> > involved. But he's not saying that he himself can prove it.
> > Alan Haymond says:
> > "Suspicious on 9/11 about the collapses and the size of the original
> > hole in the Pentagon. Thoroughly convinced of cover up by April '02 -
> > too many unanswered questions. Recommend David Ray Griffin's books."
> > He says he's suspicious of the collapses, and was convinced well under a
> > year later that there was a coverup. But nowhere there does he
> > specifically say that he believes the collapses were the result of
> > controlled demolition, nor does he specifically say that he can prove it.
> > I've cited only the first ten here, but I've spent quite a lot of time
> > looking at many of the others, including in the engineers farther down
> > and also in the non-U.S. list. In some of them I'm finding the
> > qualifications listed in the Bio section to be questionable. I saw one
> > that listed his experience only in railroad engineering, and another who
> > didn't really list any experience with anything. I do see quite a few
> > saying they believed controlled demolitions were involved, but I'm also
> > seeing about the same number who merely are voicing suspicions and
> > calling for further investigation.
> > I haven't even found one yet, however, who specifically says that he or
> > she can prove that the buildings collapsed due to controlled
> > demolitions. There are a lot of them I haven't looked at yet, so I
> > won't deny that there may be some that I haven't seen yet who say that,
> > but I've looked at something like a hundred of them so far, and I still
> > haven't found one yet who says they can prove this.
> > Your original statement that I first replied to was this:
> > "Over 1,700 architects and engineers have signed off that the WTC 9/11
> > catastrophy was done with controlled demolition, and they can prove it."
> > In my reply I was obviously asking if it was really true that more than
> > 1700 of them really said what you're attributing to them, and in your
> > reply to me you produced a link to a webpage that clearly shows your
> > statement to be rather exaggerated.
> > > > > ? ?Over 1,700 architects and engineers have signed off that the WTC
> > > > > 9/11 catastrophy was done with controlled demolition, and they can
> > > > > prove it.
> > > > Really? ?More than 1700 architects and engineers have specifically said
> > > > that? ?Where may we see a list of the names of all 1700+ of these
> > > > architects and engineers so that we may independently verify whether or
> > > > not there are really that many, and so that we may independently verify
> > > > that they really are accredited architects and engineers?
No, they didn't 'specifically say that', however, they signed a
petition to request a new and independent investigation with subpoena
power. By signing that, I believe you can assume that the signatories
were unhappy with the story put out by the authorities, such as
NIST.
> > Thank you, and I have no idea why it took me six days to see this reply
> > from you to me. Sorry about that. Ok, let's take a look at this. Ah,
> > cool, you can click on each one and see their profile and their statement
> > about 9/11.
Chris interjects:
Sorry I didn't see your comment. If I had, I would've replied
immediately.
> > Richard Gage says:
> > 'The WTC Twin Towers and Building #7 appear to have been brought down not
> > by jet impacts and/or fires as we have been led to believe - but by
> > controlled demolition with explosives. The evidence noted on
> > AE911Truth.org and other excellent websites is "prima facie" and will,
> > with the increasing public awareness and demand for the truth, result in a
> > new truly independent investigation with subpoena power. A/E's must now
> > become leaders for 9/11 Truth - Join Us!'
> > He says he believes that the buildings were brought down by controlled
> > demolition. But where does he say he himself can prove it? I don't see
> > that.
As a convinced person myself, I sometimes forget that newbies to
the subject often haven't looked into it far enough to be convinced.
Obviously, the 1,700+ signatories have looked far enough to convince
themselves that a new investigation needs to be done. Gage (and
others that speak on behalf of the organization) are able to prove the
contention by careful analysis of the dust from many lovations around
the WTC site. The dust contains something that other dust around NYC
does notr contain, and that is nano-thermite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite
On top of that discovery, they (as architects and engineers) have
satisfied themselves that the story of NIST was full of holes and that
the collapse of the 3 towers was accomplished by controlled
demolition. Their fields allow them the knowledge to make that sort
of determination for themselves and therefore to sign the request for
the investigation. Certainly those that think they know better can
find an architect or engineer to debate the topic with. I'm not in
those fields, but I believe I've seen enough evidence that it was
controlled demolition to suit me. The falling into their own
foootprint of 3 tall buildings, the extreme explosions heard in each
of the buildings before they fell, the sounds of explosions throughout
the buildings heard by firemen while they were in the buildings.
The freefall that tower 7 took when it went was (to me) impossible
for any building to take unless the supports were suddenly cut at the
core all at once. As well the statement by NIST that office fires
were enough to soften the steel in the building and allow it to fall
in such a perfect way for 3 buildings in the same event. NIST also
suggested that a single column could be bent and the whole building
would fall, if it was the right column. That's not sensible to me.
Now much of the above information I learned from looking into the
available information, of which there is much, both pro and con for
controlled demolition. The AE911truth group doesn't let intself get
into who did it, or why did they do it, or other possible political
reasons. They're (for now) only interested in determining
'officially' how the 3 towers fell. Conspiracies are for theorists,
and they have kept away from such, and stuck with scientific evidence
and method.
> > Daniel B. Barnum says:
> > 'I have "known" from day-one that the buildings were imploded and that
> > they could not and would not have collapsed from the damage caused by
> > the airplanes that ran into them.'
> > Nowhere does he say he himself can prove it, however.
Think how foolish that is. If he is an architect, then he has the
knowledge to make that determination, and spending many semesters
teaching the public architecture so they would understand his decision
would be ridiculous.
> > "The speed and symmetry of the collapses is not consistent with the
> > damage. A new investigation is needed."
> > Now wait, he does not specifically say here that controlled demolition
> > was used, although I suppose he may be implying that. But where does he
> > say he himself can prove it? I don't see him saying any such thing.
See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the
reason for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
> > Kevin A. Kelly says:
> > "The Presentation made by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth at the
> > AIA Convention in San Francisco made a sufficient case that a new
> > investigation into the collapses of the 3 high rise buildings on 9/11/01
> > would be worthwhile."
> > Well now wait. I thought you said that all these people have said that
> > 9/11 definitely *was* caused by controlled demolition, and that they can
> > prove it. But that's not quite what Mr. Kelly is saying here. He is
> > merely saying that due to the presentation for 911 Truth a new
> > investigation would be worthwhile. He isn't saying it actually *was*
> > caused by controlled demolition, or that he himself can prove it. He is
> > obviously just articulating a possibility.
See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
> > "There appear too many unexplained events and unverified circumstances
> > to be satisfied with the official version of the New York building
> > collapses. As unthinkable as it is to suspect the United States
> > government or military of willful complicity in these horrendous acts,
> > it is even more heinous to allow such complicity--if indeed it
> > exists--to remain undiscovered and unpunished. Therefore, a thorough and
> > impartial investigation by an independent, well-funded commission is
> > fully merited."
> > He's definitely unsatisfied with the official explanation, but nowhere
> > there does he specifically say that the collapses were due to controlled
> > demolition, nor does he come anywhere remotely close to specifically
> > saying he can prove it.
See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
> > Eason Cross says:
> > "The third building evidence is truly troubling. The 'why' is very hard
> > to comprehend."
> > I guess he means WTC 7, but he just says he's very troubled by it, and
> > does not comprehend why it collapsed. But he's not specifically saying
> > that he believes it *did* collapse due to controlled demolition, nor is
> > he saying he can prove it.
See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
> > Harry G. Robinson III says:
> > "The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated.
> > The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to
> > implode as they did."
> > Well, he certainly seems to believe that controlled demolition was
> > involved. But he's not saying that he himself can prove it.
See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
> > Abby Goodman's statement at this moment is "pending review."
> > Alan Anderson, Jr. says:
> > "? Why were two extremely tall buildings (110 stories - 1,362 feet),
> > completely destroyed, after burning for less than two hours, each coming
> > straight down, symmetrically, at freefall speed, all elements
> > characteristic of a controlled demolition, rather than toppling to the
> > side and failing only partially if at all?
> > ? Why did Building 7collapse? It was 47 stories high (571 feet), steel
> > frame, more than 300 feet from the nearest tower (WTC 1), was not hit by
> > an airplane, had no significant fire, and yet it too was completely
> > destroyed coming straight down, symmetrically, at freefall speed as if
> > by controlled demolition.
> > ? What materials in the WTC provided the fuel to generate enough heat
> > (2,500 degrees F) to create the pools of molten steel reported by
> > firefighters and cleanup crews, when jet fuel has an open air burning
> > temperature of 600 degrees F and a maximum burning temperature of 1,800
> > degrees F?
> > ? Why did the US
> On Oct 6, 6:43 pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Fascinating that mainframetech went abruptly silent on this issue as
>> soon as I posted this.
>> In article <caeruleo-588FA8.14112025092...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
>> John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> ? For another scrupulously honest site dealing with the fall of the
>>>>>> THREE towers, go here:
>>>>>> ? ?Over 1,700 architects and engineers have signed off that the WTC
>>>>>> 9/11 catastrophy was done with controlled demolition, and they can
>>>>>> prove it.
>>>>> Really? ?More than 1700 architects and engineers have specifically said
>>>>> that? ?Where may we see a list of the names of all 1700+ of these
>>>>> architects and engineers so that we may independently verify whether or
>>>>> not there are really that many, and so that we may independently verify
>>>>> that they really are accredited architects and engineers?
> No, they didn't 'specifically say that', however, they signed a
> petition to request a new and independent investigation with subpoena
> power. By signing that, I believe you can assume that the signatories
> were unhappy with the story put out by the authorities, such as
> NIST.
>>> Thank you, and I have no idea why it took me six days to see this reply
>>> from you to me. Sorry about that. Ok, let's take a look at this. Ah,
>>> cool, you can click on each one and see their profile and their statement
>>> about 9/11.
> Chris interjects:
> Sorry I didn't see your comment. If I had, I would've replied
> immediately.
>>> Richard Gage says:
>>> 'The WTC Twin Towers and Building #7 appear to have been brought down not
>>> by jet impacts and/or fires as we have been led to believe - but by
>>> controlled demolition with explosives. The evidence noted on
>>> AE911Truth.org and other excellent websites is "prima facie" and will,
>>> with the increasing public awareness and demand for the truth, result in a
>>> new truly independent investigation with subpoena power. A/E's must now
>>> become leaders for 9/11 Truth - Join Us!'
>>> He says he believes that the buildings were brought down by controlled
>>> demolition. But where does he say he himself can prove it? I don't see
>>> that.
> As a convinced person myself, I sometimes forget that newbies to
> the subject often haven't looked into it far enough to be convinced.
You must not have looked at any of the arguments against the utterly wacky "controlled demo" theory, or, I would think, you would have quickly become *un*convinced, like any reasonable person.
> Obviously, the 1,700+ signatories have looked far enough to convince
> themselves that a new investigation needs to be done. Gage (and
> others that speak on behalf of the organization) are able to prove the
> contention by careful analysis of the dust from many lovations around
> the WTC site. The dust contains something that other dust around NYC
> does notr contain, and that is nano-thermite.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite
> On top of that discovery, they (as architects and engineers) have
> satisfied themselves that the story of NIST was full of holes and that
> the collapse of the 3 towers was accomplished by controlled
> demolition. Their fields allow them the knowledge to make that sort
> of determination for themselves and therefore to sign the request for
> the investigation. Certainly those that think they know better can
> find an architect or engineer to debate the topic with. I'm not in
> those fields, but I believe I've seen enough evidence that it was
> controlled demolition to suit me. The falling into their own
> foootprint of 3 tall buildings, the extreme explosions heard in each
> of the buildings before they fell, the sounds of explosions throughout
> the buildings heard by firemen while they were in the buildings.
> The freefall that tower 7 took when it went was (to me) impossible
> for any building to take unless the supports were suddenly cut at the
> core all at once. As well the statement by NIST that office fires
> were enough to soften the steel in the building and allow it to fall
> in such a perfect way for 3 buildings in the same event. NIST also
> suggested that a single column could be bent and the whole building
> would fall, if it was the right column. That's not sensible to me.
> Now much of the above information I learned from looking into the
> available information, of which there is much, both pro and con for
> controlled demolition. The AE911truth group doesn't let intself get
> into who did it, or why did they do it, or other possible political
> reasons. They're (for now) only interested in determining
> 'officially' how the 3 towers fell. Conspiracies are for theorists,
> and they have kept away from such, and stuck with scientific evidence
> and method.
>>> Daniel B. Barnum says:
>>> 'I have "known" from day-one that the buildings were imploded and that
>>> they could not and would not have collapsed from the damage caused by
>>> the airplanes that ran into them.'
>>> Nowhere does he say he himself can prove it, however.
> Think how foolish that is. If he is an architect, then he has the
> knowledge to make that determination, and spending many semesters
> teaching the public architecture so they would understand his decision
> would be ridiculous.
Well, somebody has to prove it, or you have no reason to believe it, right? One would think...
Of course, I know that's a fallacious assumption when it comes to conspiracy theorists.
And of course, nobody's proved it, because it's a manifestly ridiculous proposition.
>>> "The speed and symmetry of the collapses is not consistent with the
>>> damage. A new investigation is needed."
>>> Now wait, he does not specifically say here that controlled demolition
>>> was used, although I suppose he may be implying that. But where does he
>>> say he himself can prove it? I don't see him saying any such thing.
> See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the
> reason for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
>>> Kevin A. Kelly says:
>>> "The Presentation made by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth at the
>>> AIA Convention in San Francisco made a sufficient case that a new
>>> investigation into the collapses of the 3 high rise buildings on 9/11/01
>>> would be worthwhile."
>>> Well now wait. I thought you said that all these people have said that
>>> 9/11 definitely *was* caused by controlled demolition, and that they can
>>> prove it. But that's not quite what Mr. Kelly is saying here. He is
>>> merely saying that due to the presentation for 911 Truth a new
>>> investigation would be worthwhile. He isn't saying it actually *was*
>>> caused by controlled demolition, or that he himself can prove it. He is
>>> obviously just articulating a possibility.
> See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
> for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
>>> Paul Stevenson Oles says:
>>> "There appear too many unexplained events and unverified circumstances
>>> to be satisfied with the official version of the New York building
>>> collapses. As unthinkable as it is to suspect the United States
>>> government or military of willful complicity in these horrendous acts,
>>> it is even more heinous to allow such complicity--if indeed it
>>> exists--to remain undiscovered and unpunished. Therefore, a thorough and
>>> impartial investigation by an independent, well-funded commission is
>>> fully merited."
>>> He's definitely unsatisfied with the official explanation, but nowhere
>>> there does he specifically say that the collapses were due to controlled
>>> demolition, nor does he come anywhere remotely close to specifically
>>> saying he can prove it.
