> >>>>>>>>>> ? ?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*.
Hmm. You don't think that finding incendiary chemical mixed everywhere with the dust from the collapsed buildings is a reason to think it was?
Were you even aware that the incendiary chemical called nano-thermite (or thermate) cannot be found anywhere in normal cities including NYC? You don't think it's a reason when they find tiny spherical globules of melted steel in all the dust from the towers everywhere in NYC? When melted steel is impossible from jet fuel or office fires? You don't think that finding many pools of molten steel in the basements of the 3 towers weeks after the collapses means anything? When jet fuel and office fires cant't reach the softening point of steel? None of these things is a reason?
You don't think that huge explosions and rapid fire machine gun explosions (often used in 'controlled demolition') heard and felt in the basements of the 3 towers BEFORE they fell means anything? Are you asleep or just closed minded?
> > 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?
I've answered that. You put up a link to the Randi site, which is full of conspiracy theories of the people he hinks are out to fool him. I'm not into theories. I'm into facts. If Randi is what he says he is, then he will appreciate the facts in the 9/11 case. But I'm not into theories about mystery
...
> > > > > > > > ? ?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'.
I don't buy that, since I myself quoted some of them as plainly stating that they are completely certain that the buildings were indeed brought down by demolition, so they didn't seem to be worried about their careers.
Wouldn't a more common-sense view be that different people have different viewpoints, as I keep reminding you? Some of these people are naturally going to feel more certain about the demolition theory than others.
That's just how people are, Chris. You'll never, ever have this many people having absolutely identical viewpoints on any subject, no matter what that subject is.
> Do you think they were really so
> unsure of what they saw that they immediately rushed to sign the
> petition? Naah.
Again you seem to be making a sweeping generalization, and sweeping generalizations are almost always at least partially flawed. Almost always there will be exceptions, no matter which group of people you're talking about. I say again that quite a few of these people made it quite plain that the reason they signed the petition is because they had serious doubts, but not necessarily because they were convinced in anything like an absolute sense that demolition occurred. And what do you mean by "immediately rushed to sign the petition"? How do you know how many of them "rushed" to do any such thing? I'm looking at the petition again now, and nowhere that I can see does it give the date on which each of these people signed it. How do you know that some of them didn't hesitate for a considerable number of days prior to finally deciding to sign it?
I say again, different people have different viewpoints, and different people behave in different ways. This will be true no matter what group of people you're talking about. I very much doubt that all 1700+ of these people took an identical amount of time to sign the petition after they first become aware of it. Common sense would suggest that some of them signed it immediately, others waited a day or two, others waited a week or two, others waited a month or two, and so forth, and that each person would have her/his own individual reasons for why and when they would sign the petition.
> > > > > '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.
But you still seem to be making essentially the same argument, that all of them, or nearly all, had identical or nearly identical motivations for signing the petition, and common sense would indicate that that is very unlikely to be true for any group of people even remotely this large.
> > > 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
Yes, I watched that yesterday, and as I was watching it a superbly relevant question occurred to me:
How do we know there really *was* thermite at the WTC site? Isn't it necessarily to establish that it was really there *before* using that to establish a claim of demolition?
So yesterday I decided to look up the origin of the claim that there even was thermite there in the first place. And what I found was quite interesting.
I first looked at the official 9/11 report from 2004, and I found that no form of the word "thermite" appears anywhere in it. But perhaps that is not surprising. So I next looked for the basis of the claims that there was thermite on the site. And what I found was, just like in the Gage video above, that at least most of the basis for this claim is people saying they see a substance which *looks* *like* thermite in photographs. I also found some sites in which this thermite claim is disputed, such as this one:
And this is one of the things said on Wikipedia on the matter:
**********
In 2006, Jones suggested that thermite or super-thermite may have been used by government insiders with access to such materials and to the buildings themselves, to demolish the buildings.[6][7][8][9] In April 2009, Jones, Niels H. Harrit and seven other authors published a paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, causing the editor, Prof. Marie-Paule Pileni, to resign as she accused the publisher of printing it without her knowledge and that she'd already had suspicions that the "Bentham Scientific" publisher ran pseudo-scientific journals[10][11]; this article was titled 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe', and stated that they had found evidence of nano-thermite in samples of the dust that was produced during the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. [12] NIST responded that there was no "clear chain of custody" to prove that the four samples of dust came from the WTC site. Jones invited NIST to conduct its own studies using its own known "chain of custody" dust, but NIST did not investigate.[13]
In article <5074ada...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 10/9/2012 3:59 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> 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
Source?
> and then I found his biography when he ran for office in the AFIO.
Source?
> You > really need to stop these stupid challenges. They make you look like a > freshman.
> Next time you see Ned ask him what happened to that quarter million > dollars he raised for the David Atlee Phillips lawsuit which was never > spent.
Next time I see Ned? Why on earth would you think it all likely that I'll *ever* see him?
> > 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? ;-)
Ooohhh, you ignored this again, Tony. For shame. ;-)
mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 8, 8:54?pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > ?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:
> > > > 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.
> I also gave the names of two experts in that field mentioned on the
> AE911truth website and in their videos. Here they are if you have the
> courage to listen to them:
Why on earth would I, of all people, not have the courage to listen to them? What kind of squeamish, spineless person do you take me for? I thought you were a regular enough poster here to know by now that I'm one of the last posters in this group that would be at likely to be reluctant to peruse any sort of valid evidence, no matter what it is, whether it is consistent with my own prior beliefs or not. I've demonstrated that literally hundreds of times here, over a period of a full decade, and I've shown plenty of times that I am more than happy to change my views on various matters when valid evidence comes to my attention that justifies it. And I've watched every video you have posted a link to in this thread, and yes, *listed* as well, with the volume all the way up, plus I've watched and listened to many others that you haven't posted, and not just on Youtube either. You don't have the slightest idea what the origins of my current viewpoints are on 9/11, because you've never seen anything I've written on the subject until a few days ago. There is quite a lot that I have not yet revealed regarding my viewpoints. I have indeed been studying 9/11 very extensively since the day it happened.
You seem to be confusing me with some other poster.
> 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.
You have no possible way of knowing that all of them are that similar in motivation, honesty, ulterior motive, etc.
> They have members that have done
> experiments
Some members, yes.
> and have published scientific papers in peer reviewed
> journals with data from the collapse.
Some of them, yes.
> They are because of their
> career choices,
Some of them, yes. You have no possible way of knowing exactly how many of them are there for that exact reason, and neither do I.
> more scientific in their outlook and decisions,
*Some* of them I'm sure are scientific in their outlook and decisions, but there is no possible way for any of us to know with any real certainty how many of them.
> and
> they have avoided all the nonsense with conspiracies and theories.
All of them, or most of them, have avoided that? Are you sure? Somehow I have a suspicion that if we did searches on enough of those names on that petition that we might find quite a few of them who have made various statements on conspiracies and theories, and I don't mean dismissive statements necessarily.
> > 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?
Of course it did. A few of my brain cells do still work, even at my age. I don't always type every thought in my head in every article I post, and I imagine you don't either.
> Many of us know what that is,
> and manyt of us have sen videos of such demolitions.
So have I, and every one of those that has good audio reveals *very* loud bangs prior to and often also during the main collapses themselves.
I've never heard anything even remotely like that in any of the videos of any of the three WTC buildings collapsing.
> 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.
Which is exactly what I'm doing.
> > 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.
Of course. I'm not exactly a newbie, you know. I've been posting to a lot of different newsgroups on a lot of different topics, moderated and unmoderated, since November, 1998. I think I kindasorta know how Usenet works by now. ;-)
> > 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.
Certainly.
> Yet that information is shied away from by people
> here in this thread
Not by me. In my previous reply to you that I posted a few minutes ago I shied away from nothing, but instead addressed what you said head-on.
> 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.
Who says I'm avoiding them? How could you possibly know whether I've done that or not, when you've barely started to become acquainted with my beliefs on 9/11 only very recently, and know practically nothing about the degree of study I've done on 9/11 for the past eleven years?
> Forget
> those sick old theories and conspiracies.
When did I take those seriously in the first place?
mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 9, 4:02?pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 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'.
Oh
my
gawd.
This will be my third time to explain this to you today. Today is the
very
first
day
that I have had a chance to read through your most recent replies to me that were posted yesterday, and it was only starting yesterday or the day before or something like that that in our exchanges we really began, for the first time ever, to get into the pro and con evidence of controlled demolition in any great detail. In all of our earlier exchanges we were mainly only discussing the claims of why all these people signed the petition. Only starting yesterday, or the day before, did our exchanges in this thread start, for the first time ever, to really branch out into the evidence itself in any extensive way. You sure don't wait very long before you falsely accuse someone of avoiding the evidence. My first reply to you today took more than *three* *hours* to compose. And just like I'm sure is the case with you, I do actually have a life beyond this newsgroup, and it is not every day that I can spend this many hours replying to articles here. I'm also very busy trying to get a couple of major articles finished before the end of this month which each have to do with what I feel are the two most serious controversies of all surrounding the JFK assassination, so you'll forgive me, I hope, if 9/11, as important as it is as well, sometimes has to go on the back burner for me, as it is a different subject from the assassination and is also not even the primary subject of this newsgroup. I'm also posting articles in a lot of other threads here as well, in case you hadn't noticed.
> In previous posts I have given my answers to > your picking and I stand on them.
And I have also given my answers to your arguments and I stand by those as well.
> That leaves us with the facts and > evidence that have been shown to you and which you seem to have ignored.
No, you have barely given me any time to address them properly. This isn't the only thread I'm posting in, nor is it the only work on the computer I do each day, nor is work on the computer the only thing I do each day. I am ignoring nothing that you have posted in direct reply to me, but I can't always get to a reply to you within the first twelve hours of when each of your replies to me first becomes visible to me after the moderation process has concluded.
> Why is it that evidence is something you want to avoid?
I am avoiding *nothing*. Which of your replies to me in this thread have I not replied to? Only this one that I'm now replying to at this moment.
And in not one case did I take longer than 48 hours to reply to you, except for that one where for some reason I had missed it for 6 days.
And you're certainly the pot calling the kettle black. Remember how you missed my first lengthy reply, and I had to repost with the comment that you had appeared to have gone silent on it before you noticed it?
> Is it because YOU > decided that evidence can't mean anything since YOU know it's all > ridiculous?
You haven't seen nearly enough of what I've written about 9/11 yet to have anything even remotely close to an accurate idea of my full viewpoints regarding it. Geez, if I don't address your arguments within twenty-four hours you think I've already given up and bugged out? Let's see if you still think that after you've seen the *massive* reply I posted to you earlier today. I'm not sure until it actually appears after the moderators let it through, but I think it will turn out to be well over 1000 lines long. And really, even as long-winded as I often am, generally I find that a bit too long, so I may have to cut that down a bit in future replies, so I want you to understand in advance that if I do trim the length of subsequent replies it is for reasons of reducing length *only*, and will never, ever have any connection whatsoever to purposefully avoiding any argument, no matter what it is.
I also posted a second reply to you just a little while ago, though I don't think that is nearly as long.
> 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.
I clearly remember saying something about that in this thread in reply to you the other day, but I admit it wasn't much. But what I'm noticing about the collapse of WTC 7 is not so much proof that the collapse of the other much taller buildings affected that, but the lack of anything *else* affecting it. Curious, indeed. But I have actually gone into that a good deal more in my other two replies to you earlier today, and I would be interested to see what you say in reply to those.
> > > 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.
***I*** have gotten us too far away from the really important facts and evidence??? How on earth have *I* done that? When I first joined into this discussion I began by addressing a single claim of yours that you posted in a very short article, in which this is the full entirety of your text:
**********
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.
Chris
**********
That's it, that's all you said in that entire article. So naturally I started out by addressing what you *said* in *that* article. Naturally the discussion has spread out
I'm top-posting, Chris, but have gleaned the points from your reply that come the closest to being substantive, non-rhetorical and indicative of what you believe about the fall of the World Trade Center.
If you are not listening to the Truthers, as you claim, then why are you repeating some of their most ignorant points? Generally only people who buy into their theories accept the whole package of fallacious claims that you are trying to foist off onto people here, with, I might add, no *evidence* whatsoever but *only* assertions that this or that preposterous factoid is "proved."