> See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
> for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
>>> Eason Cross says:
>>> "The third building evidence is truly troubling. The 'why' is very hard
>>> to comprehend."
>>> I guess he means WTC 7, but he just says he's very troubled by it, and
>>> does not comprehend why it collapsed. But he's not specifically saying
>>> that he believes it *did* collapse due to controlled demolition, nor is
>>> he saying he can prove it.
> See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
> for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
>>> Harry G. Robinson III says:
>>> "The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated.
>>> The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to
>>> implode as they did."
>>> Well, he certainly seems to believe that controlled demolition was
>>> involved. But he's not saying that he himself can prove it.
> See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
> for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
>>> Abby Goodman's statement at this moment is "pending review."
>>> Alan Anderson, Jr. says:
>>> "? Why were two extremely tall buildings (110 stories - 1,362 feet),
>>> completely destroyed, after burning for less than two hours, each coming
>>> straight down, symmetrically, at freefall speed, all elements
>>> characteristic of a controlled demolition,
> On Oct 6, 6:43 pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Fascinating that mainframetech went abruptly silent on this issue as
>> soon as I posted this.
>> In article <caeruleo-588FA8.14112025092...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
>> John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> ? For another scrupulously honest site dealing with the fall of the
>>>>>> THREE towers, go here:
>>>>>> ? ?Over 1,700 architects and engineers have signed off that the WTC
>>>>>> 9/11 catastrophy was done with controlled demolition, and they can
>>>>>> prove it.
>>>>> Really? ?More than 1700 architects and engineers have specifically said
>>>>> that? ?Where may we see a list of the names of all 1700+ of these
>>>>> architects and engineers so that we may independently verify whether or
>>>>> not there are really that many, and so that we may independently verify
>>>>> that they really are accredited architects and engineers?
> No, they didn't 'specifically say that', however, they signed a
> petition to request a new and independent investigation with subpoena
> power. By signing that, I believe you can assume that the signatories
> were unhappy with the story put out by the authorities, such as
> NIST.
>>> Thank you, and I have no idea why it took me six days to see this reply
>>> from you to me. Sorry about that. Ok, let's take a look at this. Ah,
>>> cool, you can click on each one and see their profile and their statement
>>> about 9/11.
> Chris interjects:
> Sorry I didn't see your comment. If I had, I would've replied
> immediately.
>>> Richard Gage says:
>>> 'The WTC Twin Towers and Building #7 appear to have been brought down not
>>> by jet impacts and/or fires as we have been led to believe - but by
>>> controlled demolition with explosives. The evidence noted on
>>> AE911Truth.org and other excellent websites is "prima facie" and will,
>>> with the increasing public awareness and demand for the truth, result in a
>>> new truly independent investigation with subpoena power. A/E's must now
>>> become leaders for 9/11 Truth - Join Us!'
>>> He says he believes that the buildings were brought down by controlled
>>> demolition. But where does he say he himself can prove it? I don't see
>>> that.
> As a convinced person myself, I sometimes forget that newbies to
> the subject often haven't looked into it far enough to be convinced.
> Obviously, the 1,700+ signatories have looked far enough to convince
> themselves that a new investigation needs to be done. Gage (and
> others that speak on behalf of the organization) are able to prove the
> contention by careful analysis of the dust from many lovations around
> the WTC site. The dust contains something that other dust around NYC
> does notr contain, and that is nano-thermite.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite
What looks like nano-thermite was actually produced by the impact of the aluminum of the plane on the rusted steel beams.
Aluminum+rust=thermite.
> On top of that discovery, they (as architects and engineers) have
> satisfied themselves that the story of NIST was full of holes and that
> the collapse of the 3 towers was accomplished by controlled
> demolition. Their fields allow them the knowledge to make that sort
> of determination for themselves and therefore to sign the request for
> the investigation. Certainly those that think they know better can
> find an architect or engineer to debate the topic with. I'm not in
> those fields, but I believe I've seen enough evidence that it was
> controlled demolition to suit me. The falling into their own
> foootprint of 3 tall buildings, the extreme explosions heard in each
> of the buildings before they fell, the sounds of explosions throughout
> the buildings heard by firemen while they were in the buildings.
> The freefall that tower 7 took when it went was (to me) impossible
> for any building to take unless the supports were suddenly cut at the
> core all at once. As well the statement by NIST that office fires
That's not how you do a controlled demolition. You have to time the sequence with a slight delay between floors. Have you ever watched BOOM?
> were enough to soften the steel in the building and allow it to fall
> in such a perfect way for 3 buildings in the same event. NIST also
> suggested that a single column could be bent and the whole building
> would fall, if it was the right column. That's not sensible to me.
In many building collapses all it takes is a failure at ONE point to bring down the whole building.
Like a house of cards.
> Now much of the above information I learned from looking into the
> available information, of which there is much, both pro and con for
> controlled demolition. The AE911truth group doesn't let intself get
> into who did it, or why did they do it, or other possible political
> reasons. They're (for now) only interested in determining
> 'officially' how the 3 towers fell. Conspiracies are for theorists,
> and they have kept away from such, and stuck with scientific evidence
> and method.
>>> Daniel B. Barnum says:
>>> 'I have "known" from day-one that the buildings were imploded and that
>>> they could not and would not have collapsed from the damage caused by
>>> the airplanes that ran into them.'
>>> Nowhere does he say he himself can prove it, however.
> Think how foolish that is. If he is an architect, then he has the
> knowledge to make that determination, and spending many semesters
> teaching the public architecture so they would understand his decision
> would be ridiculous.
>>> "The speed and symmetry of the collapses is not consistent with the
>>> damage. A new investigation is needed."
>>> Now wait, he does not specifically say here that controlled demolition
>>> was used, although I suppose he may be implying that. But where does he
>>> say he himself can prove it? I don't see him saying any such thing.
> See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the
> reason for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
>>> Kevin A. Kelly says:
>>> "The Presentation made by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth at the
>>> AIA Convention in San Francisco made a sufficient case that a new
>>> investigation into the collapses of the 3 high rise buildings on 9/11/01
>>> would be worthwhile."
>>> Well now wait. I thought you said that all these people have said that
>>> 9/11 definitely *was* caused by controlled demolition, and that they can
>>> prove it. But that's not quite what Mr. Kelly is saying here. He is
>>> merely saying that due to the presentation for 911 Truth a new
>>> investigation would be worthwhile. He isn't saying it actually *was*
>>> caused by controlled demolition, or that he himself can prove it. He is
>>> obviously just articulating a possibility.
> See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
> for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
>>> Paul Stevenson Oles says:
>>> "There appear too many unexplained events and unverified circumstances
>>> to be satisfied with the official version of the New York building
>>> collapses. As unthinkable as it is to suspect the United States
>>> government or military of willful complicity in these horrendous acts,
>>> it is even more heinous to allow such complicity--if indeed it
>>> exists--to remain undiscovered and unpunished. Therefore, a thorough and
>>> impartial investigation by an independent, well-funded commission is
>>> fully merited."
>>> He's definitely unsatisfied with the official explanation, but nowhere
>>> there does he specifically say that the collapses were due to controlled
>>> demolition, nor does he come anywhere remotely close to specifically
>>> saying he can prove it.
> See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
> for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
>>> Eason Cross says:
>>> "The third building evidence is truly troubling. The 'why' is very hard
>>> to comprehend."
>>> I guess he means WTC 7, but he just says he's very troubled by it, and
>>> does not comprehend why it collapsed. But he's not specifically saying
>>> that he believes it *did* collapse due to controlled demolition, nor is
>>> he saying he can prove it.
> See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
> for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
>>> Harry G. Robinson III says:
>>> "The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated.
>>> The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to
>>> implode as they did."
>>> Well, he certainly seems to believe that controlled demolition was
>>> involved. But he's not saying that he himself can prove it.
> See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
> for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
>>> Abby Goodman's statement at this moment is "pending review."
>>> Alan Anderson, Jr. says:
>>> "? Why were two extremely tall buildings (110 stories - 1,362 feet),
>>> completely destroyed, after burning for less than two hours, each coming
>>> straight down, symmetrically, at freefall speed, all elements
>>> characteristic of a controlled demolition, rather than toppling to the
>>> side and failing only partially if at all?
>>> ? Why did Building 7collapse? It was 47 stories high
> On Oct 6, 6:43 pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Fascinating that mainframetech went abruptly silent on this issue as
>> soon as I posted this.
>> In article <caeruleo-588FA8.14112025092...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
>> John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <051ad4cf-68b1-46b5-8d2d-9fb69b44c...@v15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>>> mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sep 18, 8:22?pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <6cfaa52a-63e6-4a55-a6a5-3d5a112f3...@u15g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>> ? ?Over 1,700 architects and engineers have signed off that the WTC
>>>>>> 9/11 catastrophy was done with controlled demolition, and they can
>>>>>> prove it.
>>>>> Really? ?More than 1700 architects and engineers have specifically said
>>>>> that? ?Where may we see a list of the names of all 1700+ of these
>>>>> architects and engineers so that we may independently verify whether or
>>>>> not there are really that many, and so that we may independently verify
>>>>> that they really are accredited architects and engineers?
>>> Thank you, and I have no idea why it took me six days to see this reply
>>> from you to me. Sorry about that. Ok, let's take a look at this. Ah,
>>> cool, you can click on each one and see their profile and their statement
>>> about 9/11.
>>> Richard Gage says:
>>> 'The WTC Twin Towers and Building #7 appear to have been brought down not
>>> by jet impacts and/or fires as we have been led to believe - but by
>>> controlled demolition with explosives. The evidence noted on
>>> AE911Truth.org and other excellent websites is "prima facie" and will,
>>> with the increasing public awareness and demand for the truth, result in a
>>> new truly independent investigation with subpoena power. A/E's must now
>>> become leaders for 9/11 Truth - Join Us!'
>>> He says he believes that the buildings were brought down by controlled
>>> demolition. But where does he say he himself can prove it? I don't see
>>> that.
>>> Daniel B. Barnum says:
>>> 'I have "known" from day-one that the buildings were imploded and that
>>> they could not and would not have collapsed from the damage caused by
>>> the airplanes that ran into them.'
>>> Nowhere does he say he himself can prove it, however.
>>> David Paul Helpern says:
>>> "The speed and symmetry of the collapses is not consistent with the
>>> damage. A new investigation is needed."
>>> Now wait, he does not specifically say here that controlled demolition
>>> was used, although I suppose he may be implying that. But where does he
>>> say he himself can prove it? I don't see him saying any such thing.
>>> Kevin A. Kelly says:
>>> "The Presentation made by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth at the
>>> AIA Convention in San Francisco made a sufficient case that a new
>>> investigation into the collapses of the 3 high rise buildings on 9/11/01
>>> would be worthwhile."
>>> Well now wait. I thought you said that all these people have said that
>>> 9/11 definitely *was* caused by controlled demolition, and that they can
>>> prove it. But that's not quite what Mr. Kelly is saying here. He is
>>> merely saying that due to the presentation for 911 Truth a new
>>> investigation would be worthwhile. He isn't saying it actually *was*
>>> caused by controlled demolition, or that he himself can prove it. He is
>>> obviously just articulating a possibility.
>>> Paul Stevenson Oles says:
>>> "There appear too many unexplained events and unverified circumstances
>>> to be satisfied with the official version of the New York building
>>> collapses. As unthinkable as it is to suspect the United States
>>> government or military of willful complicity in these horrendous acts,
>>> it is even more heinous to allow such complicity--if indeed it
>>> exists--to remain undiscovered and unpunished. Therefore, a thorough and
>>> impartial investigation by an independent, well-funded commission is
>>> fully merited."
>>> He's definitely unsatisfied with the official explanation, but nowhere
>>> there does he specifically say that the collapses were due to controlled
>>> demolition, nor does he come anywhere remotely close to specifically
>>> saying he can prove it.
>>> Eason Cross says:
>>> "The third building evidence is truly troubling. The 'why' is very hard
>>> to comprehend."
>>> I guess he means WTC 7, but he just says he's very troubled by it, and
>>> does not comprehend why it collapsed. But he's not specifically saying
>>> that he believes it *did* collapse due to controlled demolition, nor is
>>> he saying he can prove it.
>>> Harry G. Robinson III says:
>>> "The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated.
>>> The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to
>>> implode as they did."
>>> Well, he certainly seems to believe that controlled demolition was
>>> involved. But he's not saying that he himself can prove it.
>>> Abby Goodman's statement at this moment is "pending review."
>>> Alan Anderson, Jr. says:
>>> "? Why were two extremely tall buildings (110 stories - 1,362 feet),
>>> completely destroyed, after burning for less than two hours, each coming
>>> straight down, symmetrically, at freefall speed, all elements
>>> characteristic of a controlled demolition, rather than toppling to the
>>> side and failing only partially if at all?
>>> ? Why did Building 7collapse? It was 47 stories high (571 feet), steel
>>> frame, more than 300 feet from the nearest tower (WTC 1), was not hit by
>>> an airplane, had no significant fire, and yet it too was completely
>>> destroyed coming straight down, symmetrically, at freefall speed as if
>>> by controlled demolition.
>>> ? What materials in the WTC provided the fuel to generate enough heat
>>> (2,500 degrees F) to create the pools of molten steel reported by
>>> firefighters and cleanup crews, when jet fuel has an open air burning
>>> temperature of 600 degrees F and a maximum burning temperature of 1,800
>>> degrees F?
>>> ? Why did the US Government spend only $600,000 to investigate the
>>> collapse of all three WTC skyscrapers, when it spent $40 million to
>>> investigate Clinton?s sex life?"
>>> Heh, well he sure has a lot of questions, and especially like his last
>>> one. And he certainly appears to believe that controlled demolition was
>>> involved. But he's not saying that he himself can prove it.
>>> Alan Haymond says:
>>> "Suspicious on 9/11 about the collapses and the size of the original
>>> hole in the Pentagon. Thoroughly convinced of cover up by April '02 -
>>> too many unanswered questions. Recommend David Ray Griffin's books."
>>> He says he's suspicious of the collapses, and was convinced well under a
>>> year later that there was a coverup. But nowhere there does he
>>> specifically say that he believes the collapses were the result of
>>> controlled demolition, nor does he specifically say that he can prove it.
>>> I've cited only the first ten here, but I've spent quite a lot of time
>>> looking at many of the others, including in the engineers farther down
>>> and also in the non-U.S. list. In some of them I'm finding the
>>> qualifications listed in the Bio section to be questionable. I saw one
>>> that listed his experience only in railroad engineering, and another who
>>> didn't really list any experience with anything. I do see quite a few
>>> saying they believed controlled demolitions were involved, but I'm also
>>> seeing about the same number who merely are voicing suspicions and
>>> calling for further investigation.
>>> I haven't even found one yet, however, who specifically says that he or
>>> she can prove that the buildings collapsed due to controlled
>>> demolitions. There are a lot of them I haven't looked at yet, so I
>>> won't deny that there may be some that I haven't seen yet who say that,
>>> but I've looked at something like a hundred of them so far, and I still
>>> haven't found one yet who says they can prove this.
>>> Your original statement that I first replied to was this:
>>> "Over 1,700 architects and engineers have signed off that the WTC 9/11
>>> catastrophy was done with controlled demolition, and they can prove it."
>>> In my reply I was obviously asking if it was really true that more than
>>> 1700 of them really said what you're attributing to them, and in your
>>> reply to me you produced a link to a webpage that clearly shows your
>>> statement to be rather exaggerated.
> Ha, I know the feeling as you seem to have avoided threads of mine of
> similar topic and have finished off topics without your response. I think
> what's important here is that so many professionals have stated a strong
> opinion to their felt reasons for the falls. When one says provable they
> might be wanting the exact scientific play by play of fall and won't
> accept anything less. Very unrealistic to expect something of that
> nature. If you feel like thumping your chest, why don't you come up with
> something that says it wasn't by a demolition? Kinda unproductive to just
Lack of flashes of light on each floor as we see in real controlled demolitions. It appears that you have never actually seen a real controlled demolition.
> > On Oct 6, 6:43 pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Fascinating that mainframetech went abruptly silent on this issue as
> >> soon as I posted this.
> >> In article <caeruleo-588FA8.14112025092...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> >> John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> ? For another scrupulously honest site dealing with the fall of the
> >>>>>> THREE towers, go here:
> >>>>>> ? ?Over 1,700 architects and engineers have signed off that the WTC
> >>>>>> 9/11 catastrophy was done with controlled demolition, and they can
> >>>>>> prove it.
> >>>>> Really? ?More than 1700 architects and engineers have specifically said
> >>>>> that? ?Where may we see a list of the names of all 1700+ of these
> >>>>> architects and engineers so that we may independently verify whether or
> >>>>> not there are really that many, and so that we may independently verify
> >>>>> that they really are accredited architects and engineers?
> > No, they didn't 'specifically say that', however, they signed a
> > petition to request a new and independent investigation with subpoena
> > power. By signing that, I believe you can assume that the signatories
> > were unhappy with the story put out by the authorities, such as
> > NIST.
> >>> Thank you, and I have no idea why it took me six days to see this reply
> >>> from you to me. Sorry about that. Ok, let's take a look at this. Ah,
> >>> cool, you can click on each one and see their profile and their statement
> >>> about 9/11.
> > Chris interjects:
> > Sorry I didn't see your comment. If I had, I would've replied
> > immediately.
> >>> Richard Gage says:
> >>> 'The WTC Twin Towers and Building #7 appear to have been brought down not
> >>> by jet impacts and/or fires as we have been led to believe - but by
> >>> controlled demolition with explosives. The evidence noted on
> >>> AE911Truth.org and other excellent websites is "prima facie" and will,
> >>> with the increasing public awareness and demand for the truth, result in a
> >>> new truly independent investigation with subpoena power. A/E's must now
> >>> become leaders for 9/11 Truth - Join Us!'
> >>> He says he believes that the buildings were brought down by controlled
> >>> demolition. But where does he say he himself can prove it? I don't see
> >>> that.
> > As a convinced person myself, I sometimes forget that newbies to
> > the subject often haven't looked into it far enough to be convinced.
> You must not have looked at any of the arguments against the utterly wacky
> "controlled demo" theory, or, I would think, you would have quickly become
> *un*convinced, like any reasonable person.
I will be happy to look at your resource, though I've spent a lot of
time looking at others, and listening to the NIST barrel of monkeys.
Let me make it very clear. I'm not interested in ANY theories, I'm
interested in evidence and there is far more of it one the 'controlled
demolition' side, than otherwise.
Oh my! A hotbed of conspiracy theories! Who'd want to believe any
of those idiots? I want evidence, which the AE911truth people have
provided. As well as experts in their fields stating their opinions
and evidence.
> > Obviously, the 1,700+ signatories have looked far enough to convince
> > themselves that a new investigation needs to be done. Gage (and
> > others that speak on behalf of the organization) are able to prove the
> > contention by careful analysis of the dust from many lovations around
> > the WTC site. The dust contains something that other dust around NYC
> > does notr contain, and that is nano-thermite.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite
> > On top of that discovery, they (as architects and engineers) have
> > satisfied themselves that the story of NIST was full of holes and that
> > the collapse of the 3 towers was accomplished by controlled
> > demolition. Their fields allow them the knowledge to make that sort
> > of determination for themselves and therefore to sign the request for
> > the investigation. Certainly those that think they know better can
> > find an architect or engineer to debate the topic with. I'm not in
> > those fields, but I believe I've seen enough evidence that it was
> > controlled demolition to suit me. The falling into their own
> > foootprint of 3 tall buildings, the extreme explosions heard in each
> > of the buildings before they fell, the sounds of explosions throughout
> > the buildings heard by firemen while they were in the buildings.
> > The freefall that tower 7 took when it went was (to me) impossible
> > for any building to take unless the supports were suddenly cut at the
> > core all at once. As well the statement by NIST that office fires
> > were enough to soften the steel in the building and allow it to fall
> > in such a perfect way for 3 buildings in the same event. NIST also
> > suggested that a single column could be bent and the whole building
> > would fall, if it was the right column. That's not sensible to me.
> > Now much of the above information I learned from looking into the
> > available information, of which there is much, both pro and con for
> > controlled demolition. The AE911truth group doesn't let intself get
> > into who did it, or why did they do it, or other possible political
> > reasons. They're (for now) only interested in determining
> > 'officially' how the 3 towers fell. Conspiracies are for theorists,
> > and they have kept away from such, and stuck with scientific evidence
> > and method.
> >>> Daniel B. Barnum says:
> >>> 'I have "known" from day-one that the buildings were imploded and that
> >>> they could not and would not have collapsed from the damage caused by
> >>> the airplanes that ran into them.'
> >>> Nowhere does he say he himself can prove it, however.
> > Think how foolish that is. If he is an architect, then he has the
> > knowledge to make that determination, and spending many semesters
> > teaching the public architecture so they would understand his decision
> > would be ridiculous.
> Well, somebody has to prove it, or you have no reason to believe it,
> right? One would think...
> Of course, I know that's a fallacious assumption when it comes to
> conspiracy theorists.
> And of course, nobody's proved it, because it's a manifestly ridiculous
> proposition.
Ah. You say it can't be proved because YOU think it's ridiculous!
Now that's not too evidential a base for believing anything...:)
That's closer to theories than anything I'm looking for. Actually,
they HAVE proved 'controlled demolition' with science, not theories.
It sounds like you didn't research the subject, you looked at sites
and information that will bolster your view of the world, and avoid
evidence that scares you out of your pants. That's not very
scientific. With science, you start with the data and information,
then form a belief from that, testing it against all other
possibilities. Try it...:)
> >>> "The speed and symmetry of the collapses is not consistent with the
> >>> damage. A new investigation is needed."
> >>> Now wait, he does not specifically say here that controlled demolition
> >>> was used, although I suppose he may be implying that. But where does he
> >>> say he himself can prove it? I don't see him saying any such thing.
> > See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the
> > reason for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
> >>> Kevin A. Kelly says:
> >>> "The Presentation made by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth at the
> >>> AIA Convention in San Francisco made a sufficient case that a new
> >>> investigation into the collapses of the 3 high rise buildings on 9/11/01
> >>> would be worthwhile."
> >>> Well now wait. I thought you said that all these people have said that
> >>> 9/11 definitely *was* caused by controlled demolition, and that they can
> >>> prove it. But that's not quite what Mr. Kelly is saying here. He is
> >>> merely saying that due to the presentation for 911 Truth a new
> >>> investigation would be worthwhile. He isn't saying it actually *was*
> >>> caused by controlled demolition, or that he himself can prove it. He is
> >>> obviously just articulating a possibility.
> > See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
> > for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
> >>> Paul Stevenson Oles says:
> >>> "There appear too many unexplained events and unverified circumstances
> >>> to be satisfied with the official version of the New York building
> >>> collapses. As unthinkable as it is to suspect the United States
> >>> government or military of willful complicity in these horrendous acts,
> >>> it is even more heinous to allow such complicity--if indeed it
> >>> exists--to remain undiscovered and unpunished. Therefore, a thorough and
> >>> impartial investigation by an independent, well-funded commission is
> >>> fully merited."
> >>> He's definitely unsatisfied with the official explanation, but nowhere
> >>> there does he specifically say that the collapses were due to controlled
> >>> demolition, nor does he come anywhere remotely close to specifically
> > On Oct 6, 6:43 pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Fascinating that mainframetech went abruptly silent on this issue as
> >> soon as I posted this.
> >> In article <caeruleo-588FA8.14112025092...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> >> John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> ? For another scrupulously honest site dealing with the fall of the
> >>>>>> THREE towers, go here:
> >>>>>> ? ?Over 1,700 architects and engineers have signed off that the WTC
> >>>>>> 9/11 catastrophy was done with controlled demolition, and they can
> >>>>>> prove it.
> >>>>> Really? ?More than 1700 architects and engineers have specifically said
> >>>>> that? ?Where may we see a list of the names of all 1700+ of these
> >>>>> architects and engineers so that we may independently verify whether or
> >>>>> not there are really that many, and so that we may independently verify
> >>>>> that they really are accredited architects and engineers?
> > No, they didn't 'specifically say that', however, they signed a
> > petition to request a new and independent investigation with subpoena
> > power. By signing that, I believe you can assume that the signatories
> > were unhappy with the story put out by the authorities, such as
> > NIST.
> >>> Thank you, and I have no idea why it took me six days to see this reply
> >>> from you to me. Sorry about that. Ok, let's take a look at this. Ah,
> >>> cool, you can click on each one and see their profile and their statement
> >>> about 9/11.
> > Chris interjects:
> > Sorry I didn't see your comment. If I had, I would've replied
> > immediately.
> >>> Richard Gage says:
> >>> 'The WTC Twin Towers and Building #7 appear to have been brought down not
> >>> by jet impacts and/or fires as we have been led to believe - but by
> >>> controlled demolition with explosives. The evidence noted on
> >>> AE911Truth.org and other excellent websites is "prima facie" and will,
> >>> with the increasing public awareness and demand for the truth, result in a
> >>> new truly independent investigation with subpoena power. A/E's must now
> >>> become leaders for 9/11 Truth - Join Us!'
> >>> He says he believes that the buildings were brought down by controlled
> >>> demolition. But where does he say he himself can prove it? I don't see
> >>> that.
> > As a convinced person myself, I sometimes forget that newbies to
> > the subject often haven't looked into it far enough to be convinced.
> You must not have looked at any of the arguments against the utterly wacky
> "controlled demo" theory, or, I would think, you would have quickly become
> *un*convinced, like any reasonable person.
> > Obviously, the 1,700+ signatories have looked far enough to convince
> > themselves that a new investigation needs to be done. Gage (and
> > others that speak on behalf of the organization) are able to prove the
> > contention by careful analysis of the dust from many lovations around
> > the WTC site. The dust contains something that other dust around NYC
> > does notr contain, and that is nano-thermite.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite
> > On top of that discovery, they (as architects and engineers) have
> > satisfied themselves that the story of NIST was full of holes and that
> > the collapse of the 3 towers was accomplished by controlled
> > demolition. Their fields allow them the knowledge to make that sort
> > of determination for themselves and therefore to sign the request for
> > the investigation. Certainly those that think they know better can
> > find an architect or engineer to debate the topic with. I'm not in
> > those fields, but I believe I've seen enough evidence that it was
> > controlled demolition to suit me. The falling into their own
> > foootprint of 3 tall buildings, the extreme explosions heard in each
> > of the buildings before they fell, the sounds of explosions throughout
> > the buildings heard by firemen while they were in the buildings.
> > The freefall that tower 7 took when it went was (to me) impossible
> > for any building to take unless the supports were suddenly cut at the
> > core all at once. As well the statement by NIST that office fires
> > were enough to soften the steel in the building and allow it to fall
> > in such a perfect way for 3 buildings in the same event. NIST also
> > suggested that a single column could be bent and the whole building
> > would fall, if it was the right column. That's not sensible to me.
> > Now much of the above information I learned from looking into the
> > available information, of which there is much, both pro and con for
> > controlled demolition. The AE911truth group doesn't let intself get
> > into who did it, or why did they do it, or other possible political
> > reasons. They're (for now) only interested in determining
> > 'officially' how the 3 towers fell. Conspiracies are for theorists,
> > and they have kept away from such, and stuck with scientific evidence
> > and method.
> >>> Daniel B. Barnum says:
> >>> 'I have "known" from day-one that the buildings were imploded and that
> >>> they could not and would not have collapsed from the damage caused by
> >>> the airplanes that ran into them.'
> >>> Nowhere does he say he himself can prove it, however.
> > Think how foolish that is. If he is an architect, then he has the
> > knowledge to make that determination, and spending many semesters
> > teaching the public architecture so they would understand his decision
> > would be ridiculous.
> Well, somebody has to prove it, or you have no reason to believe it,
> right? One would think...
> Of course, I know that's a fallacious assumption when it comes to
> conspiracy theorists.
> And of course, nobody's proved it, because it's a manifestly ridiculous
> proposition.
> >>> "The speed and symmetry of the collapses is not consistent with the
> >>> damage. A new investigation is needed."
> >>> Now wait, he does not specifically say here that controlled demolition
> >>> was used, although I suppose he may be implying that. But where does he
> >>> say he himself can prove it? I don't see him saying any such thing.
> > See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the
> > reason for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
> >>> Kevin A. Kelly says:
> >>> "The Presentation made by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth at the
> >>> AIA Convention in San Francisco made a sufficient case that a new
> >>> investigation into the collapses of the 3 high rise buildings on 9/11/01
> >>> would be worthwhile."
> >>> Well now wait. I thought you said that all these people have said that
> >>> 9/11 definitely *was* caused by controlled demolition, and that they can
> >>> prove it. But that's not quite what Mr. Kelly is saying here. He is
> >>> merely saying that due to the presentation for 911 Truth a new
> >>> investigation would be worthwhile. He isn't saying it actually *was*
> >>> caused by controlled demolition, or that he himself can prove it. He is
> >>> obviously just articulating a possibility.