You, Chris, on your own authority, then, allege that "incendiary chemical mixed everywhere with the dust from the collapsed buildings."
But that is mad scientist Steve Jones's thermite (or is it thermate). You didn't get that from a Truther? This makes a lot more sense, though:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy-theories/97789-thermite-myth...
Again, you repeat the old Truther argument that "melted steel is impossible from jet fuel or office fires." That doesn't prove anything, of course. Jet fuel burns at a temperature hot enough to fatally weaken, though not entirely melt, steel.
You seem to be forgetting that the girders of WTC towers were coated with a fire-proofing material. Why would that be necessary if the were impervious to flame? Alas, the fire-proofing was dislodged by the impact of the planes.
(Most people know this by now.)
You ask, "How did you determine that my seeing videos of molten steel in the basements of the collapsed buildings were only delusions?" I'm sure you're not deluded when you say you saw some videos, but I think you mean, How did I determine that the videos you saw of molten steel in the basements were fostering delusions? So I've provided a link to back that up. But I would also like you to tell me how the chemical composition of anything can be determined from a video.
Your claim that "pools of molten steel in the basements" is based on what, then? Saw it yourself? Had the substance assayed?
But this is just an urban legend.
<quote on>To finish, none of these stories prove there was molten (as in liquid) steel at the WTC. There's no evidence temperatures were hot enough to produce that (whatever the energy source), and some of the stories claiming "molten steel" have built-in implausibilities. There was certainly glowing metal, but this only indicates temperatures within the range of a fire.</quote off>
See also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YXzjAKJQOg
What were presented as "huge explosions and rapid fire machine gun explosions" were floors collapsing onto one another. (I could find a link to back this up, but any bald assertions here are vastly outnumbered by the ones that fill your own post.)
You repeat, just like any of these Truthers with whom you claim to have had only tangential contact, that "it is impossible to simply 'pull' a 47 story building on a moment's notice. "
But when Larry Silverstein said they were going to "pull it," he was refering to removing the firefighting team. (The BBC got wind of the building's abandonment about a half-hour before the collapse and reported it early, giving rise to yet more conspiracy theories.) For crying out loud, if Silverstein was trying to hide anything, why would he have said that for everyone to hear? (I've found that all of the theories that have been built up around the pseudo-facts wind up logically contradicting themselves sooner rather than later.)
You do, inadvertently, make one good point: "It takes weeks and sometimes months to accomplish that. So how did they do it? How did they go through the whole building setting explosives to bring down the building in a few hours, when it takes experts weeks and months? Sheesh! The things people believe!"
Indeed! The only time any of these buildings, continuously occupied for decades, could have been rigged for controlled demolition was when they were being built, back in the early 1970s (do you need a citation for that?). Do you believe that's when the plot began?
"They still can't explain the falling of building 7. "
Nonsense. As I've already pointed out, there's a very simple explanation: damage from fire and falling debris. The NIST report didn't go into the fall of WTC 7 simply because there was no question about what brought it down.
Check out this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNhslGDz9lw And this link:
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
"So it's easier for you to slide away from the discussion by saying it's not serious?"
Make of that what you will, I can't take this "discussion" seriously enough to spend any more time on it.
"I don't have 'ideas', I have facts which if you were courageous, you could try dealing with."
I believe you when you say that you don't have any ideas. You certainly have none that are original.
But you act like I've never heard any of this garbage before!
"You think that saying that PopMech was wrong is a crime?" No, having studied that debate (though quite some time ago), I think that the fact that you think they were wrong and Richard Gage's group right indicates, as I said, that you and I have very different criteria for what constitutes a rational argument and what can be accepted as proof.
mainframetech wrote:
> On Oct 9, 8:40 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On 10/8/12 8:03 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>>> On Oct 8, 5:23 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> ? For another scrupulously honest site dealing with the fall of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> THREE towers, go here:
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ae911truth.org/ >>>>>>>>>>>> ? ?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.
>>>>>>>>>> Here is the petition and the names. Come back and tell us what you
>>>>>>>>>> found...:)
>>>>>>>>>> http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php >>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> Try the resources here:http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18 >>>>> 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
> In article
> <e2e886dc-a530-42d4-9a67-8d22c3621...@p14g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 8:54?pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> In article
>>> ?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:
>>>>> 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.
>> I also gave the names of two experts in that field mentioned on the
>> AE911truth website and in their videos. Here they are if you have the
>> courage to listen to them:
> Why on earth would I, of all people, not have the courage to listen to
> them? What kind of squeamish, spineless person do you take me for? I
Not a fair question. You know we are forbidden to answer it.
> thought you were a regular enough poster here to know by now that I'm one
> of the last posters in this group that would be at likely to be reluctant
> to peruse any sort of valid evidence, no matter what it is, whether it is
> consistent with my own prior beliefs or not. I've demonstrated that
> literally hundreds of times here, over a period of a full decade, and I've
> shown plenty of times that I am more than happy to change my views on
> various matters when valid evidence comes to my attention that justifies
> it. And I've watched every video you have posted a link to in this
> thread, and yes, *listed* as well, with the volume all the way up, plus
> I've watched and listened to many others that you haven't posted, and not
> just on Youtube either. You don't have the slightest idea what the
> origins of my current viewpoints are on 9/11, because you've never seen
> anything I've written on the subject until a few days ago. There is quite
> a lot that I have not yet revealed regarding my viewpoints. I have indeed
> been studying 9/11 very extensively since the day it happened.
We know you are not brave enough to click on the links to my Web site.
> You seem to be confusing me with some other poster.
>> 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.
> You have no possible way of knowing that all of them are that similar in
> motivation, honesty, ulterior motive, etc.
>> They have members that have done
>> experiments
> Some members, yes.
>> and have published scientific papers in peer reviewed
>> journals with data from the collapse.
> Some of them, yes.
>> They are because of their
>> career choices,
> Some of them, yes. You have no possible way of knowing exactly how many
> of them are there for that exact reason, and neither do I.
>> more scientific in their outlook and decisions,
> *Some* of them I'm sure are scientific in their outlook and decisions,
> but there is no possible way for any of us to know with any real
> certainty how many of them.
>> and
>> they have avoided all the nonsense with conspiracies and theories.
> All of them, or most of them, have avoided that? Are you sure? Somehow I
> have a suspicion that if we did searches on enough of those names on that
> petition that we might find quite a few of them who have made various
> statements on conspiracies and theories, and I don't mean dismissive
> statements necessarily.
>>> 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?
> Of course it did. A few of my brain cells do still work, even at my
> age. I don't always type every thought in my head in every article I
> post, and I imagine you don't either.
>> Many of us know what that is,
>> and manyt of us have sen videos of such demolitions.
> So have I, and every one of those that has good audio reveals *very*
> loud bangs prior to and often also during the main collapses themselves.
> I've never heard anything even remotely like that in any of the videos
> of any of the three WTC buildings collapsing.
>> 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.
> Which is exactly what I'm doing.
>>> 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.
> Of course. I'm not exactly a newbie, you know. I've been posting to a
> lot of different newsgroups on a lot of different topics, moderated and
> unmoderated, since November, 1998. I think I kindasorta know how Usenet
> works by now. ;-)
>>> 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.
> Certainly.
>> Yet that information is shied away from by people
>> here in this thread
> Not by me. In my previous reply to you that I posted a few minutes ago
> I shied away from nothing, but instead addressed what you said head-on.
>> 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.
> Who says I'm avoiding them? How could you possibly know whether I've
> done that or not, when you've barely started to become acquainted with
> my beliefs on 9/11 only very recently, and know practically nothing
> about the degree of study I've done on 9/11 for the past eleven years?
>> Forget
>> those sick old theories and conspiracies.
> When did I take those seriously in the first place?
> In article <5074ada...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/9/2012 3:59 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
>> 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
> Source?
>> and then I found his biography when he ran for office in the AFIO.
> Source?
>> You
>> really need to stop these stupid challenges. They make you look like a
>> freshman.
> Because I ask for proof?
Because you refuse to do your homework. That's why you're flunking.
>> Next time you see Ned ask him what happened to that quarter million
>> dollars he raised for the David Atlee Phillips lawsuit which was never
>> spent.
> Next time I see Ned? Why on earth would you think it all likely that
> I'll *ever* see him?
>>> 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? ;-)
> Ooohhh, you ignored this again, Tony. For shame. ;-)
> > > > > > > > > ? ?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'.
> I don't buy that, since I myself quoted some of them as plainly stating
> that they are completely certain that the buildings were indeed brought
> down by demolition, so they didn't seem to be worried about their careers.
> Wouldn't a more common-sense view be that different people have different
> viewpoints, as I keep reminding you? Some of these people are naturally
> going to feel more certain about the demolition theory than others.
> That's just how people are, Chris. You'll never, ever have this many
> people having absolutely identical viewpoints on any subject, no matter
> what that subject is.
Stop and think for a change. How many opinions are there on this topic?
I can think of the 'official' story of planes hitting buildings and jet fuel and office fires somehow generating temperatures beyond the softening point of steel brought the buildings down, and the other where the buildings were brought down by a combination of applications of incendiary and explosive devices. If there are other possible methods, let me know.
To me, if someone with a profession in the building and engineering areas signs a petition to investigate independently with subpoena power, they are saying they doubt the 'official' story, or that they believe it's a lie.
But why oh why are we STILL talking about this and not the real serious problem? I have, for the sake of argument (this once), said I'll go along with your assessment of my statement in the beginning so that we can get on with the important part of the conversation, and you quit right there.
What emotion rules that shying away from the details of the collapses?
> > Do you think they were really so
> > unsure of what they saw that they immediately rushed to sign the
> > petition? Naah.
> Again you seem to be making a sweeping generalization, and sweeping
> generalizations are almost always at least partially flawed. Almost
> always there will be exceptions, no matter which group of people you're
> talking about. I say again that quite a few of these people made it quite
> plain that the reason they signed the petition is because they had serious
> doubts, but not necessarily because they were convinced in anything like
> an absolute sense that demolition occurred. And what do you mean by
> "immediately rushed to sign the petition"? How do you know how many of
> them "rushed" to do any such thing? I'm looking at the petition again
> now, and nowhere that I can see does it give the date on which each of
> these people signed it. How do you know that some of them didn't hesitate
> for a considerable number of days prior to finally deciding to sign it?
I rather think they did indeed think it over for a few days. However, why are we so afraid of the real substance of the fall of the towers that we're still talking of my original statement? Are you that afraid of the facts and evidence? Or have you not looked into them and are worried that you won't understand them.
> I say again, different people have different viewpoints, and different
> people behave in different ways. This will be true no matter what group
> of people you're talking about. I very much doubt that all 1700+ of these
> people took an identical amount of time to sign the petition after they
> first become aware of it. Common sense would suggest that some of them
> signed it immediately, others waited a day or two, others waited a week or
> two, others waited a month or two, and so forth, and that each person
> would have her/his own individual reasons for why and when they would sign
> the petition.
ASince you're repeating yourself over and over again, I'll try it
once myself. How many legitimate scenarios can you see for bringing
down the 3 towers?
> > > > > > '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.
> But you still seem to be making essentially the same argument, that all of
> them, or nearly all, had identical or nearly identical motivations for
> signing the petition, and common sense would indicate that that is very
> unlikely to be true for any group of people even remotely this large.
Nope. Won't do. I'm only repeating something I said before in
answer to your continuing repetition and avoidance of the real
problem, which is the reason for the fall of the towers and reason for
the investigation. Why are you still caught at square one?
> > > > 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
> Yes, I watched that yesterday, and as I was watching it a superbly
> relevant question occurred to me:
> How do we know there really *was* thermite at the WTC site? Isn't it
> necessarily
> In article
> <9287c1c6-27cd-4c9c-8383-453d83ae2...@o8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 9, 4:02?pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> 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'.
> Oh
> my
> gawd.