> > See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
> > for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
> >>> Paul Stevenson Oles says:
> >>> "There appear too many unexplained events and unverified circumstances
> >>> to be satisfied with the official version of the New York building
> >>> collapses. As unthinkable as it is to suspect the United States
> >>> government or military of willful complicity in these horrendous acts,
> >>> it is even more heinous to allow such complicity--if indeed it
> >>> exists--to remain undiscovered and unpunished. Therefore, a thorough and
> >>> impartial investigation by an independent, well-funded commission is
> >>> fully merited."
> >>> He's definitely unsatisfied with the official explanation, but nowhere
> >>> there does he specifically say that the collapses were due to controlled
> >>> demolition, nor does he come anywhere remotely close to specifically
> >>> saying he can prove it.
> > See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
> > for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
> >>> Eason Cross says:
> >>> "The third building evidence is truly troubling. The 'why' is very hard
> >>> to comprehend."
> >>> I guess he means WTC 7, but he just says he's very troubled by it, and
> >>> does not comprehend why it collapsed. But he's not specifically saying
> >>> that he believes it *did* collapse due to controlled demolition, nor is
> >>> he saying he can prove it.
> > See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
> > for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
> >>> Harry G. Robinson III says:
> >>> "The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated.
> >>> The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to
> >>> implode as they did."
> >>> Well, he certainly seems to believe that controlled demolition was
> >>> involved. But he's not saying that he himself can prove it.
> > See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
> > for the collapse is in his
> On Oct 7, 6:06 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On 10/7/12 11:14 AM, mainframetech wrote:
>>> On Oct 6, 6:43 pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Fascinating that mainframetech went abruptly silent on this issue as
>>>> soon as I posted this.
>>>> In article <caeruleo-588FA8.14112025092...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
>>>> John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> ? For another scrupulously honest site dealing with the fall of the
>>>>>>>> THREE towers, go here:
>>>>>>>> ? ?Over 1,700 architects and engineers have signed off that the WTC
>>>>>>>> 9/11 catastrophy was done with controlled demolition, and they can
>>>>>>>> prove it.
>>>>>>> Really? ?More than 1700 architects and engineers have specifically said
>>>>>>> that? ?Where may we see a list of the names of all 1700+ of these
>>>>>>> architects and engineers so that we may independently verify whether or
>>>>>>> not there are really that many, and so that we may independently verify
>>>>>>> that they really are accredited architects and engineers?
>>> No, they didn't 'specifically say that', however, they signed a
>>> petition to request a new and independent investigation with subpoena
>>> power. By signing that, I believe you can assume that the signatories
>>> were unhappy with the story put out by the authorities, such as
>>> NIST.
>>>>> Thank you, and I have no idea why it took me six days to see this reply
>>>>> from you to me. Sorry about that. Ok, let's take a look at this. Ah,
>>>>> cool, you can click on each one and see their profile and their statement
>>>>> about 9/11.
>>> Chris interjects:
>>> Sorry I didn't see your comment. If I had, I would've replied
>>> immediately.
>>>>> Richard Gage says:
>>>>> 'The WTC Twin Towers and Building #7 appear to have been brought down not
>>>>> by jet impacts and/or fires as we have been led to believe - but by
>>>>> controlled demolition with explosives. The evidence noted on
>>>>> AE911Truth.org and other excellent websites is "prima facie" and will,
>>>>> with the increasing public awareness and demand for the truth, result in a
>>>>> new truly independent investigation with subpoena power. A/E's must now
>>>>> become leaders for 9/11 Truth - Join Us!'
>>>>> He says he believes that the buildings were brought down by controlled
>>>>> demolition. But where does he say he himself can prove it? I don't see
>>>>> that.
>>> As a convinced person myself, I sometimes forget that newbies to
>>> the subject often haven't looked into it far enough to be convinced.
>> You must not have looked at any of the arguments against the utterly wacky
>> "controlled demo" theory, or, I would think, you would have quickly become
>> *un*convinced, like any reasonable person.
> I will be happy to look at your resource, though I've spent a lot of
> time looking at others, and listening to the NIST barrel of monkeys.
> Let me make it very clear. I'm not interested in ANY theories, I'm
> interested in evidence and there is far more of it one the 'controlled
> demolition' side, than otherwise.
> Oh my! A hotbed of conspiracy theories! Who'd want to believe any
> of those idiots? I want evidence, which the AE911truth people have
> provided. As well as experts in their fields stating their opinions
> and evidence.
>>> Obviously, the 1,700+ signatories have looked far enough to convince
>>> themselves that a new investigation needs to be done. Gage (and
>>> others that speak on behalf of the organization) are able to prove the
>>> contention by careful analysis of the dust from many lovations around
>>> the WTC site. The dust contains something that other dust around NYC
>>> does notr contain, and that is nano-thermite.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite
>>> On top of that discovery, they (as architects and engineers) have
>>> satisfied themselves that the story of NIST was full of holes and that
>>> the collapse of the 3 towers was accomplished by controlled
>>> demolition. Their fields allow them the knowledge to make that sort
>>> of determination for themselves and therefore to sign the request for
>>> the investigation. Certainly those that think they know better can
>>> find an architect or engineer to debate the topic with. I'm not in
>>> those fields, but I believe I've seen enough evidence that it was
>>> controlled demolition to suit me. The falling into their own
>>> foootprint of 3 tall buildings, the extreme explosions heard in each
>>> of the buildings before they fell, the sounds of explosions throughout
>>> the buildings heard by firemen while they were in the buildings.
>>> The freefall that tower 7 took when it went was (to me) impossible
>>> for any building to take unless the supports were suddenly cut at the
>>> core all at once. As well the statement by NIST that office fires
>>> were enough to soften the steel in the building and allow it to fall
>>> in such a perfect way for 3 buildings in the same event. NIST also
>>> suggested that a single column could be bent and the whole building
>>> would fall, if it was the right column. That's not sensible to me.
>>> Now much of the above information I learned from looking into the
>>> available information, of which there is much, both pro and con for
>>> controlled demolition. The AE911truth group doesn't let intself get
>>> into who did it, or why did they do it, or other possible political
>>> reasons. They're (for now) only interested in determining
>>> 'officially' how the 3 towers fell. Conspiracies are for theorists,
>>> and they have kept away from such, and stuck with scientific evidence
>>> and method.
>>>>> Daniel B. Barnum says:
>>>>> 'I have "known" from day-one that the buildings were imploded and that
>>>>> they could not and would not have collapsed from the damage caused by
>>>>> the airplanes that ran into them.'
>>>>> Nowhere does he say he himself can prove it, however.
>>> Think how foolish that is. If he is an architect, then he has the
>>> knowledge to make that determination, and spending many semesters
>>> teaching the public architecture so they would understand his decision
>>> would be ridiculous.
>> Well, somebody has to prove it, or you have no reason to believe it,
>> right? One would think...
>> Of course, I know that's a fallacious assumption when it comes to
>> conspiracy theorists.
>> And of course, nobody's proved it, because it's a manifestly ridiculous
>> proposition.
> Ah. You say it can't be proved because YOU think it's ridiculous!
Well, the main reason it can't be proved is because it isn't true.
It can't be proved any more than, say, the theory that Neil Armstrong never walked on the moon.
But the CD theory is also as ridiculous as that.
Next you'll be telling me there weren't even any planes.
> Now that's not too evidential a base for believing anything...:)
> That's closer to theories than anything I'm looking for. Actually,
> they HAVE proved 'controlled demolition' with science, not theories.
> It sounds like you didn't research the subject, you looked at sites
> and information that will bolster your view of the world, and avoid
> evidence that scares you out of your pants. That's not very
> scientific. With science, you start with the data and information,
> then form a belief from that, testing it against all other
> possibilities. Try it...:)
I've seen both the bunk and the debunking, of course. I have long been curious about how alternative realities are maintained. The similarities are striking between the perpetuation of certain urban legends about the Kennedy assassination and the stubborn persistence of delirious misinterpretations of the fall of the World Trade Center.
Some theories are so ridiculous that a person capable of believing them in the first place is likely to be impervious to any evidence to the contrary. But I do what I can.
>>>>> "The speed and symmetry of the collapses is not consistent with the
>>>>> damage. A new investigation is needed."
>>>>> Now wait, he does not specifically say here that controlled demolition
>>>>> was used, although I suppose he may be implying that. But where does he
>>>>> say he himself can prove it? I don't see him saying any such thing.
>>> See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the
>>> reason for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
>>>>> Kevin A. Kelly says:
>>>>> "The Presentation made by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth at the
>>>>> AIA Convention in San Francisco made a sufficient case that a new
>>>>> investigation into the collapses of the 3 high rise buildings on 9/11/01
>>>>> would be worthwhile."
>>>>> Well now wait. I thought you said that all these people have said that
>>>>> 9/11 definitely *was* caused by controlled demolition, and that they can
>>>>> prove it. But that's not quite what Mr. Kelly is saying here. He is
>>>>> merely saying that due to the presentation for 911 Truth a new
>>>>> investigation would be worthwhile. He isn't saying it actually *was*
>>>>> caused by controlled demolition, or that he himself can prove it. He is
>>>>> obviously just articulating a possibility.
> On 10/7/12 11:14 AM, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Oct 6, 6:43 pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Fascinating that mainframetech went abruptly silent on this issue as
>>> soon as I posted this.
>>> In article <caeruleo-588FA8.14112025092...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
>>> John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> ? For another scrupulously honest site dealing with the fall of the
>>>>>>> THREE towers, go here:
>>>>>>> ? ?Over 1,700 architects and engineers have signed off that the WTC
>>>>>>> 9/11 catastrophy was done with controlled demolition, and they can
>>>>>>> prove it.
>>>>>> Really? ?More than 1700 architects and engineers have specifically
>>>>>> said
>>>>>> that? ?Where may we see a list of the names of all 1700+ of these
>>>>>> architects and engineers so that we may independently verify
>>>>>> whether or
>>>>>> not there are really that many, and so that we may independently
>>>>>> verify
>>>>>> that they really are accredited architects and engineers?
>> No, they didn't 'specifically say that', however, they signed a
>> petition to request a new and independent investigation with subpoena
>> power. By signing that, I believe you can assume that the signatories
>> were unhappy with the story put out by the authorities, such as
>> NIST.
>>>> Thank you, and I have no idea why it took me six days to see this reply
>>>> from you to me. Sorry about that. Ok, let's take a look at this. Ah,
>>>> cool, you can click on each one and see their profile and their
>>>> statement
>>>> about 9/11.
>> Chris interjects:
>> Sorry I didn't see your comment. If I had, I would've replied
>> immediately.
>>>> Richard Gage says:
>>>> 'The WTC Twin Towers and Building #7 appear to have been brought
>>>> down not
>>>> by jet impacts and/or fires as we have been led to believe - but by
>>>> controlled demolition with explosives. The evidence noted on
>>>> AE911Truth.org and other excellent websites is "prima facie" and will,
>>>> with the increasing public awareness and demand for the truth,
>>>> result in a
>>>> new truly independent investigation with subpoena power. A/E's must now
>>>> become leaders for 9/11 Truth - Join Us!'
>>>> He says he believes that the buildings were brought down by controlled
>>>> demolition. But where does he say he himself can prove it? I don't
>>>> see
>>>> that.
>> As a convinced person myself, I sometimes forget that newbies to
>> the subject often haven't looked into it far enough to be convinced.
> You must not have looked at any of the arguments against the utterly
> wacky "controlled demo" theory, or, I would think, you would have
> quickly become *un*convinced, like any reasonable person.
>> Obviously, the 1,700+ signatories have looked far enough to convince
>> themselves that a new investigation needs to be done. Gage (and
>> others that speak on behalf of the organization) are able to prove the
>> contention by careful analysis of the dust from many lovations around
>> the WTC site. The dust contains something that other dust around NYC
>> does notr contain, and that is nano-thermite.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite
>> On top of that discovery, they (as architects and engineers) have
>> satisfied themselves that the story of NIST was full of holes and that
>> the collapse of the 3 towers was accomplished by controlled
>> demolition. Their fields allow them the knowledge to make that sort
>> of determination for themselves and therefore to sign the request for
>> the investigation. Certainly those that think they know better can
>> find an architect or engineer to debate the topic with. I'm not in
>> those fields, but I believe I've seen enough evidence that it was
>> controlled demolition to suit me. The falling into their own
>> foootprint of 3 tall buildings, the extreme explosions heard in each
>> of the buildings before they fell, the sounds of explosions throughout
>> the buildings heard by firemen while they were in the buildings.
>> The freefall that tower 7 took when it went was (to me) impossible
>> for any building to take unless the supports were suddenly cut at the
>> core all at once. As well the statement by NIST that office fires
>> were enough to soften the steel in the building and allow it to fall
>> in such a perfect way for 3 buildings in the same event. NIST also
>> suggested that a single column could be bent and the whole building
>> would fall, if it was the right column. That's not sensible to me.
>> Now much of the above information I learned from looking into the
>> available information, of which there is much, both pro and con for
>> controlled demolition. The AE911truth group doesn't let intself get
>> into who did it, or why did they do it, or other possible political
>> reasons. They're (for now) only interested in determining
>> 'officially' how the 3 towers fell. Conspiracies are for theorists,
>> and they have kept away from such, and stuck with scientific evidence
>> and method.
>>>> Daniel B. Barnum says:
>>>> 'I have "known" from day-one that the buildings were imploded and that
>>>> they could not and would not have collapsed from the damage caused by
>>>> the airplanes that ran into them.'
>>>> Nowhere does he say he himself can prove it, however.
>> Think how foolish that is. If he is an architect, then he has the
>> knowledge to make that determination, and spending many semesters
>> teaching the public architecture so they would understand his decision
>> would be ridiculous.
> Well, somebody has to prove it, or you have no reason to believe it,
> right? One would think...
> Of course, I know that's a fallacious assumption when it comes to
> conspiracy theorists.
> And of course, nobody's proved it, because it's a manifestly ridiculous
> proposition.
>>>> "The speed and symmetry of the collapses is not consistent with the
>>>> damage. A new investigation is needed."
>>>> Now wait, he does not specifically say here that controlled demolition
>>>> was used, although I suppose he may be implying that. But where
>>>> does he
>>>> say he himself can prove it? I don't see him saying any such thing.
>> See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the
>> reason for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
>>>> Kevin A. Kelly says:
>>>> "The Presentation made by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth at the
>>>> AIA Convention in San Francisco made a sufficient case that a new
>>>> investigation into the collapses of the 3 high rise buildings on
>>>> 9/11/01
>>>> would be worthwhile."