> This will be my third time to explain this to you today. Today is the
> very
> first
> day
> that I have had a chance to read through your most recent replies to me
> that were posted yesterday, and it was only starting yesterday or the day
> before or something like that that in our exchanges we really began, for
> the first time ever, to get into the pro and con evidence of controlled
> demolition in any great detail. In all of our earlier exchanges we were
> mainly only discussing the claims of why all these people signed the
> petition. Only starting yesterday, or the day before, did our exchanges
> in this thread start, for the first time ever, to really branch out into
> the evidence itself in any extensive way. You sure don't wait very long
> before you falsely accuse someone of avoiding the evidence. My first
> reply to you today took more than *three* *hours* to compose. And just
> like I'm sure is the case with you, I do actually have a life beyond this
> newsgroup, and it is not every day that I can spend this many hours
> replying to articles here. I'm also very busy trying to get a couple of
> major articles finished before the end of this month which each have to do
> with what I feel are the two most serious controversies of all surrounding
> the JFK assassination, so you'll forgive me, I hope, if 9/11, as important
> as it is as well, sometimes has to go on the back burner for me, as it is
> a different subject from the assassination and is also not even the
> primary subject of this newsgroup. I'm also posting articles in a lot of
> other threads here as well, in case you hadn't noticed.
>> In previous posts I have given my answers to
>> your picking and I stand on them.
> And I have also given my answers to your arguments and I stand by those
> as well.
>> That leaves us with the facts and
>> evidence that have been shown to you and which you seem to have ignored.
> No, you have barely given me any time to address them properly. This
> isn't the only thread I'm posting in, nor is it the only work on the
> computer I do each day, nor is work on the computer the only thing I do
> each day. I am ignoring nothing that you have posted in direct reply to
> me, but I can't always get to a reply to you within the first twelve hours
> of when each of your replies to me first becomes visible to me after the
> moderation process has concluded.
>> Why is it that evidence is something you want to avoid?
> I am avoiding *nothing*. Which of your replies to me in this thread have
> I not replied to? Only this one that I'm now replying to at this moment.
> And in not one case did I take longer than 48 hours to reply to you,
> except for that one where for some reason I had missed it for 6 days.
> And you're certainly the pot calling the kettle black. Remember how you
> missed my first lengthy reply, and I had to repost with the comment that
> you had appeared to have gone silent on it before you noticed it?
>> Is it because YOU
>> decided that evidence can't mean anything since YOU know it's all
>> ridiculous?
> You haven't seen nearly enough of what I've written about 9/11 yet to have
> anything even remotely close to an accurate idea of my full viewpoints
> regarding it. Geez, if I don't address your arguments within twenty-four
> hours you think I've already given up and bugged out? Let's see if you
> still think that after you've seen the *massive* reply I posted to you
> earlier today. I'm not sure until it actually appears after the
> moderators let it through, but I think it will turn out to be well over
> 1000 lines long. And really, even as long-winded as I often am, generally
> I find that a bit too long, so I may have to cut that down a bit in future
> replies, so I want you to understand in advance that if I do trim the
> length of subsequent replies it is for reasons of reducing length *only*,
> and will never, ever have any connection whatsoever to purposefully
> avoiding any argument, no matter what it is.
> I also posted a second reply to you just a little while ago, though I
> don't think that is nearly as long.
>> 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.
> I clearly remember saying something about that in this thread in reply to
> you the other day, but I admit it wasn't much. But what I'm noticing
> about the collapse of WTC 7 is not so much proof that the collapse of the
> other much taller buildings affected that, but the lack of anything *else*
> affecting it. Curious, indeed. But I have actually gone into that a good
> deal more in my other two replies to you earlier today, and I would be
> interested to see what you say in reply to those.
>>>> 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.
> ***I*** have gotten us too far away from the really important facts and
> evidence??? How on earth have *I* done that? When I first joined into
> this discussion I began by addressing a single claim of yours that you
> posted in a very short article, in which this is the full entirety of your
> text:
> **********
> 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.
>>> 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*.
> Hmm. You don't think that finding incendiary chemical mixed everywhere
> with the dust from the collapsed buildings is a reason to think it was?
> Were you even aware that the incendiary chemical called nano-thermite (or
> thermate) cannot be found anywhere in normal cities including NYC? You
You can find nano-thermite in many cities. Even NYC. So what? Prove that the residue was nano-thermite produced in only one Top Secret US lab.
> don't think it's a reason when they find tiny spherical globules of melted
> steel in all the dust from the towers everywhere in NYC? When melted
Show me.
> steel is impossible from jet fuel or office fires? You don't think that
Melted steel in a plane is not impossible from a jet fuel fire.
And where did all that aluminum from the skin of the planes go? Just vanish into thin air?
> finding many pools of molten steel in the basements of the 3 towers weeks
> after the collapses means anything? When jet fuel and office fires cant't
No, reports by laypeople do not mean anything.
Can you tell the difference between molten iron, molten steel or molten aluminum just at a glance?
> reach the softening point of steel? None of these things is a reason?
> You don't think that huge explosions and rapid fire machine gun explosions
> (often used in 'controlled demolition') heard and felt in the basements of
> the 3 towers BEFORE they fell means anything? Are you asleep or just
> closed minded?
Too subjective.
And someone can hear the collapse of the other tower before their tower also collapses.
>>> 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.
> > > > > > > > > > ? ?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'.
> > I don't buy that, since I myself quoted some of them as plainly stating
> > that they are completely certain that the buildings were indeed brought
> > down by demolition, so they didn't seem to be worried about their careers.
> > Wouldn't a more common-sense view be that different people have different
> > viewpoints, as I keep reminding you? Some of these people are naturally
> > going to feel more certain about the demolition theory than others.
> > That's just how people are, Chris. You'll never, ever have this many
> > people having absolutely identical viewpoints on any subject, no matter
> > what that subject is.
> Stop and think for a change. How many opinions are there on this topic?
> I can think of the 'official' story of planes hitting buildings and jet
> fuel and office fires somehow generating temperatures beyond the softening
> point of steel brought the buildings down, and the other where the
> buildings were brought down by a combination of applications of incendiary
> and explosive devices. If there are other possible methods, let me know.
> To me, if someone with a profession in the building and engineering areas
> signs a petition to investigate independently with subpoena power, they
> are saying they doubt the 'official' story, or that they believe it's a
> lie.
> But why oh why are we STILL talking about this and not the real serious
> problem? I have, for the sake of argument (this once), said I'll go along
> with your assessment of my statement in the beginning so that we can get
> on with the important part of the conversation, and you quit right there.
> What emotion rules that shying away from the details of the collapses?
> > > Do you think they were really so
> > > unsure of what they saw that they immediately rushed to sign the
> > > petition? Naah.
> > Again you seem to be making a sweeping generalization, and sweeping
> > generalizations are almost always at least partially flawed. Almost
> > always there will be exceptions, no matter which group of people you're
> > talking about. I say again that quite a few of these people made it quite
> > plain that the reason they signed the petition is because they had serious
> > doubts, but not necessarily because they were convinced in anything like
> > an absolute sense that demolition occurred. And what do you mean by
> > "immediately rushed to sign the petition"? How do you know how many of
> > them "rushed" to do any such thing? I'm looking at the petition again
> > now, and nowhere that I can see does it give the date on which each of
> > these people signed it. How do you know that some of them didn't hesitate
> > for a considerable number of days prior to finally deciding to sign it?
> I rather think they did indeed think it over for a few days. However,
> why are we so afraid of the real substance of the fall of the towers that
> we're still talking of my original statement? Are you that afraid of the
> facts and evidence? Or have you not looked into them and are worried that
> you won't understand them.
> > I say again, different people have different viewpoints, and different
> > people behave in different ways. This will be true no matter what group
> > of people you're talking about. I very much doubt that all 1700+ of these
> > people took an identical amount of time to sign the petition after they
> > first become aware of it. Common sense would suggest that some of them
> > signed it immediately, others waited a day or two, others waited a week or
> > two, others waited a month or two, and so forth, and that each person
> > would have her/his own individual reasons for why and when they would sign
> > the petition.
> ASince you're repeating yourself over and over again, I'll try it
> once myself. How many legitimate scenarios can you see for bringing
> down the 3 towers?
> > > > > > > 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.
> > But you still seem to be making essentially the same argument, that all of
> > them, or nearly all, had identical or nearly identical motivations for
> > signing the petition, and common sense would indicate that that is very
> > unlikely to be true for any group of people even remotely this large.
> Nope. Won't do. I'm only repeating something I said before in
> answer to your continuing repetition and avoidance of the real
> problem, which is the reason for the fall of the towers and reason for
> the investigation. Why are you still caught at square one?
> > > > > 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
> Naturally you're not going to like the pie charts you see at that site,
> but they say that 76% of the population think that 9/11 was a conspiracy
> and not terrorists. Now is that because the 'conspiracy theorists' are
> better at conveying sales literature, or are they showing information that
> is more credible?
what if the 76% is really intentionally skewed downward and the real number is more like 85% or more given that polls often do not represent the populace?
like on the jfk assassination, seems the actual percentage of people who attribute jfk's death to a conspiracy is 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% , the exceptions being the closeted gruppe and a few others like posnochio, bugnochio, o'reilynochio, and others of that mindset
On Oct 10, 9:42 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I'm top-posting, Chris, but have gleaned the points from your reply that
> come the closest to being substantive, non-rhetorical and indicative of
> what you believe about the fall of the World Trade Center.
Or at least what your opinion of my points are...:)
> If you are not listening to the Truthers, as you claim, then why are you
> repeating some of their most ignorant points? Generally only people who
> buy into their theories accept the whole package of fallacious claims that
> you are trying to foist off onto people here, with, I might add, no
> *evidence* whatsoever but *only* assertions that this or that preposterous
> factoid is "proved."
I'm surprised that you were unable to tease out the fact that if a
fact exists and supports a conspiracist's viewpoint, they will use
it. The fact is objective, it's how it is used that can be partisan.
So it's possible that I have used objective facts thjat were also used
by someone else. Don't try to lump me in with them.
> You, Chris, on your own authority, then, allege that "incendiary
> chemical mixed everywhere with the dust from the collapsed buildings."
> But that is mad scientist Steve Jones's thermite (or is it thermate).
Sandy, I seriously doubt that you or I have the qualifications to
label Jones a 'mad scientist', but I'm not even sure where you got
that from. Did you decide it, or did you read it somewhere? If
neither you nor I have the credentials to make determinations about
this 'event', then we must look through the 'experts' and choose the
ones who appear to have the best evidence and facts for their
viewpoint. I've chosen mine, you have chosen yours. We only debate
their opinions, not our own. Our opinions are of the veracity of the
'experts' that we have chosen. Each person must make that decision
'on their own authority', as to who to believe and what evidence makes
the most sense.
> You didn't get that from a Truther? This makes a lot more sense, though:
I looked through the information and videos on that site. Much of
it is typical deniers stuff.
As usual there are holes all through that presentation. Here are
some of them:
The argument that aluminum is silvery when molten has been used to
'debunk' the idea that molten metal pouring out of a point at about
the 80th floor of one of the towers before collapse is an old
standard. I must point out to you that I DO NOT CONSIDER THE MOLTEN
STREAM TO BE OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE IN PROVING ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE
COLLAPSE. That's for the 'conspiracy theorists' (CTs) to play with.
Such playthings don't interest me, as with many of the CT items of
discussion mentioned at the site. They aren't proving anything to me
becasue they're speaking to CTs.
There was a discussion that WTC7 had damage done to it more than
shown in videos. I agree, but the building did as it was planned, and
withstood the damage made by the flying debris. The buildings were
planned to do well if hit by a Boeing 707 fully loaded flying into the
buildings, which is simply a large piece of debris concentrated in one
spot. The WTC7 stood for many hours with no problem. It only came
down when commanded to come down as shown by previous proofs of the
countdown, the warning of the building about to be brought down, and
by the owner stating that they DECIDED to bring it down, and then it
fell. This information alone says that the building was primed with
materials within it that would allow a 'controlled demolition' to
occur on it. It is not possible to 'pull' a 47 story building without
preparation. I defy anyone to find someone that thinks it can be done
in 6.5 seconds any other way. It is a fact that actually needs no
backup. You and I both have the experience to know that.
Once we get past the fact that the building was intentionally
'pulled', all else is clear. We know it couldn't be done without
preparation, probably with a high temperature incendiary device and/or
chemical and with explosives based on the many witnesses and some
sound from videos.
Given the above, it's time for the independent investigation to
commence, but of course, we will find very strong efforts to avoid
that for all sorts of excuses. Given that some polls find that 76% of
the population thinks the collapses of the 3 towers was not done by
terrorists, the investigation is necessary to calm the angers and
concerns of the public.
> Again, you repeat the old Truther argument that "melted steel is
> impossible from jet fuel or office fires." That doesn't prove anything,
> of course. Jet fuel burns at a temperature hot enough to fatally weaken,
> though not entirely melt, steel.
Nope. Won't do. You've just made a statement as if it were a
fact, yet it is false. You have provided NO backup for that
statement. Here is a paper that proves your contention completely
false, and provides the actual temperature of the steel softening
point, which was higher than the temperatures reached by jet fuel
(which was mostly exhausted early) and office furniture (both of which
are known values):
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/temperatures_of_structural_steel.pdf
> You seem to be forgetting that the girders of WTC towers were coated
> with a fire-proofing material. Why would that be necessary if the were
> impervious to flame? Alas, the fire-proofing was dislodged by the impact
> of the planes.
> (Most people know this by now.)
There has been NO proof that the fireproofing was dislodged from the
beams, nor have you provided any backup for your statement. Once
again you are creating facts to suit your purpose, yet you often
demand proof of my contentions. Sandy, we have to maintain a certain
level of honesty to discuss this intelligently.
> You ask, "How did you determine that my seeing videos of molten steel in
> the basements of the collapsed buildings were only delusions?" I'm sure
> you're not deluded when you say you saw some videos, but I think you
> mean, How did I determine that the videos you saw of molten steel in the
> basements were fostering delusions? So I've provided a link to back that
> up. But I would also like you to tell me how the chemical composition of
> anything can be determined from a video.
> Your claim that "pools of molten steel in the basements" is based on
> what, then? Saw it yourself? Had the substance assayed?
> But this is just an urban legend.
> http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
Oh my! Ad hominem talk of my 'delusions', and calling molten steel
an 'urban legend'. Isn't that the way CTs talk? Now I will show you
some of the proof available from witnesses and in video form. Try and
watch it to the end, where there are some extra facts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkO0lZ7BZJc&feature=endscreen&NR=1 At 0:35 you can see the molten metal. Remember, the jet fuel and
office furniture are exhausted long before this, and they couldn't
raise the temperature far enough to get the red/yellw of almost molten
steel.
> <quote on>To finish, none of these stories prove there was molten (as in
> liquid) steel at the WTC. There's no evidence temperatures were hot
> enough to produce that (whatever the energy source), and some of the
> stories claiming "molten steel" have built-in implausibilities. There
> was certainly glowing metal, but this only indicates temperatures within
> the range of a fire.</quote off>
> See also:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YXzjAKJQOg
::: sigh ::: As usual, there is no backup for stating that there
was no molten steel present. Just a statement that has no weight at
all by itself. No backup for saying that there was no temperature
'hot enough to produce that'. Finally a video that on its own that
makes all kinds of unsubstantiated statements, some of which are
patently false.
How does one learn from that sort of presentation? Not to mention
it was geared to CTs who aren't present in this conversation.
> What were presented as "huge explosions and rapid fire machine gun
> explosions" were floors collapsing onto one another. (I could find a
> link to back this up, but any bald assertions here are vastly
> outnumbered by the ones that fill your own post.)
You won't be able to produce anything to show that the sounds I've
shown you, or the description of the firemen of the rippling bursts of
explosive were pancaking floors, since there is no evidence for
either. The explosion sound that came as the firemen and cops were on
the street telephone did not keep happening as if floor by floor a
building was coming down. Your attempt to discredit it failed.
You also will be completely unable to back up the fact that "rapid fire machine gun explosions" were floors collapsing onto one another. Either you've lost it or my description wasn't good enough. I'll try again to get through the fog. In some of the videos of normal CDs you showed, you could see rapid small 'firecracker' cracks go off in a line top to bottom or vice versa, sometimes associated with small flashes. Those are what I called 'machine gun explosions', which it would be impossible to produce by pancaking floors, which would be too slow. Try and keep that image from your video of the machine gun 'snaps' and then remember the fireman describing the exact same thing while he was inside one of the towers before it came down.
> You repeat, just like any of these Truthers with whom you claim to have
> had only tangential contact, that "it is impossible to simply 'pull' a
> 47 story building on a moment's notice. "
> But when Larry Silverstein said they were going to "pull it," he was
> refering to removing the
> On Oct 11, 4:12 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 10, 9:19 pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:> In article
>>> <e6e3951c-d467-4263-9c88-bc17f61d1...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>>> mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Oct 8, 8:53?pm, 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.
>>>> 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'.
>>> I don't buy that, since I myself quoted some of them as plainly stating
>>> that they are completely certain that the buildings were indeed brought
>>> down by demolition, so they didn't seem to be worried about their careers.
>>> Wouldn't a more common-sense view be that different people have different
>>> viewpoints, as I keep reminding you? Some of these people are naturally
>>> going to feel more certain about the demolition theory than others.
>>> That's just how people are, Chris. You'll never, ever have this many
>>> people having absolutely identical viewpoints on any subject, no matter
>>> what that subject is.
>> Stop and think for a change. How many opinions are there on this topic?
>> I can think of the 'official' story of planes hitting buildings and jet
>> fuel and office fires somehow generating temperatures beyond the softening
>> point of steel brought the buildings down, and the other where the
>> buildings were brought down by a combination of applications of incendiary
>> and explosive devices. If there are other possible methods, let me know.
>> To me, if someone with a profession in the building and engineering areas
>> signs a petition to investigate independently with subpoena power, they
>> are saying they doubt the 'official' story, or that they believe it's a
>> lie.
>> But why oh why are we STILL talking about this and not the real serious
>> problem? I have, for the sake of argument (this once), said I'll go along
>> with your assessment of my statement in the beginning so that we can get
>> on with the important part of the conversation, and you quit right there.
>> What emotion rules that shying away from the details of the collapses?
>>>> Do you think they were really so
>>>> unsure of what they saw that they immediately rushed to sign the
>>>> petition? Naah.
>>> Again you seem to be making a sweeping generalization, and sweeping
>>> generalizations are almost always at least partially flawed. Almost
>>> always there will be exceptions, no matter which group of people you're
>>> talking about. I say again that quite a few of these people made it quite
>>> plain that the reason they signed the petition is because they had serious
>>> doubts, but not necessarily because they were convinced in anything like
>>> an absolute sense that demolition occurred. And what do you mean by
>>> "immediately rushed to sign the petition"? How do you know how many of
>>> them "rushed" to do any such thing? I'm looking at the petition again
>>> now, and nowhere that I can see does it give the date on which each of
>>> these people signed it. How do you know that some of them didn't hesitate
>>> for a considerable number of days prior to finally deciding to sign it?
>> I rather think they did indeed think it over for a few days. However,
>> why are we so afraid of the real substance of the fall of the towers that
>> we're still talking of my original statement? Are you that afraid of the
>> facts and evidence? Or have you not looked into them and are worried that
>> you won't understand them.
>>> I say again, different people have different viewpoints, and different
>>> people behave in different ways. This will be true no matter what group
>>> of people you're talking about. I very much doubt that all 1700+ of these
>>> people took an identical amount of time to sign the petition after they
>>> first become aware of it. Common sense would suggest that some of them
>>> signed it immediately, others waited a day or two, others waited a week or
>>> two, others waited a month or two, and so forth, and that each person
>>> would have her/his own individual reasons for why and when they would sign
>>> the petition.
>> ASince you're repeating yourself over and over again, I'll try it
>> once myself. How many legitimate scenarios can you see for bringing
>> down the 3 towers?
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>> But you still seem to be making essentially the same argument, that all of
>>> them, or nearly all, had identical or nearly identical motivations for
>>> signing the petition, and common sense would indicate that that is very
>>> unlikely to be true for any group of people even remotely this large.
>> Nope. Won't do. I'm only repeating something I said before in
>> answer to your continuing repetition and avoidance of the real
>> problem, which is the reason for the fall of the towers and reason for
>> the investigation. Why are you still caught at square one?
>>>>>> 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
>>> Yes, I watched that yesterday, and as I was watching it a superbly
> On Oct 10, 9:42 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> I'm top-posting, Chris, but have gleaned the points from your reply that
>> come the closest to being substantive, non-rhetorical and indicative of
>> what you believe about the fall of the World Trade Center.
> Or at least what your opinion of my points are...:)
Yes, indeed, I can only respond to what I think you are saying, based on what you have written.
I?ve never claimed the ability to read minds,
>> If you are not listening to the Truthers, as you claim, then why are you
>> repeating some of their most ignorant points? Generally only people who
>> buy into their theories accept the whole package of fallacious claims that
>> you are trying to foist off onto people here, with, I might add, no
>> *evidence* whatsoever but *only* assertions that this or that preposterous
>> factoid is "proved."
> I'm surprised that you were unable to tease out the fact that if a
> fact exists and supports a conspiracist's viewpoint, they will use
> it. The fact is objective, it's how it is used that can be partisan.
> So it's possible that I have used objective facts thjat were also used
> by someone else. Don't try to lump me in with them.
I am contesting what you regard as facts. People who don?t believe there was a conspiracy (that is, besides the one hatched by bin Laden & Co.) don?t believe that controlled demolition brought down the towers, and it is only people who believe the latter who regard these tales as factual.
You are somehow claiming to believe that CD was involved but to not be a conspiracy theorist. I am asked not to ?lump you in? with other people who share the same beliefs. You fail to recognize that these are only beliefs and, at the very least (without my going so far as to call a spade a spade), far from *proven* in the arena of scientific consensus.
You also claim to have come by these ?facts? by your own objective study of the evidence, and yet you admit to having no specialized scientific expertise of your own. I would put myself in the same layman category, and I?ve come to opposite conclusions about the whole schmear. Yet you and I both can point to experts who support our positions (I just happen to have more on my side). You have at least no more ground to say that I listen only to experts who agree with my opinion than I have to say the same about you. For my part, I was merely hoping (earlier) that your agreeing with the Truthers was due to your being uninformed. But I have no way of knowing how much you?ve looked at countervailing arguments, and you don?t know what I've read about all this, over the years, either.
We both make the judgment about what and whom to believe based on our respective senses of what is possible, plausible and logical, given the respective states of our knowledge. I don?t think, however, that you would have come up with the notion on your own that the World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition.
>> You, Chris, on your own authority, then, allege that "incendiary
>> chemical mixed everywhere with the dust from the collapsed buildings."
>> But that is mad scientist Steve Jones's thermite (or is it thermate).
> Sandy, I seriously doubt that you or I have the qualifications to
> label Jones a 'mad scientist', but I'm not even sure where you got
> that from. Did you decide it, or did you read it somewhere?
I calls ?em like I sees ?em, Chris.
You don?t have the qualifications to say that he?s entirely sane either.
And surely not to prove it to me.
> If
> neither you nor I have the credentials to make determinations about
> this 'event', then we must look through the 'experts' and choose the
> ones who appear to have the best evidence and facts for their
> viewpoint. I've chosen mine, you have chosen yours. We only debate
> their opinions, not our own. Our opinions are of the veracity of the
> 'experts' that we have chosen. Each person must make that decision
> 'on their own authority', as to who to believe and what evidence makes
> the most sense.
> I looked through the information and videos on that site. Much of
> it is typical deniers stuff.
> As usual there are holes all through that presentation. Here are
> some of them:
> The argument that aluminum is silvery when molten has been used to
> 'debunk' the idea that molten metal pouring out of a point at about
> the 80th floor of one of the towers before collapse is an old
> standard. I must point out to you that I DO NOT CONSIDER THE MOLTEN
> STREAM TO BE OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE IN PROVING ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE
> COLLAPSE. That's for the 'conspiracy theorists' (CTs) to play with.
> Such playthings don't interest me, as with many of the CT items of
> discussion mentioned at the site. They aren't proving anything to me
> becasue they're speaking to CTs.
Why do you believe there was thermite found in the dust if you don?t believe the CTs? It?s only CTs who are saying that, and it?s only their arguments for thermite?s presence that I have heard.