>>>> Well now wait. I thought you said that all these people have said that
>>>> 9/11 definitely *was* caused by controlled demolition, and that they
>>>> can
>>>> prove it. But that's not quite what Mr. Kelly is saying here. He is
>>>> merely saying that due to the presentation for 911 Truth a new
>>>> investigation would be worthwhile. He isn't saying it actually *was*
>>>> caused by controlled demolition, or that he himself can prove it.
>>>> He is
>>>> obviously just articulating a possibility.
>> See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
>> for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
>>>> Paul Stevenson Oles says:
>>>> "There appear too many unexplained events and unverified circumstances
>>>> to be satisfied with the official version of the New York building
>>>> collapses. As unthinkable as it is to suspect the United States
>>>> government or military of willful complicity in these horrendous acts,
>>>> it is even more heinous to allow such complicity--if indeed it
>>>> exists--to remain undiscovered and unpunished. Therefore, a thorough
>>>> and
>>>> impartial investigation by an independent, well-funded commission is
>>>> fully merited."
>>>> He's definitely unsatisfied with the official explanation, but nowhere
>>>> there does he specifically say that the collapses were due to
>>>> controlled
>>>> demolition, nor does he come anywhere remotely close to specifically
>>>> saying he can prove it.
>> See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
>> for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
>>>> Eason Cross says:
>>>> "The third building evidence is truly troubling. The 'why' is very hard
>>>> to comprehend."
>>>> I guess he means WTC 7, but he just says he's very troubled by it, and
>>>> does not comprehend why it collapsed. But he's not specifically saying
>>>> that he believes it *did* collapse due to controlled demolition, nor is
>>>> he saying he can prove it.
>> See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
>> for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
>>>> Harry G. Robinson III says:
>>>> "The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated.
>>>> The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to
>>>> implode as they did."
>>>> Well, he certainly seems to believe that controlled demolition was
>>>> involved. But he's not saying that he himself can prove it.
>> See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
>> for the collapse
> >>>>>>>> ? ?Over 1,700 architects and engineers have signed off that the WTC
> >>>>>>>> 9/11 catastrophy was done with controlled demolition, and they can
> >>>>>>>> prove it.
> >>>>>>> Really? ?More than 1700 architects and engineers have specifically said
> >>>>>>> that? ?Where may we see a list of the names of all 1700+ of these
> >>>>>>> architects and engineers so that we may independently verify whether or
> >>>>>>> not there are really that many, and so that we may independently verify
> >>>>>>> that they really are accredited architects and engineers?
> >>> No, they didn't 'specifically say that', however, they signed a
> >>> petition to request a new and independent investigation with subpoena
> >>> power. By signing that, I believe you can assume that the signatories
> >>> were unhappy with the story put out by the authorities, such as
> >>> NIST.
> >>>>> Thank you, and I have no idea why it took me six days to see this reply
> >>>>> from you to me. Sorry about that. Ok, let's take a look at this. Ah,
> >>>>> cool, you can click on each one and see their profile and their statement
> >>>>> about 9/11.
> >>> Chris interjects:
> >>> Sorry I didn't see your comment. If I had, I would've replied
> >>> immediately.
> >>>>> Richard Gage says:
> >>>>> 'The WTC Twin Towers and Building #7 appear to have been brought down not
> >>>>> by jet impacts and/or fires as we have been led to believe - but by
> >>>>> controlled demolition with explosives. The evidence noted on
> >>>>> AE911Truth.org and other excellent websites is "prima facie" and will,
> >>>>> with the increasing public awareness and demand for the truth, result in a
> >>>>> new truly independent investigation with subpoena power. A/E's must now
> >>>>> become leaders for 9/11 Truth - Join Us!'
> >>>>> He says he believes that the buildings were brought down by controlled
> >>>>> demolition. But where does he say he himself can prove it? I don't see
> >>>>> that.
> >>> As a convinced person myself, I sometimes forget that newbies to
> >>> the subject often haven't looked into it far enough to be convinced.
> >> You must not have looked at any of the arguments against the utterly wacky
> >> "controlled demo" theory, or, I would think, you would have quickly become
> >> *un*convinced, like any reasonable person.
> > I will be happy to look at your resource, though I've spent a lot of
> > time looking at others, and listening to the NIST barrel of monkeys.
> > Let me make it very clear. I'm not interested in ANY theories, I'm
> > interested in evidence and there is far more of it one the 'controlled
> > demolition' side, than otherwise.
> > Oh my! A hotbed of conspiracy theories! Who'd want to believe any
> > of those idiots? I want evidence, which the AE911truth people have
> > provided. As well as experts in their fields stating their opinions
> > and evidence.
> >>> Obviously, the 1,700+ signatories have looked far enough to convince
> >>> themselves that a new investigation needs to be done. Gage (and
> >>> others that speak on behalf of the organization) are able to prove the
> >>> contention by careful analysis of the dust from many lovations around
> >>> the WTC site. The dust contains something that other dust around NYC
> >>> does notr contain, and that is nano-thermite.
> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite
> >>> On top of that discovery, they (as architects and engineers) have
> >>> satisfied themselves that the story of NIST was full of holes and that
> >>> the collapse of the 3 towers was accomplished by controlled
> >>> demolition. Their fields allow them the knowledge to make that sort
> >>> of determination for themselves and therefore to sign the request for
> >>> the investigation. Certainly those that think they know better can
> >>> find an architect or engineer to debate the topic with. I'm not in
> >>> those fields, but I believe I've seen enough evidence that it was
> >>> controlled demolition to suit me. The falling into their own
> >>> foootprint of 3 tall buildings, the extreme explosions heard in each
> >>> of the buildings before they fell, the sounds of explosions throughout
> >>> the buildings heard by firemen while they were in the buildings.
> >>> The freefall that tower 7 took when it went was (to me) impossible
> >>> for any building to take unless the supports were suddenly cut at the
> >>> core all at once. As well the statement by NIST that office fires
> >>> were enough to soften the steel in the building and allow it to fall
> >>> in such a perfect way for 3 buildings in the same event. NIST also
> >>> suggested that a single column could be bent and the whole building
> >>> would fall, if it was the right column. That's not sensible to me.
> >>> Now much of the above information I learned from looking into the
> >>> available information, of which there is much, both pro and con for
> >>> controlled demolition. The AE911truth group doesn't let intself get
> >>> into who did it, or why did they do it, or other possible political
> >>> reasons. They're (for now) only interested in determining
> >>> 'officially' how the 3 towers fell. Conspiracies are for theorists,
> >>> and they have kept away from such, and stuck with scientific evidence
> >>> and method.
> >>>>> Daniel B. Barnum says:
> >>>>> 'I have "known" from day-one that the buildings were imploded and that
> >>>>> they could not and would not have collapsed from the damage caused by
> >>>>> the airplanes that ran into them.'
> >>>>> Nowhere does he say he himself can prove it, however.
> >>> Think how foolish that is. If he is an architect, then he has the
> >>> knowledge to make that determination, and spending many semesters
> >>> teaching the public architecture so they would understand his decision
> >>> would be ridiculous.
> >> Well, somebody has to prove it, or you have no reason to believe it,
> >> right? One would think...
> >> Of course, I know that's a fallacious assumption when it comes to
> >> conspiracy theorists.
> >> And of course, nobody's proved it, because it's a manifestly ridiculous
> >> proposition.
> > Ah. You say it can't be proved because YOU think it's ridiculous!
> Well, the main reason it can't be proved is because it isn't true.
Yep! Like I said, you think you have 'proved' it isn't true because YOU think it isn't true! So you have NO backup for your contention that 'controlled demolition' was not used to bring down the 3 towers, right?
Meaning that I must be right as far as any debate on the matter because you are unable to mount a decent viewpoint. Your own personal opinion counts only in your house, not here where you have to prove your point.
Do you have any facts to support your view? So far you've produced nothing but your personal opinion, which carries no weight here. I'm able to produce scientrific proof and studies backing up my contentions and those of the architects and Engineers.
> It can't be proved any more than, say, the theory that Neil Armstrong
> never walked on the moon.
> But the CD theory is also as ridiculous as that.
Hmm. I think I see your problem. You think we're talking about a THEORY. Nope. I'm talking about facts...I have NO interest in your theories. I've pointed out facts concerning the bringing down of the 3 towers, now do you have any facts to say otherwise?
> Next you'll be telling me there weren't even any planes.
I've seen videos of a plane that hit into each of the 2 tall
towers. I saw NO plane that hit the WTC 7 tower. Did you?
> > Now that's not too evidential a base for believing anything...:)
> > That's closer to theories than anything I'm looking for. Actually,
> > they HAVE proved 'controlled demolition' with science, not theories.
> > It sounds like you didn't research the subject, you looked at sites
> > and information that will bolster your view of the world, and avoid
> > evidence that scares you out of your pants. That's not very
> > scientific. With science, you start with the data and information,
> > then form a belief from that, testing it against all other
> > possibilities. Try it...:)
> I've seen both the bunk and the debunking, of course. I have long been
> curious about how alternative realities are maintained. The similarities
> are striking between the perpetuation of certain urban legends about the
> Kennedy assassination and the stubborn persistence of delirious
> misinterpretations of the fall of the World Trade Center.
Odd that you would say all that and produce NO evidence of any kind.
I'm an evidence person. I'm NOT interested in your theories of conspiracies or legends. Where are your facts that prove conclusions?
If you have no facts, then you've lost your point and are howling at the moon.
> Some theories are so ridiculous that a person capable of believing them in
> the first place is likely to be impervious to any evidence to the
> contrary. But I do what I can.
So far you've done nothing. I understand that many 'right thinking' people back over a hundred years ago knew that man flying in a device was 'ridiculous' and they stated their belief loudly. they said it
...
mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 6:43?pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Fascinating that mainframetech went abruptly silent on this issue as
> > soon as I posted this.
> > In article <caeruleo-588FA8.14112025092...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > ?John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > ? For another scrupulously honest site dealing with the fall of the
> > > > > > THREE towers, go here:
> > > > > > ? ?Over 1,700 architects and engineers have signed off that the WTC
> > > > > > 9/11 catastrophy was done with controlled demolition, and they can
> > > > > > prove it.
> > > > > Really? ?More than 1700 architects and engineers have specifically > > > > > said
> > > > > that? ?Where may we see a list of the names of all 1700+ of these
> > > > > architects and engineers so that we may independently verify whether > > > > > or
> > > > > not there are really that many, and so that we may independently > > > > > verify
> > > > > that they really are accredited architects and engineers?
> No, they didn't 'specifically say that', however, they signed a
> petition to request a new and independent investigation with subpoena
> power. By signing that, I believe you can assume that the signatories
> were unhappy with the story put out by the authorities, such as
> NIST.
That may be, but your original claim is still provably false. Here are your exact words again:
"Over 1,700 architects and engineers have signed off that the WTC
9/11 catastrophy was done with controlled demolition, and they can
prove it."
You claimed that all 1700+ of these people signed off that this WAS done with controlled demolition. You didn't say MIGHT HAVE BEEN DONE. You said WAS done, period. But when I looked at what they actually said, most of them did not say that it WAS done that way, only that they had severe questions about how it happened. The other part of your original claim was that you said all 1700+ of them specifically said that they can PROVE that it WAS done with controlled demolition, but when I looked at what they actually said, I found that hardly any of them specifically claimed that they can prove this.
> > > Thank you, and I have no idea why it took me six days to see this reply
> > > from you to me. ?Sorry about that. ?Ok, let's take a look at this. ?Ah,
> > > cool, you can click on each one and see their profile and their statement
> > > about 9/11.
> Chris interjects:
> Sorry I didn't see your comment. If I had, I would've replied
> immediately.
All right, no problem. I won't deny that sometimes I miss replies made to me too.
> > > 'The WTC Twin Towers and Building #7 appear to have been brought down not
> > > by jet impacts and/or fires as we have been led to believe - but by
> > > controlled demolition with explosives. The evidence noted on
> > > AE911Truth.org and other excellent websites is "prima facie" and will,
> > > with the increasing public awareness and demand for the truth, result in > > > a
> > > new truly independent investigation with subpoena power. A/E's must now
> > > become leaders for 9/11 Truth - Join Us!'
> > > He says he believes that the buildings were brought down by controlled
> > > demolition. ?But where does he say he himself can prove it? ?I don't see
> > > that.
> As a convinced person myself, I sometimes forget that newbies to
> the subject often haven't looked into it far enough to be convinced.
> Obviously, the 1,700+ signatories have looked far enough to convince
> themselves that a new investigation needs to be done.
Yes. But hardly any of them said what you originally claimed they said.
> Gage (and
> others that speak on behalf of the organization) are able to prove the
> contention by careful analysis of the dust from many lovations around
> the WTC site.
Richard Gage has specifically said he can prove this? Please quote him verbatim saying that exact thing, along with the original source for the quote. He certainly did not specifically say he could prove this in the quote I provided above.
That may be. It still does not support your original claim that more than 1700 of these people have specifically stated that the buildings most definitely *were* brought down by controlled demolition, nor does it support your original claim that all of them also specifically stated that they can *prove* this to be true. Very few of them that I found specifically stated either of the things you said they did.
> On top of that discovery, they (as architects and engineers) have
> satisfied themselves that the story of NIST was full of holes and that
> the collapse of the 3 towers was accomplished by controlled
> demolition.
All 1700+ of them have "satisfied themselves" of this? Why do so few of them specifically say that on that website then? Merely saying that they have doubts about the official explanation isn't quite the same thing as specifically stating that they are completely "satisfied" that the buildings most definitely *were* brought down by controlled demolition. You are still exaggerating what these people have actually stated.
> Their fields allow them the knowledge to make that sort
> of determination for themselves and therefore to sign the request for
> the investigation.
Yes, a request for further investigation. Because they have doubts.
That's still not the same thing as them specifically stating that they are *all* *entirely* convinced that the buildings most definitely *were* brought down by controlled demolition.
> Certainly those that think they know better can
> find an architect or engineer to debate the topic with.
I'm not saying I know better, I'm merely disputing your obviously false claim that anywhere even remotely close to 1700 of these people have actually specifically stated the things you claimed that they specifically stated.
> I'm not in
> those fields, but I believe I've seen enough evidence that it was
> controlled demolition to suit me. The falling into their own
> foootprint of 3 tall buildings,
I don't see why that's absolutely impossible from the plane impacts only. And I've seen more than enough of the footage to plainly see that neither WCT One or Two collapsed straight downward. In both cases parts of the buildings toppled to the sides.
> > > Daniel B. Barnum says:
> > > 'I have "known" from day-one that the buildings were imploded and that
> > > they could not and would not have collapsed from the damage caused by
> > > the airplanes that ran into them.'
> > > Nowhere does he say he himself can prove it, however.