> There was a discussion that WTC7 had damage done to it more than
> shown in videos. I agree, but the building did as it was planned, and
> withstood the damage made by the flying debris. The buildings were
> planned to do well if hit by a Boeing 707 fully loaded flying into the
> buildings, which is simply a large piece of debris concentrated in one
> spot. The WTC7 stood for many hours with no problem. It only came
> down when commanded to come down as shown by previous proofs of the
> countdown, the warning of the building about to be brought down, and
> by the owner stating that they DECIDED to bring it down, and then it
> fell. This information alone says that the building was primed with
> materials within it that would allow a 'controlled demolition' to
> occur on it. It is not possible to 'pull' a 47 story building without
> preparation. I defy anyone to find someone that thinks it can be done
> in 6.5 seconds any other way. It is a fact that actually needs no
> backup. You and I both have the experience to know that.
> Once we get past the fact that the building was intentionally
> 'pulled', all else is clear. We know it couldn't be done without
> preparation, probably with a high temperature incendiary device and/or
> chemical and with explosives based on the many witnesses and some
> sound from videos.
> Given the above, it's time for the independent investigation to
> commence, but of course, we will find very strong efforts to avoid
> that for all sorts of excuses. Given that some polls find that 76% of
> the population thinks the collapses of the 3 towers was not done by
> terrorists, the investigation is necessary to calm the angers and
> concerns of the public.
>> Again, you repeat the old Truther argument that "melted steel is
>> impossible from jet fuel or office fires." That doesn't prove anything,
>> of course. Jet fuel burns at a temperature hot enough to fatally weaken,
>> though not entirely melt, steel.
> Nope. Won't do. You've just made a statement as if it were a
> fact, yet it is false.
Says the noted scientist.
> You have provided NO backup for that
> statement.
> Here is a paper that proves your contention completely
> false, and provides the actual temperature of the steel softening
> point, which was higher than the temperatures reached by jet fuel
> (which was mostly exhausted early) and office furniture (both of which
> are known values):
> http://www.serendipity.li/wot/temperatures_of_structural_steel.pdf
The author of this curious paper (never submitted anywhere for peer review) claimed at one point that the phone calls from the hijacked planes must have been fake, which urban legend has been debunked (you will surely dispute this... though I know you don?t want to be called a CT).
>> You seem to be forgetting that the girders of WTC towers were coated
>> with a fire-proofing material. Why would that be necessary if the were
>> impervious to flame? Alas, the fire-proofing was dislodged by the impact
>> of the planes.
>> (Most people know this by now.)
> There has been NO proof that the fireproofing was dislodged from the
> beams,
I beg to differ, of course, but you are also avoiding the question about why fireproofing was deemed necessary if steel is as impervious to flame as you claim.
> nor have you provided any backup for your statement. Once
> again you are creating facts to suit your purpose, yet you often
> demand proof of my contentions.
And you have ?proved? only that other people have made the same contentions.
> Sandy, we have to maintain a certain
> level of honesty to discuss this intelligently.
>> You ask, "How did you determine that my seeing videos of molten steel in
>> the basements of the collapsed buildings were only delusions?" I'm sure
>> you're not deluded when you say you saw some videos, but I think you
>> mean, How did I determine that the videos you saw of molten steel in the
>> basements were fostering delusions? So I've provided a link to back that
>> up. But I would also like you to tell me how the chemical composition of
>> anything can be determined from a video.
>> Your claim that "pools of molten steel in the basements" is based on
>> what, then? Saw it yourself? Had the substance assayed?
>> But this is just an urban legend.
> On 10/12/12 5:34 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Oct 10, 9:42 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> I'm top-posting, Chris, but have gleaned the points from your reply that
>>> come the closest to being substantive, non-rhetorical and indicative of
>>> what you believe about the fall of the World Trade Center.
>> Or at least what your opinion of my points are...:)
> Yes, indeed, I can only respond to what I think you are saying, based on
> what you have written.
> I?ve never claimed the ability to read minds,
>>> If you are not listening to the Truthers, as you claim, then why are you
>>> repeating some of their most ignorant points? Generally only people who
>>> buy into their theories accept the whole package of fallacious claims
>>> that
>>> you are trying to foist off onto people here, with, I might add, no
>>> *evidence* whatsoever but *only* assertions that this or that
>>> preposterous
>>> factoid is "proved."
>> I'm surprised that you were unable to tease out the fact that if a
>> fact exists and supports a conspiracist's viewpoint, they will use
>> it. The fact is objective, it's how it is used that can be partisan.
>> So it's possible that I have used objective facts thjat were also used
>> by someone else. Don't try to lump me in with them.
> I am contesting what you regard as facts. People who don?t believe there
> was a conspiracy (that is, besides the one hatched by bin Laden & Co.)
> don?t believe that controlled demolition brought down the towers, and it
> is only people who believe the latter who regard these tales as factual.
> You are somehow claiming to believe that CD was involved but to not be a
> conspiracy theorist. I am asked not to ?lump you in? with other people
> who share the same beliefs. You fail to recognize that these are only
> beliefs and, at the very least (without my going so far as to call a
> spade a spade), far from *proven* in the arena of scientific consensus.
Just for a change of pace I'd like to see you cover-up guys come up with a theory that Osama bin Laden brought down the towers with controlled demolition. Then the planes would be a government cover-up story with them saying they were accidental.
No matter what they say a certain percentage of you guys will always believe whatever the government says.
> You also claim to have come by these ?facts? by your own objective study
> of the evidence, and yet you admit to having no specialized scientific
> expertise of your own. I would put myself in the same layman category,
> and I?ve come to opposite conclusions about the whole schmear. Yet you
No, you haven't. You just believe whatever the government tells you to believe.
> and I both can point to experts who support our positions (I just happen
> to have more on my side).
Like what? 17,002 to 17,0001?
Is that how scientific evidence is proven? The Catholic Church outnumbered Galileo 100 million to one so they win?
You have at least no more ground to say that I
> listen only to experts who agree with my opinion than I have to say the
> same about you. For my part, I was merely hoping (earlier) that your
> agreeing with the Truthers was due to your being uninformed. But I have
That's cute. You guys used to pull the same trick about Watergate, the JFK assassination and Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. Everyone else is a kook because only you government specialists have the real information.
> no way of knowing how much you?ve looked at countervailing arguments,
> and you don?t know what I've read about all this, over the years, either.
> We both make the judgment about what and whom to believe based on our
> respective senses of what is possible, plausible and logical, given the
> respective states of our knowledge. I don?t think, however, that you
> would have come up with the notion on your own that the World Trade
> Center was brought down by controlled demolition.
>>> You, Chris, on your own authority, then, allege that "incendiary
>>> chemical mixed everywhere with the dust from the collapsed buildings."
>>> But that is mad scientist Steve Jones's thermite (or is it thermate).
>> Sandy, I seriously doubt that you or I have the qualifications to
>> label Jones a 'mad scientist', but I'm not even sure where you got
>> that from. Did you decide it, or did you read it somewhere?
> I calls ?em like I sees ?em, Chris.
> You don?t have the qualifications to say that he?s entirely sane either.
> And surely not to prove it to me.
>> If
>> neither you nor I have the credentials to make determinations about
>> this 'event', then we must look through the 'experts' and choose the
>> ones who appear to have the best evidence and facts for their
>> viewpoint. I've chosen mine, you have chosen yours. We only debate
>> their opinions, not our own. Our opinions are of the veracity of the
>> 'experts' that we have chosen. Each person must make that decision
>> 'on their own authority', as to who to believe and what evidence makes
>> the most sense.
>> I looked through the information and videos on that site. Much of
>> it is typical deniers stuff.
>> As usual there are holes all through that presentation. Here are
>> some of them:
>> The argument that aluminum is silvery when molten has been used to
>> 'debunk' the idea that molten metal pouring out of a point at about
>> the 80th floor of one of the towers before collapse is an old
>> standard. I must point out to you that I DO NOT CONSIDER THE MOLTEN
>> STREAM TO BE OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE IN PROVING ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE
>> COLLAPSE. That's for the 'conspiracy theorists' (CTs) to play with.
>> Such playthings don't interest me, as with many of the CT items of
>> discussion mentioned at the site. They aren't proving anything to me
>> becasue they're speaking to CTs.
> Why do you believe there was thermite found in the dust if you don?t
> believe the CTs? It?s only CTs who are saying that, and it?s only their
> arguments for thermite?s presence that I have heard.
So what if there was thermite found in the dust? It was created by the extreme fires from the planes fusing aluminum to rust.
>> There was a discussion that WTC7 had damage done to it more than
>> shown in videos. I agree, but the building did as it was planned, and
>> withstood the damage made by the flying debris. The buildings were
>> planned to do well if hit by a Boeing 707 fully loaded flying into the
>> buildings, which is simply a large piece of debris concentrated in one
>> spot. The WTC7 stood for many hours with no problem. It only came
>> down when commanded to come down as shown by previous proofs of the
>> countdown, the warning of the building about to be brought down, and
>> by the owner stating that they DECIDED to bring it down, and then it
>> fell. This information alone says that the building was primed with
>> materials within it that would allow a 'controlled demolition' to
>> occur on it. It is not possible to 'pull' a 47 story building without
>> preparation. I defy anyone to find someone that thinks it can be done
>> in 6.5 seconds any other way. It is a fact that actually needs no
>> backup. You and I both have the experience to know that.
>> Once we get past the fact that the building was intentionally
>> 'pulled', all else is clear. We know it couldn't be done without
>> preparation, probably with a high temperature incendiary device and/or
>> chemical and with explosives based on the many witnesses and some
>> sound from videos.
>> Given the above, it's time for the independent investigation to
>> commence, but of course, we will find very strong efforts to avoid
>> that for all sorts of excuses. Given that some polls find that 76% of
>> the population thinks the collapses of the 3 towers was not done by
>> terrorists, the investigation is necessary to calm the angers and
>> concerns of the public.
>>> Again, you repeat the old Truther argument that "melted steel is
>>> impossible from jet fuel or office fires." That doesn't prove anything,
>>> of course. Jet fuel burns at a temperature hot enough to fatally weaken,
>>> though not entirely melt, steel.
>> Nope. Won't do. You've just made a statement as if it were a
>> fact, yet it is false.
> Says the noted scientist.
>> You have provided NO backup for that
>> statement.
>> Here is a paper that proves your contention completely
>> false, and provides the actual temperature of the steel softening
>> point, which was higher than the temperatures reached by jet fuel
>> (which was mostly exhausted early) and office furniture (both of which
>> are known values):
>> http://www.serendipity.li/wot/temperatures_of_structural_steel.pdf
> The author of this curious paper (never submitted anywhere for peer
> review) claimed at one point that the phone calls from the hijacked
You know where you can shove your stupid peer review. The WC not peer reviewed either.
> planes must have been fake, which urban legend has been debunked (you
> will surely dispute this... though I know you don?t want to be called a
> CT).
>>> You seem to be forgetting that the girders of WTC towers were coated
>>> with a fire-proofing material. Why would that be necessary if the were
>>> impervious to flame? Alas, the fire-proofing was dislodged by the impact
>>> of the planes.
>>> (Most people know this by
> On Oct 10, 9:42 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> I'm top-posting, Chris, but have gleaned the points from your reply that
>> come the closest to being substantive, non-rhetorical and indicative of
>> what you believe about the fall of the World Trade Center.
> Or at least what your opinion of my points are...:)
>> If you are not listening to the Truthers, as you claim, then why are you
>> repeating some of their most ignorant points? Generally only people who
>> buy into their theories accept the whole package of fallacious claims that
>> you are trying to foist off onto people here, with, I might add, no
>> *evidence* whatsoever but *only* assertions that this or that preposterous
>> factoid is "proved."
> I'm surprised that you were unable to tease out the fact that if a
> fact exists and supports a conspiracist's viewpoint, they will use
> it. The fact is objective, it's how it is used that can be partisan.
> So it's possible that I have used objective facts thjat were also used
> by someone else. Don't try to lump me in with them.
>> You, Chris, on your own authority, then, allege that "incendiary
>> chemical mixed everywhere with the dust from the collapsed buildings."
>> But that is mad scientist Steve Jones's thermite (or is it thermate).
> Sandy, I seriously doubt that you or I have the qualifications to
> label Jones a 'mad scientist', but I'm not even sure where you got
> that from. Did you decide it, or did you read it somewhere? If
> neither you nor I have the credentials to make determinations about
> this 'event', then we must look through the 'experts' and choose the
> ones who appear to have the best evidence and facts for their
> viewpoint. I've chosen mine, you have chosen yours. We only debate
> their opinions, not our own. Our opinions are of the veracity of the
> 'experts' that we have chosen. Each person must make that decision
> 'on their own authority', as to who to believe and what evidence makes
> the most sense.
> I looked through the information and videos on that site. Much of
> it is typical deniers stuff.
> As usual there are holes all through that presentation. Here are
> some of them:
> The argument that aluminum is silvery when molten has been used to
> 'debunk' the idea that molten metal pouring out of a point at about
> the 80th floor of one of the towers before collapse is an old
> standard. I must point out to you that I DO NOT CONSIDER THE MOLTEN
It depends on the temperature. When you say that molten aluminum is silvery you are assuming a specific temperature. At higher temperatures is is light orange in color, which is what it was on the 81st floor.
> STREAM TO BE OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE IN PROVING ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE
> COLLAPSE. That's for the 'conspiracy theorists' (CTs) to play with.
> Such playthings don't interest me, as with many of the CT items of
> discussion mentioned at the site. They aren't proving anything to me
> becasue they're speaking to CTs.
> There was a discussion that WTC7 had damage done to it more than
> shown in videos. I agree, but the building did as it was planned, and
> withstood the damage made by the flying debris. The buildings were
> planned to do well if hit by a Boeing 707 fully loaded flying into the
> buildings, which is simply a large piece of debris concentrated in one
> spot. The WTC7 stood for many hours with no problem. It only came
> down when commanded to come down as shown by previous proofs of the
> countdown, the warning of the building about to be brought down, and
> by the owner stating that they DECIDED to bring it down, and then it
> fell. This information alone says that the building was primed with
> materials within it that would allow a 'controlled demolition' to
> occur on it. It is not possible to 'pull' a 47 story building without
> preparation. I defy anyone to find someone that thinks it can be done
> in 6.5 seconds any other way. It is a fact that actually needs no
> backup. You and I both have the experience to know that.
It did not come down when commanded. It came down on its own.
> Once we get past the fact that the building was intentionally
> 'pulled', all else is clear. We know it couldn't be done without
> preparation, probably with a high temperature incendiary device and/or
> chemical and with explosives based on the many witnesses and some
> sound from videos.
> Given the above, it's time for the independent investigation to
> commence, but of course, we will find very strong efforts to avoid
> that for all sorts of excuses. Given that some polls find that 76% of
> the population thinks the collapses of the 3 towers was not done by
> terrorists, the investigation is necessary to calm the angers and
> concerns of the public.
>> Again, you repeat the old Truther argument that "melted steel is
>> impossible from jet fuel or office fires." That doesn't prove anything,
>> of course. Jet fuel burns at a temperature hot enough to fatally weaken,
>> though not entirely melt, steel.
> Nope. Won't do. You've just made a statement as if it were a
> fact, yet it is false. You have provided NO backup for that
> statement. Here is a paper that proves your contention completely
> false, and provides the actual temperature of the steel softening
> point, which was higher than the temperatures reached by jet fuel
> (which was mostly exhausted early) and office furniture (both of which
> are known values):
> http://www.serendipity.li/wot/temperatures_of_structural_steel.pdf
>> You seem to be forgetting that the girders of WTC towers were coated
>> with a fire-proofing material. Why would that be necessary if the were
>> impervious to flame? Alas, the fire-proofing was dislodged by the impact
>> of the planes.
>> (Most people know this by now.)
> There has been NO proof that the fireproofing was dislodged from the
> beams, nor have you provided any backup for your statement. Once
Then SHOW me the intact fireproofing on the beams. And it was not the beams which weakened and caused the collapse. It was the floor supports which allowed the upper floors to sag and then collapse.
> again you are creating facts to suit your purpose, yet you often
> demand proof of my contentions. Sandy, we have to maintain a certain
> level of honesty to discuss this intelligently.
>> You ask, "How did you determine that my seeing videos of molten steel in
>> the basements of the collapsed buildings were only delusions?" I'm sure
>> you're not deluded when you say you saw some videos, but I think you
>> mean, How did I determine that the videos you saw of molten steel in the
>> basements were fostering delusions? So I've provided a link to back that
>> up. But I would also like you to tell me how the chemical composition of
>> anything can be determined from a video.
>> Your claim that "pools of molten steel in the basements" is based on
>> what, then? Saw it yourself? Had the substance assayed?
>> But this is just an urban legend.
>> http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
> Oh my! Ad hominem talk of my 'delusions', and calling molten steel
> an 'urban legend'. Isn't that the way CTs talk? Now I will show you
> some of the proof available from witnesses and in video form. Try and
> watch it to the end, where there are some extra facts:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkO0lZ7BZJc&feature=endscreen&NR=1 > At 0:35 you can see the molten metal. Remember, the jet fuel and
Fine. Molten metal. Now prove that the molten metal was steel.
> office furniture are exhausted long before this, and they couldn't
> raise the temperature far enough to get the red/yellw of almost molten
> steel.
Compare the color temperature chart for steel to the color temperature chart for aluminum. Again, answer my damn question:
What happened to all the tons of aluminum from the the planes? Vaporized?
>> <quote on>To finish, none of these stories prove there was molten (as in
>> liquid) steel at the WTC. There's no evidence temperatures were hot
>> enough to produce that (whatever the energy source), and some of the
>> stories claiming "molten steel" have built-in implausibilities. There
>> was certainly glowing metal, but this only indicates temperatures within
>> the range of a fire.</quote off>
>> See also:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YXzjAKJQOg
> ::: sigh ::: As usual, there is no backup for stating that there
> was no molten steel present. Just a statement that has no weight at
> all by itself. No backup for saying that there was no temperature
> 'hot enough to produce that'. Finally a video that on its own that
> makes all kinds of unsubstantiated statements, some of which are
> patently false.
> How does one learn from that sort of presentation? Not to mention
> it was geared to CTs who aren't present in this conversation.
Again, did you watch the test of burning jet fuel under a steel beam?
>> What were presented as "huge explosions and rapid fire machine gun
>> explosions" were floors collapsing onto one another. (I could find a
>> link to back this up, but any bald assertions here are vastly
>> outnumbered by the ones that fill your own post.)
> You won't be able to produce anything to show that the sounds I've
> shown you, or the description of the firemen of the rippling bursts of
> explosive were pancaking floors, since there is no evidence for
> either. The explosion sound that came as the firemen and cops were
>> Naturally you're not going to like the pie charts you see at that site,
>> but they say that 76% of the population think that 9/11 was a conspiracy
>> and not terrorists. Now is that because the 'conspiracy theorists' are
>> better at conveying sales literature, or are they showing information
>> that
>> is more credible?
> what if the 76% is really intentionally skewed downward and the real
> number is more like 85% or more given that polls often do not represent
> the populace?
> like on the jfk assassination, seems the actual percentage of people who
> attribute jfk's death to a conspiracy is
> 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%
> , the exceptions being the closeted gruppe and a few others like
> posnochio, bugnochio, o'reilynochio, and others of that mindset
Did you ever consider that the 10% who claim there was no conspiracy are actually the conspirators themselves just covering their tracks.
Like Nixon investigating Watergate.
Or the FBI investigating the murder of the 5 bookies in Boston.
>> On Oct 10, 9:42 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Yes, indeed, I can only respond to what I think you are saying, based on
>> what you have written.
>> I?ve never claimed the ability to read minds,
Is this the remark that rattled Tony's cage? Indeed, I was thinking of him.
>snip<
> Just for a change of pace I'd like to see you cover-up guys
Its true! Tony is now a Truther!
> come up with
> a theory that Osama bin Laden brought down the towers with controlled
> demolition.Then the planes would be a government cover-up story with
> them saying they were accidental.
How totally goofy.
You got anything better to do?
> No matter what they say a certain percentage of you guys will always
> believe whatever the government says.
Oh, so you dont believe bin Ladens gang was behind it?
How surprising.
Yet you do seem to accept that it was Saudis who hijacked the planes, as you indicate below.
>> You also claim to have come by these ?facts? by your own objective study
>> of the evidence, and yet you admit to having no specialized scientific
>> expertise of your own. I would put myself in the same layman category,
>> and I?ve come to opposite conclusions about the whole schmear. Yet you
> No, you haven't. You just believe whatever the government tells you to
> believe.
Ha ha!
>> and I both can point to experts who support our positions (I just happen
>> to have more on my side).
> Like what? 17,002 to 17,0001?
> Is that how scientific evidence is proven? The Catholic Church
> outnumbered Galileo 100 million to one so they win?
Yes, indeed, what becomes accepted scientific theory is determined by the consensus of the scientific community. The evidence is subjected to the standards of objective verification prevalent in a particular epoch.
The Catholic Church had nothing to do with *scientific* consensus.
> You have at least no more ground to say that I
>> listen only to experts who agree with my opinion than I have to say the
>> same about you. For my part, I was merely hoping (earlier) that your
>> agreeing with the Truthers was due to your being uninformed. But I have
> That's cute. You guys used to pull the same trick about Watergate, the
> JFK assassination and Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. Everyone
> else is a kook because only you government specialists have the real
> information.
Tony, I never believed Iraq had WMD on the eve of Bushs war. I never denied Nixons guilt in Watergate. Youve got the wrong guy.
>snip<
>>> There has been NO proof that the fireproofing was dislodged from the
>>> beams,
>> I beg to differ, of course, but you are also avoiding the question about
>> why fireproofing was deemed necessary if steel is as impervious to flame
>> as you claim.
> Why do you keep putting words in people's mouths to create false claims
> for them? NO ONE ever claimed that steel beams were fireproof.
The phrase as impervious as they claim does not mean totally impervious, which matters little here.
Some claim "only" that steel beams cant be fatally weakened by fire. Which is not true, as the presence of fireproofing in itself should indicate to them.
>snip<
>> (Of course, alleging CD in itself is implicitly a conspiracy theory, no
>> matter how you slice it.)
> So is the government theory, but that doesn't bother you.
It's not a theory, there was a real conspiracy. And I said it was a conspiracy, see above.
>snip<
>> Sound levels of these ?explosions? were nothing like those used in CD.
> You don't know that for a fact. You are only guessing. You can't tell
> the difference between 124 decibels and 128 decibels.
You're just arguing to hear the sound of your own voice.
Recordings indicate a much more dramatic difference than four decibels.
>>> OK, let's take that piece by piece. First, as noted to you before,
>>> the Silverstein video and short comment about 'pulling it' was NOT to
>>> pull a team of people out of anywhere.
>> That?s just silly on its face. So for all the world to hear he revealed
>> the dastardly plot.
>>> Try listening to what he said
>> >?!?<
>> I heard it around the time all this was going down, right after
>> Silverstein said it and it was reported worldwide. That was before there
>> was any Truther bunk to debunk, and I never dreamed anyone would ever
>> claim he meant anything different than that the fire crew was pulled and
>> the building allowed to fall.
> That is not what he meant.
Thats exactly what he meant. You apparently have only picked up the story after the Truthers got to it.
> The fire crew was long gone.
When? After they were pulled out, yes. When Silverstein told the story, yes: the building had already fallen at that point.
> There was no
> person still in WTC7. You are just making up crap.
> No one allowed or wanted the building to fall. It could do more damage
> and kill more people.
Where did I say anyone wanted the building to fall? Wasn't that your argument, controlled demo? Apparently not. You seem to agree with me that the building fell on its own, after being structurally damaged by fires (as you say below). What on earth are you arguing about?
> The proper thing is do a controlled demolition.
> But it fell that day, before they had time to set the explosives.
>>> and not some 'debunker' brainwashing you and you will see that he
>>> proves his meaning by saying that 'they made the decision to pull, and
>>> we watched the building collapse'.
>> Yes, they watched it collapse. The meaning is indeed transparent.
>> Watching is a passive act.
> No one said that Silverstein intended to blow up the building all by
> himself. All he has to do is call Controlled Demolitions and they'd have
> the job done in 2 weeks.
>>> There was no mistake there. He
>>> said 'pull' and immediately then said they watched it fall.
>> Quite true.
>> And "watched it fall" is a helluva lot different from ?took it down.?
> No one claimed that he personally took it down.
This is just goofy. He didnt say he was the only person who *watched* it fall either.
>snip<
>> Yes, of course the story presented by the debunkers fails... to convince
>> *you*. Big surprise there. The only thing at all new in your whole spiel
>> is that you somehow don't consider yourself a Truther or even a CT. But
>> that is quite remarkable.