> Think how foolish that is. If he is an architect, then he has the
> knowledge to make that determination, and spending many semesters
> teaching the public architecture so they would understand his decision
> would be ridiculous.
I did not say anything even slightly "foolish." I did not say that he doesn't have the knowledge to make such a determination. I am merely pointing out to you that in that quote I provided he did not say what you claimed all 1700+ of these people said, that they can prove this is what actually happened. He did not specifically say that.
> > > David Paul Helpern says:
> > > "The speed and symmetry of the collapses is not consistent with the
> > > damage. A new investigation is needed."
> > > Now wait, he does not specifically say here that controlled demolition
> > > was used, although I suppose he may be implying that. ?But where does he
> > > say he himself can prove it? ?I don't see him saying any such thing.
> See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the
> reason for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
No, he signed the petition because he has doubts about the official explanation. You are engaging in too much speculation, reading into his statement something he may or may not have meant. Just because he signed the petition does not automatically mean that he is 100% convinced that the buildings most definitely *did* collapse due to controlled demolition, and merely signing the petition doesn't automatically mean that he himself can *prove* it to be so. Sure, he MIGHT have meant what you think he meant, but you're acting as if it is an absolute certainty that that's what he meant, and that is not necessarily so.
> > > "The Presentation made by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth at the
> > > AIA Convention in San Francisco made a sufficient case that a new
> > > investigation into the collapses of the 3 high rise buildings on 9/11/01
> > > would be worthwhile."
> > > Well now wait. ?I thought you said that all these people have said that
> > > 9/11 definitely *was* caused by controlled demolition, and that they can
> > > prove it. ?But that's not quite what Mr. Kelly is saying here. ?He is
> > > merely saying that due to the presentation for 911 Truth a new
> > > investigation would be worthwhile. ?He isn't saying it actually *was*
> > > caused by controlled demolition, or that he himself can prove it. ?He is
> > > obviously just articulating a possibility.
mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 6:06?pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > On 10/7/12 11:14 AM, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Oct 6, 6:43 pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> Fascinating that mainframetech went abruptly silent on this issue as
> > >> soon as I posted this.
> > >> In article <caeruleo-588FA8.14112025092...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > >> ? John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>> I've cited only the first ten here, but I've spent quite a lot of time
> > >>> looking at many of the others, including in the engineers farther down
> > >>> and also in the non-U.S. list. ?In some of them I'm finding the
> > >>> qualifications listed in the Bio section to be questionable. ?I saw one
> > >>> that listed his experience only in railroad engineering, and another > > >>> who
> > >>> didn't really list any experience with anything. ?I do see quite a few
> > >>> saying they believed controlled demolitions were involved, but I'm also
> > >>> seeing about the same number who merely are voicing suspicions and
> > >>> calling for further investigation.
> > >>> I haven't even found one yet, however, who specifically says that he or
> > >>> she can prove that the buildings collapsed due to controlled
> > >>> demolitions. ?There are a lot of them I haven't looked at yet, so I
> > >>> won't deny that there may be some that I haven't seen yet who say that,
> > >>> but I've looked at something like a hundred of them so far, and I still
> > >>> haven't found one yet who says they can prove this.
> > >>> Your original statement that I first replied to was this:
> > >>> "Over 1,700 architects and engineers have signed off that the WTC 9/11
> > >>> catastrophy was done with controlled demolition, and they can prove > > >>> it."
> > >>> In my reply I was obviously asking if it was really true that more than
> > >>> 1700 of them really said what you're attributing to them, and in your
> > >>> reply to me you produced a link to a webpage that clearly shows your
> > >>> statement to be rather exaggerated.
> > How many of the 1,700 are architects and how many are "engineers"? What
> > kind of "engineers"? How many in truly related fields? Not very many?
> > And what proportion of the total number of architects and engineers in the
> > world who are aware of the fall of the towers do those numbers
> > respectively represent? A very tiny fraction.
> LOL! Talk about 'conspiracy theories', you 've created one right
> here. Yes, it says the truth, that they weren't experts...sounds
> honest doesn't it? Can you say the same? Over time they examined
> evidence and spoke with professional 'controlled demolition' experts
> to get their belief that a new investigation done properly is
> needed.
Now wait a minute, you don't seem to really be addressing in a meaningful way what the previous poster said. Just because a person is a bonafide architect or engineer doesn't automatically mean that that person knows all that much about controlled demolitions. There are many aspects of architecture and engineering that don't deal with demolition at all.
There are many different *types* of engineering and architectural fields.
Not all architects are the same *type* of architect. Not all engineers are the same *type* of engineer. I can't remember whether or not I already noted this in this thread, but when I looked through their statements in the petition, I remember seeing one, for example, who gave his experience as railroad engineering. How does that qualify him to talk knowledgeably about controlled demolitions of multi-story buildings, when nothing in his own stated field of expertise has anything to do with multi-story buildings in any context? Don't tell me that this isn't a perfectly valid point for me to raise, because it quite obviously is.
And architects? I would think that most architects worldwide have specialties *within* the overall field of architecture. As I said above, there is not just one single *type* of architect. Many architects *design* buildings, but that does not automatically mean that they're all equally knowledgeable about the *demolition* of buildings. Common sense would indicate that some of them are more knowledgeable than others.
This is also a perfectly reasonable point for me to raise, obviously.
> > > > > > > ? ?Over 1,700 architects and engineers have signed off that the WTC
> > > > > > > 9/11 catastrophy was done with controlled demolition, and they can
> > > > > > > prove it.
> > > > > > Really? ?More than 1700 architects and engineers have specifically
> > > > > > said
> > > > > > that? ?Where may we see a list of the names of all 1700+ of these
> > > > > > architects and engineers so that we may independently verify whether
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > not there are really that many, and so that we may independently
> > > > > > verify
> > > > > > that they really are accredited architects and engineers?
> > No, they didn't 'specifically say that', however, they signed a
> > petition to request a new and independent investigation with subpoena
> > power. By signing that, I believe you can assume that the signatories
> > were unhappy with the story put out by the authorities, such as
> > NIST.
> That may be, but your original claim is still provably false. Here are
> your exact words again:
> "Over 1,700 architects and engineers have signed off that the WTC
> 9/11 catastrophy was done with controlled demolition, and they can
> prove it."
> You claimed that all 1700+ of these people signed off that this WAS done
> with controlled demolition. You didn't say MIGHT HAVE BEEN DONE. You
> said WAS done, period. But when I looked at what they actually said,
> most of them did not say that it WAS done that way, only that they had
> severe questions about how it happened. The other part of your original
> claim was that you said all 1700+ of them specifically said that they
> can PROVE that it WAS done with controlled demolition, but when I looked
> at what they actually said, I found that hardly any of them specifically
> claimed that they can prove this.
Technically, you're right. However, many of the signatories have
careers that may be affected by small minded people who can't deal
with new information and facts, so that they had to say the more
'acceptable' phrase 'might have'. Do you think they were really so
unsure of what they saw that they immediately rushed to sign the
petition? Naah.
> > > > Thank you, and I have no idea why it took me six days to see this reply
> > > > from you to me. ?Sorry about that. ?Ok, let's take a look at this. ?Ah,
> > > > cool, you can click on each one and see their profile and their statement
> > > > about 9/11.
> > Chris interjects:
> > Sorry I didn't see your comment. If I had, I would've replied
> > immediately.
> All right, no problem. I won't deny that sometimes I miss replies made
> to me too.
> > > > Richard Gage says:
> > > > 'The WTC Twin Towers and Building #7 appear to have been brought down not
> > > > by jet impacts and/or fires as we have been led to believe - but by
> > > > controlled demolition with explosives. The evidence noted on
> > > > AE911Truth.org and other excellent websites is "prima facie" and will,
> > > > with the increasing public awareness and demand for the truth, result in
> > > > a
> > > > new truly independent investigation with subpoena power. A/E's must now
> > > > become leaders for 9/11 Truth - Join Us!'
> > > > He says he believes that the buildings were brought down by controlled
> > > > demolition. ?But where does he say he himself can prove it? ?I don't see
> > > > that.
> > As a convinced person myself, I sometimes forget that newbies to
> > the subject often haven't looked into it far enough to be convinced.
> > Obviously, the 1,700+ signatories have looked far enough to convince
> > themselves that a new investigation needs to be done.
> Yes. But hardly any of them said what you originally claimed they said.
True, but I corrected that and made a further statement above.
> > Gage (and
> > others that speak on behalf of the organization) are able to prove the
> > contention by careful analysis of the dust from many locations around
> > the WTC site.
> Richard Gage has specifically said he can prove this? Please quote him
> verbatim saying that exact thing, along with the original source for the
> quote. He certainly did not specifically say he could prove this in the
> quote I provided above.
No problem at all. Now, thorough research takes time, and that's
what I've done, though I'm not putting myself forward as a scientist
or such. Here is a video of Gage saying to some news people that
thermite was found along with melted steel (an impossibility in jet
fuel or office fires like the towers) in the dust from the
collapses...tons of it. He also mentions Dr. Stephen Jones, PhD that
did some of the analysis, and who is a physicist. Jones has published
some peer reviewed papers on the compounds found in the towers
debris. To find that statement go to point 4:20 in the video. Or
watch the whole thing and get a layman's view of some of the science
involved:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkcxVdDSAY4
As a side note, molten (not just melted) steel stayed in the
basements of the 3 buildings that collapsed for weeks after the
original collapses. Nothing known to be in the buildings could cause
that. Jet fuel and office equipment just won't reach the temperatures
need to soften steel or to melt it. However, a few incendiary
chemicals can do it, such as Thermite or Thermate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm3Ot1JxNdE
While the molten steel was seen weeks later by many people including
firefighters, NIST, who was supposed to analyze everything and come up
with what happened, denies that they ever heard of any molten steel.
Ridiculous in light of the preceding video, and proof that a proper
investigation was not done.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg
As an addendum, and not critical for the debate, but interesting in
its own light, here is Dr. Steven Jones speaking of how the analysis
was done, and what the chemistry of the nano-thermite was. Mind you,
all these videos are speaking of factual evidence, NOT some silly
'conspiracy theories'.
> That may be. It still does not support your original claim that more than
> 1700 of these people have specifically stated that the buildings most
> definitely *were* brought down by controlled demolition, nor does it
> support your original claim that all of them also specifically stated that
> they can *prove* this to be true. Very few of them that I found
> specifically stated either of the things you said they did.
That has been dealt with above. You're repeating. I can't show you
everyone of the 1,725 or more people and their beliefs, but there is
enough factual information for any science minded person to realize
that there was 'controlled demolition' involved from the facts
supplied. There is a video of many of the experts that have come to
believe that there was 'controlled demolition' involved, and they have
spoken for the video. It's called “9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts
Speak Out.” So some of the people your speaking of are there.
> > On top of that discovery, they (as architects and engineers) have
> > satisfied themselves that the story of NIST was full of holes and that
> > the collapse of the 3 towers was accomplished by controlled
> > demolition.
> All 1700+ of them have "satisfied themselves" of this? Why do so few of
> them specifically say that on that website then? Merely saying that
> they have doubts about the official explanation isn't quite the same
> thing as specifically stating that they are completely "satisfied" that
> the buildings most definitely *were* brought down by controlled
> demolition. You are still exaggerating what these people have actually
> stated.
You continue to repeat your point. That was dealt with above.
Since they signed the petition, using intelligence and common sense,
we can imply that they have come to the same conclusion, though some
would rather take the safe way and say it couched in those terms until
they have 'official' evidence.
> > Their fields allow them the knowledge to make that sort
> > of determination for themselves and therefore to sign the request for
> > the investigation.
> Yes, a request for further investigation. Because they have doubts.
> That's still not the same thing as them specifically stating that they
> are *all* *entirely* convinced that the buildings most definitely *were*
> brought down by controlled demolition.
You're repeating yourself again. If you were successful in proving
that a number of the members didn't believe the 'controlled
demolition' evidence, it wouldn't change the evidence, which stays
there unimpeachable.
> > Certainly those that think they know better can
> > find an architect or engineer to debate the topic with.
> I'm not saying I know better, I'm merely disputing your obviously false
> claim that anywhere even remotely close to 1700 of these people have
> actually specifically stated the things you claimed that they
> specifically stated.
> > I'm not in
> > those fields, but I believe I've seen enough evidence that it was
> > controlled demolition to suit me. The falling into their own
> > foootprint of 3 tall buildings,
> mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 6:06?pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > On 10/7/12 11:14 AM, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > On Oct 6, 6:43 pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >> Fascinating that mainframetech went abruptly silent on this issue as
> > > >> soon as I posted this.
> > > >> In article <caeruleo-588FA8.14112025092...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > > >> ? John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >>> I haven't even found one yet, however, who specifically says that he or
> > > >>> she can prove that the buildings collapsed due to controlled
> > > >>> demolitions. ?There are a lot of them I haven't looked at yet, so I
> > > >>> won't deny that there may be some that I haven't seen yet who say that,
> > > >>> but I've looked at something like a hundred of them so far, and I still
> > > >>> haven't found one yet who says they can prove this.
> > > >>> Your original statement that I first replied to was this:
> > > >>> "Over 1,700 architects and engineers have signed off that the WTC 9/11
> > > >>> catastrophy was done with controlled demolition, and they can prove
> > > >>> it."
> > > >>> In my reply I was obviously asking if it was really true that more than
> > > >>> 1700 of them really said what you're attributing to them, and in your
> > > >>> reply to me you produced a link to a webpage that clearly shows your
> > > >>> statement to be rather exaggerated.
> > > How many of the 1,700 are architects and how many are "engineers"? What
> > > kind of "engineers"? How many in truly related fields? Not very many?
> > > And what proportion of the total number of architects and engineers in the
> > > world who are aware of the fall of the towers do those numbers
> > > respectively represent? A very tiny fraction.
> > LOL! Talk about 'conspiracy theories', you 've created one right
> > here. Yes, it says the truth, that they weren't experts...sounds
> > honest doesn't it? Can you say the same? Over time they examined
> > evidence and spoke with professional 'controlled demolition' experts
> > to get their belief that a new investigation done properly is
> > needed.
> Now wait a minute, you don't seem to really be addressing in a meaningful
> way what the previous poster said. Just because a person is a bonafide
> architect or engineer doesn't automatically mean that that person knows
> all that much about controlled demolitions. There are many aspects of
> architecture and engineering that don't deal with demolition at all.
Well, of course. Note above that I said "Over time they examined
evidence and spoke with professional 'controlled demolition' experts
to get their belief that a new investigation done properly is
needed." Idid NOT say any of them had 'controlled demolition'
experience. But they listen to those that do have it. Just as
someone would come to them and listen to them about how to construct a
building. And many of them can speak to whether a high tower could
fall under the circumstances given.