> I don't know how to explain this to you, but we do not have to be
> truthers to point out your phony arguments.
I don't care what you call yourself, but I say that if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, it's probably a species of the Anatidae family of birds.
>snip<
>> Really, this temperature argument was disproven on day two. Yes, the
>> Philly building was also a high-rise that was on fire. That's about
>> where the similarity ends.
> One important difference was that in Phillie the sprinklers eventually
> worked so that the fire burned itself out. Also, the fires did some
> structural damage. If they had not been put out when they were the whole
> building would have collapse like WTC7.
Indeed. So what nonsense were you spreading about Silverstein above?
You acknowledge that fires brought down WTC7.
>snip<
> One type of false flag operation is when you know that the Saudis did
> it, but you blame it on the Iraqis to justify invading them and making
> $14T off the resulting war (including stealing $80B from the Federal
> Reserve Bank).
No argument there. But if you believe Saudis did it, then why do you seem to believe controlled demo brought down the towers? Excuse me if I cant make out your position clearly. Im not sure you can either. You say Silverstein was up to something funny but also seem to say that you think that the building came down on its own. Not that I really care what your theory is. Who needs theories on this anymore?
On Oct 12, 9:52 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On 10/12/12 5:34 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Oct 10, 9:42 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> I'm top-posting, Chris, but have gleaned the points from your reply that
> >> come the closest to being substantive, non-rhetorical and indicative of
> >> what you believe about the fall of the World Trade Center.
> > Or at least what your opinion of my points are...:)
> Yes, indeed, I can only respond to what I think you are saying, based on
> what you have written.
I would have hoped that you would respond to facts presented to you
rather than MY words. Those are the important thing here in my view.
> >> If you are not listening to the Truthers, as you claim, then why are you
> >> repeating some of their most ignorant points? Generally only people who
> >> buy into their theories accept the whole package of fallacious claims that
> >> you are trying to foist off onto people here, with, I might add, no
> >> *evidence* whatsoever but *only* assertions that this or that preposterous
> >> factoid is "proved."
> > I'm surprised that you were unable to tease out the fact that if a
> > fact exists and supports a conspiracist's viewpoint, they will use
> > it. The fact is objective, it's how it is used that can be partisan.
> > So it's possible that I have used objective facts thjat were also used
> > by someone else. Don't try to lump me in with them.
> I am contesting what you regard as facts. People who don?t believe there
> was a conspiracy (that is, besides the one hatched by bin Laden & Co.)
> don?t believe that controlled demolition brought down the towers, and it
> is only people who believe the latter who regard these tales as factual.
Well Sandy, as long as you've been trained to think in certain terms, it's difficult to see anything outside that view. Ypou use the term 'tales', which is suggestive of fiction. That is the sign of a closed mind from my experience.
> You are somehow claiming to believe that CD was involved but to not be a
> conspiracy theorist. I am asked not to ?lump you in? with other people who
> share the same beliefs. You fail to recognize that these are only beliefs
> and, at the very least (without my going so far as to call a spade a
> spade), far from *proven* in the arena of scientific consensus.
Whoops! Sandy, that's more folly. Because two people happen to point to the same fact shows absolutely nothing about the sameness or difference in their views. This kind of thinking locks you into a mode which is hard to escape from. The appearance of the stories you have presented for me to look over have indeed solidified my view of the 'denier' sect.
Statements that are cherry picked, and false statements altogether, in some cases typical 'debunker' routines. Often the effort to make the words 'conspiracy' to be a dirty word. You will or you will not believe me when I tell you I am holding further consideration of conspiracy in this case until the first problem is taken care of, and that is that the CD of the towers is recognized and an independent investigation with subpoena power is begun. If that turns out as I believe it will, then we must begin hunting for the guilty.
Although I'm holding off on my involvement in politics and conspiracy, it's disturbing to me that part of the world wants to hang the 19 terrorists named, and yet there are reports of some of them popping up in various countries proclaiming their innocence. Is that true? I don't know, but it's disturbing that no one in an official capacity will go to these places and names and resolve them. If they are lies, find out, threaten the perpetrator with jail, and see if they can be stopped. That no one has any officvial interest in stopping those stories bothers me.
It bothers me that when the towers fell and the public wanted a full investigation, that Bush/Cheney fought against it for more than a year, and when put into place, it had minimal funding, which had to be replenished. That is all politics though, and I wouldn't ask you to comment on it because it's for another time to be argued out.
> You also claim to have come by these ?facts? by your own objective study
> of the evidence, and yet you admit to having no specialized scientific
> expertise of your own. I would put myself in the same layman category, and
> I?ve come to opposite conclusions about the whole schmear. Yet you and I
> both can point to experts who support our positions (I just happen to have
> more on my side). You have at least no more ground to say that I listen
> only to experts who agree with my opinion than I have to say the same
> about you. For my part, I was merely hoping (earlier) that your agreeing
> with the Truthers was due to your being uninformed. But I have no way of
> knowing how much you?ve looked at countervailing arguments, and you don?t
> know what I've read about all this, over the years, either.
> We both make the judgment about what and whom to believe based on our
> respective senses of what is possible, plausible and logical, given the
> respective states of our knowledge. I don?t think, however, that you would
> have come up with the notion on your own that the World Trade Center was
> brought down by controlled demolition.
LOL! Sorry to call you up on that...:) As it turns out, I saw the video the first day and knew something was wrong. The fall was too perfect within their own footprint...the odds of that were to me obviously astronomical. Possible? Maybe 1 in a million. Which to me usually means it didn't happen by coincidence. I've been interested in finding out what happened for years after that.
> >> You, Chris, on your own authority, then, allege that "incendiary
> >> chemical mixed everywhere with the dust from the collapsed buildings."
> >> But that is mad scientist Steve Jones's thermite (or is it thermate).
> > Sandy, I seriously doubt that you or I have the qualifications to
> > label Jones a 'mad scientist', but I'm not even sure where you got
> > that from. Did you decide it, or did you read it somewhere?
> I calls ?em like I sees ?em, Chris.
> You don?t have the qualifications to say that he?s entirely sane either.
> And surely not to prove it to me.
My point might be answered by you finding your reasons for insulting a PhD in his field who has taken a courageous stand and done full scientific examination of a situation that was being argued about for quite a while before he did anything on it. Usually academic scholars are given the status of sane, competent, knowledgeable person in their field, before they do anything to affect their reputation one way or the other. I know of nothing Jones did to incur wrath or other negative opinion until the 9/1 chemical research. I know there are some rabid deniers out there, and I suspect your opinion came from them, but how would I know unless I mention it to you? Of course, you may or may not be forthcoming on a simple thing like that.
Either way, the man impresses me as honest and well intentioned and I believe he did a good job on his research. I didn't pick him out becasue he's a hero to the CTs, but becasue he did the work that needed doing. I believe he came up with facts that were missing (or not substantiated) that helped answer certain questions. Since his report was co-written, there is some corroboration in that. The deniers would have to attack all of the authors alike. The efforts of deniers to attack the paper is expected, and there are some really picky things attempted to discredit it, but much of the work stands. Unnatural elements were found around ground zero, and like any facts, someone somewhere can find some tiny little thing to pick at and say it isn't so. Think though that the same kind of picky little arguments could be made about much of the 'evidence' you have presented. Yet they are completely acceptable to someone programmed to believe the 19 highjacker story (tale?) and avoid the implications and responsibilities of a CD.
> > If
> > neither you nor I have the credentials to make determinations about
> > this 'event', then we must look through the 'experts' and choose the
> > ones who appear to have the best evidence and facts for their
> > viewpoint. I've chosen mine, you have chosen yours. We only debate
> > their opinions, not our own. Our opinions are of the veracity of the
> > 'experts' that we have chosen. Each person must make that decision
> > 'on their own authority', as to who to believe and what evidence makes
> > the most sense.
> > I looked through the information and videos on that site. Much of
> > it is typical deniers stuff.
> > As usual there are holes all through that presentation. Here are
> > some of them:
> > The argument that aluminum is silvery when molten has been used to
> > 'debunk' the idea that molten metal pouring out of a point at about
> > the 80th floor of one of the towers before collapse is an old
> > standard. I must point out to you that I DO NOT CONSIDER THE MOLTEN
> > STREAM TO BE OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE IN PROVING ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE
> > COLLAPSE. That's for the 'conspiracy theorists' (CTs) to play with.
> > Such playthings don't interest me, as with many of the CT items of
> > discussion mentioned at the site. They aren't proving anything to me
> > becasue they're speaking to CTs.
> > On Oct 10, 9:42 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> I'm top-posting, Chris, but have gleaned the points from your reply that
> >> come the closest to being substantive, non-rhetorical and indicative of
> >> what you believe about the fall of the World Trade Center.
> > Or at least what your opinion of my points are...:)
> >> If you are not listening to the Truthers, as you claim, then why are you
> >> repeating some of their most ignorant points? Generally only people who
> >> buy into their theories accept the whole package of fallacious claims that
> >> you are trying to foist off onto people here, with, I might add, no
> >> *evidence* whatsoever but *only* assertions that this or that preposterous
> >> factoid is "proved."
> > I'm surprised that you were unable to tease out the fact that if a
> > fact exists and supports a conspiracist's viewpoint, they will use
> > it. The fact is objective, it's how it is used that can be partisan.
> > So it's possible that I have used objective facts thjat were also used
> > by someone else. Don't try to lump me in with them.
> >> You, Chris, on your own authority, then, allege that "incendiary
> >> chemical mixed everywhere with the dust from the collapsed buildings."
> >> But that is mad scientist Steve Jones's thermite (or is it thermate).
> > Sandy, I seriously doubt that you or I have the qualifications to
> > label Jones a 'mad scientist', but I'm not even sure where you got
> > that from. Did you decide it, or did you read it somewhere? If
> > neither you nor I have the credentials to make determinations about
> > this 'event', then we must look through the 'experts' and choose the
> > ones who appear to have the best evidence and facts for their
> > viewpoint. I've chosen mine, you have chosen yours. We only debate
> > their opinions, not our own. Our opinions are of the veracity of the
> > 'experts' that we have chosen. Each person must make that decision
> > 'on their own authority', as to who to believe and what evidence makes
> > the most sense.
> > I looked through the information and videos on that site. Much of
> > it is typical deniers stuff.
> > As usual there are holes all through that presentation. Here are
> > some of them:
> > The argument that aluminum is silvery when molten has been used to
> > 'debunk' the idea that molten metal pouring out of a point at about
> > the 80th floor of one of the towers before collapse is an old
> > standard. I must point out to you that I DO NOT CONSIDER THE MOLTEN
> It depends on the temperature. When you say that molten aluminum is
> silvery you are assuming a specific temperature. At higher temperatures
> is is light orange in color, which is what it was on the 81st floor.
> > STREAM TO BE OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE IN PROVING ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE
> > COLLAPSE. That's for the 'conspiracy theorists' (CTs) to play with.
> > Such playthings don't interest me, as with many of the CT items of
> > discussion mentioned at the site. They aren't proving anything to me
> > becasue they're speaking to CTs.
> > There was a discussion that WTC7 had damage done to it more than
> > shown in videos. I agree, but the building did as it was planned, and
> > withstood the damage made by the flying debris. The buildings were
> > planned to do well if hit by a Boeing 707 fully loaded flying into the
> > buildings, which is simply a large piece of debris concentrated in one
> > spot. The WTC7 stood for many hours with no problem. It only came
> > down when commanded to come down as shown by previous proofs of the
> > countdown, the warning of the building about to be brought down, and
> > by the owner stating that they DECIDED to bring it down, and then it
> > fell. This information alone says that the building was primed with
> > materials within it that would allow a 'controlled demolition' to
> > occur on it. It is not possible to 'pull' a 47 story building without
> > preparation. I defy anyone to find someone that thinks it can be done
> > in 6.5 seconds any other way. It is a fact that actually needs no
> > backup. You and I both have the experience to know that.
> It did not come down when commanded. It came down on its own.
Buildings don't come down by fires.
Even if one could, it wouldn't come down like the WTC's did. You have
no proof of your statement, and you have no scenario in which it
could.
> > Once we get past the fact that the building was intentionally
> > 'pulled', all else is clear. We know it couldn't be done without
> > preparation, probably with a high temperature incendiary device and/or
> > chemical and with explosives based on the many witnesses and some
> > sound from videos.
> > Given the above, it's time for the independent investigation to
> > commence, but of course, we will find very strong efforts to avoid
> > that for all sorts of excuses. Given that some polls find that 76% of
> > the population thinks the collapses of the 3 towers was not done by
> > terrorists, the investigation is necessary to calm the angers and
> > concerns of the public.
> >> Again, you repeat the old Truther argument that "melted steel is
> >> impossible from jet fuel or office fires." That doesn't prove anything,
> >> of course. Jet fuel burns at a temperature hot enough to fatally weaken,
> >> though not entirely melt, steel.
> > Nope. Won't do. You've just made a statement as if it were a
> > fact, yet it is false. You have provided NO backup for that
> > statement. Here is a paper that proves your contention completely
> > false, and provides the actual temperature of the steel softening
> > point, which was higher than the temperatures reached by jet fuel
> > (which was mostly exhausted early) and office furniture (both of which
> > are known values):
> >http://www.serendipity.li/wot/temperatures_of_structural_steel.pdf
> >> You seem to be forgetting that the girders of WTC towers were coated
> >> with a fire-proofing material. Why would that be necessary if the were
> >> impervious to flame? Alas, the fire-proofing was dislodged by the impact
> >> of the planes.
> >> (Most people know this by now.)
> > There has been NO proof that the fireproofing was dislodged from the
> > beams, nor have you provided any backup for your statement. Once
> Then SHOW me the intact fireproofing on the beams. And it was not the
> beams which weakened and caused the collapse. It was the floor supports
> which allowed the upper floors to sag and then collapse.
> > again you are creating facts to suit your purpose, yet you often
> > demand proof of my contentions. Sandy, we have to maintain a certain
> > level of honesty to discuss this intelligently.
> >> You ask, "How did you determine that my seeing videos of molten steel in
> >> the basements of the collapsed buildings were only delusions?" I'm sure
> >> you're not deluded when you say you saw some videos, but I think you
> >> mean, How did I determine that the videos you saw of molten steel in the
> >> basements were fostering delusions? So I've provided a link to back that
> >> up. But I would also like you to tell me how the chemical composition of
> >> anything can be determined from a video.
> >> Your claim that "pools of molten steel in the basements" is based on
> >> what, then? Saw it yourself? Had the substance assayed?
> >> But this is just an urban legend.
> >>http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
> > Oh my! Ad hominem talk of my 'delusions', and calling molten steel
> > an 'urban legend'. Isn't that the way CTs talk? Now I will show you
> > some of the proof available from witnesses and in video form. Try and
> > watch it to the end, where there are some extra facts:
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkO0lZ7BZJc&feature=endscreen&NR=1 > > At 0:35 you can see the molten metal. Remember, the jet fuel and
> Fine. Molten metal. Now prove that the molten metal was steel.
> > office furniture are exhausted long before this, and they couldn't
> > raise the temperature far enough to get the red/yellw of almost molten
> > steel.
> Compare the color temperature chart for steel to the color temperature
> chart for aluminum. Again, answer my damn question:
> What happened to all the tons of aluminum from the the planes? Vaporized?
> >> <quote on>To finish, none of these stories prove there was molten (as in
> >> liquid) steel at the WTC. There's no evidence temperatures were hot
> >> enough to produce that (whatever the energy source), and some of the
> >> stories claiming "molten steel" have built-in implausibilities. There
> >> was certainly glowing metal, but this only indicates temperatures within
> >> the range of a fire.</quote off>
> >> See also:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YXzjAKJQOg
> > ::: sigh ::: As usual, there is no backup for stating that there
> > was no molten steel present. Just a statement that has no weight at
> > all by itself. No backup for saying that there was no temperature
> > 'hot enough to produce that'. Finally a video that on its own that
> > makes all kinds of unsubstantiated statements, some of which are
> > patently false.
> > How does one learn from that sort of presentation?
> > On Oct 10, 9:42 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> I'm top-posting, Chris, but have gleaned the points from your reply that
> >> come the closest to being substantive, non-rhetorical and indicative of
> >> what you believe about the fall of the World Trade Center.
> > Or at least what your opinion of my points are...:)
> Yes, indeed, I can only respond to what I think you are saying, based on
> what you have written.
> I?ve never claimed the ability to read minds,
> >> If you are not listening to the Truthers, as you claim, then why are you
> >> repeating some of their most ignorant points? Generally only people who
> >> buy into their theories accept the whole package of fallacious claims that
> >> you are trying to foist off onto people here, with, I might add, no
> >> *evidence* whatsoever but *only* assertions that this or that preposterous
> >> factoid is "proved."
> > I'm surprised that you were unable to tease out the fact that if a
> > fact exists and supports a conspiracist's viewpoint, they will use
> > it. The fact is objective, it's how it is used that can be partisan.
> > So it's possible that I have used objective facts thjat were also used
> > by someone else. Don't try to lump me in with them.
> I am contesting what you regard as facts. People who don?t believe there
> was a conspiracy (that is, besides the one hatched by bin Laden & Co.)
> don?t believe that controlled demolition brought down the towers, and it
> is only people who believe the latter who regard these tales as factual.
> You are somehow claiming to believe that CD was involved but to not be a
> conspiracy theorist. I am asked not to ?lump you in? with other people who
> share the same beliefs. You fail to recognize that these are only beliefs
> and, at the very least (without my going so far as to call a spade a
> spade), far from *proven* in the arena of scientific consensus.
> You also claim to have come by these ?facts? by your own objective study
> of the evidence, and yet you admit to having no specialized scientific
> expertise of your own. I would put myself in the same layman category, and
> I?ve come to opposite conclusions about the whole schmear. Yet you and I
> both can point to experts who support our positions (I just happen to have
> more on my side). You have at least no more ground to say that I listen
> only to experts who agree with my opinion than I have to say the same
> about you. For my part, I was merely hoping (earlier) that your agreeing
> with the Truthers was due to your being uninformed. But I have no way of
> knowing how much you?ve looked at countervailing arguments, and you don?t
> know what I've read about all this, over the years, either.
> We both make the judgment about what and whom to believe based on our
> respective senses of what is possible, plausible and logical, given the
> respective states of our knowledge. I don?t think, however, that you would
> have come up with the notion on your own that the World Trade Center was
> brought down by controlled demolition.
> >> You, Chris, on your own authority, then, allege that "incendiary
> >> chemical mixed everywhere with the dust from the collapsed buildings."
> >> But that is mad scientist Steve Jones's thermite (or is it thermate).
> > Sandy, I seriously doubt that you or I have the qualifications to
> > label Jones a 'mad scientist', but I'm not even sure where you got
> > that from. Did you decide it, or did you read it somewhere?
> I calls ?em like I sees ?em, Chris.
> You don?t have the qualifications to say that he?s entirely sane either.
> And surely not to prove it to me.
> > If
> > neither you nor I have the credentials to make determinations about
> > this 'event', then we must look through the 'experts' and choose the
> > ones who appear to have the best evidence and facts for their
> > viewpoint. I've chosen mine, you have chosen yours. We only debate
> > their opinions, not our own. Our opinions are of the veracity of the
> > 'experts' that we have chosen. Each person must make that decision
> > 'on their own authority', as to who to believe and what evidence makes
> > the most sense.
> > I looked through the information and videos on that site. Much of
> > it is typical deniers stuff.
> > As usual there are holes all through that presentation. Here are
> > some of them:
> > The argument that aluminum is silvery when molten has been used to
> > 'debunk' the idea that molten metal pouring out of a point at about
> > the 80th floor of one of the towers before collapse is an old
> > standard. I must point out to you that I DO NOT CONSIDER THE MOLTEN
> > STREAM TO BE OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE IN PROVING ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE
> > COLLAPSE. That's for the 'conspiracy theorists' (CTs) to play with.
> > Such playthings don't interest me, as with many of the CT items of
> > discussion mentioned at the site. They aren't proving anything to me
> > becasue they're speaking to CTs.
> Why do you believe there was thermite found in the dust if you don?t
> believe the CTs? It?s only CTs who are saying that, and it?s only their
> arguments for thermite?s presence that I have heard.
> > There was a discussion that WTC7 had damage done to it more than
> > shown in videos. I agree, but the building did as it was planned, and
> > withstood the damage made by the flying debris. The buildings were
> > planned to do well if hit by a Boeing 707 fully loaded flying into the
> > buildings, which is simply a large piece of debris concentrated in one
> > spot. The WTC7 stood for many hours with no problem. It only came
> > down when commanded to come down as shown by previous proofs of the
> > countdown, the warning of the building about to be brought down, and
> > by the owner stating that they DECIDED to bring it down, and then it
> > fell. This information alone says that the building was primed with
> > materials within it that would allow a 'controlled demolition' to
> > occur on it. It is not possible to 'pull' a 47 story building without
> > preparation. I defy anyone to find someone that thinks it can be done
> > in 6.5 seconds any other way. It is a fact that actually needs no
> > backup. You and I both have the experience to know that.
> > Once we get past the fact that the building was intentionally
> > 'pulled', all else is clear. We know it couldn't be done without
> > preparation, probably with a high temperature incendiary device and/or
> > chemical and with explosives based on the many witnesses and some
> > sound from videos.
> > Given the above, it's time for the independent investigation to
> > commence, but of course, we will find very strong efforts to avoid
> > that for all sorts of excuses. Given that some polls find that 76% of
> > the population thinks the collapses of the 3 towers was not done by
> > terrorists, the investigation is necessary to calm the angers and
> > concerns of the public.
> >> Again, you repeat the old Truther argument that "melted steel is
> >> impossible from jet fuel or office fires." That doesn't prove anything,
> >> of course. Jet fuel burns at a temperature hot enough to fatally weaken,
> >> though not entirely melt, steel.
> > Nope. Won't do. You've just made a statement as if it were a
> > fact, yet it is false.
> Says the noted scientist.
> > You have provided NO backup for that
> > statement.
> > Here is a paper that proves your contention completely
> > false, and provides the actual temperature of the steel softening
> > point, which was higher than the temperatures reached by jet fuel
> > (which was mostly exhausted early) and office furniture (both of which
> > are known values):
> >http://www.serendipity.li/wot/temperatures_of_structural_steel.pdf
> The author of this curious paper (never submitted anywhere for peer
> review) claimed at one point that the phone calls from the hijacked planes
> must have been fake, which urban legend has been debunked (you will surely
> dispute this... though I know you don?t want to be called a CT).
> >> You seem to be forgetting that the girders of WTC towers were coated
> >> with a fire-proofing material. Why would that be necessary if the were
> >> impervious to flame? Alas, the fire-proofing was dislodged by the impact
> >> of the planes.
> >> (Most people know this by now.)
> > There has been NO proof that the fireproofing was dislodged from the
> > beams,
> I beg to differ, of course, but you are also avoiding the question about
> why fireproofing was deemed necessary if steel is as impervious to flame
> as you claim.
> > nor have you provided any backup for your statement. Once
> > again you are creating facts to suit your purpose, yet you often
> > demand proof of my contentions.
> And you have ?proved? only that other people have made the same contentions.
> > Sandy, we have to maintain a certain
> > level of honesty to discuss this intelligently.
> >> You ask, "How did you determine that my seeing videos of molten steel in
> >> the basements of the collapsed buildings were only delusions?" I'm sure
> >> you're not deluded when you say you saw some videos, but I think you
> >> mean, How did I determine that the videos you saw of molten steel in the
> >> basements were fostering delusions? So I've provided a link to
> > Naturally you're not going to like the pie charts you see at that site,
> > but they say that 76% of the population think that 9/11 was a conspiracy
> > and not terrorists. Now is that because the 'conspiracy theorists' are
> > better at conveying sales literature, or are they showing information that
> > is more credible?
> what if the 76% is really intentionally skewed downward and the real number
> is more like 85% or more given that polls often do not represent the
> populace?
> like on the jfk assassination, seems the actual percentage of people who
> attribute jfk's death to a conspiracy is
> 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%
> , the exceptions being the closeted gruppe and a few others like posnochio,
> bugnochio, o'reilynochio, and others of that mindset
And what about the silent Ben Holmes who thinks Conspiracy and 9/11
are for kooks? lolololol