It's a bit picky to try to make a point this way. My point is that
the members of AE911truth.org are interested in facts and evidence and
not everyone's conspiracy theories. They have members that have done
experiments and have published scientific papers in peer reviewed
journals with data from the collapse. They are because of their
career choices, more scientific in their outlook and decisions, and
they have avoided all the nonsense with conspiracies and theories.
> There are many different *types* of engineering and architectural fields.
> Not all architects are the same *type* of architect. Not all engineers
> are the same *type* of engineer. I can't remember whether or not I
> already noted this in this thread, but when I looked through their
> statements in the petition, I remember seeing one, for example, who gave
> his experience as railroad engineering. How does that qualify him to talk
> knowledgeably about controlled demolitions of multi-story buildings, when
> nothing in his own stated field of expertise has anything to do with
> multi-story buildings in any context?
Didn't it occur to you that the railroad engineer didn't speak as a
consultant on controlled demolition? Many of us know what that is,
and manyt of us have sen videos of such demolitions. Those that are
more spatially oriented might find that the facts given by NIST didn't
fit the situation. You don't need a construction contractor to tell
you that the house is leaning to one side and a lot of work is going
to be required to fix it, even though you're not a construction
'expert' yourself. You need to use common sense here.
> Don't tell me that this isn't a
> perfectly valid point for me to raise, because it quite obviously is.
Any point you want to raise is OK to raise in these newsgroups.
Everyone prefers that we stay on topic, but they can accept a lot of
variation.
> And architects? I would think that most architects worldwide have
> specialties *within* the overall field of architecture. As I said above,
> there is not just one single *type* of architect. Many architects
> *design* buildings, but that does not automatically mean that they're all
> equally knowledgeable about the *demolition* of buildings. Common sense
> would indicate that some of them are more knowledgeable than others.
> This is also a perfectly reasonable point for me to raise, obviously.
See above.
Picking at my statements may be good debate technique, but getting
to the root of the topic, like what made buildings fall down, killing
thousands, and how can we keep them from doing it again, may be a bit
more important. Yet that information is shied away from by people
here in this thread and by the government who used NIST to put out a
totally incompetent report of what happened. They have already been
proven wrong in some cases, and they have admitted it. And they still
don't have an 'official' reason for building 7 to have fallen. Try
checking the facts and not avoiding them and the evidence. Forget
those sick old theories and conspiracies.
> On 10/7/2012 6:06 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> > On 10/7/12 11:14 AM, mainframetech wrote:
> >> On Oct 6, 6:43 pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> 'The WTC Twin Towers and Building #7 appear to have been brought
> >>>> down not
> >>>> by jet impacts and/or fires as we have been led to believe - but by
> >>>> controlled demolition with explosives. The evidence noted on
> >>>> AE911Truth.org and other excellent websites is "prima facie" and will,
> >>>> with the increasing public awareness and demand for the truth,
> >>>> result in a
> >>>> new truly independent investigation with subpoena power. A/E's must now
> >>>> become leaders for 9/11 Truth - Join Us!'
> >>>> He says he believes that the buildings were brought down by controlled
> >>>> demolition. But where does he say he himself can prove it? I don't
> >>>> see
> >>>> that.
> >> As a convinced person myself, I sometimes forget that newbies to
> >> the subject often haven't looked into it far enough to be convinced.
> > You must not have looked at any of the arguments against the utterly
> > wacky "controlled demo" theory, or, I would think, you would have
> > quickly become *un*convinced, like any reasonable person.
> And it doesn't bother you that those are CIA assets?
Does it bother you that you cannot come within a million light-years of *proving* that these are, um, CIA assets?
Let me eyeball this:
"James Randi Educational Foundation a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way"
Lol, the CIA is into the paranormal?
I think most of us know how seriously to take your claims of who is and isn't involved with the CIA, which is not seriously at all. It must have been a "paranormal" former employee of the CIA who got you kicked off of Compuserve. And did you ever actually *prove* that Ed Dolan ever worked for the CIA in any capacity whatsoever? Nope.
And what on earth is taking you so long to simply admit that you made a mistake when you falsely claimed that I ever said that JFK already had his fists up by Z225, when you've never once seen me say that? ;-)
mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 8, 5:23?pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >>>>> Daniel B. Barnum says:
> > >>>>> 'I have "known" from day-one that the buildings were imploded and > > >>>>> that
> > >>>>> they could not and would not have collapsed from the damage caused by
> > >>>>> the airplanes that ran into them.'
> > >>>>> Nowhere does he say he himself can prove it, however.
> > >>> ? ? Think how foolish that is. ?If he is an architect, then he has the
> > >>> knowledge to make that determination, and spending many semesters
> > >>> teaching the public architecture so they would understand his decision
> > >>> would be ridiculous.
> > >> Well, somebody has to prove it, or you have no reason to believe it,
> > >> right? One would think...
> > >> Of course, I know that's a fallacious assumption when it comes to
> > >> conspiracy theorists.
> > >> And of course, nobody's proved it, because it's a manifestly ridiculous
> > >> proposition.
> > > ? ?Ah. ?You say it can't be proved because YOU think it's ridiculous!
> > Well, the main reason it can't be proved is because it isn't true.
> Yep! Like I said, you think you have 'proved' it isn't true because YOU > think it isn't true!
Ah, but can't a similar argument be used toward you as well? Because you think it is true that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, you think it can be proven that they were, and you furthermore, as I noted in my reply to you yesterday, exaggerate the significance of all these people signing the petition. You claim that the act of signing, in and of itself, automatically implies that every person who signed it is 100% convinced that the buildings fell because of controlled demolition, and that the mere act of signing the petition is the same thing as all of them specifically stating that they themselves can prove it to be true. You ignore the reasons these people themselves actually *gave* for signing the petition. Plenty of them merely said that they had doubts about the official explanation, *without* specifically saying that they were *totally* convinced that the explanation is incorrect. You do realize that there are various reasons why such people might sign such a thing? You act as if all 1700+ of them had absolutely identical reasons in every detail for signing it. That is highly implausible. Different people have different viewpoints. You'll never, in any circumstances, have that many different people from that many different backgrounds from that many different countries from that many different cultures agreeing 100% on every detail. Ever. There will *always* be differences of opinion. *Some* of them will sign the petition because they *are* totally convinced of controlled demolition. *Others* will sign the petition simply because they aren't *certain* whether there was controlled demolition or not, and simply feel that further investigation should be done into the matter. And there will be all sorts of variations in between as far as their reasons for signing the petition.
This is obvious common sense.
> So you have NO backup for your contention that > 'controlled demolition' was not used to bring down the 3 towers, right?
I seem to recall he has indeed presented at least some evidence to the contrary.
> Meaning that I must be right as far as any debate on the matter because > you are unable to mount a decent viewpoint.
The same can be said of you in reverse. You have falsely claimed that literally *all* of these people signed the petition for absolutely identical reasons, ignoring the reasons that they themselves gave for signing the petition, which include a variety of viewpoints on the issue, not one single viewpoint only. You can accuse Sandy of not backing up his claims very well, but you're not backing up your claims very well either.
> Your own personal opinion > counts only in your house, not here where you have to prove your point.
The same can be said of your personal opinion.
> Do you have any facts to support your view? So far you've produced > nothing but your personal opinion, which carries no weight here. I'm able > to produce scientrific proof and studies backing up my contentions and > those of the architects and Engineers.
Yes, you've produced *some*. However, you have also made some obviously exaggerated statements as well. You originally claimed, falsely, that every single one of the people who signed that petition were absolutely convinced that the buildings, without a shadow of a doubt, were brought down by controlled demolition, and also falsely claimed that every person who signed the petition could prove this to be true. But when I looked at the actual reasons they gave for signing the petition, I quickly saw that most of them did not say either of those things. And I do not buy your argument that I saw yesterday that the act of signing, in and of itself, "implies" that that is what every one of these people meant. I'd almost be willing to bet money that if I contacted some of them, and asked them if your claim of why they signed the petition is correct, at least some of them would say no, that is not why they signed the petition.
Shall we put that to the test?
> > It can't be proved any more than, say, the theory that Neil Armstrong
> > never walked on the moon.
> > But the CD theory is also as ridiculous as that.
> Hmm. I think I see your problem. You think we're talking about a > THEORY. Nope. I'm talking about facts...
No you aren't, certainly not entirely anyway. You incorrectly claimed, as if it was proven fact, that every one of those people signed the petition for a single, absolutely identical reason, and ignored the reasons these people themselves gave for signing the petition. How would you know why they signed the petition better than they themselves know why they signed the petition?
> I have NO interest in your > theories.
Now wait a minute, you're acting as if Sandy is the only person on earth who has ever proposed that the buildings came down as the result of the plane crashes alone. In reality, millions of people worldwide believe that was the sole cause of the collapse of the buildings, just as there are many who believe otherwise. And how many certified architects and engineers are there worldwide who do NOT believe that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition? Is it more or less than 1700?
Unless you can *prove* that the *majority* of all of them worldwide believe controlled demolition was used, your own argument also has its weaknesses.
> I've pointed out facts concerning the bringing down of the 3 > towers, now do you have any facts to say otherwise?
No. You have pointed out what you *believe* in your *opinion* are facts.
And I know you are hardly the only person to have such an opinion. You are ignoring the *fact* that you also are expressing a mere *opinion*, not a proven *fact*. It is not a proven fact merely because you honestly believe that it is, and merely because others honestly believe so as well.
Anyone can be wrong without realizing it. Anyone.
> > Next you'll be telling me there weren't even any planes.
> I've seen videos of a plane that hit into each of the 2 tall
> towers. I saw NO plane that hit the WTC 7 tower. Did you?
Did burning debris slam down upon WTC 7, however, from the taller towers?
I seem to recall it did. That alone raises at least a *possibility* that that is what caused the collapse of WTC 7. You may not *believe* in that possibility in your *opinion*. Many others also do not believe in that possibility in their *opinions*. But it is still nothing more than an *opinion* that controlled demolition brought down WTC 7. You and others may honestly *believe* that it is already "proven" or can be "proven" that controlled demolition was used, but that also is nothing more than an *opinion*, regardless of how many or how few people share that *opinion*.
It is not yet conclusively *proven* in any realistic sense that even WTC 7 alone was brought down in the way you think it was.
Yes or no, can you *prove* that the *majority* of building demolition experts worldwide believe that even *one* of those buildings *was* brought down by controlled demolition? Let's now be more specific than just architects and engineers, since I suspect you knew perfectly well years ago, or if you didn't you should have since it is simple common sense, that not nearly all architects, and not nearly all engineers have any particular expertise in controlled demolitions of buildings. What about demolition experts specifically? What percentage of *them* worldwide believe that only the planes brought down the buildings, and what percentage believe otherwise? Do you have any figures on that at all, and if you do, what is your source? And remember also that no matter what source you give, others can independently verify whether the source is credible or not. And I'm not going to buy any argument such as equating stated doubts with absolute certainty. If they are not *quoted* *verbatim* as *specifically* stating that they *do* believe the buildings *were* brought down by controlled demolition, it would be misleading of you to claim that that's what they are implying when they don't specifically say so themselves.
> > > Now that's not too evidential a base for believing anything...:)
> > > That's closer to theories than anything I'm looking for. ?Actually,
> > > they HAVE proved 'controlled demolition' with science, not
>>>>>>>>>> ? ?Over 1,700 architects and engineers have signed off that the WTC
>>>>>>>>>> 9/11 catastrophy was done with controlled demolition, and they can
>>>>>>>>>> prove it.
>>>>>>>>> Really? ?More than 1700 architects and engineers have specifically said
>>>>>>>>> that? ?Where may we see a list of the names of all 1700+ of these
>>>>>>>>> architects and engineers so that we may independently verify whether or
>>>>>>>>> not there are really that many, and so that we may independently verify
>>>>>>>>> that they really are accredited architects and engineers?
>>>>> No, they didn't 'specifically say that', however, they signed a
>>>>> petition to request a new and independent investigation with subpoena
>>>>> power. By signing that, I believe you can assume that the signatories
>>>>> were unhappy with the story put out by the authorities, such as
>>>>> NIST.
>>>>>>> Thank you, and I have no idea why it took me six days to see this reply
>>>>>>> from you to me. Sorry about that. Ok, let's take a look at this. Ah,
>>>>>>> cool, you can click on each one and see their profile and their statement
>>>>>>> about 9/11.
>>>>> Chris interjects:
>>>>> Sorry I didn't see your comment. If I had, I would've replied
>>>>> immediately.
>>>>>>> Richard Gage says:
>>>>>>> 'The WTC Twin Towers and Building #7 appear to have been brought down not
>>>>>>> by jet impacts and/or fires as we have been led to believe - but by
>>>>>>> controlled demolition with explosives. The evidence noted on
>>>>>>> AE911Truth.org and other excellent websites is "prima facie" and will,
>>>>>>> with the increasing public awareness and demand for the truth, result in a
>>>>>>> new truly independent investigation with subpoena power. A/E's must now
>>>>>>> become leaders for 9/11 Truth - Join Us!'
>>>>>>> He says he believes that the buildings were brought down by controlled
>>>>>>> demolition. But where does he say he himself can prove it? I don't see
>>>>>>> that.
>>>>> As a convinced person myself, I sometimes forget that newbies to
>>>>> the subject often haven't looked into it far enough to be convinced.
>>>> You must not have looked at any of the arguments against the utterly wacky
>>>> "controlled demo" theory, or, I would think, you would have quickly become
>>>> *un*convinced, like any reasonable person.
>>> I will be happy to look at your resource, though I've spent a lot of
>>> time looking at others, and listening to the NIST barrel of monkeys.
>>> Let me make it very clear. I'm not interested in ANY theories, I'm
>>> interested in evidence and there is far more of it one the 'controlled
>>> demolition' side, than otherwise.
>>> Oh my! A hotbed of conspiracy theories! Who'd want to believe any
>>> of those idiots? I want evidence, which the AE911truth people have
>>> provided. As well as experts in their fields stating their opinions
>>> and evidence.
>>>>> Obviously, the 1,700+ signatories have looked far enough to convince
>>>>> themselves that a new investigation needs to be done. Gage (and
>>>>> others that speak on behalf of the organization) are able to prove the
>>>>> contention by careful analysis of the dust from many lovations around
>>>>> the WTC site. The dust contains something that other dust around NYC
>>>>> does notr contain, and that is nano-thermite.
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite
>>>>> On top of that discovery, they (as architects and engineers) have
>>>>> satisfied themselves that the story of NIST was full of holes and that
>>>>> the collapse of the 3 towers was accomplished by controlled
>>>>> demolition. Their fields allow them the knowledge to make that sort
>>>>> of determination for themselves and therefore to sign the request for
>>>>> the investigation. Certainly those that think they know better can
>>>>> find an architect or engineer to debate the topic with. I'm not in
>>>>> those fields, but I believe I've seen enough evidence that it was
>>>>> controlled demolition to suit me. The falling into their own
>>>>> foootprint of 3 tall buildings, the extreme explosions heard in each
>>>>> of the buildings before they fell, the sounds of explosions throughout
>>>>> the buildings heard by firemen while they were in the buildings.
>>>>> The freefall that tower 7 took when it went was (to me) impossible
>>>>> for any building to take unless the supports were suddenly cut at the
>>>>> core all at once. As well the statement by NIST that office fires
>>>>> were enough to soften the steel in the building and allow it to fall
>>>>> in such a perfect way for 3 buildings in the same event. NIST also
>>>>> suggested that a single column could be bent and the whole building
>>>>> would fall, if it was the right column. That's not sensible to me.
>>>>> Now much of the above information I learned from looking into the
>>>>> available information, of which there is much, both pro and con for
>>>>> controlled demolition. The AE911truth group doesn't let intself get
>>>>> into who did it, or why did they do it, or other possible political
>>>>> reasons. They're (for now) only interested in determining
>>>>> 'officially' how the 3 towers fell. Conspiracies are for theorists,
>>>>> and they have kept away from such, and stuck with scientific evidence
>>>>> and method.
>>>>>>> Daniel B. Barnum says:
>>>>>>> 'I have "known" from day-one that the buildings were imploded and that
>>>>>>> they could not and would not have collapsed from the damage caused by
>>>>>>> the airplanes that ran into them.'
>>>>>>> Nowhere does he say he himself can prove it, however.
>>>>> Think how foolish that is. If he is an architect, then he has the
>>>>> knowledge to make that determination, and spending many semesters
>>>>> teaching the public architecture so they would understand his decision
>>>>> would be ridiculous.
>>>> Well, somebody has to prove it, or you have no reason to believe it,
>>>> right? One would think...
>>>> Of course, I know that's a fallacious assumption when it comes to
>>>> conspiracy theorists.
>>>> And of course, nobody's proved it, because it's a manifestly ridiculous
>>>> proposition.
>>> Ah. You say it can't be proved because YOU think it's ridiculous!
>> Well, the main reason it can't be proved is because it isn't true.
> Yep! Like I said, you think you have 'proved' it isn't true because YOU
> think it isn't true! So you have NO backup for your contention that
> 'controlled demolition' was not used to bring down the 3 towers, right?
There's absolutely no reason to think that it *was*.
> Meaning that I must be right as far as any debate on the matter because
> you are unable to mount a decent viewpoint. Your own personal opinion
> counts only in your house, not here where you have to prove your point.
> Do you have any facts to support your view? So far you've produced
> nothing but your personal opinion, which carries no weight here. I'm able
> to produce scientrific proof and studies backing up my contentions and
> those of the architects and Engineers.
>> It can't be proved any more than, say, the theory that Neil Armstrong
>> never walked on the moon.
>> But the CD theory is also as ridiculous as that.
> Hmm. I think I see your problem. You think we're talking about a
> THEORY. Nope. I'm talking about facts...I have NO interest in your
> theories. I've pointed out facts concerning the bringing down of the 3
> towers, now do you have any facts to say otherwise?
Have you perused any of the helpful links I pointed you toward?
Your problem is exactly that you take to be facts what are nothing but delusional misinterpretations of the Truthers. These delusions didn't start with the evidence but with the Truthers paranoid suspicion. Now, knowing the Cheney/Bush administration, I could see where they were coming from. But rationally considered, they didn't make a lick of sense.
That was back when people were coming out with the CD theory and it was being debunked.
>> Next you'll be telling me there weren't even any planes.
> I've seen videos of a plane that hit into each of the 2 tall
> towers. I saw NO plane that hit the WTC 7 tower. Did you?
Of course not. Whoever said that there was?
That building collapsed because of damage from debris that fell from the other buildings (some "controlled" demo!) and the extensive fires that can be seen on videos. The fire crew was pulled out in the nick of time, when it was realized the building could not be saved.
>>> Now that's not too evidential a base for believing anything...:)
>>> That's closer to theories than anything I'm looking for. Actually,
>>> they HAVE proved 'controlled demolition' with science, not theories.
>>> It sounds like you didn't research the subject, you looked at sites
>>> and information that will bolster your view of the world, and avoid
>>> evidence that scares you out of your pants. That's not very
>>> scientific. With science, you start with the data and information,
>>> then form a belief from that, testing it against all other
>>> possibilities. Try it...:)
>> I've seen both the bunk and the debunking, of course. I have long
> In article
> <464a960e-a602-4e1a-a982-a0d1df40c...@z8g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
> mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 8, 5:23?pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > >>>>> Daniel B. Barnum says:
> > > >>>>> 'I have "known" from day-one that the buildings were imploded and
> > > >>>>> that
> > > >>>>> they could not and would not have collapsed from the damage caused by
> > > >>>>> the airplanes that ran into them.'
> > > >>>>> Nowhere does he say he himself can prove it, however.
> > > >>> ? ? Think how foolish that is. ?If he is an architect, then he has the
> > > >>> knowledge to make that determination, and spending many semesters
> > > >>> teaching the public architecture so they would understand his decision
> > > >>> would be ridiculous.
> > > >> Well, somebody has to prove it, or you have no reason to believe it,
> > > >> right? One would think...
> > > >> Of course, I know that's a fallacious assumption when it comes to
> > > >> conspiracy theorists.
> > > >> And of course, nobody's proved it, because it's a manifestly ridiculous
> > > >> proposition.
> > > > ? ?Ah. ?You say it can't be proved because YOU think it's ridiculous!
> > > Well, the main reason it can't be proved is because it isn't true.
> > Yep! Like I said, you think you have 'proved' it isn't true because YOU
> > think it isn't true!
> Ah, but can't a similar argument be used toward you as well? Because you
> think it is true that the buildings were brought down by controlled
> demolition, you think it can be proven that they were, and you
> furthermore, as I noted in my reply to you yesterday, exaggerate the
> significance of all these people signing the petition. You claim that the
> act of signing, in and of itself, automatically implies that every person
> who signed it is 100% convinced that the buildings fell because of
> controlled demolition, and that the mere act of signing the petition is
> the same thing as all of them specifically stating that they themselves
> can prove it to be true. You ignore the reasons these people themselves
> actually *gave* for signing the petition. Plenty of them merely said that
> they had doubts about the official explanation, *without* specifically
> saying that they were *totally* convinced that the explanation is
> incorrect. You do realize that there are various reasons why such people
> might sign such a thing? You act as if all 1700+ of them had absolutely
> identical reasons in every detail for signing it. That is highly
> implausible. Different people have different viewpoints. You'll never,
> in any circumstances, have that many different people from that many
> different backgrounds from that many different countries from that many
> different cultures agreeing 100% on every detail. Ever. There will
> *always* be differences of opinion. *Some* of them will sign the petition
> because they *are* totally convinced of controlled demolition. *Others*
> will sign the petition simply because they aren't *certain* whether there
> was controlled demolition or not, and simply feel that further
> investigation should be done into the matter. And there will be all sorts
> of variations in between as far as their reasons for signing the petition.
> This is obvious common sense.
It's interesting that you would rather spend your time picking at me than discussing the real problem of the 3 towers coming down due to 'controlled demolition'. In previous posts I have given my answers to your picking and I stand on them. That leaves us with the facts and evidence that have been shown to you and which you seem to have ignored.
Why is it that evidence is something you want to avoid? Is it because YOU decided that evidence can't mean anything since YOU know it's all ridiculous?
I woudl very much like to see you tell us what you think happened to
building 7 when no planes ran into it, and no jet fuel was left in it.
> > So you have NO backup for your contention that
> > 'controlled demolition' was not used to bring down the 3 towers, right?
> I seem to recall he has indeed presented at least some evidence to the
> contrary.
None at all that I can remember. You've gotten us do far away from the really important facts and evidence, that we would have to go back and play it from there. However, since you chimedin and are trying to save him from embarrassment, perhaps you and I can have a siscussion aboutr the facts. What do you say?
> > Meaning that I must be right as far as any debate on the matter because
> > you are unable to mount a decent viewpoint.
> The same can be said of you in reverse. You have falsely claimed that
> literally *all* of these people signed the petition for absolutely
> identical reasons, ignoring the reasons that they themselves gave for
> signing the petition, which include a variety of viewpoints on the issue,
> not one single viewpoint only. You can accuse Sandy of not backing up his
> claims very well, but you're not backing up your claims very well either.
I still contend that I did not falsely assume anything of the kind, and that my statements were true, based on a knowledge of human reactions to certain situations. However, For arguments sake (this once) I'll grant your needs and say you're right. Now can we get on with a serious discussion, or are you unable to do that? Would you rather run away from the facts and evidence and just sit around picking at me? What do you say?
> > Your own personal opinion
> > counts only in your house, not here where you have to prove your point.
> The same can be said of your personal opinion.
Nope. Won't do. I use facts and evidence in discussing the topic. The general rule (which some folks don't follow) is that you discuss the topic and not the person. You wanted to talk on the side about whether my statement about AE911truth members was true or not. That is discussing the person. I went along with it for a while, but we need to get back on track. We're here because you found it more fun to pick at me than to discuss the topic at hand.
> > Do you have any facts to support your view? So far you've produced
> > nothing but your personal opinion, which carries no weight here. I'm able
> > to produce scientific proof and studies backing up my contentions and
> > those of the architects and Engineers.
> Yes, you've produced *some*. However, you have also made some obviously
> exaggerated statements as well. You originally claimed, falsely, that
> every single one of the people who signed that petition were absolutely
> convinced that the buildings, without a shadow of a doubt, were brought
> down by controlled demolition, and also falsely claimed that every person
> who signed the petition could prove this to be true. But when I looked at
> the actual reasons they gave for signing the petition, I quickly saw that
> most of them did not say either of those things. And I do not buy your
> argument that I saw yesterday that the act of signing, in and of itself,
> "implies" that that is what every one of these people meant. I'd almost
> be willing to bet money that if I contacted some of them, and asked them
> if your claim of why they signed the petition is correct, at least some of
> them would say no, that is not why they signed the petition.
> Shall we put that to the test?
Lordee! Are you daft? We've done that bit of yours to death. I've said I will concede your point for the sake of argument (this once), why are you so scared of the topic? Afraid that facts and evidence weren't what you expected? You thought maybe that you would walk into some 'conspiracy theorist' with baloney for brains? Since you admit that I've presented 'some' evidence, what is your opinion of those facts? Agree?
Disagree? If so, tell me why factually.
> > > It can't be proved any more than, say, the theory that Neil Armstrong
> > > never walked on the moon.
> > > But the CD theory is also as ridiculous as that.
> > Hmm. I think I see your problem. You think we're talking about a
> > THEORY. Nope. I'm talking about facts...
> No you aren't, certainly not entirely anyway. You incorrectly claimed, as
> if it was proven fact, that every one of those people signed the petition
> for a single, absolutely identical reason, and ignored the reasons these
> people themselves gave for signing the petition. How would you know why
> they signed the petition better than they themselves know why they signed
> the petition?
My oh my. Really trying to work that one to death, eh? Anything to stay away from the main topic. I've answered your comments on my statement above, so there's no reason to keep repeating it. It as if that was the only thing you found that you could hang your hat on, so you have to keep saying it, since you can't deal with the facts that were shown to you aboutr the collapses.
> > I have NO interest in your
> > theories.
Good, I have no theories. Only facts and evidence.
> Now wait a minute, you're acting as if Sandy is the only person on earth
> who has ever proposed that the buildings came down as the result of the
> plane crashes alone. In reality, millions of people worldwide believe
> that was the sole cause of the collapse of the buildings, just as there
> are many who believe otherwise. And how many certified architects and
> engineers are there worldwide who do NOT believe that the buildings were
> brought down by controlled demolition? Is it more or less than 1700?
> Unless you can *prove* that the *majority* of all of them worldwide
> believe controlled
> In article <507201b...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/7/2012 6:06 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>>> On 10/7/12 11:14 AM, mainframetech wrote:
>>>> On Oct 6, 6:43 pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 'The WTC Twin Towers and Building #7 appear to have been brought
>>>>>> down not
>>>>>> by jet impacts and/or fires as we have been led to believe - but by
>>>>>> controlled demolition with explosives. The evidence noted on
>>>>>> AE911Truth.org and other excellent websites is "prima facie" and will,
>>>>>> with the increasing public awareness and demand for the truth,
>>>>>> result in a
>>>>>> new truly independent investigation with subpoena power. A/E's must now
>>>>>> become leaders for 9/11 Truth - Join Us!'
>>>>>> He says he believes that the buildings were brought down by controlled
>>>>>> demolition. But where does he say he himself can prove it? I don't
>>>>>> see
>>>>>> that.
>>>> As a convinced person myself, I sometimes forget that newbies to
>>>> the subject often haven't looked into it far enough to be convinced.
>>> You must not have looked at any of the arguments against the utterly
>>> wacky "controlled demo" theory, or, I would think, you would have
>>> quickly become *un*convinced, like any reasonable person.
>> And it doesn't bother you that those are CIA assets?
> Does it bother you that you cannot come within a million light-years of
> *proving* that these are, um, CIA assets?
> Let me eyeball this:
> "James Randi Educational Foundation a place to discuss skepticism,
> critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively
> way"
> Lol, the CIA is into the paranormal?
RFLMAO. Years later we learned that the CIA was supporting all sorts of phony journals and had its OWN psychic protects. i.e. the Stargate Project. I don't mind that you are no naive. That's actually quite refreshing in this modern age of Google. I just cringe at how uneducated you are.
> I think most of us know how seriously to take your claims of who is and
> isn't involved with the CIA, which is not seriously at all. It must have
> been a "paranormal" former employee of the CIA who got you kicked off of
> Compuserve. And did you ever actually *prove* that Ed Dolan ever worked
> for the CIA in any capacity whatsoever? Nope.
I have checked his c.v. and Ned Dolan was never involved in the psychic programs. In fact he laughed off one claim of psychic remote viewing to identify exactly where the frogs were.
Of course I proved that Ned Dolan was a CIA officer. First he admitted it and then I found his biography when he ran for office in the AFIO. You really need to stop these stupid challenges. They make you look like a freshman.
> And what on earth is taking you so long to simply admit that you made a
> mistake when you falsely claimed that I ever said that JFK already had his
> fists up by Z225, when you've never once seen me say that? ;-)
